PDA

View Full Version : Ubisoft "Downgrades" Games?



Wolfmeister1010
06-29-2014, 08:18 PM
All the comments on FC4 and The Division and Unity across the internet are "massive downgrade incoming". I understand that Watch Dogs PC and Far Cry3 were annoyingly downgraded..but honestly what else was actually downgraded by ubisoft that garnered them such a bad reputation?

I mean, AC has had a pretty spotless record when it comes to graphics in e3 vs retail. Some people are apparently upset about the filter in AC2 Venice, just like I don't like the filter in ACR but those aren't graphical downgrades. AC4 had slightly better character models at e3 demo, but that is it.

Honestly, other than Watch Dogs and Far Cry 3, what else have they downgraded visually? They make so many games, yet these two incidents give them such a bad reputation.



As if they are the only ones to misinterpret the cross gen. Basically ever single game developer has had the same problem the past year. They expect that the next gen will be able to still make the game look completely next gen, even though their game still has to run on the past gen as well.

Why are people so damned sure that The Division, Far Cry 4, and Unity are going to be downgraded? This doesn't even go into the whole "gameplay" downgrade issue, of which the only known incident to my knowledge was AC3.

Sushiglutton
06-29-2014, 08:27 PM
Agree with you, Ubi is getting too much hate lately. There's some truth to it (all hate-bandwagons have a core of truth), but it's exaggerated and I also feel like Ubi is singled out in an unfair way.

Assassin_M
06-29-2014, 08:28 PM
Agree with you, Ubi is getting too much hate lately. There's some truth to it (all hate-bandwagons have a core of truth), but it's exaggerated and I also feel like Ubi is singled out in an unfair way.
This

Mr_Shade
06-29-2014, 08:30 PM
Why are people so damned sure that The Division, Far Cry 4, and Unity are going to be downgraded? This doesn't even go into the whole "gameplay" downgrade issue, of which the only known incident to my knowledge was AC3.

People are as people do..


If your friends all say something is true - many follow suit and propagate the same..


Also there are certain places on the internet, which find such rumours as being great ways to attract clicks..


The Division has had some very vocal people saying it will be 'downgraded' - however the Dev team answered with the following:



We have absolutely no intention to “downgrade” the game. What you saw at E3 is what we believe is representative of what the final Xbox One experience will be.

Also, as you know, Massive has its roots in PC development with titles like Ground Control and World in Conflict.

We know and love PC. The PC version won’t be a port, but a full-fledged, optimized version with performance and fidelity worthy of the PC platform!

Our highest priority is to deliver the best experience possible on all platforms.

However as always - if that's not what people want to believe, it's never going to convince them - not when it's currently 'cool' to hate Ubisoft ;)

m4r-k7
06-29-2014, 08:39 PM
The truth is gamers are just sheep. They listen to what the majority are saying and accept it. Ubisoft are getting way too much hate just because of Watch Dogs. Far Cry 3 did not have much of a downgrade and as you say all the AC games have been visually the same. It is ridiculous, all I see on gaming websites is "expect downgrade", "ubisoft are crap" etc etc

Wolfmeister1010
06-29-2014, 08:40 PM
I also believe that these next gen exclusive games will have better PC ports, because last gen is gone, and it has been shown that the next gen consoles can do amazing things. Next gen console having to be tweaked to run for last gen sucks, but PC being tweaked for last gen is just a giant middle finger. We have eliminated the bad factor. Who knows how Ubisoft will perform in next gen exclusive territory.

Mr_Shade
06-29-2014, 08:45 PM
I also believe that these next gen exclusive games will have better PC ports, because last gen is gone, and it has been shown that the next gen consoles can do amazing things. Next gen console having to be tweaked to run for last gen sucks, but PC being tweaked for last gen is just a giant middle finger. We have eliminated the bad factor. Who knows how Ubisoft will perform in next gen exclusive territory.
Well some games - are not ports, like The Division - and for Unity - last gen won't have anything to do with it.. however I suppose depends on the game I suppose ;)


Far too many people are all doom and gloom - rather than waiting to see.. after all waiting to see cost's nothing..

roostersrule2
06-29-2014, 08:51 PM
AC hardly has a spotless record.

In the AC3 and AC4 demos the crowd was much better then in the actual game and there was random events.

GreySkellig
06-29-2014, 08:53 PM
I definitely agree that while the core issues here have some weight to them, Ubisoft has a pretty good track record, and I'm not sure why they're being so specifically targeted as far as "bullshots" and female protagonists.

Ubisoft's games always look great. They had a couple games in the last two years that got a visual downgrade, but most titles live up to their press materials. Even when they don't, the games still look good--I didn't really follow the buzz around Far Cry 3, and had absolutely no idea it had been downgraded. The visuals are still stunning.

