Ubisoft openworld games

[Mudran]

So Breakpoint didn't sell well and Ubisoft is going to push releases because of that and change... something.

 

What do you think they should change?

Their openworld formula worked quite well for Far Cry franchise, not that well for Assassin Creed and not at all for their military games - why?

 

 

For me the problem is that even if they would follow some good advices, it looks like it is also about the right combination, so I start to be scared of good advices - for me Breakpoint was the wrong combination - the story would be great for a singleplayer game and it does sound like a new approach to Tom Clancy - this time when you are sent to investigate a problem, you are shot down and the enemy know where you are. So you are an elite soldier alone behind enemy line and because you have learned a lot you can survive.

So I would expect 1. to be hunted by people mainly (not just drones) from the beginning - like it was in their trailers, and not just people standing around in a swamp, but really trying to get you.

2. I would expect searching for food and water and bullets, like it was in Far Cry 3

3. I would expect searching for hideout not to be that easy. and it would take longer. And I would expect the missions would not be around all the island, like it was similar problem with Fallout 4 - I would expect if there is some immersive story, that the quests progression would follow that story.

 

But in this case of this game it looks like Ubisoft was listening to too many people -

1. I guess they thought that casual and military wouldn't want survival mechanics,

2. In the case of this game it was obviously crippled by marketing department,

3. the latest formula didn't match at all the original story for this game.

 

But I think another reason is that their subscription model failed even more - players if they played this game, they did for a month with Uplay sub for 15 dollars and they decided to buy the game later in a year with all DLCs when it will be for sale for another 30 dollars, so they have no reason to play longer - maybe because it is similar game to Division 2 and the main problem of Division 2 was that they did offer nothing beyond finishing the game, only problems and frustrations with everchanging stats, later more and more random rewards during cosmetic events, first feature to add was a raid, which takes long to balance and you need top gear for it, which should be polished already - I guess that is the reason why in MMOs it is instance cluster with smaller dungeons released first, so they could see if all the stats work properly and let players grind for the best gear to get ready a for big raid. And more.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Mudran

[Mudran]

Continuing with my so on:

Simply put, it looks like Ubisoft has hard time to make their life service working. With all the innovative systems and clever AI, raids, cosmetic events, their openworlds were not good enough. Which is quite interesting why.

 

It looks like their openworld franchises which started as openworld - like Farcry and Division - were doing better. Both of them had built busy work appropriate to the role you was playing and working quite well with Ubisoft formula.

 

For me Assassin Creed was mixed because I imagine that sneaking is better for cities with narrow streets and a lots of people, so they remade it with more historical feel, but for me it didn't feel historical really, because I didn't feel the atmosphere there. It was welcomed generally as an action/story/exploration game, but for me it is wasted potential already. Because it is missing RPG mechanics: there is no interaction with the world around outside of the story, so the world feels lifeless to me. It has similar problems like Elderscrolls online at the start or Secret world legends with removal of hardcore content - action with story is not good enough to keep attention longer usually. It should be similar to Farcry, because they remade it according to that franchise - they are almost identical, but for some reason Farcry feels more interesting for me.

Why Ubisoft never tried to add different characters with different background, or different factions? It cannot be more expensive than a fully voiced story cutscenes. Also every MMO knows this magic - offer more of character differences like races, classes and players will replay a lot.

 

I think military games didn't work because for most of ordinary players they are too much repetitive and the usual life of a soldier - go to a mission, get the target and return, I don't know if open world is really needed for it, because there are no other mechanics. And with Breakpoint they removed even the few extra RPG mechanics which could make it more interesting (like survival - real camps/hideouts, lack of ammo, hunger/thirst, hiding from enemies in special places) and imersivity made for this game.

But I don't play shooter games usually, so maybe there is more - I know that Destiny can keep player play longer with gear progression and challenges, or Warframe with crafting and different builds, but that is exactly what players didn't want in Breakpoint. But it looks like that is what Ubisoft does call "RPG" for shooter games ( which is a bit frustrating for me because how can I say what I want in games if someone is using that word for something else which doesn't even fit the original meaning, so it is very misleading)

 

So I wish Ubisoft would break their formula of 1 character and add some real RPG mechanics - not just action games. But maybe I want too much.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Mudran

[SniperSkyness]

Ubisoft has a lot of failed games, and this one is no exception. I don't know how they stay afloat.

[Mudran]

Sadly they are part of a whole trend. A lot of games did the same mistake. Players don't understand how it is possible that they complain about something in one game and devs just repeat it across studios.

They don't believe those players? Or they think other players will enjoy it? If it is a sample of players than they can have similar results.

 

It is not question of money, because I wouldn't say that mechanics does cost that much more.

 

Dragon Age Inquisition was flamed more because players did expect the promise of being like DAO. But it had similar problem.

 

Also if I compare new open zones of Warframe and zones of Destiny 2 which is possible after it went FtP then it will become even more obvious - people love events, and Destiny have dedicated servers for it, but their zones are not that much bigger - big enough for some quests and events, the rest are corridors which are not obvious ones - they are cool looking surrounding where you cannot go, and more levels of it - like underground secret caverns. While Warframe has bigger open zones with some activities and standard generated mission withing quite boring environment. And because they don't have dedicated servers, you are there with 4 people, but most of the time I was there solo - not many people go there anymore also their computers can be too weak to be a host.

 

Another example is SWTOR - Their starting zones are quite OK, their next zones are bigger and bigger, only filled with enemies, with less and less reason why you should want to go there, but after playing their first expansion - the zones started to be smaller, but surrounded around the quests, the theme, being as big as was needed with more of focus on the zones having theme and being interesting. It felt like a zone where I have no problem to return, still only combat zones, but atleast not annoying.

 

There are games with big zones like LOTRO which is praised for it, I'm not sure what is the diference, but I never felt annoyed by big zones in LOTRO. And another one is Defiance, which doesn't have even different biotopes (like they say that if you will have different biotopes, players will enjoy it, but it is misused like it could save everything). The difference is that Defiance again have events with a lot of players and they have very strong characters from the TV series, living there within unique quarters, so I would say that their world is really immersive.

so I guess it can be done, but Ubisoft just does the same mistake like so many before him - open words are not reason why players will stay in game longer, it is the mechanics allowing them to have reason to repeat thing because they want to and immersivity, which would make them feel like home.

 

When I saw this:

https://news.ubisoft.com/en-us/article/358437/beyond-good-and-evil-2-livestream-showcases-new-hero-design-rhino-hybrids-and-customization

 

I was almost crying, how great things artists can create and how often it ends there, because when they should add game mecchanics, quite often those devs (or managers, I don't know) are all about numbers, they forget about the fun factor, it looks like they don't like immersivity or RPG =roleplaying a chosen character even if it is a soldier in a hard mission, the game should be good enough to make you feel that way. I think you need a different person for this - not mathematics, but more like someone good with narratives who would cooperate with stat devs? I don't know, I only know that it is missing in online games and in Ubisoft hybrid of singleplayer/coop online games it is just more obvious.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Mudran