Playing the main quests is a really shitty way to play these games i never had any bigger interest in that, i did follow it here and there of course, but if you want a linear main quest which is also great, then this is kind of the shittiest games you can choose. I can understand why some people hate this game - it's because it's not for you.
Last edited by vurt on Tue, 14th Jul 2020 22:03; edited 1 time in total
It's an interesting, much more natural approach on action / activities.
IF implemented well, might be pretty darn good.
haven't we heard these stories before though... "no side quests" and "no fetch quests"(more common)... it always ends with 1) side quets 2) lots of fetch quests.
Their games are not crap, they only disappoint in certain (debatable 'vast') areas. Rayman Legends / Origins, Valiant Hearts and AC Unity are games that will forever remain in a personal memorable space that I enjoyed with my son.
I also really liked screwing around in Montana and a bit in the Himalayas.
Can't be THAT hypocrite now about them now, can I? And maybe, darnit, at SOME POINT, they might finally do it right.
Ubisoft are the masters of putting a nice wrapping on average games. They always make you think that they did it better this time around, but in reality they didn't do much, if anything at all.
Ubisoft are also the masters of tricking the gamers into thinking they love to support their games. They do this by releasing unfinished products that get some polish and content only after the sales have been secured.
The reality is that most of Ubisoft's games are not very different from one another. They use the same old design formula of checklist content with plenty of microtransactions on top. Somehow they managed to escape a lot of backlash over the years.
I have less and less respect left for this company. Its abusing business model, anti-consumer behavior and the tendency to ruin almost every franchise I loved (Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell) has made me avoid most of their recent games.
Last edited by Nodrim on Wed, 15th Jul 2020 17:39; edited 1 time in total
Agree, nfohump has deteriorated in this regard and its tiring to see all these idiot cynics throwing derp emojis round. I agree that many business practices in the current gaming era are questionable and also that gameplay innovation is not the strong hand of most big publishers nowadays. Ubisoft is definitely guilty of that.
But that doesn't mean the games themselves are bad. Being formulaic does not make a game bad either. As of Valhalla, I'm disappointed they don't go for more innovation but it looks about as fun as Odysee was. Not memorable fun, but fun (and big) enough for the price they asked.
Well they're releasing the same game over and over again, with a different kinda BS sauce every time. If you look purely on gameplay formula, they've basically made the same game for more than a decade now. I agree the hump has become the place of grumpy old men, but cynicism is legitimate in this case.
Well they're releasing the same game over and over again, with a different kinda BS sauce every time. If you look purely on gameplay formula, they've basically made the same game for more than a decade now. I agree the hump has become the place of grumpy old men, but cynicism is legitimate in this case.
That can be applied to any company being focused on a specific game genre or game series. I don't see people complaining that the GTA series are very similar to each other, just small improvements after each game, or Total War series or top down action RPG's, FPS games, Resident Evil, platform games... needles to say they are similar, even if its not made by the same company.
I think a lot of people playing the new Assassins Creed aren't really people who likes the genre, yet they keep either buying it and playing it (and getting disappointed) or it's just people who doesn't like the genre and complain about (which is pretty useless).
Like all games they should get critique where the games deserves it though.. i don't think people are specific enough about it. "too similar" doesn't cut it. To me they evolve in the right direction at least (more RPG elements), unlike a lot of series.
The last 3 games (first done in 2015) are similar indeed, but they have not "done the same game for a decade".. In fact it's been quite a big change for this series with the last 3 games.
Anyone who likes open world action RPG's will definitely like the new games. I personally did not care at all for the earlier games, not really my thing.
What i don't like is that they kept the Assassins Creed name and its lore with the tie ins to modern day. It's absolutely the worst part of the series even if its now a very small part of the games. This is obviously some smart ass at UBIsoft (PR dept.) who's kept pushing for using the old IP to play it safe, sell more copies and whatever.
I've had no technical issues with the last 2 games btw.. far less so than with similar open world games. It's a genre which is prone to bugs and technical issues due to how the devs must take tons of more situations into account than in more linear games.
If there's really something a lot better in this genre i'd love to hear about it btw... i recently tried Outward, deleted after 30 mins, laughable. ELEX was decent but not great. ghost of tsushima seems to follow a very similar formula but it's missing some elements from the AC games that i enjoy. Far Cry Primal was ok'ish but not as good (awesome setting, rest wasn't very good).
@vurt I can't comment about TW and RE, I've played only a couple, but every iteration of GTA for example was a leap in many aspects compared to the previous one. The changes in this series, or any Ubi game really, are minimal. There's nothing wrong with using the same formula, people actually want and expect that from a sequel, but doe something different.
While it's true that most of us are getting visibly grumpier and more jaded by the day (I'm guilty of that too ), it's also true that the industry as a whole doesn't really do anything to improve our negative - yet realistic - perception of how our hobby is slowly (d)evolving.
Ubisoft is one of the easiest targets simply because people see that there is potential in their games from artistic and conceptual standpoints, but whether it's the poor designs or laziness (or both) they always end up falling short, sometimes even in a tragicomical manner. Although it is a bit foolish to expect quality content and writing from this company in this day and age, the disappointment is still palpable. Their games can be "fun" in a superficial and almost fast-food-like way, but it is undeniable that for those who aren't into grindcade-oriented mechanics such approaches tend to feel like big missed opportunities in terms of immersion and involvement overall.
In this particular case there is also the fact that the franchise went through an internal change that has attracted new audiences whilst alienating the ones that preferred the classic formula, so there is a small civil war going on as well. I personally think that despite all its simplistic designs and laughable limitations the original focused approach was the most suitable one for a protagonist that's supposed to be an assassin, but then again it's difficult to even picture what Ubi is trying to accomplish with their tripeA games.
@vurtThe changes in this series, or any Ubi game really, are minimal.
No they aren't and there are several replies in the thread that says they don't like it because it's now even a completely new genre, it's not at all the same game as the first ones. Very few game series change that much... i wouldn't say GTA have had more substantial changes than this series.. That doesn't mean i think they're perfect, quite far from it.. still, it's one of the better in the open world action RPG genre for sure and i'm very glad each game is at least a little more RPG than the previous.
The Far Cry games i'm bored of though, but its not really my genre so i've just stopped playing them and complaining about them.
Aside from really enjoying the last two (despite how long they took me to finish), I'm looking forward to seeing Northumberland in a game. Bamburgh Castle in Forza was nice, wonder which landmarks they'll include from the area.
Assassin's Creed Valhalla had been in development for more than two and a half years by its announcement in April 2020. The main development was led by the Assassin's Creed Origins team at Ubisoft Montreal and supported by fourteen other Ubisoft studios worldwide.
At 1:51, that looks weird, like a 2D painting. Wonder how edited this really is
Though it never says anywhere that it's in-game so.. guess it's a mix of pre-rendered or "brushed up" and some really well made "beauty shots" (making sure lightning etc is perfect for that environment/shot) that are completely in-game, some scenes even stutters slightly which would indicate in-game.
Last edited by vurt on Thu, 16th Jul 2020 20:58; edited 1 time in total
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
i never had any bigger interest in that, i did follow it here and there of course, but if you want a linear main quest which is also great, then this is kind of the shittiest games you can choose. I can understand why some people hate this game -
