PDA

View Full Version : Ubisoft has never won GOTY (aggregated)



Sushiglutton
01-14-2016, 09:55 PM
Since we have been critized of being way too cheerful on this board, I thought we should look at things from a bit of negative angle for once. Anyway I was clicking through the GOTY pick blog (http://gotypicks.blogspot.se/). It aggregates GOTY awards from a vast number of outlets and then, for each year, ranks games based on how many they get. So far they have done this for thirteen years (2003-2015).

As I was skimming through the various lists I noticed that Ubisoft has never won! Not once! The highest ranked Ubisoft game is FarCry 3 which finished 3rd in 2012. Assassin's Creed was ranked 5th in 2009. The other decent finish for AC was in 2012 when AC3 finished 7th. If you look at the lists you can see that pretty much every other major publishers have won and/or have had several top three finishers.

Why do you think this is?

Farlander1991
01-14-2016, 10:29 PM
Uhm, on that very site you can see that Ubisoft has won quite a lot of GotYs, what are you talking about? O_o

cawatrooper9
01-15-2016, 04:19 PM
GOTY isn't a single award, like the Superbowl. It's a term that many reviewers use to refer to their top pick of the year.

Here, you can see Ubisoft has gotten 10 of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Game_of_the_Year_awards

VestigialLlama4
01-15-2016, 07:21 PM
All I know is that Ubisoft put out a GOTY edition for Assassin's Creed II which I bought. So that one qualifies.

RVSage
01-15-2016, 07:48 PM
AC 2 and 3 hae got GOTYs

HDinHB
01-15-2016, 08:12 PM
Even Unity got GOTY.

And Ubisoft has been awarded dozens of GOTY for various games.

If you look at the site Sushi linked, and scroll about 9/10 of the way down in any particular year, you will come to a section called * The Winners of this year *. There they add up all (or most) of the many many many GOTY awards and rank the games by the number of GOTY awards received that year. For example, in 2015, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt got 211 GOTY awards, making it the GOTY (aggregate) champion for 2015. Sushi is pointing out that Ubisoft has never had the most GOTY awards in a year by that calculation.

I think it shows, more than anything, that a GOTY award in itself is pretty worthless for gauging a game. The aggregate method may be better, as some of the "Winners of the year" were great games, some were good, and some I haven't played.

Sushiglutton
01-15-2016, 08:17 PM
Lol this went well.... :D! http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aggregated

aggregated
To gather into a mass, sum, or whole: aggregated the donations into one bank account.
2. To amount to; total: Revenues will aggregate more than one million dollars.
3. To collect (content from different sources on the Internet) into one webpage or newsreader.




What the site does is to add up all GOTYs for different games. So for example for 2015 the top 3 is:

1) The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - 211
2) Fallout 4 - 48
3) Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain - 27


The number at the end shows how many GOTYs the game has won in total. Ubisoft has never made a game that won the most GOTYs a certain year. Since noone understood this I suppose I was unclear and that "aggregated" can't be used in this context, so sorry about that.

Edit: HD got it, thank you :D!

HDinHB
01-15-2016, 08:45 PM
Well, they kind of buried the lead by putting the goodies at the bottom of the page instead of the top. They listed the "Big Winner" of each year on the left, but didn't really emphasize it or explain it--it almost looks like an ad. If they had listed the top 3 or 5 games of each year, along with the studio/publisher, that would be interesting. I'm just not interested enough to do that work myself :).

Farlander1991
01-15-2016, 08:48 PM
The number at the end shows how many GOTYs the game has won in total. Ubisoft has never made a game that won the most GOTYs a certain year. Since noone understood this I suppose I was unclear and that "aggregated" can't be used in this context, so sorry about that.

Neither did Blizzard, Nintendo, and a bunch of others that are considered best companies out there, so I don't see what's your point. :p

SixKeys
01-15-2016, 09:36 PM
If you look at the list, it's incredibly samey. While an aggregate method may seem more reliable than just looking at individual entries, you will still end up with a biased list consisting only of the most popular games that year. Telltale's The Walking Dead is the only real surprise there. Everything else - Skyrim, RDR, Fallout 3, Uncharted - did anyone not see these games winning a bunch of awards from a mile ahead? They all had prominent ad campaigns and hundreds of millions of dollars poured into them. Where are highly praised (and fairly popular) indie games like Journey, Braid, The Stanley Parable or Amnesia that don't fit the mold? All games that received 9s and 10s across the board - and several GOTY nominations - but had no hope of competing with the juggernauts that were advertised all year long with massive campaigns and given extensive airtime on game preview shows. It may seem fair on the surface, but it's still a flawed system.

Sushiglutton
01-15-2016, 10:23 PM
Neither did Blizzard, Nintendo, and a bunch of others that are considered best companies out there, so I don't see what's your point. :p

If you look at the lists you see that Nintendo have many top finishers even though they haven't won (their golden age creatively was the NES-N64 days). Blizzard makes games in genres that just won't appear on lists like this. Ubisoft on the other hand develop the exact kind of games that frequent these lists.



If you look at the list, it's incredibly samey. While an aggregate method may seem more reliable than just looking at individual entries, you will still end up with a biased list consisting only of the most popular games that year. Telltale's The Walking Dead is the only real surprise there. Everything else - Skyrim, RDR, Fallout 3, Uncharted - did anyone not see these games winning a bunch of awards from a mile ahead? They all had prominent ad campaigns and hundreds of millions of dollars poured into them. Where are highly praised (and fairly popular) indie games like Journey, Braid, The Stanley Parable or Amnesia that don't fit the mold? All games that received 9s and 10s across the board - and several GOTY nominations - but had no hope of competing with the juggernauts that were advertised all year long with massive campaigns and given extensive airtime on game preview shows. It may seem fair on the surface, but it's still a flawed system.

Journey finished second (behind the Walking Dead) in 2012, but you are right it's for the most part only a certain type of games that can top a list like this (for example sport/racing/strategy games etc have zero chance). But read your description of the games that win and think about how that fits Watchdogs, Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell and FarCry. Ubisoft makes the exact type of games that can potentially win, it's just that they don't.

Sesheenku
01-16-2016, 12:53 AM
I didn't think people even paid attention to that list anymore.

It's an irrelevant relic in the gaming industry that only serves to hype mediocre triple A fare.

Unfortunately this day and age, true gems in gaming must be found, they no longer present themselves in commercials and make it easy.

