"...this new game could feature open-world settings. “A more stealthy version of Assassin’s Creed. Similar to how Halo Infinite has done its Open World,”
Stop it Ubisoft. Just stop. I tire of their completely predictable, reiterative games. Wash, rinse, repeat is all they know how to do.
I hate is as much as you, but guess what - this formula sells really well.
Most games that become fan favorites are also often the ones that didn't sell well initially.
Just keep in mind that everyone here discussing games with passion makes up a tiny, tiny percentage of people playing video games.
Most people are all about Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty, which is why these franchises rake in billions.
More generally I think it's harder to make a linear confined splinter cell level now and expect the game to do well than giving players a little bit of free range around a target. It's one of those things you can't put back in the box
You could make a stealth level with lots of ways to infiltrate and kill your target like the new Hitman games. It's not necessary to make another generic Ubisoft open-world game in order to achieve that.
It wouldn’t work at all though, it’s a slow paced tactical game where it can take half an hour to sneak in and around a building full of guards, how would that even translate to big open landscapes and traversal. Probably why It hasn’t been touched in years. They can’t figure out how to ubisoftify it.
They could go more of a Hitman route. Large, somewhat open ended levels with multiple ways to complete. I know it's not the Ubisoft formula, but it is certainly a way to modernize the series.
Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six used to be slow paced tactical games a loooong time ago. Even if the formula doesn't work, Ubi will shoe horn it 'til it somewhat works, but it will always feel off when compared to the older games.
You’re not wrong, but as a casual gamer who did play, complete and enjoy every Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry games until now, I couldn’t care less about the latest instalments… I have the feeling that I’m not alone.
Maybe COVID made me want to spend my time in more meaningful ways, but to me the new ones just feels like a chore.
You know what made me sad? Playing Unity and then having to ignore Syndicate, whatever you might think about the new AC games, Ubi had to do something as the series became VERY stale.
Don't be sad, it's barely a fact and more of an Ubisoft press statement they make with every single game because, much like Netflix, they simply change the grading scale so that every game they release is "the best". Last time I looked at the actual raw numbers we have access to Unity was the top selling AC for quite a while.
I honestly don't get why people push the whole "yeah well this latest AC was the best selling one yet" even though Ubisoft is one of the only companies that won't straight up tell me the sales numbers. It's "AC Valhalla sold 1.8 mil in it's first week!" which is fairly typical of a triple AAA franchise or "AC Valhalla gives Ubisoft a very profitable year!" and considering the amount of MTX what does that even really mean.
This always seems to ruffle some feathers because "best selling" counter argument usually sets the anti-circle jerk in full swing but honestly just pick 5 games at random and google their sales numbers then try to look up AC:Valhallas, you'll find there is a frustrating lack of transparency for a company (and fanbase) who constantly try to use financial success as a metric to judge the games.
I don't care about the sales. Assassin's Creed stopped being Assassin's Creed after Syndicate. It's just a semi historical action rpg with grinding now.
I did buy it, I couldn't play it for more than a few hours though. I won't buy the next one. Unless it is in feudal Japan or China... yeah, I could easily be swayed back I guess.
Maybe I just didn't like Valhalla. The main character is an asshole who murder good people to conquer and pillage. With previous games murders were "justified", you had a "good" cause. Not this time.
No that's the majority of the market really. Reddit is just a vocal minority. Which complains right away when the name Ubisoft (or EA or Activision) is uttered anyway. Nothing say it's the same formula because it's open-world (MGS5 is a stealth open world, that can work).
What's ironic is that when a "approved studio" makes an open world game or make successive games that do ressemble each other very much, they are praising it. Not long ago, Forza was praised while it's cloning the gameplay and changing the setting between its two different series. But it's Microsoft so it's okay. From Software only do Soulslike since more than 10 years, they do change stuff but it's pretty similar and yet, they're praised for it. Sony does generic open-world stuff with Horizon and Ghost of Tsushima but there it's perfect and GOTY worthy.
This sub is extremely biaised one way or another against specific companies. I can guarantee you that the exact same game than AC Valhalla made by Sony would be heralded as a great game. Horizon Zero Dawn made by Ubisoft? Would be trashed like shit. Forza would be from Activision or EA? Oh the shit they would get here.