Then there's the whole female protagonist thing. Obviously the excuse of "too much work" was a bad call. All they needed to say was "The co-op characters are all iterations of Arno. Arno is a guy." Beyond that, however, Assassin's Creed has one of the most diverse protagonist lineups in AAA gaming...including a female protagonist in 2012, ported to consoles this year. So many people asking for a strong, independent black woman...Aveline?

Anyway...yeah, not really sure why all the bad vibes for Ubi the last couple months. I guess it's always easy to hate on a successful megacorporation, but Ubisoft is probably the least sinister of the big gaming studios.

Wolfmeister1010
06-29-2014, 09:20 PM
AC hardly has a spotless record.

In the AC3 and AC4 demos the crowd was much better then in the actual game and there was random events.

And how is this a graphics related issue? BTW I disagree the crowds in AC3 were just as good as in demos.

But like I said, AC3 had a gameplay downgrade issue, which isn't the topic of this thread.

Assassin_M
06-29-2014, 09:22 PM
AC hardly has a spotless record.

In the AC3 and AC4 demos the crowd was much better then in the actual game and there was random events.
Graphics
>Crowd
>Random events

nope


And how is this a graphics related issue? BTW I disagree the crowds in AC3 were just as good as in demos.

But like I said, AC3 had a gameplay downgrade issue, which isn't the topic of this thread.
Oh come now, Wolf...watch the camp in the E3 demo again xP the homestead scripts were there but they were removed in favor of just the homestead.

JustPlainQuirky
06-29-2014, 09:25 PM
Pffft even if they downgrade it's miles better than some of the games I used to play on nintendo.

eventhoilovenintendo

roostersrule2
06-29-2014, 09:28 PM
And how is this a graphics related issue? BTW I disagree the crowds in AC3 were just as good as in demos.

But like I said, AC3 had a gameplay downgrade issue, which isn't the topic of this thread.Was unaware this was graphics related and even if it is, wouldn't it make sense for this to be about all types of downgrades in Ubisoft games?

Haha no. AC3's demo had much better crowds then the actual game, it's not even up for interpretation.

Wolfmeister1010
06-29-2014, 09:31 PM
Was unaware this was graphics related and even if it is, wouldn't it make sense for this to be about all types of downgrades in Ubisoft games?

Haha no. AC3's demo had much better crowds then the actual game, it's not even up for interpretation.

Oh in the e3 demo, that camp, yeah you are right. I thought when you meant "crowds" you were talking about like Gamescom, because that camp did not have "crowds"

Aphex_Tim
06-29-2014, 09:37 PM
I once read the comment section on the AC:U gameplay demo on YouTube. Big mistake!
It honestly annoys me a lot that so many people only focus on (possible) negative aspects. Are we truly that spoiled with videogames?

roostersrule2
06-29-2014, 09:37 PM
Oh in the e3 demo, that camp, yeah you are right. I thought when you meant "crowds" you were talking about like Gamescom, because that camp did not have "crowds"Well, yea it doesn't matter what you refer to them by they still got a downgrade.

Sesheenku
06-30-2014, 06:07 AM
I once read the comment section on the AC:U gameplay demo on YouTube. Big mistake!
It honestly annoys me a lot that so many people only focus on (possible) negative aspects. Are we truly that spoiled with videogames?

Gotta criticize to set devs straight. Let them know to deliver what's shown or show what will be delivered.

Jexx21
06-30-2014, 06:13 AM
you shouldn't curse the devs out and make a hissy fit though...

Also what is shown is what they anticipate to be delivered, but sometimes there are variables that mean that they have to cut back on what they originally showed.

Assassin_M
06-30-2014, 06:28 AM
Gotta criticize to set devs straight. Let them know to deliver what's shown or show what will be delivered.
A slight downgrade in graphics is NOTHING warranting the ridiculous and childish uproar, that said...I think i read once before that you're supposedly into game design or are studying it? shouldn't you know what goes into making the games and that not even the devs themselves know what's going to make it and what wont? surely, you know the amount of potential problems that arise while developing a game...it's not like they WANT to downgrade the graphics but overlooking all that, i'd appreciate if they'd keep us updated about the progress of everything and how the development of things going, i'd like to know what might not make it before the game is released.

Also, there's a huge difference between constructive criticism and personal insults...there's a great abundance of the latter and not enough of the former.

Sesheenku
06-30-2014, 08:27 AM
A slight downgrade in graphics is NOTHING warranting the ridiculous and childish uproar, that said...I think i read once before that you're supposedly into game design or are studying it? shouldn't you know what goes into making the games and that not even the devs themselves know what's going to make it and what wont? surely, you know the amount of potential problems that arise while developing a game...it's not like they WANT to downgrade the graphics but overlooking all that, i'd appreciate if they'd keep us updated about the progress of everything and how the development of things going, i'd like to know what might not make it before the game is released.

Also, there's a huge difference between constructive criticism and personal insults...there's a great abundance of the latter and not enough of the former.

The Watch Dogs debacle is so bad that it seems like they should have known the crappy last gen systems with video card equivalents of some hobo's laptop and minimal ram and processing power were in no way going to handle the graphics shown during e3.