Although AC is at least a decent series in my opinion, the Final Fantasy of open world action if you will. Some games you'll hate, some you'll love, and some you'll pretend don't exist.

crusader_prophet
01-16-2016, 01:44 AM
Neither did Blizzard, Nintendo, and a bunch of others that are considered best companies out there, so I don't see what's your point. :p

You see the point very clearly, yo do not want to acknowledge it. There is a difference. What sushi meant to convey (if it wasn't already clear) is AC games have never been that good to match up to win the most awards in a given year while up against the other highly funded games, considering there has been 9 main entries now. AC2 came the closest yet didn't finish in top three. TLOU, Bloodborne they are not even series of games, just one game!

SixKeys
01-16-2016, 02:33 AM
You see the point very clearly, yo do not want to acknowledge it. There is a difference. What sushi meant to convey is AC games have never been that good to match up to win the most awards in a given year, considering there has been 9 main entries now.

Neither has Mass Effect, but I don't think you'll find many people who think that's a sign the games aren't good enough.

crusader_prophet
01-16-2016, 02:47 AM
Neither has Mass Effect, but I don't think you'll find many people who think that's a sign the games aren't good enough.

Mass Effect 2 won 101 GOTY awards standing at 2nd place and ME3 won 25 GOTY awards standing on 5th place. There are only 3 games in the series. Dragon Age: Origins won 21 awards standing at 4th place just ahead of AC2 the best in AC series, DA: Inquisition won 134 awards stood at 1st place. Considering BioWare's size compared to UbiSoft's size I would say that's pretty decent performance by BioWare, on top of that there are only 3 games each in ME series and DA series and combined it is less than AC series alone.

Farlander1991
01-16-2016, 03:32 AM
All these numbers are irrelevant unless you're marketing department or your interest is solely in video game ***** size-measuring contest.

An aggregate of games selected for Game of the Year award is even a grosser over-simplification than Metacritic, as Game of the Year in all the publications would be selected not just based on the review of the publication (which is in essence usually an opinion of one critic), but also cultural factors, historical (in terms of what happened/didn't happen in the industry at that time), and the general gaming profile of all members of a publication (which, btw, as gaming journalism is still pretty young, most of its members have very similar general gaming profiles and preferences). It's a complex choice, based on a lot of factors. And it's not a definitive one, the choices between GotY potentially can go any way, because it's a result of a discussion about all the possible candidates. Transforming it into a number for a list of GotYs makes it lose all meaning and significance, especially when you start comparing the GotY numbers between each other.

So, yeah, if a game receives tons of GotY awards you can certainly say it's an amazing game and there's something to learn from it, but then saying that it's somehow superior to a game (and I'm not talking just about AC here) that has less GotYs just based on that number is disservice to both games.

ze_topazio
01-16-2016, 03:58 AM
The video game industry kinda needs some awards ceremony with the same prestige of the oscars, one awards ceremony to rule them all.

crusader_prophet
01-16-2016, 04:34 AM
All these numbers are irrelevant unless you're marketing department or your interest is solely in video game ***** size-measuring contest.

So, yeah, if a game receives tons of GotY awards you can certainly say it's an amazing game and there's something to learn from it, but then saying that it's somehow superior to a game (and I'm not talking just about AC here) that has less GotYs just based on that number is disservice to both games.

Those numbers aren't the only basis for that argument. It is one of the many bullet points spread across in this forum that proves that the series is in dismay and something needs to change. Besides those numbers also show universal acclaim and not being used to show comparison. They are presented to show UbiSoft games more or less absence among the top games' which poses a question - why aren't they there?

Ureh
01-16-2016, 05:28 AM
Goty seems to be kinda controversial, which is great for site traffic and making lots of money. It's also a list telling potential buyers that have limited time/money that they should focus on those. Makes sense too since there are new mountains of games built every year and buyers don't want to sift through that (except for the E.T. game that one decided to bury itself underground instead and people went looking for them). It's a list that some of those games' fans need to help reassure them that their game is considered the victor of that year. Everyone knows all these things... but what we don't know is what is the criteria for getting the Goty-tiara. What kind of journalists and syndicates are contributing their opinion and votes to compile that list and crown that one game.

Some of the criteria are probably obvious: how fun is it; how much did they enjoy it, valued gameplay for your valuable time

Other factors are a bit more nuanced: graphics, sound/music, multiplayer, overall first impressions that the judges get for the considerable (or not so considerable) time they put into the games, bugs/glitches/optimisation, news and controversy for that game, who is the game trying to appeal to, reputation that the developer projects to its audience, exposure of the game before/after release, and even how well the developer treats/caters to the journalists.

Lots of other things I'm sure. Such as how well do these companies incorporate fan feedback, does it matter in the voting process?

I haven't played any of the Top 3 aggregated Goty games, I will probably get around to them. But I can probably point certain aspects of those games that I'm almost certain exist:

Witcher 3 - Very developed story, mission structure. Lots of side content, and most them have cutscenes, which means that Developed ambient music during free-roam (ie lasts several minutes). It's part of a trilogy and I would go as far as to say that most of the people who played W3 didn't play W1 or 2; it might be that being a "fresh" experience played a big role. Although I've heard some long time fans complain that by making the game easier for new fans to fit in, it means not fully acknowledging decisions made in previous games (ex: Shani a primary romance in W1 is locked behind dlc, Henselt and Kaedwen are pretty much addressed in a handful of lines, etc). It's got quite a bit of sensual content, including full developed relationships with two sorceresses, which probably appeals to a lot of people. CD Projekt makes sure that everyone knows what their stance is on DRM (they're against it). Makes sure to call their gigantic DLCs as expansions instead, the word that was commonly used to describe sequels back in 90s. I heard that it had certain controversies: graphical downgrades, publishers and developers denying the downgrade, the allegations that CD Projekt might've forced their developers to work much harder than they should've to meet deadlines.

Fallout 4 - Bethesda has established a really strong reputation as architects of a varied open worlds filled with lots of content. A good chunk of FO4's content are new to the series and when they presented those things accurately at E3 and subsequent events it got a lot of approval. Their soundtracks are fully developed, lots of free-roam ambient music (Jeremy Soule and Inon Zur are very popular and have been with their respective series for years and years). It's pretty much the third entry in a "trilogy" since Bethesda reignited the franchise with Fallout 3, not a yearly franchise. Todd Howard is very popular and familiar face among the established fan base; well known for being polite, pretty honest, his values for giving players a sandbox to play in, etc. Guranteed to have massive DLCs that add lots of new areas, new items, etc. Their games are filled to the brim with bugs, glitches, and a bunch of other issues which most people don't seem to mind. Rarely suffers any PR blunders, I think the most recent one was when Pete Hines said something on twitter and it got a lot of lore-fans pretty offended. I'm almost certain they don't embellish their games - for the most part - so no graphical downgrades after a demo/trailer, what you saw is what you'll get... and more.

