PDA

View Full Version : Why does ubisoft suck so much?



B_Man_X
05-08-2008, 09:09 PM
I don't understand how a big games company like ubisoft can suck so hard at making games. All they do is hype about them. I've never seen a game with as many glitches as rainbow six vegas and its sequel. Not only did they not fix any of the previous bugs, like enemies having insane shotgun accuracy, killing you without aiming at you, shooting faster than you are capable, not to mention the horrible graphics of both games. But they also added in more and worse glitches in terrorist hunt, an even more dramatic/stupid storyline and even less of vegas which is what the games are named. The only good thing added was a customizable character and even that option sucks. I will continue about other failed games in another paragraph.

Assassins creed is another game with potential which ubisoft managed to completely ruin. With a storyline that is almost as boring as R6V1 and 2, with 10 times as much talking and 10 times less killing, a boring combat system that involves countering everything until you are the only one left alive, and the "groundbreaking" new ability to climb buildings for no reason. But it looks cool. Why can ubisoft never focus on the gameplay and not the story, which they still do terribly. Assassins creed is one of the most repetitive, unsatisfying games I have ever played. Who knew being an assassin and stabbing people to death could be so boring and involve so much talking?.

I'm through ever believing that any good game will come from ubisoft. Until they learn how to make a game fun and not have backgrounds that look like they are from an N64 game, they will keep making money off of extremely un beta tested, half-assed games with over dramatic storylines.

snoopyau
05-08-2008, 09:30 PM
PC games in general have been getting
WORST since 2000-2001

R6 and GR series were RUINED once it become
cross platform with games supporting joypads
and joysticks and changing from its orignal
game play and design .

R6 Lockdown , R6 Vegas 1 , R6 Vegas 2
GRAW1 and GRAW2 are nothing like the
prev R6/GR games and SHOULD NOT
have the R6/GR name in the title .

But EA , Ubisoft , you name it all the
big companys now consider there pocket
FIRST and customers LAST

COOP has been butched and REDUCED
to utter **** since 2000-2001
and the graphics and useless ****
is taking focus instead of decent
bug free proper features .

Perosnaly I find it hard to support
any game after 2001 . I would say
all the games I supported in larger
amount was PRE 2000 , when games
didnt have huge amount of bugs
didnt need multiple patchs
came with decent coop
and came with decent gameplay

video game piracy has been around before the C64
(before x86 pcs) and yet business use the same reason to claim why poorsales when its the

REAL reason poor sales is the LOW POOR quality of recent 2001-2008 games relased arent worth supporting when older games were:

better
less buggy
more players in ccop
not for casual games
real game play
didnt have a zillion things missing
were worth supporting
didnt have disc protection that semms worst then spyware

WarHawk722
05-08-2008, 09:55 PM
sins of a solar empire is doing great when it didn't have any hype, doesn't have any piracy protection, and doesn't have any story line. the game is nearly flawless when it comes to bugs. i've found one bug so far and it wasn't a big deal. RSV2 had such potential but UBI ended up
making an RSV expansion... honestly, it was more like dlc content.

oODmGOo
05-08-2008, 10:27 PM
piracy wont get you online and most games within the last 8 years (cept stalker imo) arent worth the paper the $50 is printed on. If anything, piracy has helped games since if you really like you will then go buy it....kinda like an unofficial demo.
What really needs to happen here is that the FTC needs to mandate new return policies for software that doesnt live up to its claims. If something doesnt work 100% as advertised in a current system then it should have the same return policy as any other type of product. Then we will see more quality products.

asianprince213
05-09-2008, 01:46 AM
i am so glad i downloaded rvs2. cause i'm already bored with it...not worth 50/40 or whatever dollars it's selling for now

v2k4
05-09-2008, 02:12 AM
blame two things:

new ways of getting the game out as fast as possible!!!! (Within a year of the first idea)

consoles becomming slowly as good as PC's and more gamers are on consoles (so the demographics state), so they cater for the controls of them. i.e. bugger all recoil, all weapons practically identical, cant get tactical play as there aint enough buttons to get some options etc etc

Spyro_Viper
05-09-2008, 05:19 AM
Well I have abandoned Vegas 2 online. I had my first game(s) of total garbage, seriously, someone needs network code training or to buy a better server than a Commodore 64.

