PDA

View Full Version : Do you think the higher ups will regret themselves a decade from now?



Sushiglutton
04-03-2015, 03:55 PM
Quirky posted an April fools thread with a fake interview which was shut down. I thought it was funny, but I can see that it also was a little mean. I'm sure Yves is a very hardworking genuine person faced with many difficult dilemmas. Anyway the vid got me thinking a bit.


I wonder if the higher ups at Ubi will ever regret themselves for the direction they took this franchise? I mean they had the concepts, teams, talent and resources to create some truly special, memorable games. I'm talking classics that will be remebered for ever like Ocarina of Time, or Half Life 2. But instead they chose to focus on industrial production, efficient pipelines, new revenue streams, external services, high release pace and so on.


I wonder in a decade from now, when they look back, if they won't regret themselves. I mean isn't worth a lot of money to be able to point at a true masterpiece and be able to say "I made that happen". Instead of having to answer awkward questions from your grandchildren like: "Grandpa, what is an Initiate chest?"

VestigialLlama4
04-03-2015, 04:06 PM
I highly doubt the higher ups would care very much. I mean the notion of classic in video games is a nebulous thing anyway. And with AC they can say we made money out of stuff that wasn't totally dumb, introduced real standards for historical accuracy when before video games didn't have any. Made baby steps in introducing nonwhite characters.

I think the individual developers would be the ones with regrets. That they didn't do enough to oppose the micro transactions.

ze_topazio
04-03-2015, 04:14 PM
10 years from now they will look at their bank account and no, they won't regret anything.

Sushiglutton
04-03-2015, 04:42 PM
I highly doubt the higher ups would care very much. I mean the notion of classic in video games is a nebulous thing anyway. And with AC they can say we made money out of stuff that wasn't totally dumb, introduced real standards for historical accuracy when before video games didn't have any. Made baby steps in introducing nonwhite characters.

I think the individual developers would be the ones with regrets. That they didn't do enough to oppose the micro transactions.

I'm not saying that AC is trash, not even close. You are correct that they shouldn't feel ashame ofc. I just wonder, when the dust settles, if they won't think to themselves "I wish I had pushed the art side of things more."

Individual developers like Patrice Desilets quit because of the attitude of the higher ups (as far as I know). The governing philosophy somewhat smothers creative persons it seems.



10 years from now they will look at their bank account and no, they won't regret anything.

Maybe, I'm not so sure about that. I don't think someone like Yves is all about money, not at all. I'm sure he wants to achieve things beyond that. Depends on personality of course. And I have never been in a position to make these choices, so I can't really say how I would think. Other franchises like GTA and Metal Gear have some very strong creative persons at the top, who are allowed a lot of freedom (well Kojima just got kicked I suppose lol). AC does not seem to have that.


It seems to me that the balance between creation and finace is off at Ubi, with the latter being too much of a focus (compared to other studios/producers).

m4r-k7
04-03-2015, 04:50 PM
Maybe, I'm not so sure about that. I don't think someone like Yves is all about money,.

I don't know man. Yves actively came out and said that he will keep on bringing out annualised releases as long as people keep on buying them. He also supports microtransactions. I mean obviousily he does care about the quality of the games, but its clear that he is going about it in a business-related way.

dxsxhxcx
04-03-2015, 05:04 PM
No...

king-hailz
04-03-2015, 05:12 PM
This is the reason why Patrice Desilets doesn't work there. He wanted to create a memorable game like you said, however the higher ups want money and they saw an opportunity with AC. The truth is ubisoft don't give two sh*ts about anything but money.

Sushiglutton
04-03-2015, 05:13 PM
I don't know man. Yves actively came out and said that he will keep on bringing out annualised releases as long as people keep on buying them. He also supports microtransactions. I mean obviousily he does care about the quality of the games, but its clear that he is going about it in a business-related way.

I'm not denying this is the way they are currently thinking. I mean that's why the games are like they are. What I'm thinking is if they perhaps may look at it differently with some distance to it?



No...

Why not?



