PDA

View Full Version : Do you think Ubisoft lacks the desire to be best?



Sushiglutton
08-15-2015, 10:51 AM
Gaming industry is full of companies with massive egos. Biggest of them all probably belongs to R*. They hardly ever give intervies, E3 is beneath them. Strauss Zelnick from parent company Take-Two recently said: "We don't use any other game in the same sentence as Grand Theft Auto (...) It is the industry's standard-bearer. It's not up for comparison.". R* knows they are the best, it's in their DNA. I'm pretty sure Naughty Dog views themselves as industry leaders of cinematic story telling, Bioware of RPGs, Bethesda are legendary for their delusion of grandeur, and Hideo Kojima has a bigger ego than all other companies combined lol.


So now to the question. Do you think Ubisoft has a real desire to be best? I'm not convinced they have. The most important thing by far for the company seems to be stable finances (which obv is understandable to an extent). They want to make good enough games to keep the cash flowing, but not set the world on fire. Focus is on streamlining the process (cutting costs, increasing the pace) rather than achieving mindblowing results creatively. It seems to me like Ubisoft are very scared of letting their creative staff loose. Instead they need full control at all times. To compensate they allow small indie projects (like Child Of Light) to allow their creative employees to be creative. This is ofc also examplified by the Desilets situation.


When was the last time Ubisoft had a unviersally acclaimed GOTY? AC2 was probably the closest if it wasn't for a little game called Uncharted 2. Why so modest Ubisoft? You are so much better than this! Assassin's Creed should be a prestige franchise not some cheap factory made B-game. It's time to go a bit crazy and make something truly awesome for a change. Best place to start is a massive Assassin's Creed game with a five years dev cycle, endless budget and possibility of delay if extra polish is needed ;)!


Assassin's Creed should be legendary, not an outcast that keeps beggin for one more chance as the world spits on it. Breaks my heart :(.

Farlander1991
08-15-2015, 11:10 AM
When was the last time Ubisoft had a unviersally acclaimed GOTY?

I think you're underestimating the amount of universal appraise Ubi gets for its games. Far Cry 3 and 4 were lauded as the best shooters of their respective years (2012 and 2014), and Assassin's Creed 4 in 2013 was consistently in top 3 of the year in almost any publication/fav game of the year ratings/awards. It would've been more than 'consistent top 3' and would have more top 1 spots if not for GTAV, probably, but still. Last year wasn't the best for Ubisoft (out of their big four games - ACU, FC4, The Crew, Watch_Dogs, only one was universally acclaimed while all others were mixed) but still the question like 'when was the last time' seems a bit contemptuous to me. If we get one or two more years like 2014 - then ok, you can say that :p

Also, speaking of GotY's, last year's GotYs were mostly Dragon Age: Inquisition and Destiny, far from universally appraised. Shadow of Mordor, surprisingly enough, won a lot less GotYs even though it had a more consistent positive reception.

EmptyCrustacean
08-15-2015, 11:10 AM
I think every developer initially sets out to make the best game possible but time constraints and the pressures of keeping a financially stable business starts to factor in once a franchise becomes successful.

phoenix-force411
08-15-2015, 11:11 AM
I better not see Unity mechanics in their next game. It's the rehashing that makes everything feel old. And yes, I do agree that Ubisoft just doesn't seem to care about how they're viewed by gamers. If Ubi actually cared, their games would not be so horrible. Right now, everyone is just tired of them and AC has become a ridiculed game that becomes less and less interesting. Ubi shouldn't be surprised about the reviews on their games. It's difficult to be enthusiastic about their games. I've become less optimistic about the franchise as the years went by too. The annual releases are killing the support for the games. Ubi's not even done fixing Unity yet, and I doubt anymore patches are coming.

Jessigirl2013
08-15-2015, 11:19 AM
I think every developer initially sets out to make the best game possible but time constraints and the pressures of keeping a financially stable business starts to factor in once a franchise becomes successful.
I agree.
I think time is a huge factor, As UBI set themselves a strict deadline of a year for each AC game since ACII.
I think after Syndicate they will take 2 years next time, If anything they will do it for their PR as even reviewers are getting annoyed.;)


I better not see Unity mechanics in their next game. It's the rehashing that makes everything feel old. And yes, I do agree that Ubisoft just doesn't seem to care about how they're viewed by gamers. If Ubi actually cared, their games would not be so horrible. Right now, everyone is just tired of them and AC has become a ridiculed game that becomes less and less interesting. Ubi shouldn't be surprised about the reviews on their games. It's difficult to be enthusiastic about their games. I've become less optimistic about the franchise as the years went by too. The annual releases are killing the support for the games. Ubi's not even done fixing Unity yet, and I doubt anymore patches are coming.

