- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
This is going to be one of those “Ubisoft investigates Ubisoft and found that Ubisoft did nothing wrong at Ubisoft”-situations, isn’t it?
You must log in or register to comment.
How about just the completely entitled attitude of the execs that think they can tell us how to enjoy something. Only to then whine that nobody wants to buy their 70 euro no better than mid game
They do damn near 10/10 work when they give a fuck, Thats probably the worst part.
Siege was damn near perfect as a tactical competitive shooter for the first few years. The Division was great, Just Cause was enormous fun and so on.
The problem is they hit a winner, and then milk it and milk it and milk it until we hate it or them.
I’m old enough to remember when Siege was a Rainbow Six game.
I love the division 1 and 2 but the first game had some MAJOR bullet soak issues for the first half-year of the game’s lifetime.
Massive always does good work despite Ubisoft, in my opinion.
Massive are the ones that made Star Wars Outlaws - so it seems the world disagrees with you.
I wasn’t so interested in Outlaws, but I’ve sometimes thought the criticism was slightly overblown. It looks a lot better than some other Ubi games.
Honestly, Outlaws has flaws, BUUUUT it’s fun as hell. It’s a 7/10 game, but it’s fun. I enjoy my time with it even though I see some glitches here or there, or that the lip sync is a little jank.
It’s a big ass Star Wars game (with no AC towers hooray!) where you get to rub shoulders with scoundrels and play Sabacc and visit honestly cool locations that are visually impressive.
I feel like most of the issues it has is probably a function of “we need this game out by X date” versus the devs’ ability.
I finished the main story last night and I basically agree with you. It’s got plenty of issues, but overall it’s fun. It is neither the 9/10 game of most reviews I saw nor the 4/10 game that people want it to be.
I think my main issue is that it wants to have a story about the underworld and how you can’t trust anyone and you’re a huge underdog just trying to survive but it doesn’t want to commit to it. It feels thematically janky in places and ways that feel design-by-committee. It fills the shoes of Shadows of the Empire decently enough, but it feels like it was trying to be 1313 and failed.
I have this feeling that once it starts going on more sales and more people play it the general consensus will be that’s it’s a pretty solid game. I also imagine like a lot of these games there will be a patch in the next month that fixes a litany of issues.
You’re right it’s kind of interesting that the factions don’t really add a lot of meaningful gameplay mechanics, but oh well. At first I was like, “I’m not working with the Pykes AT ALL because I know what happens in your spice mines.” But you end up just being friends with all of them as needed (to get their rewards).
Just having this big coat of Star Wars paint over this otherwise fairly standard action/shooter/open world game really does make it more fun, though. I still have a bit to go in the story, but I’m just basting around cleaning up side quests right now because it’s fun to do.
It seems like a very polarizing game, you either really enjoy it or not at all.
Clearly what they need is more management layers and SCRUM masters to streamline the game creation process.
And of course, the preferred way is to do it at the office, 5 days a week.
How else do we foster a sense of team if all the devs are not in the office 5 days a week?
Also to promote a sense of community and close cooperation we’re moving to an open office plan. (I.e. packed in like sardines to glorified picnic tables with hot seating and noise everywhere.)
I can’t name you a single Ubisoft game that i’ve had any interest in buying, in the last decade
FC New Dawn was actually really good
Here’s one. Your main series assassin’s Creed still has the same glitches and bugs it did 15 years ago. The last one was so much more of the same that it’s the first Ac game I put down and gave up on after an hour cause it felt like I had played it already. How bout building a new game from scratch instead of repeatedly dipping into the same garbage pile and charging premium for it, while your other titles are overflowing with micro transactions and bullshit
What it really comes down to is that this type of “safe” game design where you rehash the same game over and over again for 20 years thing used to make a shitload of money, that’s why they all do it, and now it doesn’t. Or at least, they’re discovering that there’s a mathematical maximum amount of times you can rehash something without innovating. And not doing that is too huge a pivot for a huge lumbering company like Ubsioft to make on a reasonable timescale.
This is what’s supposed to happen though. When not enough people buy games to make them profitable, the games have to change, or Ubisoft goes under. Either is fine.
Nah, this is about money. They’ll definitely find a group of underpaid employees to fire.
They’ll fire the developers that implemented the unpopular features (that they didn’t want to build in the first place but were forced upon them from executives, who, by the way, are due for their end of year bonuses!!)