Metal Gear Solid 5: Phantom Pain - Another open world game, the first in the franchise to attempt this style of gameplay and I've seen enough to know it's a good first attempt. It seemed to add just enough lore for long-time fans to enjoy, but not too much so that new fans can get into it as well. I especially remember the original songs written for this game (the main theme, Quiet's theme), the trailers had really good music, and I believe they included a lot of old classics on cassette tapes in the game. I haven't heard many complaints about major bugs/glitches or other issues. They had Hideo Kojima who garners a lot of support from people. He's respectful, polite, pretty honest, cool, etc. The only controversies that I can recall are 1) that Konami made themselves look like villains with how they treated Kojima and the allegations that all of their employees are treated like workhorses. From what I can tell though this actually gained quite a bit of positive support for the game, not for Konami, but for Kojima and his team. 2) Ground Zeroes was unnecessary and clearly trying to milk the franchise and 3) Quiet's lack of a dress code received mixed reactions.

I'm certain I missed a lot of things in this post. But from what I can tell, people - especially long time gamers - yearn for fresh, open-world experiences. They want a world that they can dunk lots of hours into and that it values their time by offering lots of quality gameplay. All three games have relationships with NPCs that you can choose to foster (Triss/Yennefer/Ciri/Shani/All the Companions in FO4/Quiet/Snake's aka Your Army). Not much misrepresentation when these games were being demo'd and promoted, what we saw was what we got for the most part. 2 out of 3 of these companies have a poster guy that lots of people respect. We can probably go on and guess as to why or why not those games were chosen, these games were chosen, why that game and that other one wasn't chosen. Almost all games deserve a lot of praise and criticism.

But at the same time we have to remember that these Goty awards are pretty arbitrary, as far as I can tell, they're decided by a handful of people vs (huge) fan bases which may or may not agree regardless of the reasons. Most importantly all of you bring up pretty good points. So I guess in the end I'm gonna have to say that Goty of the awards still shouldn't matter but it seems that most people hold them in high regard cause that's how it's always been for a lot of things.

SixKeys
01-16-2016, 06:27 AM
Mass Effect 2 won 101 GOTY awards standing at 2nd place and ME3 won 25 GOTY awards standing on 5th place. There are only 3 games in the series. Dragon Age: Origins won 21 awards standing at 4th place just ahead of AC2 the best in AC series, DA: Inquisition won 134 awards stood at 1st place. Considering BioWare's size compared to UbiSoft's size I would say that's pretty decent performance by BioWare, on top of that there are only 3 games each in ME series and DA series and combined it is less than AC series alone.

My point is that if we're merely going by the aggregated number on that site to determine the most "worthy" GOTY winners, then AC isn't the only game not featured. That's why I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. To say AC isn't good enough because it hasn't won as many awards as DA or Fallout? Then neither is Mass Effect, or GTA, or Metal Gear Solid, or the Arkham games, or a whole bunch of other AAA games that didn't make it to #1 or even among the top 3 for each year. Why is AC being singled out as if that's proof of something?

Farlander1991
01-16-2016, 01:30 PM
Those numbers aren't the only basis for that argument. It is one of the many bullet points spread across in this forum that proves that the series is in dismay and something needs to change. Besides those numbers also show universal acclaim and not being used to show comparison. They are presented to show UbiSoft games more or less absence among the top games' which poses a question - why aren't they there?

Those numbers are totally used for comparison (look, game X has more GotY than game Y, company X has more GotY than company Y). And universal acclaim, once again, it's not as simple as number of GotYs. If you want to speak universal acclaim and numbers, AC2 has 90 metacritic average across platforms, 10 million sales, is widely regarded as one of the best AC games out there and the one that transformed AC from an ambitious but niche open-world game into a cultural phenomenon to the point that even people who haven't played AC or are not gamers know of the Assassin hooded figure. Is that not universal acclaim?

And yes, it lost to Uncharted 2, a game that has shown the power of the PS3 platform, motion capture, cinematography mixed with gameplay. But more importantly, it's a quality fun pulpy third person action game, which a lot more groups would agree on rather than a historical open-world action adventure game with sci-fi elements. For all ACs popularity, sales, marketing, it's still a relatively niche kind of game. A group selecting GotY would more easily agree on Uncharted than on AC2. Due to other things as well, i.e. AC2 was not the game that showed what's possible on PS3, motion capture technology and cinematography induced in gameplay.

And if numbers prove that the series is in dismay, then I guess the Tomb Raiders, Deus Ex, Arkham series, Bayonetta, World of WarCraft, and many other great games/series are in dismay as well. And also all should hail Bethesda as it's the best gaming company out there that does the best games that kick all other games' asses unequivocally.

And I'm not saying the AC series isn't in need of big changes. It is. But there are other arguments that prove it, this GotY thing is something unrelated that just due to the current circumstances happens to apply as well, but it breaks down when you really start applying it to most of other acclaimed and great games or series that don't have as many GotYs as other games. Pure amount of GotY is not an indication of no universal acclaim, it's not an indication of absence of quality, and whenever a GotY is selected, there's many factors that come into it which are lost when it's transformed into a simple number.

dimbismp
01-16-2016, 03:24 PM
My point is that if we're merely going by the aggregated number on that site to determine the most "worthy" GOTY winners, then AC isn't the only game not featured. That's why I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. To say AC isn't good enough because it hasn't won as many awards as DA or Fallout? Then neither is Mass Effect, or GTA, or Metal Gear Solid, or the Arkham games, or a whole bunch of other AAA games that didn't make it to #1 or even among the top 3 for each year. Why is AC being singled out as if that's proof of something?

The thing is that there are 9 main AC games,while there are only 3 MEs,2-3GTAs,2-3MGSs and 4 Arkham games in the same time.

So,in the last 9 years:

AC: 9 games,0 winners,2-3 games(AC2,AC4 and maybe ACB) in the top 5
Arkham:4 games,0 winners,2 games(BAA and BAC) in top 5(maybe 3 ,i don't remember)
GTA:2 games,0 winners,but both games were top 5(for example GTA V was runner up in 2013)
MGS:2 games,0 winners,but MGSV was in top 3(maybe MGS4,i didn't notice that)

And i think that the overral GOTY is not controversial at all.One GOTY on its own may be controversial,but when you sum 300 critics' and gamers' awards,then the result is not subjective.

Megas_Doux
01-16-2016, 03:36 PM
NO AC has ever been a true GOTY game contender for me, not even my favorite which is ACIV or the most acclaimed one, AC II. No AC ever has delivered 9/10 , 9.5/10 and let alone 10/10 in the story or gameplay departments. It has the potential to deliver that quality of a game, though.