I find it very hard to believe they couldn't have known, to me it seems like they were careless and showed the footage before they could be more sure of things.

Indeed I study game development and the industry needs to change its practices, that includes not showing footage that they aren't VERY sure is representative of the final product. There was also no reason to give the PC version crappy graphics, although the shaders and animations from the e3 version are still included.. it's basically a giant middle finger that they wouldn't allow PC users to activate them via the menu.

The PC players have already figured out how to re-implement them too.

Indeed it shouldn't just be a stream of insults and I'm sure the majority of youtube users are spouting nothing but that.. just saying that criticism should be a well sharpened tool of a gamer, not one to be used lightly but one to be used when threatened with incompetence or general carelessness and the like.

Black_Widow9
06-30-2014, 10:01 AM
I once read the comment section on the AC:U gameplay demo on YouTube. Big mistake!
It honestly annoys me a lot that so many people only focus on (possible) negative aspects. Are we truly that spoiled with videogames?
You should never read YouTube comments. Believe me. I have to read them. lol :p

pacmanate
06-30-2014, 11:52 AM
Well in regards to AC games

AC2 to AC4 - (it was shown in the end on PS4) were all demo'd on what was current gen hardware at the time im pretty sure
ACU - Shown on a PC, with "Similar" specs, BULL. We are 4 months from release and they have to use a PC with "similar" specs. We all know what similar means.

FC3 - E3 demo was so lush, graphics were amazing, it was dense. Retail product looked nothing like it.
FC4 - E3 demo shown on PS4, however was confirmed afterwards that the demo we saw was special built. To me this screams FC3 again. I doubt it will look that good. Also, horrible grass pop in WONT be fixed because its too hard for them to do so.

Kagurra
06-30-2014, 01:19 PM
Yeah... did all of you forget that Ubisoft specifically stated that the XB1 and PS4 version of Far Cry 4 will run on PC's "Ultra" setting? Because they said that. Which means they're purposefully downgrading the PC version to make it equal to the console versions, which still sounds like downgrading to me.

We all know how PC is supposed to be, and it isn't equal to consoles, at least not the majority of the time. There are some exceptions like the newest Need for Speed, which was terrible on PC.

Mr_Shade
06-30-2014, 01:30 PM
If games shown are said to be 'final code' - then I agree I would also be disappointed.

However everything shown at E3 - in the past - and present - has always been said as not being final , running on dev kits and pre-alpha etc


I think many forget that games shown there - are sometimes many months or years away from completion - and ignore those warnings often said about it not being final and subject to change..


Watch Dogs, as an example - was never shown on console at E3 2012 - however many jumped on the hate wagon to shout at 'downgrade' - when it was finally shown for the first time on PS4 at E3 2013 [and tbh in my eyes, it looks the same now - as it did then on consoles…]

Some changes may happen to all games - as the game dev goes on - I'm not sure the last game I have seen previewed a few years in advance of release - that looked identical on release day?

Some look better - due to advancements in hardware - some look worse, due to the game expanding in other areas.


Coming to ACU - I think what we will get - will be very close to what was shown - since it's now running on better hardware than before - however - as always - people should never judge a game on non final code.. and that's not defending Ubisoft - that goes for all games shown in that state, however I have faith they will create the best game they can on all available hardware [that means PC should look better than consoles]

I for one would love for games to be shown at 'final' - for every publisher - since then people wouldn't have months of day dreaming / thinking about things - however that would mean these games have no information /gameplay / graphics shown until release.. or the week of release..

That's not really do able in my mind.. Since game development is fluid - and often improvements happen right up to the last day - or even after - such as the resolution boost on PS4 AC4 - so it's going to be hard to pin down - when they can show 'something'

Dome500
06-30-2014, 04:52 PM
1. The internet is quick to judge and anonymity and pissed customers together with internet trolls as well as journalists can increase the bad reputation of a company within a short period of time and all that can be caused by only 1 single incident

2. Well, one has to admit that a lot of Ubisoft games these days either got major downgrades (WD), or were very bad ports on several platforms (the most frequent bad ports being on PC) (ACIII, Ghost Recon Future Soldier, Splinter Cell Blacklist (LOADS of technical issues), and a lot more).

3. Also it is widely known now from various incidents that Ubisoft has the tendency to overhype a game and show it's graphics, as well as talk about it's mechanics and functions and content way too positively. In the end a lot of customers end up being disappointed. Often enough the problem is not the lack of content also but it's quality. I often thought when playing some of their games that quantity is a higher priority than quality. Ubisoft often has a HUGE amount of content. The problem is that content is often separated in groups of very repetitive missions, design concepts they copied from some of their other games and a boring or stereotype main story as well as characters (WD for me personally).

Bottom Line: Various downgrades, bad PC (and sometimes other platform) ports, overhype, bad netcode, quantity over quality, repetition and a lot of WASTED potential (because actually those guys have brilliant ideas, but a lot of that potential is wasted in the development process).