Its because they know a large number of players will just buy any AC game.:mad:
Like I said I think they will take 2 years next time because nearly every site is talking about AC franchise fatigue. <----- This didn't really happen with Unity.;)

EmptyCrustacean
08-15-2015, 11:25 AM
I better not see Unity mechanics in their next game. It's the rehashing that makes everything feel old. And yes, I do agree that Ubisoft just doesn't seem to care about how they're viewed by gamers. If Ubi actually cared, their games would not be so horrible. Right now, everyone is just tired of them and AC has become a ridiculed game that becomes less and less interesting. Ubi shouldn't be surprised about the reviews on their games. It's difficult to be enthusiastic about their games. I've become less optimistic about the franchise as the years went by too. The annual releases are killing the support for the games. Ubi's not even done fixing Unity yet, and I doubt anymore patches are coming.

The whole "annual release" thing doesn't make sense to me because the actual games have been in development for years. Surely Ubisoft should just release a game when it's ready rather than "2 years" or "3 years"

phoenix-force411
08-15-2015, 01:17 PM
The whole "annual release" thing doesn't make sense to me because the actual games have been in development for years. Surely Ubisoft should just release a game when it's ready rather than "2 years" or "3 years"
Well, I'm sure by now, we're all convinced that development time means nothing for Ubisoft. Unity was worked on since Brotherhood, and it was disappointing. I don't know how long Syndicate's been in development.

EmptyCrustacean
08-15-2015, 01:42 PM
Well, I'm sure by now, we're all convinced that development time means nothing for Ubisoft. Unity was worked on since Brotherhood, and it was disappointing. I don't know how long Syndicate's been in development.

That's exactly what I mean. Unity was in development for 4 years (it had to be considering just how graphically complex it was) but needed even more time. It's not about when the game is released, it's about how long it's been in development. 4 years is a long time, it's a reasonable time - but not when you're reworking your mechanics from the ground up. That's why Unity felt largely unfinished. They needed perhaps another 2 years to do it but they wanted to make the transition to next gen as soon as possible.

The key thing is if you know you have deadline in 4 years be realistic and use the last gen hardware to make a good game. Rather than releasing Rogue and Unity they should have released a last gen game that's good. Syndicate should have been the AC game to kick off next gen because it sounds like they actually had time to finish it. Also seeing as it basically looks like a refined Unity they may as well have use Syndicate as the kickstarter anyway. Nobody wants to play Unity twice - even if it is more polished the second time round.

king-hailz
08-16-2015, 07:38 AM
This is ubisoft:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aRor905cCw

This is me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMxX-QOV9tI

VestigialLlama4
08-16-2015, 09:57 AM
Gaming industry is full of companies with massive egos. Biggest of them all probably belongs to R*. They hardly ever give intervies, E3 is beneath them. Strauss Zelnick from parent company Take-Two recently said: "We don't use any other game in the same sentence as Grand Theft Auto (...) It is the industry's standard-bearer. It's not up for comparison.".

Well, I don't think Rockstar have made a really great game since San Andreas. I mean they're basically spending years building fancier graphics of the same gimmicks and concepts in the GTA III games with very few new ideas. Red Dead Redemption had some really cool ideas and gameplay but its largely a waste. Undead Nightmare is better. GTA V had some amazing ideas for these three protagonists but it failed to take it very far. Graphically of course its amazing but I don't think that's really enough anymore.There are far more interesting elements and ideas in the AC games than in the GTA4 games.


So now to the question. Do you think Ubisoft has a real desire to be best? I'm not convinced they have. The most important thing by far for the company seems to be stable finances (which obv is understandable to an extent). They want to make good enough games to keep the cash flowing, but not set the world on fire. Focus is on streamlining the process (cutting costs, increasing the pace) rather than achieving mindblowing results creatively. It seems to me like Ubisoft are very scared of letting their creative staff loose. Instead they need full control at all times. To compensate they allow small indie projects (like Child Of Light) to allow their creative employees to be creative. This is ofc also examplified by the Desilets situation.