After I finish Vegas 2 SP (hopefully not too long because it's boring as hell) then I am not buying another Ubisoft developed game again. I am buying Haze though (that's for Free Radical), but that will be my last Ubisoft purchase (unless they make an amazing sequel)

Really Ubisoft should use Testers with A levels like EA does (even though EA are still awful) they are miles better than Ubisoft.

WhiteKnight77
05-09-2008, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by v2k4:
blame two things:

new ways of getting the game out as fast as possible!!!! (Within a year of the first idea)

consoles becomming slowly as good as PC's and more gamers are on consoles (so the demographics state), so they cater for the controls of them. i.e. bugger all recoil, all weapons practically identical, cant get tactical play as there aint enough buttons to get some options etc etc

Actually, consoles are now more PC like with having to install to a hard drive, firmware upgrades (driver updates) for the console and most of all, patches for the games. Console gaming is now just as difficult as PC gaming and with the same problems.

XyZspineZyX
05-09-2008, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Actually, consoles are now more PC like with having to install to a hard drive, firmware upgrades (driver updates) for the console and most of all, patches for the games. Console gaming is now just as difficult as PC gaming and with the same problems.

Just wanted to clear this up, Xbox and Wii doesnt require HD installation to play, I'm not aware of PS3 being but having not played it couldnt be sure.

Want2Snipe
05-09-2008, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by ms-kleaneasy
Just wanted to clear this up, Xbox and Wii doesnt require HD installation to play, I'm not aware of PS3 being but having not played it couldnt be sure.

Not owning a Wii, PS3 or Xbox360 I am not going to argue the above but it does beg the following question:

If the game is not installed on the hard drive, why have one? or, where do they install the new maps they download or the patches necessary to correct the fault, erm, improvements with the game?

I guess what I am trying to say is that with the ability of Consoles having a hard drive now, Companies like UBI know that they can use the "Buy now, Fix later" campaign (much like they do with PC), instead of having to come out with a 100% working product like in the beginning with the PC's or when the consoles first came out.

JasonFMTX1981
05-09-2008, 07:15 PM
It doesn't get installed, it gets read from the disc and goes to the RAM. The 360 has a fast disc drive and fast RAM so it can handle it.

The hard disc is for saving games, saving music, pictures, movies, patches, etc. You can also use memory cards but they are much smaller and only work for saved games I think. All other things need a hard disc. Don't quote me on that part though, I've never owned a memory card so I don't know.

W4CGunner
05-09-2008, 07:18 PM
Its simple, Ubi is a console company, always has been and always will be. Ubi doesn't develope the R6 series for the PC, they develope it for the consoles, and then port the console version over to PC. This leaves PC gamers with a game full of bugs and glitches. The day Ubi bought Red Storm Entertainment, the R6 series and GR went downhill forever!

asianprince213
05-09-2008, 07:28 PM
the point isn't whether or not consoles are similar to pc in terms of hardware. the point is the game isn't being developed exclusively for either platform. they've chosen to design the game for the console then port it over to pc almost as an afterthought...thus the potential of the game to be realistic, more tactical and complicated is not developed.

frankly, it's getting boring. and it's only been a week.

i think the solution isn't to dwell on the so-so features that were created for the vegas franchise(fast rope/rappelling/snake cam) they add something, but now they've lost the novelty effect.

and how come some really good features from other tactical shooters aren't being appropriated? would they make the game too complex for the average console twitch shooter?

swat 4 allowed flashlight and ability to apprehend suspects, which increases the replayability. you are allowed the decision to either tear gas a room, bean bag the scrotum of the guy who's inside, run in yell at him then cuff him...or just toss a frag in(the only variation in tactics rainbow six allows side form just shooting the guy).

and about the tear gas..why was it removed? it actually gave you a reason to use gas masks. i suspect it was removed because there weren't enough buttons on the console to allow 3 grenade command options...sad

WhiteKnight77
05-09-2008, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by ms-kleaneasy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Actually, consoles are now more PC like with having to install to a hard drive, firmware upgrades (driver updates) for the console and most of all, patches for the games. Console gaming is now just as difficult as PC gaming and with the same problems.