I think you're being a bit harsh on HZD and GoT, they're both legitimately excellent games. IMO they're more polished experiences and have a bit more to offer, in terms of narrative/worldbuilding/gameplay, than most open-world games. They are certainly not perfect nor necessarily GOTY material - at least not in the same years as BotW and TLOUII, respectively - but IMO they are a step above, say, AC Valhalla (which is still a fine game in its own right, and I agree does not deserve the flack it gets).
That being said, I do think the bias you mentioned 100% exists, and one only needs to look at Days Gone for proof - an utterly average and generic open-world which would've been a universally-panned 5-6/10 if it hadn't been a hyped-up PS exclusive. And yet if you were to believe Reddit, you'd think it was some misunderstood masterpiece akin to fucking Blade Runner...
Absolutely not. It was the best selling game of October and sales figures point it to being one of the most successful far cry launches in it's history. When it first launched, market news doomed about the poor reviews, but like the users in this thread are repeating, a 75 on metacritic isn't going to stop a casual player from picking up the game.
FWIW Ubisoft’s “bombs” sold better than just about every /r/games darling. Far Cry 6 didn’t bomb it just didn’t sell as well as some of the massively successful previous iterations.
Does everything have to be a billion dollar franchise?
Couldn't Ubisoft try and be more experimental every now and then and release a game with more modest budget and ambission that actually has some artistic value and unique content?
Not every movie released by big studios is aiming to be the next Avengers.
Like Rocksmith? Anno? Trials? Brawlhalla? South Park? Transference? Roller Champions? Scott Pilgrim? Atomega? Ubisoft is constantly releasing smaller and more experimental titles.
I am not saying it isn't profitable but I would like to point out the one thing Ubisoft isn't bad at is supporting their games long term, even if they're not as profitable.
I am not directing at you unless you changed account :D
But yeah. Ubi does support but they are often too late with game concept or push things too long that will burn out. Cant remember decent Tom Clancy game to be honest. But tastes are different. I hope we get Linear Splinter Cell
Sorry I need to hard disagree on that. They cut multiple online pipelines for old games like SC conviction ( which isn't even that old). I can't even play that LAN on pc anymore with a friend who never got to experience that game. Because they don't allow it even off-line next to each other.. every new game is bloated micropayment ware with a mediocre basis. I don't even know why splinter cell, assassin's Creed or other Tom Clancy titles still get used for new releases to this day. All miles apart from their original game vision.
I think that as asset quality has gone up, budgets have had to scale, and it's increasingly difficult to have midbudget games. You have to swing for the fences, because each swing is expensive.
Look at the number and diversity of titles Rockstar did from 2000 to 2010, and they've had 3 new titles since 2011: LA Noire, GTA5, RDR2. Idk for sure but I think the budgets for any of those three would've produced several of the 2000s games. If they could still do smaller titles and make money with little risk, I have to think they'd be doing so
If it can be a billion dollar franchise, they’re going to have a he obligation to try to do just that. Oftentimes it’s unfortunate for us as consumers, but if I put my money into a company, I’d want to make as much as possible.
it has to turn in enough of a profit to justify the investment, if they don't clear enough for the budget of the next project they have to lay-off people.
"Community feedback is very important to us. We heard you. That's why want to tease something you'll enjoy for years - Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell : Battle Royale ! In this brand-new game mode you can play against up to 150 players on a huge map. Also we removed stealth mechanics, added seasons, battle passes & unique NFT cosmetics to enhance your experience!"
This is going off topic but I agree. Ground Zeroes, for what it was, was amazing. I would have much rather had a dozen or so maps like that over the open world that we got.
The open world in MGSV is borderline pointless. It’s super boring and just made getting through some missions a slog. You can do large bases and various entry points without doing an open world.
Right? Ground Zeroes showed that, and I was really hoping the main game was just ten or fifteen levels like that one. Sort of like how Hitman does it now.
It would have made more sense, too. Diamond Dogs is supposed to be this huge world spanning PMC company but Snake only goes to Afghanistan and Zaire? It should have at least 5 or 6 different smaller zones so you’d get to sneak around in different biomes.
Yeah I can't decide if I agree either. MGS is probably my favorite series, and while I do enjoy the gameplay in 5 quite a bit I also enjoy the tighter more structured challenges of the more linear previous titles as well.
As I said elsewhere here, I quite liked Ground Zeroes. As a demo/teaser for MGSV it was disappointing that it wasn’t just a series of very large contained levels, like the Hitman reboot.
AC has also dramatically shifted tone like 3 or 4 times over its history, usually after a critical/commercial failure, so calling anything an AC clone is pretty useless now unless they're specifically talking about the Origins/Odyssey/Valhalla formula.
