-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Is ubisoft made of wizards?
- Thread starter Deleted member 721
- Start date
I disagree, while Crysis 2 is a good game it lacks the freedom the original had, the things you could do with vehicles really made it unique in the FPS genre. The powers aren't as fun to use as they lack the depth they had in the original as well. But the biggest flaw I think the sequel has is it focuses too much on alien encounters they are much less fun to fight as they can't be manipulated quite like the human enemies. The first suffers from this too but since the aliens aren't fought against until around the last quarter of the game it's less annoying. It also doesn't have a delta difficulty that changes the game in some fun ways like the first one had.
I'm kinda baffled that someone could play them both and still prefer the second game, like I said Crysis 2 isn't bad it was just a step down from the first. This is getting kinda off topic though.
If AC: Origin's is a GAAS game, it looks a lot like a regular single player game with 2 DLC packs. I do remember the weekly challenge quest (or quests?) but it wasn't very interesting and it wasn't going to keep me coming back once I finished the game and the DLC. AC: O is a great game but I think there is a huge difference between it and say Overwatch, Fortnite, PUBG, Halo 5 multiplayer, Apex Legends, etc. My impression (I don't play multiplayer GaaS games) is most GaaS games receive regular improvements for YEARS before the next game comes out. AC: O isn't like these games. When I played it, it seemed like a huge (and very well done) traditional single player game with some weekly quests.
Last edited:
Find ourselves a new approach to game development that enables our developers to reach their true potential
Capitulate to all of the nonsensical whims of the company's most important divas who think themselves purveyors of the true art
can't decide which button .jpg
OP
OP
i started today the side quests of the village and there's a bunch, and they all related to the the village and its problems, the side quests are very good actually one of the best so far in the game and ties with the war in greece.
Besides Xbox which because it has Halo n
GAAS doesnt mean it has to be multiplayer or filled to the brim with microtransactions. Just updates that are intended to bring back the player. Whether that be episodic content in Final Fantasy XV, Weekly trials in AC (and dlc) or new maps and operators into Rainbow Six.
Assassin's Creed is 100% a GAAS title.
GAAS doesnt mean it has to be multiplayer or filled to the brim with microtransactions. Just updates that are intended to bring back the player. Whether that be episodic content in Final Fantasy XV, Weekly trials in AC (and dlc) or new maps and operators into Rainbow Six.
I am not talking about the whole Assassin's Creed series. I played it for two months (Middle of March 2018 to middle of May 2018) and other than some DLC, it didn't have "updates that are intended to bring back the player".
The weekly quests were the same content each week. You would get a quest which you had to finish within a week. If you didn't do it, there was no penalty. A day after the quest was over, you would get a new quest and you had to do the same thing as the previous quest. The quest itself was a meh boss fight and it was one of the few things I didn't do in the game (I got about 1450 out of about 1500 gamer score). No one is going to come back each week to play a meh boss fight quest.
If you think Assassin's Creed: Origins is a Gaas game. Please explain what parts of it are GaaS. Which content is GasS? Which updates are? When were they released? When I started playing in March 2018, it looked like they had stopped working on the game and I didn't see any content updates for the two months I played. That's fine because the game is a great game and it's huge. But that doesn't sound like a GaaS game because the game came out in October 27th 2017 (in the US) and that is less than 5 months before I started playing. I would expect a GaaS game to get at least a year of support.
Old Assassin's Creed games received a bit of story DLC, some bug fixes, and little else. Origins received a string of patches adding new features such as Discovery Tour, the Animus Control Panel, and a torrent of design improvements (especially focusing on AI) and bug fixes. I recommend reading through the patch change notes on Steam to get a picture for how much they changed in the months following release.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/582160/allnews/
AC: Odyssey has been even more aggressive in its post-release design changes than AC: Origins was. But Origins was the template. The idea is that people keep coming back to the game over time because it has a stream of new content both narrative and mechanical and also it feels better to play as the gameplay is refined over the course of several months. The game is designed as a live service instead of a static product. This approach to development is what makes Far Cry New Dawn feel kinda jarring. Officially, there are no plans for DLC for New Dawn. No extra quests. No extra Expeditions. No New Game+. It's a static product that will receive some patches as a matter of course, but unless something changes behind the scenes the basic fabric of the game will remain the same. That has attracted no small amount of bewilderment from fans because people have come to expect Ubisoft games to all feature a roadmap of post-launch updates.