Just wanted to clear this up, Xbox and Wii doesnt require HD installation to play, I'm not aware of PS3 being but having not played it couldnt be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I posted this around here once before, but seems to have disappeared and by a CEO of a development compay no less:



So, I have a PS3 but haven't really had much time to play much on it. I picked up GT5 Prologue today and was fairly excited to get home, pop the disc in and do some racing. Not so fast.

I put the disc in and it said I needed to install to the HD. Huh? So I let it go... and go ..... and go.... for 12 minutes. A 12 minute install for a console game! It takes up about 5.5gb of space on my 40gb console HD. Ok, so I finally start the game. Oops, need to get an update! Another 10 minutes go by... oops, download failed. Start over. 15 minutes later I am now installing said update. 5 minutes go by and I am finally allowed to start racing.

So, now my console acts just like my PC and can no longer pop my disc in and play. I need to install, get an update and go through the very same things that make PC gaming frustrating some times.

The PC/console question is moot.... it's now one in the same.

Now why would the XBox 360 have a 120GB Hard Drive (http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/x/xbox360harddrive120GB/default.htm) if not meant to store stuff?


The Xbox 360 120GB Hard Drive is the best option for media enthusiasts who game on Xbox 360™. It is the largest storage option for Xbox 360. Expand your Xbox 360 experience with downloadable content. Save your game progress, Xbox LIVE® gamer profile, game demos, and custom soundtracks from your own music collection. Download movies and television shows from Xbox LIVE Marketplace. Play original and retro games in Xbox LIVE Arcade.

The Xbox 360 120GB Hard Drive includes a data transfer kit to easily migrate all of your saved data from your 20GB HDD to your 120GB HDD. It comes preloaded with great HD game demos, videos, and an assortment of Xbox LIVE Arcade game trials.

With console games being patched, the patches need to be stored somewhere and patches do not work well unless a game is installed on a piece of hardware.

As I stated before, consoles, with the exception of the Wii, are more PC like than ever before and the hassles people complain of for PC gaming are moot with the advent of hard drives for consoles along with driver (firmware) updates for the them.

DexLuther
05-09-2008, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by v2k4:
blame two things:

new ways of getting the game out as fast as possible!!!! (Within a year of the first idea)

consoles becomming slowly as good as PC's and more gamers are on consoles (so the demographics state), so they cater for the controls of them. i.e. bugger all recoil, all weapons practically identical, cant get tactical play as there aint enough buttons to get some options etc etc

There's nothing wrong with consoles. It's 100% bad management, greedy companies, and lazy devs.

Rainbow Six 3 and Black arrow were great on Xbox1

OGR and it's expansions were also great on Xbox1

GR2 and Summit Strike was awesome on Xbox1

So far all "next-gen" has meant for the Tom Clancy franchise is "dumbed down to the point a blind lobotomized quadriplegic monkey could play the game with complete success."


Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
As I stated before, consoles, with the exception of the Wii, are more PC like than ever before and the hassles people complain of for PC gaming are moot with the advent of hard drives for consoles along with driver (firmware) updates for the them.

Actually, Xbox360 games have patches that get saved to the harddrive, but there's no installation of games (except maybe arcade games that you download). You pop the DVD in and go. That's it.

I believe Xbox360 patches simply work by overwriting data.

For example:

You start R6V2, the console loads the files and stores them in memory, it then loads the patch that changes certain parts of the files already loaded. Kinda like the end of year exams in school. You have a page of 100 or lines of circles where you fill in the right circle on each line to indicate the corresponding answer. Anyways, the teach places the answer key on top, which is basically a sheet of paper with holes that line up with the right answers. Your given answer lines up with the hole, and you got it right.

Although the illustration I just made would be more accurate if you imagined the answer key inverted (it covers the right answers). Where ever the patch covers something it changes the data.