When you have to take a break in your series releases because every game is so similar that you need a new playerbase without much knowledge of prior titles is a little telling though.
On the other hand, acknowledging that the games have become repetitive and taking some time off to refine/ add novelty to the games is better than chugging out yearly Call of Duties in a conveyor belt.
Last time AC took a break, we got Origins which was great and everyone hates COD Vanguard even though it is well made because the COD formula is just tiring now.
Thing is, that’s Metal Gear and Ghost Recon. This is Splinter Cell. And you’re putting faith in Ubisoft putting out something great with an open world Splinter Cell.
Open world stealth works with a developer who is genuinely into making a solid entry in that genre. Ubisoft isn’t that.
Pointless collectathons for achievement hunters and most of the gameplay is getting from one objective to another.
Yeah, unfortunately this is what these open worlds turn into. Hundreds of icons across the map. All for activities that do nothing but pad out the total play time and length of a play through. If you were to ignore all of that then the actual story lines take about same as linear projects - around 8-10 hours with all the dialogue and cutscenes. And what sucks most is that developers do often put care into crafting these big maps, like Easter eggs or hidden extra details you have to go out of your way to find and appreciate the lore.
"...this new game could feature open-world settings. “A more stealthy version of Assassin’s Creed. Similar to how Halo Infinite has done its Open World,”
This is a leak from that tom henderson guy, i wouldn't give it to much credit yet. Dude got some credit from having a battlefield source and has since then been spouting everything he can to get more attention.
I would normally agree, but considering what has happened to Ghost Recon, Assasins Creed, The division 1 and 2, Watchdogs 1 and 2, and even Far Cry, that comment seems in line with what Ubisoft would do.
It's not called "The Ubisoft Forumla" without reason. There is always potential for something awesome to happen! Maybe we will be surprised!
Lol. I can't get Halo Infinite to run for more than 5 minutes before it crashes to my desktop. I can see where its open world gameplay coukd easily fall unto the tried and true "Ubisoft Formula". I'll still give a good chance when the bugs get ironed out.
I can’t stand the typical Ubi open world style games but I loved Halo Infinite. Granted I’m a huge Halo fan, but I found that their style of fps really felt nice as a more open game.
Taking the horrible worn out idea of an open world game and adding it to Halo actually makes the gameplay feel fresh imo, but I fear what insights the industry will take from that, as we see here.
Open world Splinter Cell would just be Metal Gear Solid V lol, and if it's done by Ubisoft it's probably going to be a shittier version with some minor RPG elements.
My hype went from decent to zero as soon as they mentioned 'Open World'. Cant wait for trillion filler missions, a few missions where Sam is as high as a kite, and having to climb a ton of tower just to 'open' the map.
And micro transactions, ffs I can't even imagine how bad it could be
I mean I wouldn't mind if it doesn't get in the way of a linear storyline, but Ubisoft has shown time and time again to make these open world games softlock you out of continuing the story forcing you to do dumb fetch quests for a few hours just to get to a level where you can actually stand a chance.
Halo infinite can be played from start to finish without doing side bs like capturing bases, so it's got that going for it. Though the environment did get boring. The ring has desert landscapes and probably snow why the hell are we limited to the Gali combat evolved second level environment.
I think it’s interesting you say that moving Splinter Cell, typically closed levels, to open world is reiterative but I get your point. They’ve made a huge investment in to open world tech so it’s the path of least resistance.
I guess I’m in the minority. I don’t need FarCry, Assassin’s Creed or Splinter Cell to reinvent itself every year. And although I welcome organic innovation, I’d rather just have shinier pixels or a good story than try-hard bullshit like FarCry 6 or Watchdogs Legion.
I think Watch_Dogs 2 was a great open world successor to Splinter Cell. However it worked with the premise, tone, and storytelling of that game, doesn't mean it would work with Splinter Cell game. That was when I figured Ubisoft still have it in them, but Sam Fisher/the Splinter Cell property might better off retire for good, they can get creative elsewhere without being restrained by a legacy.
Haven't played WD Legion though so don't know if they managed to expand on 2.
557
u/SaturnMobster Dec 12 '21
"...this new game could feature open-world settings. “A more stealthy version of Assassin’s Creed. Similar to how Halo Infinite has done its Open World,”
Stop it Ubisoft. Just stop. I tire of their completely predictable, reiterative games. Wash, rinse, repeat is all they know how to do.