This is the reason why Patrice Desilets doesn't work there. He wanted to create a memorable game like you said, however the higher ups want money and they saw an opportunity with AC. The truth is ubisoft don't give two sh*ts about anything but money.

Perhaps I'm very naive, but I just refuse to think that's the case. I mean there at least has to be a power struggle within the company where some are fighting for more genuine games.

Hans684
04-03-2015, 05:20 PM
Do the higher ups for COD regret anything?

dxsxhxcx
04-03-2015, 05:22 PM
Why not?

because they're businesspeople, their end goal is to make money... if Unity's fiasco hasn't reached the proportion it has, I highly doubt they would've lost a single night of sleep for releasing a faulty product..

Namikaze_17
04-03-2015, 05:24 PM
Money talks, everything else walks.

So no, I'd like to think not.

Shahkulu101
04-03-2015, 05:34 PM
Yes, Yves will be drying his tears with $100 dollar bills in 10 years time I'm certain...

EmptyCrustacean
04-03-2015, 06:49 PM
Quirky posted an April fools thread with a fake interview which was shut down. I thought it was funny, but I can see that it also was a little mean. I'm sure Yves is a very hardworking genuine person faced with many difficult dilemmas. Anyway the vid got me thinking a bit.


I wonder if the higher ups at Ubi will ever regret themselves for the direction they took this franchise? I mean they had the concepts, teams, talent and resources to create some truly special, memorable games. I'm talking classics that will be remebered for ever like Ocarina of Time, or Half Life 2. But instead they chose to focus on industrial production, efficient pipelines, new revenue streams, external services, high release pace and so on.


I wonder in a decade from now, when they look back, if they won't regret themselves. I mean isn't worth a lot of money to be able to point at a true masterpiece and be able to say "I made that happen". Instead of having to answer awkward questions from your grandchildren like: "Grandpa, what is an Initiate chest?"

Could you PM me the link?

SixKeys
04-03-2015, 07:33 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIgfiSzCy1o


Srsly though, execs generally aren't the ones concerned with artistic integrity. It's the devs who care about that stuff. Execs are there to make money. They'll only start caring about artistic integrity if the company's current decisions are hurting the brand, which is why they personally stepped in to apologize for Unity.

SpiritOfNevaeh
04-03-2015, 07:38 PM
No company is perfect so Im sure there are bound to be some regrets...

Sushiglutton
04-03-2015, 07:51 PM
Haha you are all so cynical :)!



Srsly though, execs generally aren't the ones concerned with artistic integrity. It's the devs who care about that stuff. Execs are there to make money. They'll only start caring about artistic integrity if the company's current decisions are hurting the brand, which is why they personally stepped in to apologize for Unity.

I understand that is their job. But they are also human beings. At some level I'm sure they do care about the product the company is making.

And it's not like this mentality is present throughout the industry. Clearly companys like Naughty Dog take a lot more pride in their work. But there are executives at the top of those productions as well. Only they must have made different choices in terms of balancing finance and artistic vision.

Sorrosyss
04-03-2015, 08:02 PM
I think everybody has regrets. Whilst some may be passionate about their jobs, I dare say many are there just to do what they were hired for. As others have stated, the executives main task is to make money. Whilst a lot of things have changed for the worst, the series still continues to be a strong brand and seller.

I think they can be reasonably happy with that. But they know the areas that have proven unpopular. Take the companion app. They ultimately patched it out of Unity following criticism. They have made attempts to appease to long term fans by promising more modern day content to come. To me they appear to at least be listening. Victory has to be a step in the right direction, and I am quietly optimistic it will be.

Failing that, the series may end up being even more successful as a movie property. Guess we'll find out next year. ;)

SixKeys
04-03-2015, 08:04 PM
I understand that is their job. But they are also human beings. At some level I'm sure they do care about the product the company is making.

And it's not like this mentality is present throughout the industry. Clearly companys like Naughty Dog take a lot more pride in their work. But there are executives at the top of those productions as well. Only they must have made different choices in terms of balancing finance and artistic vision.