I am sure there's a lot more to it than that. You have to understand that Ubisoft Montreal is a huge company, very expensive, they got a lot of tax cuts from the city in exchange for providing employment to people who live there. To get that kind of support, you need to keep churning out AAA games regularly. Ubisoft is both publisher and developer, whereas Rockstar is producer but their publisher is Take Two. So its not really the same thing.


When was the last time Ubisoft had a unviersally acclaimed GOTY? AC2 was probably the closest if it wasn't for a little game called Uncharted 2.

I personally don't think awards matter that much. And AC2 did get a GOTY release. I bought it. And AC2 is a better game than Uncharted 2, fun as it is.


Assassin's Creed should be legendary, not an outcast that keeps beggin for one more chance as the world spits on it. Breaks my heart :(.

The fact of the matter is that Assassin's Creed has always been an outcast. Most of the industry is unsophisticated and neanderthal. So a game which has a lot of interest in ideas, story and, for lack of a better word, stuff, will probably not be as accessible as games like GTA or Uncharted. GTA and Uncharted are great games and they are not entirely stupid, but at the core its fairly, simplistic and blunt, geared to be accessible to the "average gamer". AC is also more entertaining than say Metal Gear Solid which also has this overly complex and cornball mythology but its not tied to anything tangible and compelling. Its also why people liked FAR CRY 3 and FARY CRY 4, both of them are big dumb Third World shooters.

Its a shame that Ubisoft has internalized this and gone in the prestige business with Rogue and Unity, sacrificing everything that made it truly unique. That self-betrayal more than anything will be why the IP fails, if it does fail that is.

Jessigirl2013
08-16-2015, 10:41 AM
Well, I don't think Rockstar have made a really great game since San Andreas. I mean they're basically spending years building fancier graphics of the same gimmicks and concepts in the GTA III games with very few new ideas. Red Dead Redemption had some really cool ideas and gameplay but its largely a waste. Undead Nightmare is better. GTA V had some amazing ideas for these three protagonists but it failed to take it very far. Graphically of course its amazing but I don't think that's really enough anymore.There are far more interesting elements and ideas in the AC games than in the GTA4 games.



I am sure there's a lot more to it than that. You have to understand that Ubisoft Montreal is a huge company, very expensive, they got a lot of tax cuts from the city in exchange for providing employment to people who live there. To get that kind of support, you need to keep churning out AAA games regularly. Ubisoft is both publisher and developer, whereas Rockstar is producer but their publisher is Take Two. So its not really the same thing.



I personally don't think awards matter that much. And AC2 did get a GOTY release. I bought it. And AC2 is a better game than Uncharted 2, fun as it is.



The fact of the matter is that Assassin's Creed has always been an outcast. Most of the industry is unsophisticated and neanderthal. So a game which has a lot of interest in ideas, story and, for lack of a better word, stuff, will probably not be as accessible as games like GTA or Uncharted. GTA and Uncharted are great games and they are not entirely stupid, but at the core its fairly, simplistic and blunt, geared to be accessible to the "average gamer". AC is also more entertaining than say Metal Gear Solid which also has this overly complex and cornball mythology but its not tied to anything tangible and compelling. Its also why people liked FAR CRY 3 and FARY CRY 4, both of them are big dumb Third World shooters.

Its a shame that Ubisoft has internalized this and gone in the prestige business with Rogue and Unity, sacrificing everything that made it truly unique. That self-betrayal more than anything will be why the IP fails, if it does fail that is.

I think they need to bring back third person modern day.
It feels like they dropped it just to get cash from new player in the franchise wanting a simple, hardly non existant, overarching story.:mad:

This screws over long term fans for the franchise, for the sake of ubi getting new players.:mad:
Well that, and it probably saved them development time.<------ But it didn't save Unity.:mad:

steveeire
08-16-2015, 12:30 PM
I think Ubisoft desire to be EA.

Jessigirl2013
08-16-2015, 07:32 PM
I think Ubisoft desire to be EA.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Quick hide your money.:rolleyes:

strigoi1958
08-16-2015, 08:33 PM
ouch... so many people who dislike gaming while gaming ;)

Me I love Ubi... I play Splinter Cell, FC3 (over 300 hours) FC4 twice... Unity nearly 600 hours... all previous AC games (and all future releases as well.)