Some of the claims and rumors are very unjustified, others have causes that are way back. Fact is, Ubisoft has a talent for overhyping their games and wasting their huge potential.
And then there is the WD downgrade.

In case of ACU I got to say it is actually one of the least hyped games of the AC series IMO, and that might highly benefit the opinion many have about it. The Coop approach and the new core pillars they introduced seem grounded, based on fan feedback and honest. It also seems this time they are rather showing you what they got than trying to pull of a big hype show, which also speaks for them. Also, the claims they made so far are not too many, which also reduces the potential for players being disappointed when promised features and graphical levels are not fulfilled.

I'm hoping for Ubisoft.
A little bit less hype, a little bit more QA and less quantity over quality, better PC ports and netcode and a more honest approach is all it takes to set them in the right light again.

Unfortunately however one is quick to be judged and people are slow to forget. Mistakes will linger longer in the peoples mind than positive actions because the mistakes cause trouble for the player over a longer time period while positive actions are noted and the archived in our minds (metaphorically spoken).

It is as it is.

i would say partially they deserve the distrust, on the other hand a lot of accusations are also simple wrong or caused by 1 or 2 issues coming together. Gamers can be very emotional and if negative points about a company keep piling up they are more and more likely to judge the company a lot quicker and more harsh then they would judge a company that has not previously disappointed them.

GreySkellig
07-02-2014, 02:48 PM
Here we go:

"Ubisoft is Making a Habit of Downgrading Their Games; It's Time They Owned Up to It"
http://www.8cn.tv/content/tom-clancys-divisions-downgrades-have-everything-do-fact-videogame-marketing-getting

Bonus round: also trending on N4G--"Watch_Dogs is Everything Currently Wrong with Games"

So much Ubihate out there right now...

LoyalACFan
07-02-2014, 04:00 PM
Watch_Dogs is the only Ubisoft game that got significantly "downgraded" from its initial reveal, and even at that there was plenty of the downgraded footage out there before launch. All the trailers released in the several months leading up to its release looked just like the final product. If the launch trailer had been made to look exactly like the E3 2012 footage and all actual footage of the retail game was suppressed, then that would be legitimate deception of Ubisoft's part. As it is, people are just whining. Yes it sucks that it didn't come close to the E3 2012 preview, but let's be honest, nobody should have ever assumed that a cross-gen sandbox game would look that good.

I'm expecting Unity will look similar to the E3 demo, because A.) it's only four months away from launch as opposed to W_D's 23 months, and B.) it's next-gen/PC only. Expecting a downgrade just because it's Ubisoft is ridiculous.

m4r-k7
07-02-2014, 04:05 PM
Far Cry 3 hardly looked different and that was probably because it was running on a high end PC when it was showed initially. Watch Dogs was shown too early in 2012. The Watch Dogs demo at E3 2013 looked very similar to the final product and as LoyalACFan said, the trailers shown during the launch window were the same as the final product. Ubisoft do not downgrade games, Watch Dogs was an exception.

GreySkellig
07-02-2014, 04:07 PM
So what is to be made of recent allegations (as in the linked article) that The Division will also see a graphical dialing back? Personally that particular article does not seem extremely credible, but I haven't been keeping up on The Division so much.

LoyalACFan
07-02-2014, 04:12 PM
So what is to be made of recent allegations (as in the linked article) that The Division will also see a graphical dialing back? Personally that particular article does not seem extremely credible, but I haven't been keeping up on The Division so much.

Anything coming from "an anonymous tipster who totally 100% for sure works at Ubisoft" needs to be taken with a grain of salt. That's where we got the first "confirmation" that this year's AC game would be set in industrial London :rolleyes: But The Division is in the exact same boat W_D was in (namely, it was first shown WAY too early in the dev cycle) so I would be totally unsurprised to see new trailers coming out this year or next that feature downgraded graphics.

Dome500
07-02-2014, 04:57 PM
Like I said. The internet is quick to judge and lie and slow to forget or tell proven facts.
It's the nature of business. And if you make a mistake (and especially if you do not admit it then) or constantly show problems with specific things (like proper PC ports or games that are in a GOOD technical state at release) you can get a lot of bad reputation very fast and will not be able to loose that bad reputation that easy.

poptartz20
07-03-2014, 06:32 AM
this, is funny to me because people do it right here on these forums. :| I mean it's easy to focus on the negative, because that's what people feed off of and thrive for.

I'm #PROUBI

They are a great company with Solid games every time. Shoot for the stars... or just a game rating that is 8/10 lol!

Sesheenku
07-03-2014, 08:03 AM
this, is funny to me because people do it right here on these forums. :| I mean it's easy to focus on the negative, because that's what people feed off of and thrive for.

I'm #PROUBI

They are a great company with Solid games every time. Shoot for the stars... or just a game rating that is 8/10 lol!