The "golden age" of AC games had mediocre at best core mechanics and the stories were like 8/10 being super generous however the shock value and overall lore were present. Now the mechanics have improved a bit -still super average-, but the stories are even more "mehish" than before and the lore is gone; whereas shock value died with annualization.




PD Every time I read, see or hear that Metal Gear solid V is a 9.5/10 or even a 10/10 game I die a little inside. Worst main MGS game to date on every aspect with the exception of the boss battle...

VestigialLlama4
01-16-2016, 04:08 PM
NO AC has ever been a true GOTY game contender for me, not even my favorite which is ACIV or the most acclaimed one, AC II. No AC ever has delivered 9/10 , 9.5/10 and let alone 10/10 in the story or gameplay departments. It has the potential to deliver that quality of a game, though.

The "golden age" of AC games had mediocre at best core mechanics and the stories were like 8/10 being super generous however the shock value and overall lore were present. Now the mechanics have improved a bit -still super average-, but the stories are even more "mehish" than before and the lore is gone; whereas shock value died with annualization.

I think award shows and honors like GOTY are silly to get hung over. It matters to developers in that it could give them more confidence and protection from their bosses but it has no real bearing on quality. Red Dead Redemption is considered a big GOTY title but it's essentially a shallow product with terrible missions and an open world dotted with cliches from westerns.

So if that is the barometer of GOTY then it's a good thing that AC hasn't produced a title like that.


One GOTY on its own may be controversial,but when you sum 300 critics' and gamers' awards,then the result is not subjective.

EVERYTHING is subjective when it comes to awards and opinions. All these lists tell us is what some game critics, fans and professionals consider interesting. And these lists are very self-revealing.

The main thing AC has going against it compared to other GOTY titles is that unlike GTA/RDR, Metal Gear Solid, Batman Arkham, the games are not really American or "American-Centric" in terms of content (setting/protagonist). None of the main AC historical protagonists are American as the Industry identifies it (i.e. White, American-Accented, Male). The only American is Connor and well he's Mohawk and the American Revolution, a time when the Americans spoke English with British Accents, just doesn't strike the meathead crowd as a Western Aryan Fantasy like Red Dead Redemption does.

The gaming industry still appeals primarily to that meathead base of nerds/jocks/misogynists/gamergaters and Ubisoft and AC are the only real mainstream franchise that is an exception to that. Granted there are compromises and Ubisoft is backsliding in the recent games (since AC3 we've had Anglo Main Heroes and a White Picket Fence as Ubisoft are punished by online nerdrage for a non-white hero) but primarily AC is not a "mass appeal" franchise, not as the industry identifies it. Skyrim and Elder Scrolls has that whole fantasy thing, you can add Witcher with its game of thrones style sex and violence to that mix, Rockstar Games despite being Scottish fly the Meathead Flag high and then there's Batman, a rich white dude beating up the poor and the mentally ill.

Now I am not saying that all these are bad games but the fact is their appeal and approval is to a great deal a reflection of content and surface details.

dimbismp
01-16-2016, 04:27 PM
EVERYTHING is subjective when it comes to awards and opinions. All these lists tell us is what some game critics, fans and professionals consider interesting. And these lists are very self-revealing.
Each critic and each gamer is subjective when he makes his own GOTY list.But,each gaming-site award is being made by at least 10 people on average.Multiply that by 200 critics' awards,and you get 2000 people.Then you have another 100 fans' awards.In each of them,at least 1000 people voted.You get another 100000 people.So in total you get many-many people,who represent the whole gaming community.This aggregated GOTY is objective.


The main thing AC has going against it compared to other GOTY titles is that unlike GTA/RDR, Metal Gear Solid, Batman Arkham, the games are not really American or "American-Centric" in terms of content (setting/protagonist). None of the main AC historical protagonists are American as the Industry identifies it (i.e. White, American-Accented, Male). The only American is Connor and well he's Mohawk and the American Revolution, a time when the Americans spoke English with British Accents, just doesn't strike the meathead crowd as a Western Aryan Fantasy like Red Dead Redemption does.

The gaming industry still appeals primarily to that meathead base of nerds/jocks/misogynists/gamergaters and Ubisoft and AC are the only real mainstream franchise that is an exception to that. Granted there are compromises and Ubisoft is backsliding in the recent games (since AC3 we've had Anglo Main Heroes and a White Picket Fence as Ubisoft are punished by online nerdrage for a non-white hero) but primarily AC is not a "mass appeal" franchise, not as the industry identifies it. Skyrim and Elder Scrolls has that whole fantasy thing, you can add Witcher with its game of thrones style sex and violence to that mix, Rockstar Games despite being Scottish fly the Meathead Flag high and then there's Batman, a rich white dude beating up the poor and the mentally ill.

Now I am not saying that all these are bad games but the fact is their appeal and approval is to a great deal a reflection of content and surface details.
This is just an excuse.Next thing we hear is that AC is a secret gem,but it is underrated because of its risky and revolutionary ideas.

The only game that is America-centric out of your list is GTA.
Are you seriously saying that people play the Batman games because they are "America-centric"?
What about other games?Is Witcher or Skyrim an american-centric game?
You seem to think that just because AC doesn't take place in Modern day America,it isn't America-centric.

VestigialLlama4
01-16-2016, 05:02 PM
Each critic and each gamer is subjective when he makes his own GOTY list.But,each gaming-site award is being made by at least 10 people on average.Multiply that by 200 critics' awards,and you get 2000 people.Then you have another 100 fans' awards.In each of them,at least 1000 people voted.You get another 100000 people.So in total you get many-many people,who represent the whole gaming community.This aggregated GOTY is objective.

All of whom represent the Vocal Minority, a small handful of people who play the games and then post and vote online. Most gamers don't do these polls. By gamers I mean anyone who plays the game, I don't mean regular and hardcore players who to me are no more gamer than anyone else.

I notice that none of the GOTY games includes stuff by Nintendo, nor does it feature Dark Souls or other games made in Japan. Kojima is represented but then Metal Gear Solid is American-centric. I wonder if ICO and Shadow of the Colossus is a little too old to qualify for Game of the Year, but Journey is recent and it's not there either, is it?


This is just an excuse.Next thing we hear is that AC is a secret gem,but it is underrated because of its risky and revolutionary ideas.

Compared to the rest of the industry, a very low barrier, AC is risky and revolutionary.


The only game that is America-centric out of your list is GTA.