I do like other games as well and have put a few hundred hours into GTA V while trying to ignore my wanting to play syndicate NOW ;)

Maybe it's because... when I started gaming... it was either pacman, jetset willy or typing adventure games that I can appreciate games now... I seem to be able to look past the insignificant details that some people can only focus upon. I can see the amount of work that goes into the sounds... (run over tiles or wood or streets in Unity) ,the graphic detail (torn posters, peeling paintwork, ornate costumes) the gameplay running, jumping, walking, swinging, sailing, flying... creating a storyline and interweaving characters into it..... I can see the enormous progress games have made and a little flickering or a drop from 60fps to 57fps isn't the end of the world to me.

In Unity the NPC's were brilliant and I started a thread and was amazed by how much other players found them doing...

I always look for a bargain and try to get every game I buy as cheap as I can but in all honesty when I get over 200 hours from a game... whatever I pay for it... it's a bargain. If it was $100/ 100 it would be 50 cents or 50 pence per hour and I cannot get entertainment that cheap anywhere else. take $50/ 50 into an games arcade and see how long it lasts:(

I don't know if there is some kind of league table that places games developers in a list from best to worst but even if there was I guess it would be subjective... for ALL the hours and hours of brilliant fun (and frustration in AC2 ;) ) Ubi have given... they're my number 1. Whether they want to be my number 1 or even anyones number 1 doesn't matter I guess.

SofaJockey
08-16-2015, 09:00 PM
Strictly speaking, 'Ubisoft' the company has no desire or lack of desire to do anything.
Ubisoft contains many committed and hard working developers whose personal enthusiasm has to be tempered by the corporate structure available to them.

There's not much point being rude about the company which has no feelings of its own (at the expense of many people who do).
Better to focus on actual things that the franchise does well or does not do as well.

strigoi1958
08-16-2015, 09:07 PM
You worded it better than I did ;)

SteelCity999
08-17-2015, 05:10 PM
Ubisoft is nothing more than a marketing machine. It has to answer to shareholders and that means it will never ever strive to be the best. It will strive to answer to shareholders in order to keep their jobs. Public companies must take the safe path that grinds out cash. They will not take chances. They will not make anything groundbreaking. The fact that AC ever got made in the first place is a miracle.

Ubisoft's job is to market products. They will never shy away from telling you why the next AC will be better than the last and how many new features it has. How many times has the game not lived up to the hype? All of the hard working devs effort and passion is stifled by corporate antics and formula based design. AC has no ownership. That left went Patrice left. Devs move from project to project - it is a job.

Naughty Dog owns their stuff. They make games. They let the games speak for themselves.

Watchdogs is the next in line for Ubisoft.

Shahkulu101
08-17-2015, 06:00 PM
Strictly speaking, 'Ubisoft' the company has no desire or lack of desire to do anything.
Ubisoft contains many committed and hard working developers whose personal enthusiasm has to be tempered by the corporate structure available to them.

There's not much point being rude about the company which has no feelings of its own (at the expense of many people who do).
Better to focus on actual things that the franchise does well or does not do as well.

I feel like this is correct, which is slightly saddening because Ubisoft has some of the best talent in the industry that can't be properly exploited.

Farlander1991
08-17-2015, 06:16 PM
AC has no ownership. That left went Patrice left. Devs move from project to project - it is a job.

Naughty Dog owns their stuff. They make games. They let the games speak for themselves.

Not that I have anything against Naughty Dog (love Uncharted), but it's strange that you use them as an example of ownership, considering that they're for the past decade are owned by Sony (who also own the Uncharted and The Last of Us IPs, so they can do anything they want with them even when Naughty Dog decides to move on to other projects) and they don't have any consistent leads in their current flagship series (the combo of Creative Director, Game Director and Lead Game Designers is always different, with the closest to owners you can call Amy Henning who was Game Director on U1 and Creative Director on U2/U3, and Richard Lemarchand who was the Lead Game Designer on U1 and one of two Lead Game Designers on U2/U3, with the partner being different in both games - both, btw, don't work on U4 as they've left the studio).