“The Board has investigated itself and found no evidence of incompetence.”
Management has decided that the real issue is the lack of employee involvement. Mandatory beatings will commence.
Ubisoft isn’t making money. That’s something wrong as far as the board is concerned.
Absolutely not. When the board is looking into it, it’s because they are not returning shareholder value and they are pissed about it. This will likely end with the C-suite being butchered.
Ah yes, I hate being butchered that way, too. It sucks hard to be paid to leave before you get paid extra to start your next job elsewhere.
And don’t get me wrong, if the C-suites actually ever had to take actual responsibility for their fuck-ups, I’d be all for those board investigations. But they don’t. They get paid enough to not care about interims between jobs - just look at the CEO who said people can just spend a year on the beach or so if they’ve been laid off - plus they get paid extra both on the leaving and on the re-hiring.
If they had to pay all non-salary money back on fucking up, even retroactively, no matter how many Porsches they’d have to liquidate to get the money from X years of fucking up the company back, sure. Do it. But that’s just sadly not the case. For a C-suite, this just means changing what name is written under your name, and moving on to the next place you can grift.
they can start by just making games as gamers want it,not inserting lame ass political agendas in their games or hire politically correct nutjobs to determine how games should be inclusive.
What you mean is making games how you want them to be, not the overwhelming majority of gamers. Stop thinking everything is an agenda designed to limit your freedom.
ubisoft stock price plummeting,black myth wukong having more players than star wars franchise,game with DEI rubbish tanking or having little to no players,yea majority have spoken alright.
I just need you to say the word woke now, and I’ll have completed my incel bingo card.
lol,cope and seethe.
- fire all DEI consultants
- get rid of woke writers
- stop making everything live service
- give devs more time to optimize
- don’t overmonetize your games
literally all they need to do. If you make games that people actually want to play, then people will buy them. And if you want to have lgbtq characters, then do it like borderlands 2, that game got it right in 2012.
Every day I grow more and more tired of you braindead idiots.
funny, given that most gamers seem to agree with me, according to sales numbers. Noone wants this shit in games. Perhaps we’re not the problem.
Why would firing DEI consultants improve the work?
And if you want to have lgbtq characters, then do it like borderlands 2, that game got it right in 2012.
In what particular way do they differ?
Because things like black protagonists with hip-hop music in the background make no sense in a feudal japanese setting and people are sick of games being abused as vehicles for morality preaching.
An example from borderlanfs two could be Sir Hammerlock, who was introduced as a normal (for borderlands) character early on and later in a side quest was revealed to be gay in passing. That’s the kind of ‘representation’ you want for lgbtq to be “normalized”. In modern games, his story would be one of struggle against straight white oppressors at the end of which there would be a five minute long cutscene in which everybody turns to the camera and informs the player that being gay is normal and that prejudice is bad and that straight white people are inherently evil. I’m overexagerating (spelling?) of course, but you get the point.
Because things like black protagonists with hip-hop music in the background make no sense in a feudal japanese setting and people are sick of games being abused as vehicles for morality preaching.
But games about dudes in medieval-looking sci-fo power armor stomping around WW1-styled soldiers do?
And that doesn’t preach any morals? But a black guy in a samurai setting does? How come one does, but the other does not?
Also…
An example from borderlanfs two could be Sir Hammerlock, who was introduced as a normal (for borderlands) character early on and later in a side quest was revealed to be gay in passing.
Maybe don’t make it as readily apparent how much you internalized gayness being abnormal. Telling. You wouldn’t write sentences like this if that wasn’t a normal thought process for you, since you did probably not have to actively consider your wording.
Bullshit. Normalization means not making a big deal out of it, which goes contrary to the woke standard of putting it front and center.
But like you say, if you want to normalize it, shouldn’t it be front and center then? Since that’s part of being normal, also being front and center?
It cannot be front and center and normal at the same time. It cannot be the main part of a character’s identity, else it will always be perceived as “special” and “extra”, but not “normal”. Devs can make whatever game with whatever chars they want ofc, but the result is what we’re seeing with ubisoft.
I’m just ranting at this point.
It cannot be front and center and normal at the same time.
Why not? If it’s normal, any possible identity and any possible element will be front and center every so often, no? That’s what normality means after all? Something has to be front and center, and if everything is normal, everything will appear there repeatedly?
last time i wrote something similar to yours,the left wing nutjobs came rushing in,guns blazing.
god damn wokies.
Yup.