I'm not saying they don't care at all. But they made a choice with regards to quality control all those years ago when they decided to annualize AC. Not all of Ubi's games are annualized (yet :rolleyes: ) and those games have been getting consistently good reviews (like Far Cry) . Whereas AC is a lot more hit-and-miss. Basically, AC is the fuel that keeps the company afloat, allowing them to do more artistic things in between (Valiant Hearts, Child of Light etc.). Like how Hollywood actors sometimes appear in by-the-numbers, big-budget flicks or sequels that they must have known weren't exactly Oscar material, but those movies allow them to pursue indie projects that pay less but are artistically more interesting.

Sushiglutton
04-03-2015, 08:09 PM
I'm not saying they don't care at all. But they made a choice with regards to quality control all those years ago when they decided to annualize AC. Not all of Ubi's games are annualized (yet :rolleyes: ) and those games have been getting consistently good reviews (like Far Cry) . Whereas AC is a lot more hit-and-miss. Basically, AC is the fuel that keeps the company afloat, allowing them to do more artistic things in between (Valiant Hearts, Child of Light etc.). Like how Hollywood actors sometimes appear in by-the-numbers, big-budget flicks or sequels that they must have known weren't exactly Oscar material, but those movies allow them to pursue indie projects that pay less but are artistically more interesting.


How do you get the energy to be a fan of a franchise the company making it just views as a cash cow to fuel more interesting projects? I mean it's kind of humiliating in a way. I think you may be correct that is the way Ubi views AC, which is a shame imo. I think an AC game could be "Oscars material".



I think everybody has regrets. Whilst some may be passionate about their jobs, I dare say many are there just to do what they were hired for. As others have stated, the executives main task is to make money. Whilst a lot of things have changed for the worst, the series still continues to be a strong brand and seller.

I think they can be reasonably happy with that. But they know the areas that have proven unpopular. Take the companion app. They ultimately patched it out of Unity following criticism. They have made attempts to appease to long term fans by promising more modern day content to come. To me they appear to at least be listening. Victory has to be a step in the right direction, and I am quietly optimistic it will be.

Failing that, the series may end up being even more successful as a movie property. Guess we'll find out next year. ;)


Hopefully you are correct about there being signs that the balance is shifting more towards artisitic vision. Patching out the companion app sure was a small step in the right direction.

I don't mind them branching out to other mediums as long as those projects have a quality focus. And indeed, we will find out :).

SixKeys
04-03-2015, 08:30 PM
How do you get the energy to be a fan of a franchise the company making it just views as a cash cow to fuel more interesting projects? I mean it's kind of humiliating in a way. I think you may be correct that is the way Ubi views AC, which is a shame imo. I think an AC game could be "Oscars material".

Same way I can be a fan of superhero movies and other blockbusters. The writing in those is generally not worth writing home about, but they're fun entertainment nonetheless. A few hours of fun distraction. That's the most I expect from AC these days, TBH. Back when it was still thought to be a trilogy with a modern day that seemed to be heading somewhere, I thought it had the potential for more. Ever since they gave up on MD, I just don't have the same kind of investment. There's only so much innovation you can squeeze out of an annual series, especially one whose gameplay mechanics for the past 8 years have included the same climbing towers, parkour, mini-games and tailing missions structure. Even the games that have mixed things up the most (ACR with Desmond's Journey and Den Defense, AC3 with hunting and ships) still relied most heavily on those same old mechanics.

What I think is a bigger shame than using AC as fuel is assimilating original ideas that could stand on their own and make them a part of AC just to make more money. It's obvious that this is what happened with Project Osiris, for example. They cancelled that game for whatever reason (possibly so as not to have two historical games competing against each other) and then turned it into an Easter egg in AC4, making Project Osiris officially part of the AC canon. I also suspect this is what happened with Desmond's Journey, AC4's pirate theme and the Chronicles games: they had a potentially intriguing first-person platforming puzzle idea, but instead of developing it into its own thing, they quickly cobbled together a neglectable part of ACR so they could have more content in the game. The Chronicles games could have been more interesting without the AC label, exploring all kinds of different classical art styles, but they used the idea to pump out more AC games. I'm not saying those games can't be good as AC, but I would have preferred to have seen them as something else.

dxsxhxcx
04-03-2015, 08:58 PM
I think they can be reasonably happy with that. But they know the areas that have proven unpopular. Take the companion app. They ultimately patched it out of Unity following criticism. They have made attempts to appease to long term fans by promising more modern day content to come. To me they appear to at least be listening. Victory has to be a step in the right direction, and I am quietly optimistic it will be.

they only patched it out because fix it wasn't worth the trouble, IF the next game doesn't have a companion app, then I might believe they've listened to fan criticism, otherwise, all of this was just damage control...