SteelCity999
08-17-2015, 07:04 PM
[QUOTE=Farlander1991;10969263]Not that I have anything against Naughty Dog (love Uncharted), but it's strange that you use them as an example of ownership, considering that they're for the past decade are owned by Sony (who also own the Uncharted and The Last of Us IPs, so they can do anything they want with them even when Naughty Dog decides to move on to other projects) and they don't have any consistent leads in their current flagship series (the combo of Creative Director, Game Director and Lead Game Designers is always different, with the closest to owners you can call Amy Henning who was Game Director on U1 and Creative Director on U2/U3, and Richard Lemarchand who was the Lead Game Designer on U1 and one of two Lead Game Designers on U2/U3, with the partner being different in both games


I used ND as an example primarily because of their size and how they value their image and reputation. Ownership was used in a metaphorical sense, as in everyone has a vested interest in ND much differently than Ubisoft conducts business. Sony owns Uncharted and Last of Us but ND will forever consider it their baby. There was an interview regarding how ND felt like they had made a big mistake with the Last of Us because initial play tests weren't good. They even admitted that they lucked out in how everything came together. Never do I hear that type of ownership from Ubi except for sorry here are some free stuff. Those that make the mistakes get moved onto other projects, everything disappears.

There are other studios such as ND in the same ownership situation (legally and metaphorically).

Farlander1991
08-17-2015, 07:22 PM
Never do I hear that type of ownership from Ubi except for sorry here are some free stuff.

Yes, Ubi never says anything like that...
Except Jason Vadenberghe telling how his whole team was nervous because they didn't know how people would react to E3's For Honor reveal (also it's an idea that Jason had for a long time).
Or Valiant Hearts that was an idea Yoan Fannise had for a long time and exists because Yves Gulliemo fell in love with the idea and made it possible (even though the game wouldn't have been considered marketable at all).
Or Jeffrey Yohalem who defends in interviews his choices behind how Far Cry 3 was written.
Or Darby McDevitt who creates AMAs to talk with fans and explain how AC development works and why AC4 had some choices (both narrative-wise and game-wise) made the way they were.
And those are just some high-profile examples.

No ownership and nobody cares. Just a job. Sure.

SteelCity999
08-17-2015, 08:43 PM
[QUOTE=Farlander1991;10969332]Yes, Ubi never says anything like that...
Except Jason Vadenberghe telling how his whole team was nervous because they didn't know how people would react to E3's For Honor reveal (also it's an idea that Jason had for a long time).
Or Valiant Hearts that was an idea Yoan Fannise had for a long time and exists because Yves Gulliemo fell in love with the idea and made it possible (even though the game wouldn't have been considered marketable at all).
Or Jeffrey Yohalem who defends in interviews his choices behind how Far Cry 3 was written.
Or Darby McDevitt who creates AMAs to talk with fans and explain how AC development works and why AC4 had some choices (both narrative


If everyone at Ubi cared as much as Darby does, Ubi would be a much better company. There are people within Ubi that are passionate about what they do and when they speak, you can hear it. However, you can hear Ubi general attitude and culture in their marketing especially pre-release. Lots of scripted nonpassionate responses with AC. AC4 was a game I felt good about pre-release because of how it was talked about it. You could hear everyone owned that game. AC3, ACR, Unity, Rogue..not so much. I don't feel it with Syndicate either.

Many of those you refer to are not yearly releases and are part of the moving pieces around within ranks. Most of my frustration with Ubi is with AC. If Uncharted = ND's baby, AC = Ubi's b****. You can have good people put in a situation where it just ruins things. How can Far Cry succeed with some of the same staff that is on AC but AC consistently falters. Why does Ubi not fix it? Shareholders and dollar signs.

You can't take ownership of something unless that's all you do. To my knowledge, Darby has been with AC most if not all the time and he owns 100% about AC. Problem is that he is one guy who has bosses that have other concerns. Alex Hutchinson can take ownership of his work on AC3 and Far Cry 4 but how far can it extend beyond that? How much freedom did he have on each one? Post release, you hear more from those that are non-AC titles. Both Alex H and A disappeared post release. Gabe Graziani owns AC more...Rhino owns AC more..let him get involved.

I wish they would keep one AC team and stop the yearly releases. Keep people together so they can make franchise theirs...not just one game.

Sushiglutton
08-17-2015, 11:09 PM
Strictly speaking, 'Ubisoft' the company has no desire or lack of desire to do anything.
Ubisoft contains many committed and hard working developers whose personal enthusiasm has to be tempered by the corporate structure available to them.

