• Ubification (The Jimquisition)
    16 replies, posted
https://youtu.be/bYfYLR2PL68
Weird point considering that Watch Dogs 2 and Far Cry 5 (the two most critically well received recent ubisoft sandbox games) both make active attempts to stray away from this formula and both show signs of thoughtful and skilful game design. I'd love to credit Breath of the Wild for this, with it's total genius approach to open world gaming, but I'd say it's probably more critical response and online reaction. I'm really not here to defend Ubisoft, but Jim as usual is pushing his point beyond where it really should be by totally misunderstanding the situation.
I see his point and I'm starting to get the same tired feeling from all the open world games. But this isn't just a Ubisoft issue, look at other successful open world games like Mad Max, Just Cause, Horizon, they all suffer from the same thing. I just can't seem to figure out how they would make it different, how can you change the formula so much that it doesn't follow the Ubisoft way, but is still really appealing and fun to play? Yeah I would also like to point out Breath of the Wild and how it did it's open world as a huge step in the right direction, but what if everyone follow that formula? Then we're just back at square one with all the games being the same right?
In the case of Breath of the Wild not really. While everything BotW does isn't a blanket fix, being systemic is. If your game mechanics aren't open but your world is then you haven't really created an open world game, i.e literally all assassin's creeds.
Far Cry 5 is going to be the first Far Cry I've played since Blood Dragon, so I think I'll do okay with it. If you've bought every single game in the series(es) then yeah you'll probably be bored of it all by now.
Far Cry 5 is weird. I love it to pieces, but it feels like it's missing stuff, like there's things like what feels like half as many weapons as FC4, or that two of the three regions don't really feel cohesive
I feel like I was born with some kinda fucked up mental condition that makes me incapable of ever getting bored of Far Cry. I've played through 2, 3, BD and 4 over the last month or so and I'm still not tired of the Far Cry formula. Never climbing a tower again, though.
I mean that's because you've only played two games with the Far Cry formula. Because two and blood dragon don't have that same boring system as three and four. Two is actually insanely before its time. The funny thing about the Far Cry formula is that we've only had two Far Cry games use it, and people are already bored of it.
I've only ever played Far Cry 2 and dabbled slightly in the first Assassin's Creed ages ago when it comes to "modern" Ubisoft games, so honestly, Uplay aside, i'd probably be able to have a fun time with no feeling of excess game burnout if I got a newer Ubisoft game.
Open-world games, not just Ubisoft ones, just seem samey and boring to me now. At least, I've yet to find one that's fun and engaging on a similar level to a more tightly crafted, linear experience.
Yeah, I agree, having played 3, 4 and 5, it does feel very samey and it the game hasn't pulled me in like 3 or even 4 did. It's fun to play, but it doesn't have the same rush as the other ones, for whatever reason. I really do appreciate the efforts made on Ubisoft's part though, because they seem to genuinely want to improve their tried and true formula. Far Cry 5 is far from perfect, but even with Primal, I respect what they're doing.
FC5 actually surprised me in a positive way, easily the best game in the series so far IMO
5 is my first Far Cry game and I think my biggest complaint is how I'm already stupidly overpowered after beating the fist regiom
Fc5 is a great mix up though, im constantly fighting cultists while driving around and getting distracted constantly by random events.
Generally happens when 1. designed by committee and 2. following the bullet points like a robot with the only "creativity" happening directly in the marketing and margins pre-proscribed by corporate committee mandate. It's the warframe combat loop stapled to two years of environmental design done by a team capable of doing four man years in the allotted window, with some generic storyline with mad lib drop in "current zeitgeist" an- and protagonists that are marketed as OMG SUPER RELEVANT TO MILLENIALS and are in fact just a coat of paint on the same stuff you already fucked around with. Pretty hard echoes of the same glut of japanese games that eventually and predictably imploded in the early 2Ks.
BotW and Witcher 3 act as proof that the assertion that linear is inherently better is just straight up false. That said many open world games should not be open world, see Watch_Dogs 2, a brilliant open world game where the best parts are in dense but small Dues Ex/Hitman style sandboxes.
I feel as though a key component is to only make the world as big as it needs to be in order to fit the content you've planned ahead of time. In BOTW you bump into interesting stuff all the time, like the side quests in the five solid, exciting, and beautiful areas - the most repetitive element being the shrines, but typically the shrines themselves or the quest to reach them are fun and unique. Same goes doubly so for Witcher. In Far Cry you bump into a random set of buildings, kill some people, then do a racing mini-game or some other nonsense that feels like more of a chore. The characters you deal with are largely uninteresting, often using a model that looks like every other joe-schmoe you've bumped into before. Think about how tiny Far Cry would be (excluding the newest edition, as I haven't played and am unsure how much it suffers from this) if it limited itself to a max of 10 repetitions of a given task.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.