You are forgetting that Metal Gear Solid is American-centric. It's entirely about America in the Cold War, its lead characters are all American and its drawn mostly from American pop culture. Yes it's made by a Japanese developer and it has some unique quirks but it's basically American.


Are you seriously saying that people play the Batman games because they are "America-centric"?

Which other country produces superheroes? I mean superheroes on the same fame as American comics? Superheroes are essentially American as a genre and its appeal is very American. Bruce Wayne is essentially an American fantasy, Donald Trump in Tights.


What about other games?Is Witcher or Skyrim an american-centric game?

Well that particular kind of fantasy genre - Dungeons and Dragons/Lord of the Rings/Game of Thrones - from which all three derive form a part of America's pop culture. Witcher is made by Polish developers and it's written by a Polish author yes, but the games are really American, with the softcore porn and sex fantasies which forms a big part of its appeal.


You seem to think that just because AC doesn't take place in Modern day America,it isn't America-centric.

Well I am quite sure that AC did play a big role in teaching many American gamers geography, which is an upgrade from Disney's Aladdin I am quite sure. The games do target an American audience but at least in its early games (upto Black Flag) it did have a wider set of references than other games. Patrice Desilets was inspired by Italian movies and Slovenian novels for instance.

TO_M
01-16-2016, 05:25 PM
Bruce Wayne is essentially an American fantasy, Donald Trump in Tights.


Lol, please don't use Batman as an example anymore since you obviously don't understand the character at all.

And btw, AC is not some misunderstood game that only appeals to the cultured intellectuals.

dimbismp
01-16-2016, 06:00 PM
All of whom represent the Vocal Minority, a small handful of people who play the games and then post and vote online. Most gamers don't do these polls. By gamers I mean anyone who plays the game, I don't mean regular and hardcore players who to me are no more gamer than anyone else.

And what makes you believe that the gamers who don't vote have a different opinion than the ones who vote?


I notice that none of the GOTY games includes stuff by Nintendo, nor does it feature Dark Souls or other games made in Japan. Kojima is represented but then Metal Gear Solid is American-centric. I wonder if ICO and Shadow of the Colossus is a little too old to qualify for Game of the Year, but Journey is recent and it's not there either, is it?
Both nintendo and DS have some top 5 spots.
Journey has a #2 spot





Compared to the rest of the industry, a very low barrier, AC is risky and revolutionary.

No it isn't.
We always play as the good guys,who,despite being mass murderers,almost never feel any guilt or question their actions.They kill the bad tyrants and free the opressed people.Almost all the historical characters are either assassins or their allies.Very risky indeed.
Now,let's see the "american-centric" games:
GTA:Satirizes the american dream
Witcher(especially 1+2):Deals with some mature themes such as racism.Also,they do not hold your hand gameplay-wise.
MGS:The definition of risky narrative.


You are forgetting that Metal Gear Solid is American-centric. It's entirely about America in the Cold War, its lead characters are all American and its drawn mostly from American pop culture. Yes it's made by a Japanese developer and it has some unique quirks but it's basically American.

I disagree.The characters may be american but there are some serious anti-war messages.Plus,all this Kojima craziness is definitely not a product of american pop culture



Which other country produces superheroes? I mean superheroes on the same fame as American comics? Superheroes are essentially American as a genre and its appeal is very American. Bruce Wayne is essentially an American fantasy, Donald Trump in Tights.

Seriously?If we were talking about Superman,Spiderman or Ironman,you would mostly be right,but Batman is a completely different type of superhero.Parallelizing him with Trump(while the only thing they have in common is their nationality and their wealth)is just stupid.




Well that particular kind of fantasy genre - Dungeons and Dragons/Lord of the Rings/Game of Thrones - from which all three derive form a part of America's pop culture. Witcher is made by Polish developers and it's written by a Polish author yes, but the games are really American, with the softcore porn and sex fantasies which forms a big part of its appeal.

The games do target an American audience but at least in its early games (upto Black Flag) it did have a wider set of references than other games. Patrice Desilets was inspired by Italian movies and Slovenian novels for instance.
Double standards.The games are based on polish novels(who had an eastern european target audience),based on slavic myths and medieval europe.The sex parts are just a minor part of the games,but you exaggerate about them.Especially the first two games,were the definition of "Non-american centric" games

VestigialLlama4
01-16-2016, 06:44 PM
And what makes you believe that the gamers who don't vote have a different opinion than the ones who vote?

Well you won't know until they vote now will you. And I am skeptical about these voting processes naturally.


Now,let's see the "american-centric" games:
GTA:Satirizes the american dream

Satirizing the American Dream is a pretty safe thing to do. Actually the GTA games don't satirize it, they glorify the American dream. The whole point of the games is that you can succeed by being a crook and own property and mansions by personally killing people. As far as satire goes, it's very tame and sub-Tarantino, and Tarantino himself is very safe.

Most people who play GTA remember the filthy humor, the crazy violence and running down prostitutes and other people and the over-the-top caricatures. The recent games are also quite misogynist which naturally appeals to the sentiments of the meathead crowd.


Witcher(especially 1+2):Deals with some mature themes such as racism.

Assassin's Creed tackled actual racism in actual history and they did it without having an Aryan-looking dude as the hero.


MGS:The definition of risky narrative.

By certain video game standards yes. But these days, with all the endless cutscenes and boring conversations, it's kind of silly to replay. All people register is you playing a badass Kurt Russell knock-off, the one time Hideo Kojima tried to challenge that, people hated it and he went back with Snake Eater.


I disagree.The characters may be american but there are some serious anti-war messages.

It's not as anti-war as Spec Ops: The Line which by the way is an American game. You seem to imply that being "anti-war" qualifies as something not being American, when the truth is no other country aside from America has seen as much success with anti-war protests as the United States.


Seriously?If we were talking about Superman,Spiderman or Ironman,you would mostly be right,but Batman is a completely different type of superhero.

Yes because unlike Superman and Spiderman who derive from immigrant and working class backgrounds, and unlike Iron Man who actually has a public superhero identity, Batman is a private vigilante elitist.