There's not much point being rude about the company which has no feelings of its own (at the expense of many people who do).
Better to focus on actual things that the franchise does well or does not do as well.


yeah, you're right. I was thinking more in terms of corporate culture. Ubisoft seems very datadriven and kind of safe. Miss the old days where the visionaries were let loose.

Jexx21
08-18-2015, 02:14 AM
ubisoft is full of passionate and driven developers and designers bogged down by corporate policies and deadlines and the need to recuperate finances provided by shareholders

Jessigirl2013
08-19-2015, 01:05 PM
ubisoft is full of passionate and driven developers and designers bogged down by corporate policies and deadlines and the need to recuperate finances provided by shareholders

Makes me wonder how good an AC game would be if it had the development time of GTA 5.

Thatwould be a great game.:cool:

After Syndicate I bet UBI takes longer on the next entry.
For their PR if anything, I can already picture every review of Syndicate talking about how AC needs more development time.

LoyalACFan
08-20-2015, 07:38 AM
AC is also more entertaining than say Metal Gear Solid which also has this overly complex and cornball mythology but its not tied to anything tangible and compelling.

Lol, this struck me funny. IMO AC has easily the most needlessly complex and corny mythology in gaming (for starters; humanity was created in its exact current form by glowing space wizards as a slave race... lol come on, it's tinfoil-hat-brigade stuff) while MGS regularly uses extremely relevant modern-day themes as core narrative devices (information censorship, artificial intelligence, proxy warfare, genetic engineering, child soldiers, war crimes, etc).

Also I disagree with nearly everything else in your post, but it's late and I'm tired. Suffice it to say that I definitely don't think AC is nearly as "smart" as you seem to claim (though I still love it), and I think calling Undead Nightmare an improvement over RDR proper is a travesty against mankind :p

D.I.D.
08-20-2015, 12:56 PM
Lol, this struck me funny. IMO AC has easily the most needlessly complex and corny mythology in gaming (for starters; humanity was created in its exact current form by glowing space wizards as a slave race... lol come on, it's tinfoil-hat-brigade stuff) while MGS regularly uses extremely relevant modern-day themes as core narrative devices (information censorship, artificial intelligence, proxy warfare, genetic engineering, child soldiers, war crimes, etc).

Also I disagree with nearly everything else in your post, but it's late and I'm tired. Suffice it to say that I definitely don't think AC is nearly as "smart" as you seem to claim (though I still love it), and I think calling Undead Nightmare an improvement over RDR proper is a travesty against mankind :p

This, 100%, except the MGS business since I simply don't know - only played the first MGS on Playstation to any depth, although I did love the buffoonery of MGR.

The more they showed of TWCB, the more disappointing the whole thing became. Parts of the AC background are superb: people forget now, and in fact many young gamers wouldn't even recognise the phrase "invisible walls", but the game was the greatest answer to the invisible wall problem ever devised; the promise of a sort of time travel experience through the series, which has made AC into gaming's nearest equivalent in themes and potential longevity to Doctor Who; the way the set-up allows fans to look at almost any conflict in history and have a strong sense of which side would be Templars.

But something major was weakened when the lore pushed the conflict back too far. When you started playing AC1, that was the best - here's the present day, and at the other end here's the beginning. What we saw there should have been the beginning of the Assassins, the beginning of the Templars (more or less). That would have latched their origins into the real history and given them strength. Once they said, no, these two groups have been warring since the dawn of humanity, the whole thing wobbled. AC1 was no longer so important, the two groups lost their real-world historical foundation, and they also lost the spark of their enmity. No longer were they two different military cultures who'd happened to become aware of each other due to their policing of the same valuable territory, forever more to be inexorably wrapped up in each other's business; they were now two camps who fight... just because. And have ingrained beliefs about human nature since the dawn of time, for some reason. Okay.

As for TWCB, the space wizards/slave race thing is garbage, but it's not beyond redemption. Look at us, as a species: we're raising our technology in the hopes of making a perfect world, and the holy grail of computing is artificial intelligence. We try to build robots to be as good or better than animals, and meanwhile we develop the future brains of those robots in our computing devices (and we're not trying to model a new kind of intelligence, either - we want that intelligence to be just like the best of us). One day we'll put the two together. We won't stop there, and one day we'll have a moral problem and a practical one... how do we justify keeping intelligent slaves who are programmed to see thier own emotion-aping responses as real emotions, and how do we even manage to force their continued service? We're also building artificial flesh to repair ourselves and extend our lives; is there even the slightest chance that we would never give our automatons an organic structure? If we didn't, might not the automatons steal, adapt or even create it for themselves?