Markaccus
04-03-2015, 10:11 PM
they only patched it out because fix it wasn't worth the trouble, IF the next game doesn't have a companion app, then I might believe they've listened to fan criticism, otherwise, all of this was just damage control...

The Black flag companion was fine. It meant you could play the fleet mini game and earn money while away from the system. The unity app went too far, locking content in a full price game unless you sent your nomads away to do stuff. This would have been ok if the nomad mini game was available from your console too (as it was in black flag). Basically, a clasic acb/acr assassins brotherhood managable from both console main game and a mobile app was and is a good idea.

The unity app got it very wrong, and has seemingly turned off many people to the idea

SixKeys
04-04-2015, 12:22 AM
The AC4 app always seemed entirely useless to me. It didn't have any exclusive features, so I never saw any point in downloading it. Unity's app, OTOH, went entirely too far in the other direction, where everything on it was exclusive and the damn thing didn't even work. A proper app should be something that rewards the player for their loyalty by offering something extra (like an exclusive weapon or outfit), but not anti-consumer in that it locks main game content behind itself.

pirate1802
04-04-2015, 06:31 AM
Yes I am not a bad person actually. I'm just a bit misunderstood is all... :(

VestigialLlama4
04-04-2015, 06:49 AM
I think an AC game could be "Oscars material".

Personally I think the only great aesthetic games ubisoft made is beyond good and evil, sands of time and AC2. Those are the the only genuinely great games that they have really made.

Assassins creed until the great sadness of " rogue-unity-chronicles" is very much Oscar material - introduce settings no game has ever done and some of the wildest and most surreal elements in any game. AC is the legacy of ubisoft.

Games like far cry 3-4 are fps games that are not half life. They won't count for much in the end. Nor their pathetic pseudoindie games.

pirate1802
04-04-2015, 07:50 AM
I am thinking, that if something genuinely cerebral and classic-material was ever in AC, it was only there in AC1. The rest were umm.. products intended for mass consumption. And yeah, before any of you goes off on me, I know AC1 was not produced out of a willingness to do charity either, but there was effort in it, a passion to be different from what others were doing at that time, they made it for a niche audience and they weren't afraid to do so. SIxkeys says AC1 feels like an indie game and she's absolutely right. After that, they went into a different direction, trying to please as many people as possible, trying to earn as much money as possible. Trying to milk as much money from AC as possible and it showed. The stink of money was on AC ever since much as the stink of wine is on an alcoholic. Classics don't get made that way.

SixKeys
04-04-2015, 08:36 AM
I am thinking, that if something genuinely cerebral and classic-material was ever in AC, it was only there in AC1. The rest were umm.. products intended for mass consumption. And yeah, before any of you goes off on me, I know AC1 was not produced out of a willingness to do charity either, but there was effort in it, a passion to be different from what others were doing at that time, they made it for a niche audience and they weren't afraid to do so. SIxkeys says AC1 feels like an indie game and she's absolutely right. After that, they went into a different direction, trying to please as many people as possible, trying to earn as much money as possible. Trying to milk as much money from AC as possible and it showed. The stink of money was on AC ever since much as the stink of wine is on an alcoholic. Classics don't get made that way.