Double standards.The games are based on polish novels(who had an eastern european target audience),based on slavic myths and medieval europe.The sex parts are just a minor part of the games,but you exaggerate about them.Especially the first two games,were the definition of "Non-american centric" games

Read this:http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2015/06/04/witcher-3-and-diversity/
Let me quote an excerpt
:Firstly, Polish/Slavic mythology isn’t really a thing...The ancient Slavic people that roamed central and eastern Europe territories that we now recognize as Poland left virtually no written records. Most of their religious beliefs, customs, rituals and stories have been very successfully erased from history by the efforts of the Catholic Church...While we know of a handful of Slavic gods that were worshiped, most of what we know about them is based on conjecture based on analysis of the precious few stone and wooden idols that were not smashed or burned by the Inquisition, and church records...So anyone telling you that Witcher 3 is based on actual Slavic mythology is full of s--t. We literally know more about the religion and myths of fictional land of Westeros than those of very real, pre-Christian Poles...In fact, A. Sapkowski’s entire shtick for early Witcher stories was to take a classic fairy tale (more often something from Grimm Brother’s rather than from actual Slavic folklore), apply 90’s style “edgy” filter by making everyone curse like a sailor, have the Witcher blunder into the mess and then reveal the good guys are actually the bad guys at the end. The books are standard Fantasy pulp, with very standard Fantasy elves and dwarfs imported directly from Tolkien. Geralt’s story arc pivots around fairy tales and trope subversions to ultimately fall into an Arthurian heroic archetype. Sapkowski swims in anachronisms and constantly winks at the readers to the point of breaking the fourth wall...Witcher 3 pedigree is as much D&D, pulp fantasy and Tolkien as it is Slavic mythology. Sapkowski never intended it to be held up as a celebration of Slavic mythology.

Sushiglutton
01-16-2016, 06:45 PM
My point is that if we're merely going by the aggregated number on that site to determine the most "worthy" GOTY winners, then AC isn't the only game not featured. That's why I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. To say AC isn't good enough because it hasn't won as many awards as DA or Fallout? Then neither is Mass Effect, or GTA, or Metal Gear Solid, or the Arkham games, or a whole bunch of other AAA games that didn't make it to #1 or even among the top 3 for each year. Why is AC being singled out as if that's proof of something?


I didn't single out AC, I singled out Ubisoft one of the biggest producers in the industry. For example Ubisoft is one of two producers that consistently have their own E3 conference (Bethesda had one in 2015 but that's an exception). As I pointed out Ubisoft also makes the exact type of games that typically win GOTYs (action // action-adventure, character driven games with high production values) and yet their results in these rankings have been abysmal.


I think this has to do with their games being too formulaic and designed by committee. They are liked by many, loved by few. Parts of their games are magical, but then they add too much BS on top which make them hard to really love. I think this data shows what a lot of fans are complaining about when they are (somewhat unfairly) talking about the "Ubisoft Formula". I think Ubisfot should take this seriously if they wanna play the long game.

crusader_prophet
01-16-2016, 06:54 PM
If you want to speak universal acclaim and numbers, AC2 has 90 metacritic average across platforms, 10 million sales, is widely regarded as one of the best AC games out there and the one that transformed AC from an ambitious but niche open-world game into a cultural phenomenon to the point that even people who haven't played AC or are not gamers know of the Assassin hooded figure. Is that not universal acclaim?

I never argued about AC2 not receiving universal acclaim. I think that is the only game in the entire series where you would find unequivocal agreement among players that it is a masterpiece. I also said those numbers are one of many other reasons that AC needs some sort of change. I wouldn't care about those numbers if that was the only thing AC was lacking. Hope I am making sense? But I get your point, those numbers cannot be the sole basis of saying one game/series is better than the other, and I agree completely. I only stated it is one of many other reasons that should make one wonder about AC series, but not necessarily the only thing.

dimbismp
01-16-2016, 07:10 PM
Well you won't know until they vote now will you.
I have no reason to believe that they would have a radically different opinion.



It's not as anti-war as Spec Ops: The Line which by the way is an American game. You seem to imply that being "anti-war" qualifies as something not being American, when the truth is no other country aside from America has seen as much success with anti-war protests as the United States.

You said that MGS is an american game because the characters are americans and the story takes place during the cold war.
The thing is that this is just a backdrop.Both Big boss and Solid Snake try to build some new organisations away from the governments who are imperialistic(especially the USA).
And the stories themselves have this Kojima craziness and way of storytelling which is not typical of the industry.



Yes because unlike Superman and Spiderman who derive from immigrant and working class backgrounds, and unlike Iron Man who actually has a public superhero identity, Batman is a private vigilante elitist.

Still,you don't describe why Batman is a an america pop culture superhero.Just because his stories are published in american comics,this doesn't mean that he is a product of american culture.
What i am trying to say here is that people watch Batman movies,read his comics and play the games because they love the masked vigilante persona,who in the same time is human and flawed.They like him because "I am the night!I am vengeance!I am Batman!".



Read this:http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2015/06/04/witcher-3-and-diversity/
Let me quote an excerpt
:Firstly, Polish/Slavic mythology isn’t really a thing...The ancient Slavic people that roamed central and eastern Europe territories that we now recognize as Poland left virtually no written records. Most of their religious beliefs, customs, rituals and stories have been very successfully erased from history by the efforts of the Catholic Church...While we know of a handful of Slavic gods that were worshiped, most of what we know about them is based on conjecture based on analysis of the precious few stone and wooden idols that were not smashed or burned by the Inquisition, and church records...So anyone telling you that Witcher 3 is based on actual Slavic mythology is full of s--t. We literally know more about the religion and myths of fictional land of Westeros than those of very real, pre-Christian Poles...In fact, A. Sapkowski’s entire shtick for early Witcher stories was to take a classic fairy tale (more often something from Grimm Brother’s rather than from actual Slavic folklore), apply 90’s style “edgy” filter by making everyone curse like a sailor, have the Witcher blunder into the mess and then reveal the good guys are actually the bad guys at the end. The books are standard Fantasy pulp, with very standard Fantasy elves and dwarfs imported directly from Tolkien. Geralt’s story arc pivots around fairy tales and trope subversions to ultimately fall into an Arthurian heroic archetype. Sapkowski swims in anachronisms and constantly winks at the readers to the point of breaking the fourth wall...Witcher 3 pedigree is as much D&D, pulp fantasy and Tolkien as it is Slavic mythology. Sapkowski never intended it to be held up as a celebration of Slavic mythology.

Ok,i didn't know that.But still,somehow for you AC,which was inspired by non-American culture along with American-culture,is less "America-centric" than the Witcher,which is based on medieval life and legends,modernised by some 90's culture



Anyway,i think that the reason why no AC has won an "aggregated GOTY" and most of them were not even in the top 10 games of the year,is that they have become mass-production type of games.

The gameplay is mediocre and outdated.
The stories are mostly playing it safe.
The only truly GREAT and INNOVATIVE aspect of AC,and the reason why most people keep on buying them,is the historical tourism.

VestigialLlama4
01-16-2016, 08:03 PM
I have no reason to believe that they would have a radically different opinion.

Well I have no reason to believe that it matters.