ZhugeEX confirmed Origins did well over a 10 million. Odyessy looks weaker in most markets and it's price dropped way faster but it will have no problem clearing 10 million I think.
They don't have to overwork if they're 800+ as people here say.
I guess hating on Ubisoft is considered cool in here.
Truth.
@topic: And yeah, lots of people working on the games + an open world-template + asset-reuse (I am totally OK with that).
Crysis 2 is trash, didn't play Hunt: Showdown. About Far Cry - everything I remember about it is getting headshotted from 10 miles away through thick tropical forest and that it required pixel shader 1.x support, and that it was lame and boring.
Can't help but mention that shooting in crytek's games is completely unsatisfying and is only rivaled by the likes of metro, that's death sentence to any fps btw.
Sounds to me like you simply aren't a fan of Central/Eastern European FPS design sensibilities. There's huge overlap between Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Poland, etc when it comes to FPS design. The Metro games have really good shooting. Although they don't quite have that same sense of lethality that STALKER's did due to the pudding smooth difficulty curves in the newer games. I imagine you're probably not a fan of the shooting in the STALKER games, either.
The original Far Cry remains a fantastic game with a certain sharp edge that none of Ubisoft's games ever replicated. (Heck, even Crysis is like Far Cry for babies with its regenerating health and extremely abusable superpowers.) In Far Cry 1, assaulting an outpost is a fast, frantic affair where you can die within moments. Enemies are smart, organized, and can kill you with extreme efficiency. You fight for your life. Snipers actually do their job. Every shot counts. Every grenade is precious. Your machete is invaluable. There's no regenerating health. You can't carry around healing items. Most of Ubisoft's modern games are based directly on the design ideas found in Far Cry 1, but Ubisoft make games for console audiences and a lot got mashed into baby food down in the process, unfortunately. The audience Ubisoft target never appreciated old school PC difficulty curves. Look at what they did to Rainbow 6 over the years. They turned a slow paced tactical shooter where you die within 3 hits into a cover shooter. Even Metro started going down that road with the Redux Metro games which were aimed at consoles.
Regardless, your original statement is simply untrue. Crytek aren't "dead". They have a very good game in early access. Their games were always mechanically fantastic. People who flippantly claim they are "benchmarks", like yourself, are flat out wrong. People didn't play the Far Cry 1 demo over and over and over and over again because it was a cool benchmark. They played it because its incredible sandbox gameplay with am unscripted AI blew their minds. It was the most incredible FPS game many people had ever played. An unprecedented experience that redefined what was possible in the FPS genre. A generational design leap beyond the likes of Half-Life 2. Far Cry wore out its welcome with the trigen later on, but even they offered some spine-chilling horror action later in places.
All the Crysis games have four difficulty levels. Delta was renamed to Post-Human Warrior in the PC versions and Supersoldier in the console versions for some reason. They don't differ all that much, practically speaking. The enemies speaking Korean became irrelevant because you're in America. Most of the other difficulty stuff was kept similar.
According to Crytek, they received a lot of feedback from players that the nanosuit was confusing and frustrating. They didn't change it in the sequels for shits and giggles. They changed it because people didn't like it. The problem with Crysis as a series is that the Crysis 1 "hardcore" fanbase were never really willing to admit Crysis had design problems. Whether the fixes were ideal is of course a matter worthy of intense debate, but it was impossible to reason with people who felt Crysis was perfect and didn't need fixing in any way. The Crysis fanbase has always had this problem where they pick up Crysis, play for an hour smashing up huts and doing cool tricks against relatively impotent AI, and then they get bored. And they don't recognize the problem with that. Crysis 2 is more focused on trying to be a well balanced, well paced FPS game that is fun to play from start to finish.
Look, that touches upon another problem I have with Crysis 1 and how its fanbase tends to view it. There's this weird pulling wings off virtual flies vibe. Instead of well executed fights against competent enemies, you've got these players who get a kick out of blowing the crap out of virtual North Koreans who aren't particularly good at fighting back. In fact, this whole vibe is present in the game's intro sequence. It's this vapid power fantasy of running around being invincible and super strong. Picking people up and throwing them into walls.