Agreed on everything except I don't think they deliberately made AC1 for a niche market. They made something bold, hoping the concept would appeal to a wide audience, but it didn't do as well as they'd hoped, so AC2 went down a "safer" route. AC1 was a gamble - it wasn't made for a niche audience, but it's remembered as such because of how AC2 overshadowed it in sales.

pirate1802
04-04-2015, 09:18 AM
No they didn't, but what I meant is, they probably knew this would not be universally popular (perhaps they hoped but..). It was not an FPS, it was not a GTAesque open world game either. It had none of the popular trends floating around that time. Which shows, to me atleast, that they had something in their mind that was other than 'let's make something that will be mad popular and earn us ****load of $$$$$!'

avk111
04-04-2015, 09:39 AM
I remember the good old times when AC was supposidly one a trilogy, it gives me shivers everytime I used to overthink about the secret orrganization controlling the world, what is that device that Altair found ? is God technological ? these questions and the suspense that AC1 created was huge. AC2 kind of slipped down more clothes when it revealed more information about where the protag was heading , but still it felt genuine and srtistic.

I think the release of AC brotherhood is where is started melting down, then ACB made it worse. There was no diffinite end of how the titles were being released, are they numbered ? so they can release more AC games without numbers ?

When AC3 was announced , I thought this was it , this is the final of all finales , the legendary majestic moment where Desmond becomes an ultimate assassin, when the assassins finally beat the templars and rescue the world. The screenshots being leaked were aestehtic and beautifull.

Once I finally got my hand on the game , I was utterly shocked, it felt like an EA video game but with the same headtitle i.e. Assassins Creed.

It was very disappointing. The quality just went downhill, so did the suspense, so did the origanlity of the series, as for the present , it seems the fat cats at Ubisoft are doing what they can to mislead the franchise further and try to expand it to into a larger universe. With the introduction of so many characters and concepts, but I personally think that its too early, look at main comic book universes they expanded on the verge of 20 years or more , known characters like batman , spiderman , and all these fiction superhero concepts took thier time in expending thier universe and they did it artistically.

But with Ubisoft , they just jumped the gun and decided to expand it so fast , im sure at one point its going to shrink down that fast as well, and get back to focusing on one main introspective story/hero,unless they keep burning resources (look at what happened with the initiation story telling its all messed up now) and with today's world economy , I think its too optimistic to think that they can keep finding/burning enough resources to expand their franchise universe, plus it will be too contained , diminshed, unauthentic and forcefull.

Ubisoft is out to learn how the world of fiction works from previous works and work accordingly, but throwing everything they got on the present moment (Whether its out of fear, greed,or just plain ol' stress from the higher ups before their time is over) is just creating stressful , uneffecient work.

Lets see, if the company breaks up at some point, the AC franchise will be a lost treasure hidden in the deepest bottom floor of the endless ocean.

ofcourse only time can tell.

Sushiglutton
04-04-2015, 11:08 AM
I am thinking, that if something genuinely cerebral and classic-material was ever in AC, it was only there in AC1. The rest were umm.. products intended for mass consumption. And yeah, before any of you goes off on me, I know AC1 was not produced out of a willingness to do charity either, but there was effort in it, a passion to be different from what others were doing at that time, they made it for a niche audience and they weren't afraid to do so. SIxkeys says AC1 feels like an indie game and she's absolutely right. After that, they went into a different direction, trying to please as many people as possible, trying to earn as much money as possible. Trying to milk as much money from AC as possible and it showed. The stink of money was on AC ever since much as the stink of wine is on an alcoholic. Classics don't get made that way.


I disagree a bit with you here pirate, even though your post is very elegantly formulated :).


First off there's no contradiction between massappeal and classic status. A work being a classic means that there's some sort of consensus that it is of high quality. Consensus means there must be a group of people holding that view. I'd actually argue that the larger this group is the more firm the classic status is (it's more complicated than that ofc). I mean many movies, music, books, games etc combine mass appeal with classic status. For example: Gone with the Wind, the Beatles, books of Jules Verne, Ocarina of Time and so on.


I'm no cultural snob by any stretch. One of my favourite movies is Gladiator. I think that is a great example of combining massappeal with high quality craft (btw "Oscars material" does not exactly equal "niche" :) ). I don't see why AC couldn't reach that level of quality. I mean a lot of it has just do to with removing some of the fluff. If Ridley Scott had used product placement for McDonalds in Gladiator, or QR codes to unlock new endings that would have been kind of awkard. Ubi needs to respect the core experience way more.