You know I love you if I always complain about you ;P

Seriously though, as much as I disliked the last two AC games I think Ubisoft is a pretty good company. There's always room for improvement though.

pacmanate
07-03-2014, 11:40 AM
You know I love you if I always complain about you ;P

Seriously though, as much as I disliked the last two AC games I think Ubisoft is a pretty good company. There's always room for improvement though.

The only Ubi franchises I like are PoP, AC and Far Cry.

I honestly feel like the only franchise that is having justice is Far Cry though. I still feel annual releases are holding AC back for whatever reason.

GreySkellig
07-03-2014, 01:48 PM
This thread suddenly turned into a flood of good feelings...

My biggest frustration over all this controversy is that the majority of people talking about it don't really know what the facts are. (eg when people complain that Unity doesn't include "playable female characters". The issue here is really that there's no female assassin avatar in co-op. And while there should definitely be more females in gaming, I can understand why Ubisoft wouldn't want to create a whole new female animation set just so players could occasionally look like females to other players by random chance.

Ubisoft has a pretty good track record (in the broader market sense) of delivering on promises and hosting a diverse leading cast. Are they without fault? Certainly not. But they are symptomatic of the larger industry climate. They are certainly not the most egregious offenders in sexism or dishonest marketing.

At the end of the day, I want to hear this debate. I'm just not sure why Ubisoft is the villain du jour. Particularly when it comes to diversity, where only 3 out of 7 playable AC leads have fit the "white guy" mold. They have also starred a black man, a black woman, an Arab, and a Mohawk native American. Should there be continuing ethnic and gender diversity going forward? Absolutely, and I expect there will be. But why is a franchise with this track record being asked to defend itself over a minor matter of randomized multiplayer skins? Why, when there are so many more blatantly sexist or disproportionately white male franchises out there?

FrankieSatt
07-03-2014, 02:54 PM
I'll be honest with you, I don't know why all the hate for Watchdogs. I just finished the main campaign and it's one of the best games I've played all year on the XBox One. AC Unity looks very good, based on what I've seen in the videos so far.

I think people put way too much stake in graphics and not enough in the game as a whole. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory is an original XBox game but is still better than a lot of games that have been release this year. Graphics are only one part of the game, and in my opinion a smaller part than most.

pacmanate
07-03-2014, 03:03 PM
I'll be honest with you, I don't know why all the hate for Watchdogs. I just finished the main campaign and it's one of the best games I've played all year on the XBox One. AC Unity looks very good, based on what I've seen in the videos so far.

I think people put way too much stake in graphics and not enough in the game as a whole. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory is an original XBox game but is still better than a lot of games that have been release this year. Graphics are only one part of the game, and in my opinion a smaller part than most.

True but when people buy a new console you want it to justify the price you paid for it

FrankieSatt
07-03-2014, 03:09 PM
True but when people buy a new console you want it to justify the price you paid for it

I understand that but people nit pick way too much on the graphics when sometimes there are much more important things that are wrong with a game and they don't focus on those.

When I judge a game, it's based on the WHOLE game and I put more emphasis on the actual game play and the story since that is what I'm actually playing the game for. The only exception to that would be an FPS game, those games need great graphics because there is no story line and the game play is pretty simplistic... it's point, shoot, repeat.

pacmanate
07-03-2014, 03:13 PM
Oh yeah, defo agree on the nitpicking haha. I don't really care either way, the things we have so far look great on PS4. BF4, AC4 Black Flag, inFamous, Metal Gear and those came out within 5 months of launch.

Dome500
07-03-2014, 05:17 PM
this, is funny to me because people do it right here on these forums. :| I mean it's easy to focus on the negative, because that's what people feed off of and thrive for.

I'm #PROUBI

They are a great company with Solid games every time. Shoot for the stars... or just a game rating that is 8/10 lol!

Well, one has to differentiate here though.
Most people criticizing on the forums are people who are already fans and just care about the franchise and want to improve it.


The only Ubi franchises I like are PoP, AC and Far Cry.


You don't like Splinter Cell *evil stare* :mad:

Assassin_M
07-03-2014, 05:40 PM
True but when people buy a new console you want it to justify the price you paid for it
Why should that be based JUST on graphics, though?

Kakuzu745
07-03-2014, 05:47 PM
Yes, people are always getting in the hatewagons so easily...reality is there si always room for improvement but Ubisoft is far from an unpolished company that releases crap. You may agree or not agree with some of their choices but in the end I feel that it is a pretty steady company that always delivers.

FrankieSatt
07-03-2014, 06:29 PM
Yes, people are always getting in the hatewagons so easily...reality is there si always room for improvement but Ubisoft is far from an unpolished company that releases crap. You may agree or not agree with some of their choices but in the end I feel that it is a pretty steady company that always delivers.