You said that MGS is an american game because the characters are americans and the story takes place during the cold war.
The thing is that this is just a backdrop.Both Big boss and Solid Snake try to build some new organisations away from the governments who are imperialistic(especially the USA).

If MGS wanted to be critical of the Cold War and America, really critical, well there should have been Latin American and Vietnamese revolutionaries as protagonists and heroes. Since Kojima won't touch that but rather skirt around it and not deal with it at all, he invents and fakes stuff up.


Still,you don't describe why Batman is a an america pop culture superhero.Just because his stories are published in american comics,this doesn't mean that he is a product of american culture.

You seem to operate on weird definitions of culture. To you because something doesn't feel "American" (i.e. the bad/nationalistic aspects of America), it's not part of American culture. The fact is everything produced by American artists is part of American culture. This includes movies, comics, music etc. Batman is very much an American superhero and icon. Heck that third Batman movie even had a kid singing the freaking national anthem.

What i am trying to say here is that people watch Batman movies,read his comics and play the games because they love the masked vigilante persona,who in the same time is human and flawed.They like him because "I am the night!I am vengeance!I am Batman!".


But still,somehow for you...

Not "Somehow", I specified why:
None of the main AC historical protagonists are American as the Industry identifies it (i.e. White, American-Accented, Male). The only American is Connor and well he's Mohawk and the American Revolution, a time when the Americans spoke English with British Accents, just doesn't strike the meathead crowd as a Western Aryan Fantasy like Red Dead Redemption does.

The games do target an American audience but at least in its early games (upto Black Flag) it did have a wider set of references than other games. Patrice Desilets was inspired by Italian movies and Slovenian novels for instance.


The only truly GREAT and INNOVATIVE aspect of AC,and the reason why most people keep on buying them,is the historical tourism.

You say that as if it's something easy and unremarkable when this, among other things, is a pretty great achievement. Practically unique.

Ureh
01-17-2016, 04:49 AM
I didn't single out AC, I singled out Ubisoft one of the biggest producers in the industry. For example Ubisoft is one of two producers that consistently have their own E3 conference (Bethesda had one in 2015 but that's an exception). As I pointed out Ubisoft also makes the exact type of games that typically win GOTYs (action // action-adventure, character driven games with high production values) and yet their results in these rankings have been abysmal.


I think this has to do with their games being too formulaic and designed by committee. They are liked by many, loved by few. Parts of their games are magical, but then they add too much BS on top which make them hard to really love. I think this data shows what a lot of fans are complaining about when they are (somewhat unfairly) talking about the "Ubisoft Formula". I think Ubisfot should take this seriously if they wanna play the long game.

I feel like you make some fine points, Sushi. If Ubi really wants to rake up all those Goty awards they'll need to do an extreme makeover and learn/copy their competitors.
They need to take a few steps back from yearly releases, most people seem to dislike this for some pretty good reasons. Like you said a lot of them want to love AC but when they see it there every year they keep hearing it incessantly whisper in their heads, "Play with me. I promise there are some improvements and changes. Next year there will be a few more upgrades (and downgrades). New location and story and all that too. Play with me." We know that most games are released unfinished, despite publishers claiming to be under a 3-4 year development cycle, but that doesn't mean they should be releasing the games in such and unpolished state. They don't have the same reasons, reputation, and can't use the same excuses that Bethesda can. Tone down the appearance of microtransactions in their games (Since ACU is my most recent Ubi game and it's the one that shares the most similarities to the Goty winners of 2015, that's the example I'll refer to most of the time). I know that the menus in ACU are based off the Helix OS - which is developed by Abstergo/Templars for gullible consumers - but in the end this is a real game for real people and they need to make it less like an e-store and more like a fun game menu. I'm almost certain that the top Goty listers don't have all these obvious microtransaction features mixed with the single player stuff. A lot of publishers will keep releasing DLCs if people keep buying them, Ubi will follow suit, so what they should do is try to make the DLCs bigger and better. The DLCs should add bonus goodies instead of making us feel like stuff were removed from the main game, the stories should feel more significant instead of only spanning one Sequence (almost all of the story DLC for the AC series is pretty much a short chapter). They should try to introduce (or reintroduce) a figurehead that a lot of people can get behind, before this person(s) speaks the audience should already be on the edge of their seats and ready to cheer. Patrice is gone but it doesn't mean that they shouldn't try to fill his shoes. Just look at FO4 and MGS with Todd Howard and Hideo Kojima; this strategy works.

Forgot to mention that they could do similar things to CD and Beth: the former likes denouncing DRM, giving "free" dlc and the latter likes to give their fans the creation kit to mod the heck out of their games.

One of the main issues with AC has to do with the storyline: 1) present day, the only aspect that has room for player choice and freedom, has none. When Bishop asks me if I want to join the Assassins I can't say no if I want to proceed. When Berg points a gun at my face I want to be able to say no to his invitation and get killed. When Melanie, Rebecca, William or Shaun look at me I want to be able to start taking them on dates (For those that aren't interested in this feature, it is truly optional and you won't miss out. Just look at W3 and FO4 with their romances). And of course there's pretty much no parkour, combat, city gameplay at all in the modern day. 2) all events that we relive in the Animus are memories which mean that there this isn't the illusion of player choice in the story, roleplaying (ie putting yourself in the character's shoes) is more limited. If you look at Witcher 3 or Fallout 4 they give the player a few dialogue choices, the are several paths in the missions depending on what you say and do. Memories in AC can't be altered (at least not drastically), so that means when the AC game features a city or time period that the players might not get engaged into they will lose quite a bit of interest. The top Goty listers are more fantasy-based sandboxes which allow for more player freedom in nearly every aspect. 3) side missions feel meager when compared to their counterparts in FO4 and W3. In ACU all Arno is doing is, "Hey historical person, you need help right? Ok I'm back, give me my money." Whereas in the 2015 toppers their side missions have cutscenes, they offer rewards that can be quite helpful (ex: Witcher 3 you'll get cool cutscenes and earn a neat recipe, in Fallout 4 you can choose dialogue with the quest-giver and then possibly receive useful currency and a weapon upgrade. For ACU, all you need to do earn 100k+ Livres and buy a 5-diamond weapon then most people won't even care about what the NPC gives us).

And most importantly it goes without saying, ACU did a lot of things right too. Without making a list, I found certain aspects really enjoyable. I know we all do.

I-Like-Pie45
01-17-2016, 05:45 AM
Neither has Leonardo Di Caprio

SixKeys
01-17-2016, 07:00 AM
I think this has to do with their games being too formulaic and designed by committee. They are liked by many, loved by few. Parts of their games are magical, but then they add too much BS on top which make them hard to really love. I think this data shows what a lot of fans are complaining about when they are (somewhat unfairly) talking about the "Ubisoft Formula". I think Ubisfot should take this seriously if they wanna play the long game.

