38 réponses à ce sujet

[Seifer006]

This is very good news (at least that's how I perceive this) since they're focusing on Q.U.A.L.I.T.Y. and not all about M$ney...

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought I'd post since I'm looking for Quality games. ME1 and ME2 were just that. And we need more games like that. Watch Dogs (for example) looks like it's fresh and new but intelligently made

Links:

• Source 1
• Source 2
• Source 3

~Seifer

[Splinter Cell 108]

UBISOFT knows nothing of quality. If they did they wouldn't be spamming Assassins Creed, their interest is the money, nothing more and they have a reputation for doing this. They did it with the Tom Clancy games and they destroyed them all, they don't sell as well as they used to, they don't even get noticed as much they were in the past and they cannot even compete with the top games.

In the past Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon would compete with giants like Halo and now they barely even get that close. I didn't think much of Watch Dogs, nor did I think much of Far Cry 3 and I still don't, like all the others they will be milked to death and then replaced by the next "best" thing.

[Cyonan]

If I were a cynical man, I'd say this sounds more like "We only want to make a game if we can milk money out of it over the course of multiple games and yearly releases".

On the one hand Far Cry 3 was a great game, but on the other hand they're milking Assassin's Creed pretty damn hard right now with their yearly releases.

It'll also be sad if a really solid game doesn't get a franchise because it didn't sell 5 million copies or whatever number, or if it ends up being changed to "appeal to a wider audience".

[Volus Warlord]

Seifer006 wrote...

This is very good news (at least that's how I perceive this) since they're focusing on Q.U.A.L.I.T.Y. and not all about M$ney...

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought I'd post since I'm looking for Quality games. ME1 and ME2 were just that. And we need more games like that. Watch Dogs (for example) looks like it's fresh and new but intelligently made

Links:

• Source 1
• Source 2
• Source 3

~Seifer

WHAT? No. That is not good news for quality. Ubi is pulling a Kotick and trying to turn everything into an annual release and not producing anything that they can't. That approach is bad for:[*]Innovation.  If it is not a proven system it will not get made. Get ready for FPS's with regenerating health![*]Quality. Anytime a producer pushes annual releases quality inevitably goes to crap. Every time. Never fails. A year is not a lot of time, and the abiding to schedule first really begins to show after two or three cycles.[*]Health of the I.P. The oversaturation tends to kill interest in the IP, especially with the quality and/or innovation drop. Soon the IP dies because people get tired of paying for increasingly inferior versions of more of the same. We should make an IP graveyard of IP's killed by this approach.

[ObserverStatus]

Cyonan wrote...
If I were a cynical man, I'd say this sounds more like "We only want to make a game if we can milk money out of it over the course of multiple games and yearly releases".

If you were a cynical man you'd be right.

[ShepnTali]

With all this time and hype, Watch Dogs kind of bores me now. Strange, but true. I'm looking for something else, and I don't know what it is at the moment.

[Seifer006]

Filament wrote...

Seifer006 wrote...

This is very good news (at least that's how I perceive this) since they're focusing on Q.U.A.L.I.T.Y. and not all about M$ney...

and not all about M$ney...

lol good one Seifer. You're a real joker.

lol

I should be more clear. I meant the creator of the Watch Dogs. He seemed more about making a quality game

[Seifer006]

Cyonan wrote...

If I were a cynical man, I'd say this sounds more like "We only want to make a game if we can milk money out of it over the course of multiple games and yearly releases".

On the one hand Far Cry 3 was a great game, but on the other hand they're milking Assassin's Creed pretty damn hard right now with their yearly releases.

It'll also be sad if a really solid game doesn't get a franchise because it didn't sell 5 million copies or whatever number, or if it ends up being changed to "appeal to a wider audience".

Very true.

I was trying to be as optimsitc on this. I'm a fan of the AC games, the upcoming one with Pirates looks sweet. Sure Ubisoft has it's problems but comparison with other companies *ahem* EA....I find them better

[Seifer006]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Seifer006 wrote...

This is very good news (at least that's how I perceive this) since they're focusing on Q.U.A.L.I.T.Y. and not all about M$ney...

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought I'd post since I'm looking for Quality games. ME1 and ME2 were just that. And we need more games like that. Watch Dogs (for example) looks like it's fresh and new but intelligently made

Links:

• Source 1
• Source 2
• Source 3

~Seifer

WHAT? No. That is not good news for quality. Ubi is pulling a Kotick and trying to turn everything into an annual release and not producing anything that they can't. That approach is bad for:[*]Innovation.  If it is not a proven system it will not get made. Get ready for FPS's with regenerating health![*]Quality. Anytime a producer pushes annual releases quality inevitably goes to crap. Every time. Never fails. A year is not a lot of time, and the abiding to schedule first really begins to show after two or three cycles.[*]Health of the I.P. The oversaturation tends to kill interest in the IP, especially with the quality and/or innovation drop. Soon the IP dies because people get tired of paying for increasingly inferior versions of more of the same. We should make an IP graveyard of IP's killed by this approach.