My guess has always been that the series would lead us to a point of discovery that TWCB are simply the previous version of us, and that eventually we'll make all the same mistakes again and recreate the same conditions they did, and our organic automatons will be the next human race after our destruction. We'd discover how many times this loop had run already. Maybe we could even handwave the archaeological problems away by claiming that previous waves of this loop had intentionally obliterated almost all evidence of themselves in an attempt to prevent their mistakes being repeated? So, in the end, the final part of the MD would be about finding a way to break this chain. Or about failing.

The current TWCB thing has no bite because it's not grounded in anything. Juno used to be one of a master race that had a seemingly perfect life, governing a world fuelled by human toil. And now she wants to enslave the world and find a physical form again, because.... because why? It's always the problem with supervillains who want to make the world worse and then be the ruler - it never makes sense to think, "What's in it for you?". Why don't they want to make the world utterly fantastic, themselves wealthy and secure, and then enjoy a lifetime of being endlessly entertained by a rich and fascinating world? Whatever a supervillain does want must be more compelling than that. Juno needs a motive or an explanation, and so far she doesn't have one.

shobhit7777777
08-20-2015, 07:22 PM
Can't speak for Ubisoft - a massive hive of international developers and stakeholders - regarding their "desire" to be anything....but I must say that Ubisoft manages to be both groundbreakingly creative and shockingly unimaginative at the same time.

Ubisoft pushes the boundaries with their high level design and gameplay concepts...it certainly has some of the most innovative games under its belt from a technical and design POV...it also is equally adept at ****ing up those concepts with mind bogglingly poor execution and just a general propensity to water down awesome ideas.

They lack a certain...je ne sais quoi....that killer's instinct that devs like Rocksteady, CDPR, R* have that takes there games to the next level...you can call it a "Soul" or an identity. The devs I mentioned absolutely OWN their games/genre and each title feels like it has its own signature.

Ubisoft also has that air of "Big Corporate Company" ...it makes it seems like their design decisions are driven from the perspective of "Will it retain 30% of our playerbase post Day 10 and help us drive up revenue with DLC?" rather than "Wouldn't being able to smash a window and use that glass as a makeshift dagger be awesome?! Cool...lets make it so!"

I'm not saying that all Ubi games are empty shells packed with "Mechanics" and "Systems"....there have been several gems over the years, but there is consistency. I guess thats an outcome of having over 3 million studios across 2 galaxies.

LoyalACFan
08-22-2015, 09:09 PM
Ubisoft also has that air of "Big Corporate Company" ...it makes it seems like their design decisions are driven from the perspective of "Will it retain 30% of our playerbase post Day 10 and help us drive up revenue with DLC?" rather than "Wouldn't being able to smash a window and use that glass as a makeshift dagger be awesome?! Cool...lets make it so!"

This is probably the best and most concise way I've seen it put. Ubi games always seem to be "just good enough."

EmptyCrustacean
08-22-2015, 10:08 PM
I completely disagree with the rest of your post but I wanted to address this prtion specifically:


The current TWCB thing has no bite because it's not grounded in anything. Juno used to be one of a master race that had a seemingly perfect life, governing a world fuelled by human toil. And now she wants to enslave the world and find a physical form again, because.... because why? It's always the problem with supervillains who want to make the world worse and then be the ruler - it never makes sense to think, "What's in it for you?". Why don't they want to make the world utterly fantastic, themselves wealthy and secure, and then enjoy a lifetime of being endlessly entertained by a rich and fascinating world? Whatever a supervillain does want must be more compelling than that. Juno needs a motive or an explanation, and so far she doesn't have one.

Have you seen Man of Steel? Terrible film but a similar question is posed to Zod when asked why he doesn't just live amongst the humans with all his super powers. Basically, Juno doesn't want a 'perfect world', she just wants the world she grew up in. It doesn't have to be logical because Juno isn't logical and has proven she is unable to see the bigger picture so is willing to do whatever it takes to get back to her old life no matter how amoral. That is her flaw.

Additionally, I am reminded of a classic quote "and this time it's personal": she resents humans from taking her world from her. Remember at the end of Brotherhood when she bitterly wondered why they bothered giving humans a 6th sense (Eagle vision)? To Juno, humans are only good as slaves and when they're free they create chaos.