It's very possible to make tons of money and at the same time not comprimise the quality. For example GTA V made a few bucks. TLOU sold very well across two generations, if I understand correctly. And that is a genuine piece.

Shahkulu101
04-04-2015, 11:19 AM
GTA is a technological masterpiece.

Say it's anything more than that, and you're pulling my pisser.

pirate1802
04-04-2015, 11:52 AM
I disagree a bit with you here pirate, even though your post is very elegantly formulated :).


First off there's no contradiction between massappeal and classic status. A work being a classic means that there's some sort of consensus that it is of high quality. Consensus means there must be a group of people holding that view. I'd actually argue that the larger this group is the more firm the classic status is (it's more complicated than that ofc). I mean many movies, music, books, games etc combine mass appeal with classic status. For example: Gone with the Wind, the Beatles, books of Jules Verne, Ocarina of Time and so on.


I'm no cultural snob by any stretch. One of my favourite movies is Gladiator. I think that is a great example of combining massappeal with high quality craft (btw "Oscars material" does not exactly equal "niche" :) ). I don't see why AC couldn't reach that level of quality. I mean a lot of it has just do to with removing some of the fluff. If Ridley Scott had used product placement for McDonalds in Gladiator, or QR codes to unlock new endings that would have been kind of awkard. Ubi needs to respect the core experience way more.

It's very possible to make tons of money and at the same time not comprimise the quality. For example GTA V made a few bucks. TLOU sold very well across two generations, if I understand correctly. And that is a genuine piece.

Always a pleasure to hear your opinion mate :)

You're right and I should have explained my point better (which means maybe it was not that elegantly formulated :p) You are correct that you can have a classic which also has mass appeal. (And I like Gladiator myself so..). But there is a difference between something is also for mass appeal and something designed only for mass appeal. Now I also admit that AC2 is not a proper example of the later either, but it certainly had some elements that cast doubt. When I see the strict stealth focus in AC1 and then the lollygagging husband-beating, thief-racing, ribbon collecting Ezio in AC2, I can't help but feel someone up there had a meeting and said: 'Guys, how can we make our new Assassin more popular! What will the people love!' And someone in the back seat would suggest making him a playboy. Some more would suggest replacing boring AC1 gameplay with 'fun' gameplay, and the likes. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with making your character popular, but something definitely wrong with wanting to do so at the expense of your game, rendering it a cliche-fest in the process. That they didn't care and still went ahead with it says something. But hey, now we have a very likable character instead of that stoic Altair, so rejoice!

I mean a lot of people give Black Flag a hard time for being 'Pirate's Creed', but it's not like AC2 was completely stealth-focussed either. You spent a good chunk of game rescuing, using and fighting alongside mercenaries and other related street battles. Can't help but feel this came about because someone felt the original idea of AC wasn't appealing enough, and that is my problem.

And you know, this is a big part of the reason I'm looking forward to the Chronicles game. In some ways, it harks back to the origins of the series, when everything and everything, every single DLC and every single resource was not geared towards making the maximum amount of money as possible.

VestigialLlama4
04-04-2015, 11:58 AM
Video games are fairly young as a medium so discussing classics is silly. Overall there have been some good games but nearly all of them are stupid. Red dead redemption is a pretty dumb game for instance but everyone likes it because it fulfls a given set of wild west movie clichés. Black Flag by comparison is a very smart game that actually says something interesting about the pirate era and challenges many cliches while also working the pirate fantasy well.

As for whether AC1 was less commercial than AC2 or is an indie game. Well it certainly wasn't ICO.

Shahkulu101
04-04-2015, 12:11 PM
Don't buy the gaming is still a young medium argument. So was film when artistic masterpieces came out in the 1920's.

I'm not saying it isn't young, it most definitely is, but that's not an excuse IMO.

pirate1802
04-04-2015, 12:27 PM
Well it certainly it won't grow if we keep saying that, that's for sure.