• I hear ya. I was just trying to be optimistic. Because I'm hoping it's not them trying to get poor quality games out every year...but looking "a" game see how they can make it so good, they can make a franchise out of it...that's what I took from the articles at least...

[Seifer006]

EntropicAngel wrote...

http://kotaku.com/ub...t-vow-513376223

See that's what I'm talking about.
I see some optimsism here. They're doing what they can to keep the series fresh but also, having enough time span to make quality changes...

Good Article

[Il Divo]

With their approach to AC, I can certainly see that being a business approach. This sounds more like they're officially confirming a practice that they've been mostly following for quite a while.

Granted, I've loved each game up until this point, but with ACIV I think I'm finally out. For whatever reason, it just doesn't look appealing.

[Cyonan]

EntropicAngel wrote...
You say that like it's a bad thing, when the games are--well, number ONE, built at different studios so each game is actually in development for two years (Ubisoft is the second largest purely videogame company after EA), and importantly they're largely based on new concepts for each one (except for the AC II series, but they only kept that because Ezio was popular). AC, the Crusades and Islam (very briefly), AC II with the French and Renaissance, AC III with the American revolution, and AC IV with the whole pirate/Caribbean thing.

While I would say that it's the theme rather than the concept that has been new, consider that when pumping out yearly sequels it becomes very hard to keep your ideas fresh and come up with new and meaningful additions to the series every single year. It would be very easy for them to fall into the CoD style of things of just releasing the same game every year with a new coat of paint.

and they haven't really added much to the game that was a meaningful addition to the core idea of stabbing people. I would say their best addition was actually something that had nothing to do with Assassin's Creed which was the naval combat.

I feel like there should be a good balance. They don't need to subscribe to Valve's release schedule, but they shouldn't be doing yearly releases in the same series either imo.

Seifer006 wrote...

Very true.

I was trying to be as optimsitc on this. I'm a fan of the AC games, the upcoming one with Pirates looks sweet. Sure Ubisoft has it's problems but comparison with other companies *ahem* EA....I find them better

Perhaps I am a cynical man =P

I am a fan of the AC series, and the naval combat was great in AC III. So much so that I wish it was an entirely new game rather than the basis for AC IV(seriously, somebody get on that). My main concern about AC is that, as I said above, releasing them that quickly can result in it becoming stale.

I would also be worried that if the series ever didn't sell enough they'd just ditch it because it was no longer "franchise material".

[Il Divo]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Perhaps you're not excited for the ship gameplay? That looks like the main focus of the game.

For me personally it's what's got me excited for the game.

That's probably a  good part of it. I liked the ship gameplay in AC3, but personally don't think it's strong enough to carry more of the game. I prefer exploring on land, myself.

And I know I'm probably in the minority, but I didn't mind the Haytham sequences focusing more on story and less on free-world exploration, provides the narrative itself is compelling.

Edit: I'm also not sure I like the aesthetic of performing assassinations with dual blades. It seems awkward.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 juillet 2013 - 12:52 .

[Cyonan]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Assassin's Creed (and Ubisoft, for that matter--all the way back to Splinter Cell and Pandora Tomorrow, Chaos Theory, etc) has always focused more on different stories and settings than on different gameplay. The setting of AC, ACII, and ACII were all wildly, wildly different, though the core gameplay was pretty much the same. They've been doing that for over a decade. Which I personally enjoy, because I don't play games for the gameplay itself--but I'm not everyone.

Either way I would argue that a sequel should have fairly similar gameplay anyway, which part of my concern about AC IV is actually that it will be really naval combat heavy. As much as I thought it was good in AC III, I play AC for both the theme and for the rather unique take on stealth they have. They should have made an entirely new game around that.

If you change what the game is about at the core, it ends up feeling like I'm playing an entirely new game that just happens to use the same terminology as another game I like.

They can also change the theme without having yearly releases =P

[slimgrin]

This just means they're committed to rehashing the same ideas. I hope they explore some new ground in Watch Dogs though.

[Cyonan]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Assassin's Creed has not been about what is at its "core" since the first game. AC II was about Ezio getting revenge, had nothing really to do with the Creed. They "lost their way" a long time ago.

By the core of the game I meant the actual gameplay, not the story =P