She is is driven by revenge and power so yes, it makes perfect sense that her logic... makes no sense.

Jessigirl2013
08-22-2015, 10:29 PM
I completely disagree with the rest of your post but I wanted to address this prtion specifically:



Have you seen Man of Steel? Terrible film but a similar question is posed to Zod when asked why he doesn't just live amongst the humans with all his super powers. Basically, Juno doesn't want a 'perfect world', she just wants the world she grew up in. It doesn't have to be logical because Juno isn't logical and has proven she is unable to see the bigger picture so is willing to do whatever it takes to get back to her old life no matter how amoral. That is her flaw.

Additionally, I am reminded of a classic quote "and this time it's personal": she resents humans from taking her world from her. Remember at the end of Brotherhood when she bitterly wondered why they bothered giving humans a 6th sense (Eagle vision)? To Juno, humans are only good as slaves and when they're free they create chaos.

She is is driven by revenge and power so yes, it makes perfect sense that her logic... makes no sense.

I agree,
Junos goal is to have humans be slaves again to the first civ.;)

I just hope they more this snail pace of story on faster.
I mean, the last big story development was ACIII IMO.

D.I.D.
08-22-2015, 11:27 PM
I completely disagree with the rest of your post but I wanted to address this prtion specifically:



Have you seen Man of Steel? Terrible film but a similar question is posed to Zod when asked why he doesn't just live amongst the humans with all his super powers. Basically, Juno doesn't want a 'perfect world', she just wants the world she grew up in. It doesn't have to be logical because Juno isn't logical and has proven she is unable to see the bigger picture so is willing to do whatever it takes to get back to her old life no matter how amoral. That is her flaw.

Additionally, I am reminded of a classic quote "and this time it's personal": she resents humans from taking her world from her. Remember at the end of Brotherhood when she bitterly wondered why they bothered giving humans a 6th sense (Eagle vision)? To Juno, humans are only good as slaves and when they're free they create chaos.

She is is driven by revenge and power so yes, it makes perfect sense that her logic... makes no sense.

No, haven't seen it, and I'm not attracted to most superhero/supervillain films for exactly this reason: too many of the ones I've seen expect me to think it's understandable that their Satan figure wants to rule a ruined and/or joyless world, and saying they're simply mad is a weak way to excuse it. Revenge is also a weak way to excuse it, unless the Big Bad has an exit plan to follow it up. Power is a motivator for people, between people, because its the culmination of competition and that competition only makes sense because we're our own peers. What satisfaction is there in power for a god? It's a fundamental issue in rejecting religions that say their God demands your supplication, and if it's not forthcoming then you'll be destroyed or banished to some kind of Hell. This kind of thing doesn't bear even a few seconds of reflection before it stops making sense. To say Juno is driven by the desire for power is to say that she'll enjoy something about that power when she gets it, now and for the future.

In order to be any good, these stories need to consider the enemy winning and then think, "Okay, and what now?", otherwise they're weakening the story. Without that, they're telegraphing to the audience, "I haven't really thought about this too hard, but I don't have to because the hero's going to win anyway", and that's to the detriment of tension. There could be something ingenious to be unearthed if the writer goes looking for it, and the villain's plan would be reinforced by the results, and with it the story. A villain with great motivation is a villain to be feared, and a really sound basis for what they're doing ought to make the player feel more motivated to stop them.

That's if she's actively aggressive, but Juno could actually be more terrifying if she was less arch. To take your example that she just wants to put the world back how it was, if she had no particular malice about it but was just bent on doing that in a very bloodless way - literally just trying to put together the world as it was, like an ant with a self-contained blueprint of instincts and genetics - that could be really chilling, because there'd be no way to reason with such a creature. Alternatively, she could be suffering from the most dreadful over-concentration of emotions, and be driven by an extreme form of grief to do the same thing. There could be something terrible and yet heartbreaking about a character like that.

The one thing that could make Mwahaha-Juno good for me is if it turns out that she didn't want her world back at all. She began her plan with victory in mind, but then realised it wasn't really worth doing. She wants to die, and she can't do it herself because that eternal technology in the walls of the NY site is keeping her consciousness alive. The only way to bring death is to poke the most dangerous humans on the planet and make them believe she'll enslave them again by use of the Temple. They come and stop her: they win, she wins.