Anyways, all that to say that the Xbox360 has a 140gb hardrive, but you never install games on it. It's used for renting movies off the market place and downloading a lot of arcade games off the marketplace, and storing lots of music.

It still very much has patches though. Unfortunately. Maybe if it didn't devs wouldn't churn out the crud like they do now.

XyZspineZyX
05-10-2008, 02:53 AM
WK as I said I cannot speak for the PS3 as I do not own one but I know the 360 like the back of my hand and can assure you it does not install the game to the drive.

WhiteKnight77
05-10-2008, 05:19 AM
I couldn't tell as I no longer play games via a console. I have not owned an XBox or a 360. Still, patching games on a system that has always been touted as plug and play is reprehensible and is just shows plain laziness on developer's part (and that includes all developers and not just Ubi).

CAG-Delta
05-10-2008, 05:56 AM
Just thought I might pitch-in on this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It is debatable about where the 360 stores patches (when someone above mentions its stored in the RAM), I don't have a console I am PC only but! I have worked in IT for 15years and one thing that is absolute about RAM Random Access Memory... is that data loaded into RAM, from the hard-drive or ROM Read Only Memory will be lost when the computer/device is powered down. You can think of your Hard-
Drive/ROM as your bookshelf (where you store things), but RAM would be your desktop. RAM is where you work on things.

So the Xbox360 must save the patches to the hard drive (only the patches, not the game) then load it into the RAM when the game is executed via the CD disc by the Xbox360 operating system.

Dealer_0_Death
05-10-2008, 08:08 AM
@WhiteKnight77

"Now why would the XBox 360 have a 120GB Hard Drive if not meant to store stuff?"

The purpose of the hard drive is to store stuff, but, the purpose of the hard drive is not really for YOU to store stuff. You see, back in the 90's Microsoft started on a quest, that quest was to move all software and operating system usage into a main-frame type environment where computers would basically be dumb terminals that had to connect to a Microsoft server to access content (including the operating system), the first step towards this for them was the introduction of consoles but the problem was that virtual server technology for such a purpose as envisioned by Microsoft was not developing fast enough in terms of computing power to support such a wide spread use so some method was needed to store content and thus the hard drive. Although you can use the hard drive its real purpose is for Microsoft's use. In the future, closer then you think, you will begin to see a move away from discrete computers to a console type thing like the XBOX for all things and all operating systems (even Linux) being used as dumb terminals accessing very large main-frame type servers, you will pay a monthly subscription fee and everything you do or have will be stored at the main-frame end. This is the industries solution for various things ranging from piracy to to just about anything. They feel as if they can control access totally they will solve all the problems and increase profits. The only thing holding them back now is two things, the fact that virtual server technology although very mature at this stage doesn't have the computing power to support such wide spread use and the fact that individual ISP's are also providing access to content and storage.

I actually read a white paper from Microsoft years ago that outlined this very thing and specifically stated that the introduction of a gaming console environment was a step towards that. Microsoft quickly pulled the white paper when it introduced its first console. I think I still have that white paper around somewhere too in the tons of CD's i've burned over the years, i'll have to look.

Vendetta_Z
05-10-2008, 05:01 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif All the Ubi games I have gotten have worked perfect for me, the only problems I have are not bugs, but things like the random respawn in TDM in Vegas 2.
All the Ubi games that I have I love, I am soon getting Assassin's Creed, because I'm not all about running around with an AK-47 thinking a suicide run will make me pwner ownt all nubs pwnt owned, you get the idea, and be the best player in the game.
Just my two cents about how I disagree with you all so much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

DexLuther
05-10-2008, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
patching games on a system that has always been touted as plug and play is reprehensible and is just shows plain laziness on developer's part (and that includes all developers and not just Ubi).

I agree with you there. It wasn't supposed to be used this way either. It's was supposed to be a way to add new content and possibly fix issues every once in a while, which I also agree with.

It's hard for devs to get balance for certain things right because they don't know how the general public will end up using it. Patches were a good way to change these things.