Have you ever played Far Cry: Instincts?
Because Far Cry Instincts is, IMHO, overall a better game than Far Cry. It's not necessarily better in every aspect. But as a complete package, it's a better game. It has worse AI. Worse shooting. But it's a cohesive game. Rounded. Balanced. The stealth actually works. Laying traps for enemies is super cool. The water effects are unbelievably sexy. You actually want to finish it.
The PC Far Cry fanbase was always insecure about Instincts. Weirdly quick to dismiss it as inferior to Far Cry simply because it was a console title. It was often scorned as a "port", with the implication of "Why would you want to play a port when you could play the original?" when it's actually a completely different game.
Crysis 2 is a cohesive game cut from the same cloth as Instincts. Its components are well tuned. The game is well paced from start to finish. It sets aside the enticing possibilities of random sandbox fun in favor of something more crafted. Crysis 2 has actual encounter design in smaller sandboxes that play out in a fun and dynamic way with AI that can hold its own. Its alien enemies which are a little wonky AI-wise utilize the verticality of the level design -- the game's biggest design departure from the horizontally oriented Crysis 1. Crysis 1, much like Far Cry 1, has more intense combat encounters. It has some lovely sandbox design. It has some awesome physics-driven gameplay. (Ubisoft's games never matched Crytek's in this area.) But Crysis 2 marked a point where Crytek finally released a game that felt good to play from start to finish. That didn't falter due to weird balancing issues. Far Cry 1 and Crysis 1 both have points where they falter.
Crytek's UK branch, which later became part of Deep Silver, made Homefront: The Revolution, which is a darn good game post-patches. It's a slightly cracked image of what a Crytek -made open world FPS game looks like. (Far Cry 5 owes a pretty big debt to it, IMHO. And Metro Exodus nods more than once in its general direction, design-wise.) The irony? The most highly regarded part of the game is the DLC, which abandons the open world in favor of Crysis 2-style level design with wide areas linked by corridors. When you prevent the player from going wherever they want, doing whatever they want, you have the freedom to craft some very interesting encounters that balance freedom against constraints.
Ubisoft chose to chase the open world dragon at the expense of everything else. They became fixated on outposts, a formula Crytek basically invented with the original Far Cry. Crytek chose to pursue ideas that now underpin games like the new Doom, the new Wolfenstein, etc. The biggest mistake Crysis 3 made was un-nerfing sprint. In Crysis 2, sprint consumed energy. Moving across open spaces became a tactical choice. Crysis 1 fans complained about it, so they made sprinting infinite in Crysis 3. Suddenly you could sprint past basically everything. And you had a bow that let you fire without breaking cloak, a terrible idea. Crysis 2 hit a sweet spot that neither Crysis 1 nor Crysis 3 managed to hit. It's not perfect, but it's consistently really, really good. It doesn't soar as high, but it never sinks so low.
Far Cry New Dawn features Instincts-inspired superpowers. You can jump really high, shrug off damage, throw stuff super hard. It's really fun, and I welcome the return of such mechanics in the glaring absence of new Crysis games and the continued absence of the Instincts sub-series. But the caveat is that much like Crysis 1, when you have these incredibly awesome powers in combination with the open world design where you can just run away, enemies kinda become pushovers. Moreso than Instincts becuase Instincts didn't let you double jump like an animalistically screaming Superman. Crysis 2 tried to nerf the powers a bit, and they weren't wrong to do it. The reason nobody has made a truly good Predator game where you actually play the Predator (Crysis is a giant Predator homage) is because the Predator is stupidly OP. He can turn invisible. His guns are better than his opponents'. The thrill of being Predator, either literally or metaphorically, does wear off.
Last edited:
RDR 2 is made by 3000+ people and it took them eight years.
It's really impressive how Ubisoft is capable to develop games with studios all over the world. And also from a lot of different cultures. On AC Odyssey worked people from Singapur, Bulgaria, Canada, Germany and so on.
Best AAA publisher this gen.
For sure. Managing that many people on what I assume are some pretty tight deadlines is indeed super impressive. And they do it constantly. When's the last time a big Ubi game saw a delay? Really mind-boggling stuff. Props to them for being able to implement such efficiency.
This is incredible. A tool for everyone and then not everyone uses it... that's infuriating.