I would disagree only with the fact that they started slacking with AC III, completely missed the boat with Black Flag, and have now realized their mistakes and looks to have gone back to making an AC game that actually looks, feels, and has the story line of an AC game. Added to that the complete failure of Conviction I would have to say that UbiSoft isn't steady but can produced quality games, as long as the right people are in charge.

Hans684
07-03-2014, 06:46 PM
Yes, people are always getting in the hatewagons so easily...reality is there si always room for improvement but Ubisoft is far from an unpolished company that releases crap. You may agree or not agree with some of their choices but in the end I feel that it is a pretty steady company that always delivers.

EA, hope Mirror's Edge 2 is going to be cut in half because of DLC etc...

Kakuzu745
07-03-2014, 07:22 PM
I would disagree only with the fact that they started slacking with AC III, completely missed the boat with Black Flag, and have now realized their mistakes and looks to have gone back to making an AC game that actually looks, feels, and has the story line of an AC game. Added to that the complete failure of Conviction I would have to say that UbiSoft isn't steady but can produced quality games, as long as the right people are in charge.

I actually do agree with that but I would not say that AC3 o 4 were a catastrophe...in my case I was just expecting something really different vs. what we got in the final product. Unity shows a lot of promise IMO and it feels that the series is going back to where it should have never left.

Landruner
07-03-2014, 07:39 PM
All the comments on FC4 and The Division and Unity across the internet are "massive downgrade incoming". I understand that Watch Dogs PC and Far Cry3 were annoyingly downgraded..but honestly what else was actually downgraded by ubisoft that garnered them such a bad reputation?

I mean, AC has had a pretty spotless record when it comes to graphics in e3 vs retail. Some people are apparently upset about the filter in AC2 Venice, just like I don't like the filter in ACR but those aren't graphical downgrades. AC4 had slightly better character models at e3 demo, but that is it.

Honestly, other than Watch Dogs and Far Cry 3, what else have they downgraded visually? They make so many games, yet these two incidents give them such a bad reputation.



As if they are the only ones to misinterpret the cross gen. Basically ever single game developer has had the same problem the past year. They expect that the next gen will be able to still make the game look completely next gen, even though their game still has to run on the past gen as well.

Why are people so damned sure that The Division, Far Cry 4, and Unity are going to be downgraded? This doesn't even go into the whole "gameplay" downgrade issue, of which the only known incident to my knowledge was AC3.

I believe that the more memorable "incident" (as you call it) will be the Watch Dogs incident since it was the most anticipated game since November 2013 and that disappointed hundred of thousand - My point is that if UBI had kept a moderate ow profile regarding that IP and did not generate such big hype around it like they did the pill will have been smaller and with a better taste for a lot people. However; if Far Cry 3 and WDs had graphical difference regarding some demos, AC3 and especially AC4 had some difference with the NPC animations their AIs and some game-play character had been cut.

I believe that once and some years ago Ubisoft was the most favorite and trusted of the VG company and that through the years, Ubisoft lost this image of trust.

No one can deny that it had been among their outrageous and debatable marketing campaigns, the multiple past and present social controversies, the goofy talk of some PRs on the press, and the infamous DRM issues that UBI is sadly remember for, plus the uber exploitation of their more successful franchise, the Uplay servers down, ect...

The least that can be said is that Ubisoft does not make it really discreet and has the sad tendency to show more a dark side than a a lightly one. (resulting on such argumentation against them - even worse, as the result of some resemblance with them, some will compare them to evil EA which is not great at all). Now pulling a sarcastic generality for a massive downgrade for up coming game is perhaps a pessimistic, however with the hype generated for these up-coming games (including AC Unity)
I understand the polemics and the concerns of the people that comment on the press or on the internet.

Anyway, whatever Ubisoft could do it will be always haters. however Ubisoft should change and take in consideration the feedback of their fans and costumers

FrankieSatt
07-03-2014, 07:50 PM
I actually do agree with that but I would not say that AC3 o 4 were a catastrophe...in my case I was just expecting something really different vs. what we got in the final product. Unity shows a lot of promise IMO and it feels that the series is going back to where it should have never left.

AC3 wasn't that bad, but it also wasn't nearly as good as any of the previous games. Black Flag, to me, was nothing more than a Pirate Simulator. In that regard, it was a success. However, I bought the game for it being an AC game and it just wasn't. I've actually played though it twice and I still didn't get that AC feel. Too much pirates and very little AC.

pacmanate
07-03-2014, 08:25 PM
Why should that be based JUST on graphics, though?

I dunno, I wasn't saying it was but IDK

Assassin_M
07-03-2014, 08:26 PM
I dunno, I wasn't saying it was but IDK
I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the people who only weigh their money's worth by the graphics

pacmanate
07-03-2014, 08:28 PM
I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the people who only weigh their money's worth by the graphics

They are children? That's the only thing I can think of.

Assassin_M
07-03-2014, 08:49 PM
They are children? That's the only thing I can think of.
Works for me

AdamPearce
07-04-2014, 05:17 AM
Why should that be based JUST on graphics, though?