I figured that's where you were going with this and I disagree. I can understand that's the impression one might get post-Brotherhood (2010 onwards) as that's when they rewally glued on to the whole idea of milking their biggest franchises. But this site goes as far back as 2003. Before AC even existed, before PoP was a franchise with several games (and none of them annual), before Watch Dogs, before Just Dance, when all Ubisoft really had to its name were Far Cry and RayMan.

Like VestigialLlama said, all the winners on the site display a certain bias. I wouldn't necessarily call it America-centric (Skyrim and Dragon Age don't exactly take place in the US of A), but they're all action-adventure or FPS games that cater mainly to the 12-21 crowd of teenage males. No Nintendo titles which are geared towards all ages, no party games, no handheld titles, no mobile games, no indie games. With the exception of The Walking Dead, every single game is one that was backed by a huge marketing campaign, had buzz generated for years in advance and released either on PS or XBox (and possibly PC). If you think about games that really took the gaming world by storm, think Five Nights at Freddy's, Slender, Flappy Bird, Candy Crush, any Rock Band/Guitar Hero ripoff, The Sims, Undertale etc. And that's just from recent years. Those are games that managed to break out of the "hardcore" gaming mold and appealed to even non-gaming audiences, and became enormous successes as a result.

Now, some people might object to games like Candy Crush being lumped in with titles like Skyrim, to which I say: too freaking bad. GOTY stands for Game of the Year, not "XBox Game" or "PS Game" or "Action-adventure Game". Every game should be worthy of assessment on a poll that pretends to be objective, but they're not, are they? Because the so-called hardcore gamer crowd consists of exactly the type of audience to whom the word "game" only means a particular type of game. People even complained that The Walking Dead wasn't a "real game" when it snatched all those awards. Because anything that's not an FPS or third-person action game doesn't count for these people. Anything that appeals widely to female audiences doesn't count. Undertale isn't a real game. The Sims isn't a real game. Life is Strange isn't a real game. Gone Home isn't a real game. Any Wii title isn't a real game.

These lists are designed by committee. Sites get ad revenue from the very companies whose games always shine at the top of their polls. You'll never find games on there that don't cater to the "hardcore" crowd, because hardcore gamers are the audience these sites are trying to please. Even the few indie games that do make it onto the list are ones that are available either on XBox or PS, preferably both (see: Journey). These list may appear objective on the surface, but at the core they're just as biased as the people who make and vote in these polls.

itsamea-mario
01-18-2016, 01:30 PM
Well, you see, the thing is, AC games, at their very best are just "good" with most falling into "okay" and some teetering into "Pretty bad"

VestigialLlama4
01-18-2016, 03:23 PM
Well, you see, the thing is, AC games, at their very best are just "good" with most falling into "okay" and some teetering into "Pretty bad"

To which I say bullsh--

AC at its best (AC1, Black Flag) represents some of the best open world games ever made. Among the most exciting cities ever designed in games and a revolution in terms of subject matter and themes. Until Rogue-Unity not a single AC game was truly bad and since Syndicate is at least a decent release. That can be chalked to an aberration. These games, especially AC3 went further than any major franchise in actually broadening stories and experiences that few hope to tackle.

Yes AC does annualization but that doesn't nake it call of duty. In a period of 11 months they put out a gem of a game in Revelations which exceeds anything indie developers can dream of achieving in terms of open world gameplay and design. AC games by not being tied to a single character, unlike Zelda, or in the case of GTA, a single genre and setting, pushed boundaries for what franchises can be. It has also innovated and advanced far more than rockstar games.

So don't pretend, not on these forums at least, that these games are sub standard or anything. Most games are crap that includes your witchers, your MGSs, and even your Rockstar games which since San Andreas has been creatively stagnant and produce overpraised products that only have quickly surpassed graphical and technical feats to recommend. The batman games are good and well made yes, but its still hampered by the comic book material and rests on the glory of its voice actors .

AC is a franchise for games and games alone. It's not based on any pre existing license, nor is it based on sub-tolkien trash fantasy, nor is it like rockstar games based on southpark, or like MGS based on Superior spy films, and Simpsons esque parodies of Superior movies. It uses open world to explore history in the way that only games can do.

m4r-k7
01-18-2016, 04:31 PM
To which I say bullsh--

AC at its best (AC1, Black Flag) represents some of the best open world games ever made. Among the most exciting cities ever designed in games and a revolution in terms of subject matter and themes. Until Rogue-Unity not a single AC game was truly bad and since Syndicate is at least a decent release. That can be chalked to an aberration. These games, especially AC3 went further than any major franchise in actually broadening stories and experiences that few hope to tackle.

I agree completely with this. AC 1, AC 2 and AC 4 are open world masterpieces which revolutionized the open world genre (I too would add in AC 3 in terms of open world design and animations) outside of the already existent open worlds before the franchise came along (GTA). I do think that the newer games haven't contributed much (which is sad), but if we actually decipher the originality of AC as a series, it is outstanding with some of the games really influencing the genre it exists within.

SixKeys
01-18-2016, 08:22 PM
To which I say bullsh--

AC at its best (AC1, Black Flag) represents some of the best open world games ever made. Among the most exciting cities ever designed in games and a revolution in terms of subject matter and themes. Until Rogue-Unity not a single AC game was truly bad and since Syndicate is at least a decent release. That can be chalked to an aberration. These games, especially AC3 went further than any major franchise in actually broadening stories and experiences that few hope to tackle.

Revelations = Pretty bad
AC3 = Awful
Liberation = Meh

TO_M
01-18-2016, 08:56 PM
Revelations = Pretty bad
AC3 = Awful
Liberation = Meh

You obviously haven't seen enough Estonian films or read enough Zimbabwean poetry to fully appreciate those titles.

VestigialLlama4
01-18-2016, 09:07 PM
...

I said a whole bunch of stuff and you are going to pounce on that...sheesh. I did say that AC1 and Black Flag are the best games, didn't I? Both those games I would consider to be among the best in the last few years.

Black Flag is as good as Red Dead Redemption and I would argue that it's better. RDR tackled cowboys, Black Flag did pirates and the latter more fully achieved the pirate fantasy than Rockstar did with the cowboy fantasy. Black Flag immersed you in the real era of pirates and provided a more comprehensive vision of it, while RDR is essentially a Greatest Hits of Wild West cliches. AC1 is better than GTA-4 and certainly as far as Next-Gen console, of which AC1 is an early release, it is more important as a game.