Like in any sort of production defects and bugs slip by quality control. It's perfectly understandable that a tester didn't think of trying to force his was out of the level at a certain angle, etc. The best example of this in my mind right now is the Peaks map on Rainbow Six 3 on Xbox1. At one teams spawn there was a cart you could walk onto and use it to walk over the fence at a certain angle to get out of the map. I understand that a tester may not have thought of doing that, but it's not too much of a problem because a patch could (and did) fix it.

However, as with all things meant to do good, people abuse it. Lazy devs and greedy managers release half finished games to try to capitalize now, and patch later if they get around to it.

What makes it worse is that idiots defend this type of behavior by spouting drivel like: "Stop complaining and be patient. It'll be patched."

xoops
05-11-2008, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Dealer_0_Death:
@WhiteKnight77

"Now why would the XBox 360 have a 120GB Hard Drive if not meant to store stuff?"

The purpose of the hard drive is to store stuff, but, the purpose of the hard drive is not really for YOU to store stuff. You see, back in the 90's Microsoft started on a quest, that quest was to move all software and operating system usage into a main-frame type environment where computers would basically be dumb terminals that had to connect to a Microsoft server to access content (including the operating system), the first step towards this for them was the introduction of consoles but the problem was that virtual server technology for such a purpose as envisioned by Microsoft was not developing fast enough in terms of computing power to support such a wide spread use so some method was needed to store content and thus the hard drive. Although you can use the hard drive its real purpose is for Microsoft's use. In the future, closer then you think, you will begin to see a move away from discrete computers to a console type thing like the XBOX for all things and all operating systems (even Linux) being used as dumb terminals accessing very large main-frame type servers, you will pay a monthly subscription fee and everything you do or have will be stored at the main-frame end. This is the industries solution for various things ranging from piracy to to just about anything. They feel as if they can control access totally they will solve all the problems and increase profits. The only thing holding them back now is two things, the fact that virtual server technology although very mature at this stage doesn't have the computing power to support such wide spread use and the fact that individual ISP's are also providing access to content and storage.

I actually read a white paper from Microsoft years ago that outlined this very thing and specifically stated that the introduction of a gaming console environment was a step towards that. Microsoft quickly pulled the white paper when it introduced its first console. I think I still have that white paper around somewhere too in the tons of CD's i've burned over the years, i'll have to look.

Dealer_0_Death,

I've sent you a PM with my email address. If you ever find that white paper, please, I'd very much appreciate that you mail it to me, along with any link or information you may have backed-up regarding this.

By the way, I've read a computer magazine some months ago (I don't remember which one unfortunately) that said that Windows 7 would very probably be the last ''traditional'' OS sold by MS (traditional = as we know it). The follower to Windows 7 was hypothetically and very briefly portrayed as something very close to what you described.

XyZspineZyX
05-11-2008, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by CAG-Delta:
So the Xbox360 must save the patches to the hard drive (only the patches, not the game) then load it into the RAM when the game is executed via the CD disc by the Xbox360 operating system.

Not necessarily, there are some games which prompt for a title update download every time you play online. Now I don't know anything about building code or executing them so wouldn't put money on either way as I simply do not know, but I do know some prompt download every time while others don't so it's quite possible some games use ram while others use the HD

DexLuther
05-11-2008, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by ms-kleaneasy:
...but I do know some prompt download every time while others don't so it's quite possible some games use ram while others use the HD

I'd be surprised if that was intentional, but with the poopie being released these days who knows what's intentional anymore?

WhiteKnight77
05-11-2008, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by ms-kleaneasy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CAG-Delta:
So the Xbox360 must save the patches to the hard drive (only the patches, not the game) then load it into the RAM when the game is executed via the CD disc by the Xbox360 operating system.

Not necessarily, there are some games which prompt for a title update download every time you play online. Now I don't know anything about building code or executing them so wouldn't put money on either way as I simply do not know, but I do know some prompt download every time while others don't so it's quite possible some games use ram while others use the HD </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You bring up another point ms-kleaneasy. Having to download an update every time you play a game would be very aggravating, especially for a supposed "plug and play" gaming system. This does not make it easier to play console games.

asianprince213
05-12-2008, 09:40 AM
capitalism+wanton disregard for proper work ethics=ubisoft(2002 to present)

they've gotten too big.