-
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.
[Polygon, sourced from Videogameschronicle.com] Ubisoft remakes editorial team to give games greater individuality
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
hey Ubi, why not just let underpaid/unpaid, crowdsourced text from HitRecord replace the whole writing staff, what could go wrong
I don't get this thinking; every company wants to be the best. Ubisoft are absolutely massive, of course they want to improve and try to be number 1, they actually have the resources to achieve it.
Compare its sales to Division 1 and you may see why. As far as we know its simply a hard drop in comparison and a sequel that didnt do enough to draw in more consumers. And if we are being real for a second that second Ghost Recon game is very likely much more of an issue to them.
Omg you memed my favorite British soap star :oWait, you mean to tell me that it wasn't a good idea to release two third person looter shooters that were inferior to their predecessors under the same Tom Clancy brand in the same year? Moreover, three looter shooters in the same year?!
but yeah this sounds like a good move. Their games need something different
I wish them luck, I do enjoy a lot of Ubisoft IP.
I'm interested in seeing what they do with For Honor in particular other than adding new classes. I wonder if they are considering a sequel or spiritual successor type thing with the combat system.
Also... A great time to reboot Prince of Persia. I'll take a short comic story finish for 2008 so we can see complete freedom and creative flex on another reboot.
I'm interested in seeing what they do with For Honor in particular other than adding new classes. I wonder if they are considering a sequel or spiritual successor type thing with the combat system.
Also... A great time to reboot Prince of Persia. I'll take a short comic story finish for 2008 so we can see complete freedom and creative flex on another reboot.
Good news for Ubi. Was getting tired of their "in a can" approach. Beans "in a can" to turkey and chicken "in a can", they need this change. The lack of true identity in their games is staggering.
The report on the existence of this Ubisoft editorial team (I had no idea about beforehand) really does explain everything about how "samey" and "designed by committee" Ubisoft's games have started to feel.
Honestly, I don't think the changes go far enough. I would wanna see Ubisoft trust the devs themselves more and the creative vision of the game directors, rather than having games effectively designed by a committee of execs.
I don't see the proposed changes making much of a difference, unless they rotate out the appointment of each team member more frequently so that there is always a fresh set of perspectives leading the team on a regular periodic basis.
Honestly, I don't think the changes go far enough. I would wanna see Ubisoft trust the devs themselves more and the creative vision of the game directors, rather than having games effectively designed by a committee of execs.
I don't see the proposed changes making much of a difference, unless they rotate out the appointment of each team member more frequently so that there is always a fresh set of perspectives leading the team on a regular periodic basis.
The question should be why they haven't made a spin off in the franchise in the vein of Dark Messiah, a open world RPG in the universe could be an interesting.
Oh yeah, but those are exceptions to the rule (and Dh2/Doom are 4 years old and Prey is 3 years old, Ubisoft released a couple of games I enjoyed since then, while Bethesda has not).
On one hand there is a strong value proposition with Ubisoft titles, as you will likely get to play the same game for 90+ hours.
On the other hand modern Ubisoft games are so similar and padded with bullshit that by the end of the game you're playing it feels like a limping old cat that needs to be put out of its misery. It's just too much. Their games are absolutely exhausting.
On the other hand modern Ubisoft games are so similar and padded with bullshit that by the end of the game you're playing it feels like a limping old cat that needs to be put out of its misery. It's just too much. Their games are absolutely exhausting.
Hopefully Sony take this approach too. Mix up some 1st and 3rd person. Throw in an isometric game.
The encouraging thing about this thread is that people generally seem on Ubi's side. I am too. They've made mistakes but as a company they own up to them in a way that makes me think they do care about what they do. They're no EA, that's for sure.
I love Ubisoft's games but this is a key issue for me. I think AC: Odyssey had an interesting idea with its three separate endings that you could complete in any order, with one being fairly grind-free. That made it easier to manage the fatigue.
But on the whole, their mechanics aren't compelling enough to sustain 90+ hours of gameplay. There is not enough meaningful variety or emergent gameplay to mine. The length of the game / open world premise also means the narrative has no proper build-up because the player chooses their own pacing, with too many characters to keep track of so every missions becomes a blur of checklists.
The live service/perpetual open world model is the real problem here. Every one of their franchises could benefit from a shorter, more focused and hand-crafted single-player experience.
Yes, I highly suspect the original pitch for Ghost Recon Breakpoint was more survival based and the editorial board forced the leads to go with a Division-style implementation. This decision backfiring spectacularly could be the drive for all the changes we see.
OP
OP
Funny thing is that users warned Ubisoft about this multiple times. For example friend of mine tweeted at Ubisoft developer after Breakpoint Alpha about design issues (that ended up be most voted by community after launch) and developer just said "well you can't please everyone". And this is not only case. And Ubisoft doesn't miss opportunity to say how they listen community whenever they can.
And if they really go with same gameplay loop in AC Vikings watch community be pissed.
And if they really go with same gameplay loop in AC Vikings watch community be pissed.
not happening.
and i don´t see creativity in their games. these are just mass market products made to move numbers. the gameplay is on the lowest common determinator so that everyone can play the games.
more often than not their games are coming off like this:
i also don´t really think Guillemot gets the point why Breakpoint flopped, it flopped because it is a bad and boring game, not because it is too same to Division 2.. all Ubisoft games were like the same this gen. same mechanics, same gameplay, even UI elements were shared.
Recently their output became boring and somehow redundant.
About time they try to change something.
Also, where is Gods & Monsters?
About time they try to change something.
Also, where is Gods & Monsters?
OP
OP
Delayed as every other game after Breakpoint. But I don't expect that they will change that clearing outpost formula until 2021at least.