VestigialLlama4
04-04-2015, 12:57 PM
Don't buy the gaming is still a young medium argument. So was film when artistic masterpieces came out in the 1920's.

Actually 1890s, Georges Melies, Edwin S. Porter, early D. W. Griffith (pre-Birth of a Nation). Cinema was born great and kept getting better until say 1980.


I'm not saying it isn't young, it most definitely is, but that's not an excuse IMO.

It isn't an excuse for game developers certainly. And there have been games that are masterpieces, like Super Mario 64, Thief, Portal (Original and Sequel), ICO, Shadow of the Colossus. those are four games that can be considered as great works of art certainly (I would add titles like Psychonauts, Half-Life2, Wind Waker, Dishonored, The first Prince of Persia, San Andreas, AC1-AC2 to that list as well but those are more subjective preferences) but the truth is the majority of games are s--ty. Even the ones with decent gameplay. Most games have incredibly dumb stories. That has nothing to do with complexity or adult content, but just a lack of maturity and depth of feeling in presentation.

Games have such lamentably low standards that a shoot-em-up FPS game like Bioshock get overpraised simply for tacking on a nice visual aesthetic and one good plot twist on a very conventional schema. People actually took the idea that "Ayn Rand's turgid writings on utopia wouldn't work" as a serious philosophical statement. So you have several games like Far Cry 3, Spec Ops Line and others which follow it that use ultra violent FPS to make gamers but tack on pretentious gimmicks to make gamers cry crocodile tears about violence. Even the more interesting Bioshock Infinite which keeps promising to be a different kind of game at the end of the day is a white-dude killing people of different races across a stylish period landscape. Then you have Uncharted, technically brilliant, amazing game levels, good voice work and character design, but sub-Indiana Jones at the end of the day.

Assassin's Creed overall has actually had several original concepts. For one thing, you have bad guys and targets who have a certain personality, where killing someone isn't always a ra-ra triumph and where you have complex stakes than simply "rescuing the princess". It uses video game style elements like a Magic Macguffin Apple (a device which makes sense only in games), but it takes good writing to anchor that to something relatable and smart like real history and context, it uses them as metaphors. Also it has an open world that is interesting without you driving around and killing people, so those are several original concepts that aren't there in other games before it came along and introduced them. I mean you can compare AC to Alexander Dumas or Walter Scott as historical fiction, and those are high standards which it maintained until BLACK FLAG. Then rogue and Unity came and without the elements that made the games great, and its just another mindless open-world title with fancy aesthetic.

king-hailz
04-04-2015, 10:55 PM
Perhaps I'm very naive, but I just refuse to think that's the case. I mean there at least has to be a power struggle within the company where some are fighting for more genuine games.

Well of course some people at ubisoft care! However why would the higher ups care! They don't understand the quality of the games they care about the money they make! When people want to go against their moral of making money they won't have them anymore! Of course it is about the money but people also understand that it's about quality too! Quality always sells so that's why they say they want a quality game! However they don't actually know what quality is... quality to then is sales!

HiddenKiller612
04-05-2015, 11:29 PM
What's to regret at this point? Making millions and millions of dollars each year off a single franchise alone? Nope. Unity hit their bottom line that is for sure, but it wasn't company breaking... Perhaps they lost a night of sleep, got the damage control team working overtime on a fix... but after that? Who's to say it isn't business as usual now.... I'd like to think they got a bit of a wake up call when their stock dropped a bit, but as of now... that is up in the air.

JustPlainQuirky
04-06-2015, 01:52 AM
Quirky posted an April fools thread with a fake interview which was shut down. I thought it was funny, but I can see that it also was a little mean. I'm sure Yves is a very hardworking genuine person faced with many difficult dilemmas. Anyway the vid got me thinking a bit.


*coughs awkwardly*

Shahkulu101
04-06-2015, 03:10 AM
Everyone that's met Yves, like Loomer, has said that Yves is a really nice, genuine guy. And listening to the few interviews he has given it seems to be true, he comes off as sweet and softly spoken.

Obviously his final form is more intimidating.