Maybe because it is, with physics effects, the only noticeable 'upgrades' that the consoles can bring. Gameplay is timeless as long as you have the same reliable controllers. This means a game from 2014 can have the exact same gameplay as a game from 2003, and no one will really care, since it's not something you can heavily upgrade by only having a better hardware. Sure it is possible to have ideas, but, unless it's a heavy graphical based gameplay (does that exist ?), they can be played on any console. ACU could've launch on PS2, but it would've look like nothing and people would've been confused, but it could have lauched on it.

Plus, you can't see a gameplay, you play it, you see the graphics. Though, gameplay can obviously use the graphics. A game like ACU could've never had such quality on a PS2 because the graphics (& animation probably) would have been too awfull for the game to be correctly played. But again, it's all about how it looks. And, the only way for the console to truly 'upgrade' the gamplays would've been to change the controllers configuration, which they kinda did on WiiU & PS4, but no one uses it unfortunately.

Another thing, except better physics/ graphics, the consoles bring the 'online' component and the idea of 'sharing' your game. Basically stuff that most people don't give a damn about because it's either too ****ty or simply useless. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand to date, the most popular of these sharing experiment is surely the inFAMOUS Second Son screenshot editor...graphics, graphics, graphics.

All this tied to the mass concentration of video game media on (silly) graphical differences between games (even though absolutely everyone knows PC wins hands down) and the constant reminder of the editors on how a 'beautiful immersive 900p 30fps environment' their 'unique experiences' provides to the consumer.

But, since your in game design, I'd like to know how exactly can an performance boost can really influences the gameplay. I'm curious.

Jexx21
07-04-2014, 05:57 AM
You don't need to know anything about game design to know that gameplay most certainly uses system resources.

AdamPearce
07-04-2014, 06:22 AM
You don't need to know anything about game design to know that gameplay most certainly uses system resources.

Well, the gameplay is the actions you can do, it's possibilities. The result, the so called-action, which is usually a visual representation match with an animation, that needs resources. I mean, jumping in Mario Bros on SNES is no different than jumping in Mario Galaxy on Wii, it's still only requires you to press a button. The main differences, is what results of you pressing the button. On SNES, it's just moving some pixels over a freeze jpeg, while on Wii, it's a whole 3D Model that you have to move trough a 3D environement, and this requires more resources.

Though 3D is a great example of how the graphics can serve the gameplay. And for today they might be some room for particules to be used in games for gameplay purposes, a bit like Knack, but then it relies on game physics.

Not sure if this example suits the situation but let's say gameplay is someone kicking a ball. No wonder if he shoots it on a wall in his garden or goals in a 35k stadium, the action is the same, it's him kick the ball. The outcome whoever, who'd represent the graphics, is totally different, since in your garden, nothing really happens, while in the stadium, you have 35k people going crazy for it.

Assassin_M
07-04-2014, 07:16 AM
But, since your in game design, I'd like to know how exactly can an performance boost can really influences the gameplay. I'm curious.
well, what you need to know first is what processes every simulation/action. The CPU handles the more technical core of games like the AI, physics, Animation and Gameplay while the GPU handles the visual side like objects, people, environments, post and visual effects. Those are ALL the factors that contribute to frame-rate since frame-rate is the priority first and foremost for most game developers whenever they're developing a game, they must ensure that nothing breaks the immersion of the frame-rate.

Now that said, contrary to popular belief, generations of consoles have ALWAYS had a pretty good GPU (which renders visuals like I mentioned) machines were always capable of handling hefty visuals for their time, the first and second generations--keeping in mind that of course the second generation had a much more powerful GPU--always had capable GPUs with under-powered CPU, it wasnt until recently that asset developers began moving towards more powerful CPUs, which was the case with the PS3 and the 360, they had MUCH more powerful and faster CPUs but had under-powered GPUs due to the move to HD resolutions.

For their times, games such as God of war and Fight Night Round 2 were graphically great because the shift towards graphical fidelity was apparent in the second generation that had more powerful GPUs--however--as the CPUs were underpowered, the gameplay was factually weak and limited in scope with tightly cropped camera positions to restrict the amount of simulation required.
There are 2 accomplishments, for game developers, in terms of actual next gen (now current gen) a balanced machine is the most important aspect, which others may argue that a more powerful CPU is the true definition of next gen, no doubt the most important gift of next gen would be a more balanced machine.

in short, we'v always had capable GPUs that render mesmerizing visuals, it's the move towards balance and thus a more powerful CPU--since it has again fallen behind the GPU on the new consoles--that defines next-gen. sure, we may have pretty games and talk about what's being seen and whatnot but it's really a matter of an uneducated fanbase, which is fine and dandy but it only means that the balance in every new machine that comes out will only force the developers to change philosophies again and again and again, that's not to say the new consoles are not capable of doing a lot, they can but on paper, they're actually slower than previous gen CPUs but the new ones have the ability to multitask.