This sounds like wonderful news! I like Ubisoft quite a lot but haven't gotten most of their recent games due to a general lack of interest (except Watch_Dogs 2 which I'm interested in but might not get anymore due to Legion coming soon-ish?) so it's pretty exciting to think that their future games might be a lot more interesting and unique. I'd be glad to finally come back to Assassin's Creed with their rumored viking setting, though I wish this happened to the Greece-set Odyssey instead but oh well, I'll take what I can get.
Also, they should really put their open world expertise in use to make a large-scale fantasy RPG a-la Skyrim.
It could be gorgeous.
(yes, I know about Gods & Monsters. Yes, I'm interested in it. No, that's not what's I'm talking about)
OP
OP
Welk they say that Odysseyis big RPG. They simply don't know or developers don't have freedom to make true big RPG. Also they have a lot of issues with writing so I don't know how would they make that kind of RPG.
I could have told them if they asked me like 6 years ago, it's no secret all their games feel the same
Yep, but looking how well games like The Witcher and The Elder Scrolls sell (and how few of them are out there, at least from big publishers...) I really think that Ubisoft is leaving plenty of money on the table.
It was getting to a point where there two main Ubisoft games- the Open World Stealth Action Game With A Drone and Sports Toybox With A Barebones Storymode About Rising To The Top each with different skins
I enjoyed most of those games, but its great to see theyre truly trying to diversify again
I enjoyed most of those games, but its great to see theyre truly trying to diversify again
I feel like Ubisoft make plenty of good /great games that sell very well.
Yet I feel that they would be wise to remove the Tom Clancy branding. They've had some hits with Siege and The Division, but the majority of them don't connect. They're mostly over-masculine drivel, that are all called Tom Clancy's something or other. They all just melt into one. If you were to talk to me about a Tom Clancy game that isn't one of the 2 games above, I would have a hard time figuring out what game you're talking about.
"Hey dude, have you played Tom Clancy's Breakpoint?"
"Breakpoint? Which one is that?"
"3rd person tactical shooter."
"Isn't that all of them?"
"Mostly. Erm, it's got the guy from Walking Dead and The Punisher in it"
"Oh yeah, I seem to remember seeing him at their conference. No I havent played it."
I actually had to google "Jon Bernthal game" to find out what the game was called for the above example.
Yet I feel that they would be wise to remove the Tom Clancy branding. They've had some hits with Siege and The Division, but the majority of them don't connect. They're mostly over-masculine drivel, that are all called Tom Clancy's something or other. They all just melt into one. If you were to talk to me about a Tom Clancy game that isn't one of the 2 games above, I would have a hard time figuring out what game you're talking about.
"Hey dude, have you played Tom Clancy's Breakpoint?"
"Breakpoint? Which one is that?"
"3rd person tactical shooter."
"Isn't that all of them?"
"Mostly. Erm, it's got the guy from Walking Dead and The Punisher in it"
"Oh yeah, I seem to remember seeing him at their conference. No I havent played it."
I actually had to google "Jon Bernthal game" to find out what the game was called for the above example.
Given that they started handing it out for free with practically every Xbox console bundle for 4 months, and how the special edition was discounted down to Fallout 76 levels for most of the year, having the 9th best sales doesn't count for much if those sales didn't bring in revenue.
Have to wonder how much the Tom Clancy name is actually worth - I was talking to a friend a while ago who didn't know that Tom Clancy was an author, he thought he was a game designer like Sid Meier, or some fictional character from the franchise...
When I told him he actually died a while ago that was a bit of a wtf moment as well, I mean the fact that these games carry the name of a dead author is a bit strange. Honestly I think most young people probably know the name more from the video games then they do the novels. I can't imagine many people looking at the game titles and thinking "hey, someone made a game based on a Tom Clancy novel". I don't think The Devision is even based on one of his books yet it still features his name for whatever reason.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Name is not an issue, having literally dame gameplay loop in majority of their AAa games is main issue. That is why people don't know difference between games. Breakpoint and AC Odyssey have literally the same core mechanic, raiding protected areas in big open world.
Ubisoft has a major problem with filling their open-world games (AC in particular) with meaningless "content" that bloats the map with icons for no good reason.
It doesn't matter how long it takes to 100% the game if actually doing that is the most tedious and unfulfilling thing in the world.
They should cut all the filler and release smaller, more focused titles that are well-written and interesting from start to finish.
How about another non-open-world Assassin's Creed game like the original? Instead of a sprawling, yawn-inducing open world, it could have meticulously designed smaller levels like the recent Hitman titles. Give each mission a bunch of optional challenges to boost their replayability.
It doesn't matter how long it takes to 100% the game if actually doing that is the most tedious and unfulfilling thing in the world.
They should cut all the filler and release smaller, more focused titles that are well-written and interesting from start to finish.
How about another non-open-world Assassin's Creed game like the original? Instead of a sprawling, yawn-inducing open world, it could have meticulously designed smaller levels like the recent Hitman titles. Give each mission a bunch of optional challenges to boost their replayability.
This is why I love Ubisoft, they DO give a shit about their games.
You can tell they know the players are getting tired of the recent RPG formula that's forced into Assassin's Creed, Far Cry and Ghost Recon.
You can tell they know the players are getting tired of the recent RPG formula that's forced into Assassin's Creed, Far Cry and Ghost Recon.
Last edited:
The last Ubisoft game I played was Steep. I got 100% completion on the first map and the only thing I thought was "why did this need to be always online?"
The stage design in that game was incredible and there was a tonne of depth in figuring out the finer points of the controls for each sport, but the social aspects, the store and the mithering with DLC did nothing but get in the way of a really good game.
The stage design in that game was incredible and there was a tonne of depth in figuring out the finer points of the controls for each sport, but the social aspects, the store and the mithering with DLC did nothing but get in the way of a really good game.