I think your definition of gameplay is HUGELY simplified.

pacmanate
07-04-2014, 01:46 PM
http://myweb.bloomu.edu/jba91237/Images/popcorn.gif

Assassin_M
07-04-2014, 06:18 PM
http://myweb.bloomu.edu/jba91237/Images/popcorn.gif
why you eat pop corn? aint no argument.......yet

m4r-k7
07-04-2014, 07:01 PM
^ Pop corn = tasty :D

Assassin_M
07-04-2014, 07:26 PM
^ Pop corn = tasty :D
mmmmmmm.....now i'm hungry

I-Like-Pie45
07-04-2014, 07:35 PM
put caramel on mine

and a side dish of hu- I mean, humnus on the side.

MLG-Blackgarden
03-09-2016, 10:59 PM
People are as people do..


If your friends all say something is true - many follow suit and propagate the same..


Also there are certain places on the internet, which find such rumours as being great ways to attract clicks..


The Division has had some very vocal people saying it will be 'downgraded' - however the Dev team answered with the following:



However as always - if that's not what people want to believe, it's never going to convince them - not when it's currently 'cool' to hate Ubisoft ;)

Please say the same again... now

Jessigirl2013
03-11-2016, 08:35 PM
Unity didn't seem like a graphics downgrade IMO, But we all know the issues with that game weren't graphical.

Well... Unless you mean this.
http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1544/15443861/2732023-289650_screenshots_2014-11-11_00006.jpg

Then again I don't think the Unity demo showed the glitched NPCs...:rolleyes:

The division is definitely a downgrade though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdXNKEo5BH8
As this doesn't look like the finished game.:rolleyes:

Farlander1991
03-11-2016, 08:44 PM
Unity didn't seem like a graphics downgrade IMO, But we all know the issues with that game weren't graphical.

Well... Unless you mean this.
http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1544/15443861/2732023-289650_screenshots_2014-11-11_00006.jpg



So weird how an issue that never happened on consoles and only happened on PCs with particular ATI cards, and even then not on a regular basis, so only the smallest amount of players actually experienced it, became a poster child for all Unity's technical issues. It's very visually striking, I guess.

VestigialLlama4
03-11-2016, 08:54 PM
So weird how an issue that never happened on consoles and only happened on PCs with particular ATI cards, and even then not on a regular basis, so only the smallest amount of players actually experienced it, became a poster child for all Unity's technical issues. It's very visually striking, I guess.

It also has to do with the internet. Glitches in older games exist but with social media and tumblr it can get shared very fast online...and that's what happened with Unity and its glitchfest. One magazine ran a story but it got shared on FB and twitter in so many places that it had a disproportionate effect.

Unity also didn't have AC3's marketing which saturated the social media with its trailers and promos so effectively that the game's glitches couldn't compete for attention.

But the main reason is simply, Unity as a game didn't offer its best and final defense: soundness of product. Ultimately the game without its glitches didn't offer a story that was so engaging that people could forget, ignore the glitches and bugs. And of course for Ubisoft, the glitches and bugs became a shield to defend themselves against actual criticism of the game.

RVSage
03-11-2016, 10:21 PM
Unity didn't seem like a graphics downgrade IMO, But we all know the issues with that game weren't graphical.

Well... Unless you mean this.
http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1544/15443861/2732023-289650_screenshots_2014-11-11_00006.jpg

Then again I don't think the Unity demo showed the glitched NPCs...:rolleyes:

The division is definitely a downgrade though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdXNKEo5BH8
As this doesn't look like the finished game.:rolleyes:

I disagree on division. I have played this game on my PC and it is E3 2013 quality on my 970. No second thoughts
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1585/24334793339_2426df9c4e_h.jpg

Full album here
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136245165@N06/albums/72157664046733726

Jessigirl2013
03-12-2016, 01:00 PM
It also has to do with the internet. Glitches in older games exist but with social media and tumblr it can get shared very fast online...and that's what happened with Unity and its glitchfest. One magazine ran a story but it got shared on FB and twitter in so many places that it had a disproportionate effect.

Unity also didn't have AC3's marketing which saturated the social media with its trailers and promos so effectively that the game's glitches couldn't compete for attention.

But the main reason is simply, Unity as a game didn't offer its best and final defense: soundness of product. Ultimately the game without its glitches didn't offer a story that was so engaging that people could forget, ignore the glitches and bugs. And of course for Ubisoft, the glitches and bugs became a shield to defend themselves against actual criticism of the game.


So weird how an issue that never happened on consoles and only happened on PCs with particular ATI cards, and even then not on a regular basis, so only the smallest amount of players actually experienced it, became a poster child for all Unity's technical issues. It's very visually striking, I guess.

Haha, I know.
But its always the outrageous glitches that get the most attention.

However many had the glitch where Arno channels Mr fantastic.:rolleyes:
First time it happened it was hilarious.:rolleyes: