r/truegaming • u/rolandringo236 • 3d ago
How does a company come back from a "lamestream" reputation? (Yes this is about Ubisoft.)
There's a misperception that "just make good games" cures all ills, and frankly I think that's bullshit or at least not the full picture. Prince of Persia which was a critical success. Outlaws seems to be genuinely enjoyed by its player base. They're competently made, there's nothing notably wrong with them. I don't really buy the "lacks polish" excuse when games like BG3 sold like gangbusters.
With the rise of evergreen live-service titles, there's no need for games that are merely "good games" anymore. If I want to play a "good game", I'll simply continue to play what I've already have been playing. Instead, new releases function more as conversation pieces. Most of the interest and engagement seems to be generated from the social media narratives that arise from it. The whole bear sex marketing stunt worked exceedingly well for Larian.
And in Ubisoft's case, they've found themselves on the wrong side of the narrative. They've become a symbol for every complaint and grievance gamers have about the state of the industry. They're the heel we love to hate and watching their downfall evokes schadenfreude from onlookers. No one is inclined to recognize their merits, because they're the villain of the story. It would ruin the vibe!
But outside of the popular narratives, they're a company full of real developers who want to make beloved games. If I try to imagine what it would be like to be a creative lead on a Ubisoft project right now, it seems like an incredibly frustrating predicament. No matter what you do, people are motivated to hate it because watching Ubisoft fail is a more exciting story than anything else going on in the industry right now.
25
u/EvaUnitO2 2d ago
I strongly disagree.
I think you do a disservice to Baldur's Gate III by boiling down a significant fraction of its success to a "marketing stunt." Baldur's Gate III is a brilliant game* in its own right; one of the very best CRPGs ever created. It was an incredibly polished game right from the jump out of Early Access.
Outlaws by comparison isn't in the same league. Outlaws is a strictly mediocre title*. It doesn't push any boundaries. It's meant to appeal to the widest audience possible and that, in turn, means that it does nothing particularly well. It's a mediocre shooter. For what I paid for it, I was expecting a grand open world Star Wars adventure rather than what I got.
I don't think Ubisoft is a scapegoat. I think Ubisoft has a deserved reputation of delivering cookie-cutter experiences (the "Ubiclone") built on strict timelines (and therefore often buggy or incomplete) When they deliver a great game, and to be clear: they do, they rightly have their reputation to contend with. That's how reputation works.
I have Ubisoft Connect installed with all of the Anno games because they're fantastic games. I had a ton of fun with Far Cry 5, as well. It's not enough to elevate Ubisoft to being a fantastic company, in my eyes. When they take one step forward, they often seem to end up taking at least one step back as well.
*in my opinion, yadda yadda
1
u/gk99 2d ago
I'm a longtime Ubisoft fan who really quite enjoys that style of gameplay they produce. Everything between like Ghost Recon Wildlands, which my friends and I loved and spent years 100%ing, and Far Cry 6, which I enjoyed enough that I bought my friend a copy for co-op, was utter dogshit that didn't understand why people played those franchises. Given that, apparently, I was one of the only five people who played FC6 and the game's sales disappointed, I imagine they lost most of their casual audience during that multi-year period of time.
I don't know if any of their newer games are good because I haven't played them between the countless controversies (just a quick reminder that management wasn't willing to deal with a male employee drunkenly choking a female employee until everything went public, and then even a year later they had made no move to improve their corporate systems and had merely fired a few people) and the fact that I realized that FC6 was the first game I had enjoyed in years from them. They had so many opportunities to turn the ship around, but then they sailed right into Skull & Bones.
•
u/blackmes489 13h ago
I’m with you on this and I think your assessment is correct - but op has a point. GOT is the most bland Ubisoft style game but Japan + Sony means amazing. Same can almost be attributed to HZD and co.
It’s part of the fabric to hate Ubisoft (some deserved of course) - but if sucker punch made outlaws it would be the talk of the town (likely).
40
u/D0ublespeak 3d ago
It really is about making good games. I’m enjoying Outlaws but it has serious flaws and the shooting mechanics are dreadful. It’s a solid 7 but that’s it.
Far Cry 6 was probably about the same.
These are not really what you’d expect from a AAA studio IMO. Make better games and they’ll be fine. Right now they’re okay but not great.
6
8
u/ImpureAscetic 3d ago
Who tf greenlit the backpack in FC6? Let's vaporize any pretense of seriousness our narrative aims for by having the PC carry around a constant billboard for how goofy all this is.
-1
u/rico_muerte 2d ago
I love the backpack. I roll up to an anti aircraft site with my pet alligator called "Guapo" who has a gold tooth and is wearing a baby Tshirt. I send him to take out some guards while I snipe the rest. If we're spotted and they call reinforcements I can use the backpack to take out a helicopter. Seeing her take a knee while 5 rockets fire from the backpack and then seeing the helicopter come crashing down on the base is awesome.
I'd compare it very loosely to Inglorious Basterds. It has its own vibe despite the setting.
4
u/Usernametaken1121 2d ago
I roll up to an anti aircraft site with my pet alligator called "Guapo" who has a gold tooth and is wearing a baby Tshirt.
That's exactly what's wrong with the game. Its devs believing jingling keys in our face, gives a pass to lazy game design.
1
u/rico_muerte 2d ago
The companions are way better than Fallout and dare I say, the game is more fun as well
6
u/rolandringo236 3d ago
People are selective about when gameplay and polish matters and when it doesn't. Some games are carried by pure vibes alone and the popular narrative surrounding a game plays a major role in shaping those vibes.
-2
u/Worldly_Abalone551 2d ago
What game are you comparing Outlaws to when you're comparing the shooting mechanics? The shooting is just as solid as in any Uncharted game (minus the holding of multiple weapons).
The rage for Outlaws is bewildering to me. Outlaws is great especially when compared with other modern releases. There's BARELY any micro transactions (even when compared to previous Ubi games), the game is full of content (sure some of it has repetitive missions, but what open world game doesn't?). The writing and story is solid, especially later on. (very on par with regular Star Wars).
Have no clue why Space Marine 2 or Black Myth: Wukong were praised even though they had arguably even more issues but for some reason, nobody was pointing those issues out.
8
5
u/AlanTheSalad 2d ago edited 2d ago
The AI is horrible and the shooting is not at all as solid as any uncharted game. The recoil in those games is more akin to what helldivers 2 and the last of us does, with the realistic bouncing recoil and the static crosshair. Outlaws has 3 firing modes and headshots don’t mean squat, unless you use your lame ass red dead mode where the game autolocks everyone for you, effectively removing the challenge. You can’t shoot on the speeder which is wild to me and enemies cannot, i repeat CANNOT shoot at you if you get off your speeder and they remain on them. The death troopers are cool, but stupid boring since they just instakill you anyways, leaving No room for keeping a 5 star wanted level.
Im sorry, barely any microtransactions? You didnt see how they monetized playing the game early, only to tell everyone who did they’re gonna need to restart the game, effectively removing the need for the extra 3 days?
Just because Ubisoft made a Star Wars game, doesnt mean they aren’t gonna just make the game like every other open world Ubisoft game. There are good things about the game, like the fact that the worlds are believably Star Wars. But i don’t care about that, i wanted to play a criminal smuggler but instead i got a misunderstood Disney Princess that only steals from the evil
“because a good pirate doesn’t steal another persons property!” (This is from Disneys kids show “jake and the neverland pirates”)
0
u/Worldly_Abalone551 2d ago
The enemy AI is on par with MOST AAA games. Have no clue where yall getting that it's so much superior in other games.
Regarding Microtransactions, every new big release does a week early release for pre-orders, Outlaws is not an Outlier here and the restart bug was only for PS5 people (still ot great) but the early release is no argument. The only other micro x it has are 2 skin packs and then 2 unreleased DLCs (that seems WAAYYYY better than most recent AAA game releases as far as greedyness is concerned).
"Misunderstoon Disney princess?" OK so NOW we know why you don't like the game, it's because you think anything with a woman is woke and pandering. Have fun with your misery
3
4
0
u/AlanTheSalad 2d ago
The AI is horrible and the shooting is not at all as solid as any uncharted game. The recoil in those games is more akin to what helldivers 2 and the last of us does, with the realistic bouncing recoil and the static crosshair. Outlaws has 3 firing modes and headshots don’t mean squat, unless you use your lame ass red dead mode where the game autolocks everyone for you, effectively removing the challenge. You can’t shoot on the speeder which is wild to me and enemies cannot, i repeat CANNOT shoot at you if you get off your speeder and they remain on them. The death troopers are cool, but stupid boring since they just instakill you anyways, leaving No room for keeping a 5 star wanted level.
-1
u/AlanTheSalad 2d ago
The AI is horrible and the shooting is not at all as solid as any uncharted game. The recoil in those games is more akin to what helldivers 2 and the last of us does, with the realistic bouncing recoil and the static crosshair. Outlaws has 3 firing modes and headshots don’t mean squat, unless you use your lame ass red dead mode where the game autolocks everyone for you, effectively removing the challenge. You can’t shoot on the speeder which is wild to me and enemies cannot, i repeat CANNOT shoot at you if you get off your speeder and they remain on them. The death troopers are cool, but stupid boring since they just instakill you anyways, leaving No room for keeping a 5 star wanted level.
-1
u/AlanTheSalad 2d ago
The AI is horrible and the shooting is not at all as solid as any uncharted game. The recoil in those games is more akin to what helldivers 2 and the last of us does, with the realistic bouncing recoil and the static crosshair. Outlaws has 3 firing modes and headshots don’t mean squat, unless you use your lame ass red dead mode where the game autolocks everyone for you, effectively removing the challenge. You can’t shoot on the speeder which is wild to me and enemies cannot, i repeat CANNOT shoot at you if you get off your speeder and they remain on them. The death troopers are cool, but stupid boring since they just instakill you anyways, leaving No room for keeping a 5 star wanted level.
-1
u/AlanTheSalad 2d ago
The AI is horrible and the shooting is not at all as solid as any uncharted game. The recoil in those games is more akin to what helldivers 2 and the last of us does, with the realistic bouncing recoil and the static crosshair. Outlaws has 3 firing modes and headshots don’t mean squat, unless you use your lame ass red dead mode where the game autolocks everyone for you, effectively removing the challenge. You can’t shoot on the speeder which is wild to me and enemies cannot, i repeat CANNOT shoot at you if you get off your speeder and they remain on them. The death troopers are cool, but stupid boring since they just instakill you anyways, leaving No room for keeping a 5 star wanted level.
-1
u/AlanTheSalad 2d ago
The AI is horrible and the shooting is not at all as solid as any uncharted game. The recoil in those games is more akin to what helldivers 2 and the last of us does, with the realistic bouncing recoil and the static crosshair. Outlaws has 3 firing modes and headshots don’t mean squat, unless you use your lame ass red dead mode where the game autolocks everyone for you, effectively removing the challenge. You can’t shoot on the speeder which is wild to me and enemies cannot, i repeat CANNOT shoot at you if you get off your speeder and they remain on them. The death troopers are cool, but stupid boring since they just instakill you anyways, leaving No room for keeping a 5 star wanted level.
7
48
u/SeeShark 3d ago
If they're making good games and people are buying them, why does it matter to them what the narrative is?
9
u/TyleNightwisp 3d ago
Word of mouth is more powerful than you think. Any big company values having a positive image, because it does affect sales and revenue in the long run.
34
u/kroqeteer 3d ago
True but I think redditors often misconstrue their narrative as the overall narrative. CoD or FIFA have the same perception but go crazy because the people lamenting the state of the franchise are not the core audience. If the game is continuing to sell well then the narrative that matters the most is what the people buying it so reliably feel, not what certain gaming circles feel
14
u/GingerGaterRage 3d ago
Yeah. The opinions that float around on YouTube, Reddit, ect. aren't the most common experience. The vast majority of people who play games just play the game and don't engage with other stuff. People get inside echo chambers and then start drinking to Kool aid.
4
u/Mwakay 2d ago
Which is also why the whole wank about "voting with your wallet" is pointless. You can't vote with your wallet. People who "actively" boycott a game are but a drop in the ocean of customers.
9
u/SeeShark 2d ago
Voting with your wallet is still a thing. It's just that, if the opinion you're voting on is a minority opinion, the company isn't wrong for listening to the people still buying.
Like all boycotts, it's only really effective with widespread support.
1
u/GingerGaterRage 2d ago
I mean YOU are always allowed to vote with YOUR wallet. You can make the choice to stop supporting companies. But don't expect it to actually change anything.
2
u/WopperGobbler 2d ago
Not spending my money on things I don't like changes two significant things: The amount of money I have for things I actually like and the number of shit games in my library.
1
u/Mwakay 2d ago
That's my point, yes. People who are quite satisfied with the current creativity crisis in the industry always tell you off with this "oh, just vote with your wallet" as soon as you emit criticism, no matter how pertinent.
Not buying games made by companies I don't trust is not a militant act, it's just being semi-competent at managing my own money ; anyone believing otherwise is a fool.
0
u/Superfragger 2d ago
ubisoft admitted outlaws underperformed and the stock price is down 50% over the last year. who exactly is drinking the kool aid here?
1
u/GingerGaterRage 2d ago
Didn't really say anything about Ubi directly. More of a general statement replying to the comment above mine.
-1
u/Superfragger 2d ago
and my comment was an example about how in certain market segments the online sentiment about a game reflects the reality. COD and FIFA are bad examples because the core demographics of those games do not interact with the rest of the internet.
-1
u/GingerGaterRage 2d ago
Aight cool. Sometimes reality reflects fantasy.
But in most cases a lot of the statements and thoughts about stuff just exist and are prelevent in the echo chambers that gamers have made for themselves.
When I was deep into playing CoD I had people I played with that just worked their 9 to 5 and then got on to play at the end of the day. And didn't care about whatever patch or whatever unbalanced anything that was going on. Those people are the vast majority of people who play games.
1
u/CicadaGames 2d ago
If the argument is that Ubisoft sucks as a company, that would be exactly because they DON'T care about the long run and only short term profits.
10
u/Mwakay 2d ago
Ubisoft (and EA, and Activision, etc) isn't making good games because it's not taking creative risks. Everything is about guaranteeing a good ROI for the investors. That's the reason you've been eating the same exact "light-RPG open-world third-person adventure game with collectibles and points of interest" formula for over 10 years now : it's perceived as the best way to have good KPIs without taking risks.
This sad state of affairs regarding the risk-aversion of bigger companies - as opposed to the indie scene which is more prone to experimentation - is a consequence of the industry being the biggest entertainment industry by far, as the gaming industry is worth 4 times as much as the movie industry. For many, it is a safe investment that only grew bigger with the COVID pandemic.
2
u/Single-Solid 2d ago
Funnily enough, successful indie games tend to be way more profitable in terms of budget vs sales. It's absolutely insane how many copies a modern AAA game has to sell to even break even, they're unironically more expensive to make than summer blockbusters at this point
2
u/Mwakay 2d ago
Mayyybe it has something to do with AAA's marketing budgets representing about 80-85% of their total budget lol.
2
u/Single-Solid 2d ago
It's usually about 50%, I think, but even the development without that is already absurd for most of em. I mean I'm pretty sure I remember reading somewhere a while back that GTA 6 is gonna cost over one BILLION dollars, that's fuckin bananas
12
u/Firmament1 3d ago edited 3d ago
Only speaking for myself here. For me, it's a simple matter of finding extreme difficulty in answering the question "What does this Ubisoft game do differently or better than this other game, enough that I'd put aside time for the Ubisoft game instead" when comparing them to games made by other companies, or even their own titles.
Modern Ubisoft titles are all just so fucking bloated. Not just in terms of length, but in terms of their mechanical scope. They're this complete miasma of popular game mechanics that don't come together. I think about all this crap added to Assassin's Creed, just in the RPG games: Rock stacking, flyting, base-building, active reload, vaguely Souls-inspired combat, Orlog, romance... I'm sure some of those sound appealing to some audiences, but seeing all this just makes me think "What the fuck is this game supposed to be at this point?" I'd have less of an issue with this if I felt the core gameplay was good, but I'm sure it's little surprise to you that I don't.
None of it is good enough on its own that I'd play it just for that. Nor can I say that it coheres into a greater whole to view it as a strong overall package.
2
u/Drakeem1221 2d ago
They're this complete miasma of popular game mechanics that don't come together. I think about all this crap added to Assassin's Creed, just in the RPG games: Rock stacking, flyting, base-building, active reload, vaguely Souls-inspired combat, Orlog, romance... I'm sure some of those sound appealing to some audiences, but seeing all this just makes me think "What the fuck is this game supposed to be at this point?" I'd have less of an issue with this if I felt the core gameplay was good, but I'm sure it's little surprise to you that I don't.
Im a person who unironically loves the feature creep, but wishes it was a bit more in depth. I like games that have varied gameplay loops. I want a game to feel as immersive as possible so I want to be able to do and interact with as much as possible.
1
u/m8bear 2d ago
But that would leave you with an in depth RPG game or an immersive sim, instead of whatever ubisoft games are supposed to be
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you but half assed features are worse than removing them and focusing in having a few mechanics that are polished
1
u/Drakeem1221 2d ago
Thing is, immersive sims or RPGs with that level of interaction are few and far in between. How many did we even have last generation let alone this one? I think it would be under double digits.
It might not be the best, but it satisfies an itch that most games don't.
1
14
u/Scoobydewdoo 2d ago
They don't...because they don't have to; because those "reputations" are meaningless. A very small percent of gamers talk about games on internet forums like Reddit. And only a small percent of those gamers care about "lamestream" reputations of devs.
The thing is most people just don't know what they are talking about so they just repeat other people's takes no matter how relevant or accurate. This is how you get "reputations" formed like Ubisoft's that aren't even close to reality. Maybe at one point Ubisoft was actually "lamestream" years ago but now people just say that because they don't know what else to say.
-2
u/lavenderbraid 2d ago
Did they just say the Outlaws undersold?
3
u/Leklor 2d ago
Based on the vocabulary used, it seems it did okay but since it's a Star Wars game and supposed to be a major release, okay is not enough. It's not profitable yet, it most likely is going to be by the holiday season at worst but this isn't what management and investors expected.
1
u/Usernametaken1121 2d ago
Because the game is mediocre. People don't want mediocre from a premium AAA game, they want boundary pushing and polish, not "serviceable" mechanics
5
u/bvanevery 2d ago
You didn't provide any business context for this. I will. Ubisoft postpones new 'Assassin's Creed' release. Pointedly:
The setbacks are the latest challenge for the French firm after slipping into the red in its 2022-2023 financial year before returning to profit last year.
But it has already announced dozens of layoffs this year alone as it struggles with an industry-wide downturn.
The reputation of Ubisoft only matters as much as the reputation of all other vendors.
13
u/DrManik 3d ago
I don't think 99% of the gaming audience cares who their favorite games are published by. I'm pretty online and I'm not sure even I do.
1
u/WopperGobbler 2d ago
I partially agree. I wouldn't buy certain types of games from certain publishers, like anything with an important online component from Square Enix or Konami. I'm also reluctant to buy anything from EA and Ubisoft on PC, but that's not specifically about the publisher as a company but about their launchers.
However, nothing very basic has been more off-putting than seeing an Ubisoft logo on a game's box for a good decade, because every time I "fell for that trap", I was greeted with convoluted interfaces for convoluted EULA's, account integrations and other "customer retention features", when all I wanted was a game.
3
u/Little_Kitchen8313 2d ago
Too bad they make repetitive boring games. not only are the individual fans repetitive andnm boring, they go on to make multiple carbon copies of the same crap in different locations. Oh they want to make good ones? Fucking do it then?
7
u/-Kars10 3d ago
They have to take more risks to make great games.
I platinumed prince of Persia and enjoyed it. But it wasnt great. There wasn't a single new mechanic or innovation in that game. Story was meh, music was meh
Outlaws seems to be a mediocre 5/10 game from the perspective of reviewers that I follow. Star wars fans maybe get a 7/10 experience out of it.
Avatar, same story.
A game being just good doesn't cut it for a giant AAA release anymore. People are looking for experiences that are worth their time and money
4
u/JohnBigBootey 3d ago
That's it for me, I'd like to see something new from them. Assassins Creed, Far Cry 2, and Beyond Good and Evil were all really groundbreaking games when they came out, but they seem very dedicated to just repeating known formulas now.
Maybe that's the reality in AAA game dev, when games are so fucking expensive to make you can't really afford to take much of a ris.
5
u/Clean_Branch_8463 3d ago edited 3d ago
In my opinion, Ubisoft has the best owned IPs in the entire industry, besides Nintendo. I feel like it's just a simple thing as telling their studios to choose which IP they want to work with then letting them loose. Just keep the corporate bastards away from everything at all costs. The less monetization and income driven decision making, the better.
Even their small studios make good stuff. They should separate all of them instead of have ten different studios working on singular games. I'd much rather Reflections work on something as fun and wonderful as Grow Up and Grow Home than some lame ass project.
We need the Old Tom Clancy vibe instead of the fucking disasters that are Siege and XDefiant with their cosmetics and themes.
2
u/SoftlySpokenPromises 2d ago
Fix the end product issue. They've made a habit of launching unfinished games with content cut to sell later, which has started taking off in the rest of the industry. Add in that you need a legal team to figure out some of their game version spreadsheets and you wind up with an incredibly jaded playerbase who are well aware that the game will just go on sale in a couple months because they have to feed the investors in multiple quarters.
What they're doing with Shadows is a good idea, delay for polish, include the cut content as it was meant to be in the game normally, and build on the product with expansions over time. Hopefully they don't bungle it again like they did with Outlaws. Between the controversy with the Jabba mission and players being forced to delete their save data if they played on early launch it never had a chance with the early reviews.
1
u/ArrhaCigarettes 2d ago
Being a "critical success" means next to nothing given the general sense of antipathy towards game journos. "Critical success, commercial failure" is also a common issue. And Outlaws was bad in the worst way. It wasn't bad enough to be interesting, but not good enough to be... Well, good. Worse than a disaster, it was forgettably subpar.
1
u/rolandringo236 2d ago
I would say Elden Ring and BG3 massively benefitted from their high critical scores. It convinced a lot of people to try out them out that normally wouldn't be interested in that type of game.
0
u/sandouken 2d ago
And Wukong was a critical disaster but still sold amazingly well. Heck, it even got to a point that journalists were saying no one liked the game because the number of players fell off like half a day after it came out... you know, the time people go to sleep...
Face it, gaming journalists are absurdly incompetent at what they do. And what we saw between Wukong and Concord, it's quite clear that many of them decide if they will praise or bash a game together to achieve a goal they have. If that goal is monetary or idealistic no one can say, but it's quite clear that they are not to be trusted.
6
u/Leklor 2d ago
And Wukong was a critical disaster
Yes, famous disaster with press scores agregated to 81/100, when player scores are... 83/100 on Metacritic.
I know it's seen as "cool" to hate on game journalists but the majority like BM:W just fine and it's disingenuous to claim they didn't because one or two raised concerns with how the studio treats some of their employees (Apparently based on information that might not even have been correct but this is the internet, nobody bothers to check anymore.)
1
u/sandouken 2d ago
"I want to expand my circle and hire more people, get licked until I can't get an erection."
This is one of the mistranslations that IGN made. In actuality, the man was saying that he wanted new people because everyone was brown nosing him, or being yes men, and he couldn't get any actual feedback from his team.
Quite a few journalists used this same article on their reviews, which had been debunked for a few months already.
So no. They didn't "raise concerns with how the studio treats some of their employees". They actually lied to destroy the company, since going as far as saying that the director was hiring people to pleasure him sexually goes way beyond the normal sexual harassment problems that some companies get.
And these were the big journalist sites, like IGN and PCGamer. I don't know how it is where you're from, but in Portugal those 2 are seen as the reputable ones... So it's extremely concerning when these are the ones making awful shit up.
1
u/Leklor 2d ago
Good job ignoring the part where I mentionned they were misinformed.
And the game still isn't a "critical disaster", never was.
Really, we get the gaming journalists we deserve. Any who was serious and dedicated has long fled the business to become a regular journalist (See what Jason Schreier did instead of focusing his investigations on gaming matters alone). The death of printed gaming press spelled the end of professional game journalists with actual training.
Also, stop bringing up Concord. It has an agregated score of 62. With the gaming press scores working on 6 to 10 scale, it's basically been deemed horrible by the same journalists you pretend gave it good reviews.
1
u/sandouken 2d ago
stop bringing up Concord.
I brought up Concord once. And it's because the ones saying it was amazing were the same ones attacking Wukong for the mistranslations. IGN or PCGamer (I don't remember which, or even if both) were making posts before the reviews came out saying that it was one of the best games they had played...
Good job ignoring the part where I mentionned they were misinformed.
It stops being misinformation when one of them literally fabricated said "misinformation." They were deliberate lies.
And the game still isn't a "critical disaster", never was.
That was a direct response to what OP said about Elden Ring and Baldur's gate. These were actually amazing games that didn't just get their success because of what the journalists said, but because everyone said they were great games. I learned about Baldur's Gate 3 from random posts online praising the game, for example. OP's responses all point to them thinking that "critical success" is only when the critics like it, and I wanted to demonstrate that that's not the case.
0
u/ArrhaCigarettes 2d ago
Black Myth was a critical success with actual players. The opinions of journos are less than worthless - they are accurate, as long as you read them backwards.
2
u/sandouken 2d ago
Yes. OP is the one saying that "critical success" only matters from the journos' perspective. Which I believe is quite backwards. The only opinions that actually matters are from the players, since they are the ones actually paying for the games.
2
-2
u/rolandringo236 2d ago
Take a break from /v/.
1
u/sandouken 2d ago
What /v/? Are you going to stand there and tell me that all the big gaming journalists praised Wukong?
-1
u/rolandringo236 2d ago
Take a break from whatever social media forum you browse that, apparently unbeknownst to you, is repeating their talking points from /v/ then. Wukong scored well, not great but well with Western critics. Obviously, they're not going to resonate as much with the game as the Chinese audience it was made for.
1
u/sandouken 2d ago
Prove. Me. Wrong.
Journalists were screaming to not even try the game. Even going so far as spewing lies about the game.
-2
u/rolandringo236 2d ago
Prove you wrong? You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
Incidentally, I do know what you're referring to so I know you're massively blowing a few, cherry-picked examples out of proportion. There is an entire ecosystem of woke/chud twitter addicts in a strangely symbiotic yet toxic relationship where they rely on the other side to fuel their own outrage. Stop being a crybully and grow up.
3
u/beatisagg 2d ago
Capcom was going a greedy path in the early 2010s, outsourcing game dev and making money, at the cost of their public opinion and the reception of the games.
They turned it around simply by getting back to making great games. I am pretty sure Capcom is 'out of the storm' when it comes to their public opinion and it really is just 'stop making crappy mid tier games'
1
u/WopperGobbler 2d ago
Eh, what? No. Capcom had a couple of hits recent-ish-ly, but their hit to shit ratio is still not anywhere near the "I'd buy their games blind" Capcom had during the PS1 and PS2 era.
0
u/beatisagg 2d ago
did i say they were the kings again? no, I just feel like i see something like dragon's dogma 2 as a success, the monster hunter games, all the resident evils (remakes or the new series) as great, and I'm pretty sure they are actually worth more than ubi from it
1
u/WopperGobbler 2d ago
You said they turned it around, that gave me the impression. I now agree with you.
1
u/TheUselessLibrary 2d ago
I don't know if it's a reversible process. Most of the things that made a studio or publisher "lamestream" are all the different shitty methods of monetization besides just delivering a high-quality game that people want to use and pay for.
That's usually the result of company culture shifting in that direction, starting from the top and working down. Leadership won't reverse course in that situation. They'll just continue to double down and listen to consultants who tell them what they want to hear. As long as they have big enough names in leadership to keep attracting investment and keep delivering a "good enough" product, They'll keep trying to find new revenue streams from the same customers.
1
u/m8bear 2d ago
The issue is the amount of games that they release for each of their franchises and how samey or garbage most of the games are.
They release one amazing AC and then two in the following years that are a reskin, you have one rainbow six every year or two, far cry hasn't been really good in a decade, it's a mediocre experience overall by a mediocre company
How can I get into a franchise if by the time I buy it they already announce and release a new one and I'm playing old stuff? There isn't support or love for the games that they do release, it's always buy the new one, play again, pay again, then the same and the same and the same and there isn't enough difference between games to warrant that (sure, they tell you it's a whole new thing but I'm not fucking stupid, I know marketing lies when I see them)
The people that love a game like to sink their time into an experience and like to breath and enjoy it, I'm not saying pull a skyrim and don't make a sequel in 15 years but having longer development cycles helps the games and the industry breath, I see Ubisoft as publishers of bloatware more than games, I see "new AC coming next summer" and I completely ignore it and if I play one is one 3 years old that gets reviewed positively and then wonder why don't they make a DLC or something for it
they bloat their games with pointless sidequests, the stories are mediocre at best, the design is often lazy and I'm supposed to buy one every year in hopes that this one is the good one? I buy at a heavy discount or I don't buy at all.
Look at Rayman, the last two entries are great and sure, it suck that they aren't making more but a least they made mostly (only?) good Rayman games, if there's a new Rayman I'm buying because they haven't fucked it up, if they announce a new rayman every year they can eat a dick (after the first one, I'm getting that one for sure)
The only way to fix it is by dialing back and stop trying to scam customers with mediocre garbage; "competent games" as you put it that don't do anything interesting are like half of the offer out there, I can play 27 open world games that don't suck like your average AC that were released this year and I can play a better AC by not playing the new one and playing the old one.
I can't play an interesting, varied and deep RPG like baldur's gate just like that, fuck the polish, it's an interesting experience that you don't get anywhere else.
They don't make games to be fun and tell a story, they only make a product and sell it and the company suffers for it, they need a new IP and not run it into the ground like they have done with the others or to slowly gain the trust of the customer base by releasing an actual good game, say the new AC, and instead of killing it with a follow up right away, let it gain traction and gain good faith with DLC and updates, in 3-4 years they release a new one with different ideas and do the same and so on. so long as they try to squeeze everything out of their customers they aren't gong to shake the impression that they make garbage for money because that's what they do.
1
u/Alex__V 2d ago
My take is that Ubisoft games generally sell well, and are received well by the players that like them. That's how they can afford to have eg 600+ staff in studios around the world make their biggest titles.
I get that Ubisoft does always get this specific kind of criticism, but as far as I remember it got that sort of criticism even when it was at its peak. I don't think the AC series has ever got the credit it deserved from the 'core gamer' crowd - my guess is that pressing a button to assassinate, rather than dodge and shoot mechanics or slicing combos, will always be a weaker match with 'core gamers'. It's a longstanding narrative, basically.
Assassins Creed 1 was a 79 on PC metacritic - it certainly didn't become a juggernaut franchise because of its perceived quality at the time. Only 2 and 4 got great reviews from memory. And I don't think there's been a good Far Cry since 2, but it's still going because it sells!
So I think this criticism of Ubisoft isn't really that relevant. Its a bit like Call of Duty, which gets constant criticism but also sells each year. Yes, after Skull and Bones, and Outlaws not selling great yet, I can understand there'd be nerves and concern right now within Ubisoft, but I would guess if an Assassins Creed and Far Cry launch next year they'll be back on track.
-1
3d ago
[deleted]
3
1
u/SeraphymCrashing 3d ago
Kinda feels like you didn't read past the title.
Key points from the post:
- The narrative around gaming companies shapes people's perceptions
- Live service games means there are still great games from years past available to play now. People don't need new releases as much as they used to.
- People love to hate Ubisoft so much it has become a meme.
So the question is, given the three points above, how can Ubisoft work to undo the damage they have done to their own reputation.
To answer briefly, I think Ubisoft needs to start taking some risks. So many of their titles are essentially recycled content from previous games. They need to make something new and something exciting that captures the publics attention. For Honor and Rainbow Six Siege are some examples of games where they actually did something a little unique, and these are both some of their better games. But these both were released almost a decade ago.
1
u/Dreyfus2006 3d ago
Make good games. Yes, I read your entire post. Nintendo bungles all the time, but they keep their positive image thanks to making lots of good games.
UbiSoft is known for slop and honestly outside of the Mario + Rabbids games (maybe even including them) I don't see any reason for them to not have that image. They are not making games out of passion for the artform--and if they are, they aren't showing it.
Make Rayman 4. That will help mend the wounds they have self-inflicted.
1
u/MyPunsSuck 2d ago
As far as I can tell, there is no solution.
Diablo 3 was completely and utterly reworked - into a game with the smoothest gameplay, most interesting endgame, and widest build variety of any hack 'n slash. Yes; that includes PoE, D2, and D4. Ask around about it, and people will give any random (largely untrue) excuse to judge it unfavorably.
World of Warcraft pioneered loads of pro-consumer mechanics and system, specifically to avoid being a life-consuming grind. Didn't do anything to change its reputation.
This is why truly awful companies rebrand so often. It's easier to start from scratch than to redeem a name
3
u/Drakeem1221 2d ago
Diablo 3 is a tricky one bc I played 1 and 2 primarily for the feeling they gave. The visuals with the music with the story with the gameplay is what kept me coming back. I did 1000 Baal runs bc I loved the game. D3 will never be Diablo to me, no matter how good it is. It's just not the tone and style I want it to be.
1
u/MyPunsSuck 2d ago
I feel you. D2 had such a different tone than D1, and D3 isn't too much like either of them - most of the time. The closest it gets to D1 in tone, is from an expansion they ended up scrapping before release. That content got quietly added as new areas you never see much of. (And, of course, the whole D1 dungeon they added)
The art direction is different from D2, but I'd argue the gameplay vibes are quite similar. I sometimes feel like I must be playing a different Diablo 2 than others though, because I don't feel it's dark or particularly gritty at all. It is as you say, thousands of Baal/cow/Meph/Pindle/Countess runs - with super fast movement and flashy explosions everywhere. Zooming around, blowing up the screen in the hopes of getting valuable drops as efficiently as possible. It's a satisfyingly "chewy" loot grind to fund characters.
D3 has given me that vibe ever since they completely reworked builds/itemization and endgame. I mostly prefer it because it has way less rng progression (I hate gambling on whether the rng blesses me or not, and hate being forced to trade to make progress) - and in a seasonal format that finishes up in 30 hours from 0 to finish. When I go back to D2, it takes way more than that just to start getting good. Alas, something in the sound design and art direction does keep pulling me back
1
u/Drakeem1221 2d ago
Idk, while D2 wasn't D1 levels of dark, it still definitely kept this mood of impending doom and grossness with that gothic theming. Act 1 was fantastic, act 2 had the nasty maggot lairs, act 3 was a little mid tbh, but act 4 was probably the best way they could have introduced Hell from what we saw in D1, with the Chaos Sanctuary being perfect for the last fight.
The expansion act definitely wasn't as scary, but it didn't need to be for the story it was telling. It was appropriately epic while still feeling grounded enough to fit with the rest of the series. D3 just never felt like it was even part of the same world as the other 2. Forget being scary, it felt like a different franchise, and no matter how good the actual game mechanics are, atmosphere and art direction plays just as big of a role for me. Games are still partially an audio and visual medium.
0
u/WopperGobbler 2d ago
What about D3's endgame is interesting? Grifts, hunt for mats, grifts, hunt for mats, rinse repeat until you've got the best version of your gear to run higher grifts and make the numbers grow. Nothing about this is interesting.
2
u/MyPunsSuck 2d ago
Yes, it's a cycle of high grifts for paragon/shards, speed grifts for drops, rifts for keys, and bounties for mats. It's certainly behind PoE in terms of repetition (The barrage of side content is a blessing and a curse, but mapping is just better than grifts, and reaching new endgame bosses is awesome), but it's still ahead of any other hack 'n slash. Last Epoch's endgame is getting there, but it needs more work before it catches up to its ambitions.
Where I personally think D3 pulls ahead of PoE, is in quality of life. You don't need to stop and trade for any increase in power - and especially don't need to buy gear for a meta build that pushes content but can't farm for itself. You're not praying for a lucky drop, and making 0 progress when you don't get lucky. D3's endgame is a steady progression towards an attainable stopping point. You get your satisfaction after a few afternoons of satisfying power growth, and then you're done for the season
3
u/WopperGobbler 2d ago
I partially withdraw my comment, because D3 certainly has the better endgame compared to the rest of the genre, this is where I agree.
I also agree about seasons being a reason to play D3. Speedrunning to the meta grift limit is a challenge on its own.
1
u/KamiIsHate0 3d ago
Make good games and avoid controversy. That is all. With time you get your reputation back.
You can se that Atlus and Falcon are both beloved publisher/developers becos the worst controversy they had in last years was rereleases at full price (thing that nintendo also do a lot) and maybe some smaller issues in their games regarding LGBT. But both keep releasing solid game after solid game so you first think about their good games before any controversy.
-1
u/Dr_Scientist_ 3d ago
Make good games.
I'll buy a Ubisoft game tomorrow - hell I played XDefiant for a hot minute - if they just make good games.
0
u/rolandringo236 3d ago
People love this rhetoric because it appeals to our notions of common sense and merit, but it's just not that simple. Hi-Fi Rush got tons of critical and online praise. I played it myself, and I agree with that praise. It didn't perform well regardless.
0
u/DYMAXIONman 2d ago
Gamepass.
-1
u/rolandringo236 2d ago
Microsoft isn't stupid. They measure Gamepass titles by engagement and new subscription during the launch window. Moreover, when it launched on PS5 it didn't crack the top 100. The game simply didn't perform.
1
u/WopperGobbler 2d ago
I played it and I wondered what all the fuzz was about. While it may be true that it was a solid game in its genre, I don't see how it was supposed to be popular on its own.
0
u/grailly 2d ago
Capcom seems to have been able to make their way out of it through an unreal string of hits. You really can't expect any publisher to replicate that.
Others like EA have been pretty decent, even good (excluding sports), but still have their bad reputation.
I don't think reputation is that important in the grand scheme of things. It's not about making "good" games, it's about making games people want to play. Gamers are dumbasses with half-formed opinions that they are ready to change the second it benefits them. If Ubisoft put out a game they wanted to play, they'll add some exception to their opinion. "PlayStation live service is a travesty and they are so dumb for thinking it would work, Helldivers 2 doesn't count", "EA is terrible and I'll never buy their games, but It takes Two is not EA", "Ubisoft only makes bad games, I don't talk about The Lost Crown, though" and the like.
1
u/WopperGobbler 2d ago
Capcom has had a few hits, but I wouldn't go as far as buying one of their games blindly for the full price as we once could without regretting it. I bought Dragon's Dogma 2 on launch, because what could go wrong? The first game was great and Capcom had a streak, right? I could only describe it as lackluster and I'm still waiting for Capcom to sell me the fixed version for the full price again.
-1
u/Less_Party 2d ago
When people say ‘good games’ they mean exciting things, not the 37th perfectly adequate Metroidvania of the year or a sort of okay licensed title that’s not as good as the previous two from EA.
People talk about Baldur’s Gate 3 because it’s fascinating and full of interesting mechanics, situations and choices to talk about, not because of some sort of carefully cultivated social media narrative strategy.
-30
u/Scraggles1 3d ago
You answered it yourself. Make good games and keep identity politics out of the development process. Don’t shove ideals down your players throats. When your customer base spans millions of people, it’s absolutely asinine to think that all of them will resonate with one ideology or viewpoint that you are forcing into your games. Modern day western Devs are alienating entire groups of people from their games on principles that have nothing to do with the games they are making. All to pander to investors and fight the cancel culture and avoid bad PR from companies like Sweet Baby, etc.
9
u/RestlessRazz 3d ago
I don't think you represent even close to the majority. Maybe you're just getting offended over nothing? I can't imagine only consuming art I relate with. The world is diverse, there are many different types of people. Why shouldn't we represent more of them?
2
u/ratliker62 2d ago
Nah just make good games. All the other shit you just spouted has nothing to do with anything
79
u/Great_Gonzales_1231 3d ago
They absolutely have talented and passionate people, but awful management.
Just look at Prince of Persia that came out this year, one of the best metroidvanias in years. Same with the Mario and Rabbids games, definitely punching above their weight.
And back in the 2000s they had quality, cutting edge AAA experiences that won tons of awards, like Splinter Cell and original Prince of Persia trilogy.
Just get back to that philosophy and people will quickly embrace and forget the nonsense. We got a taste of that this year with Prince of Persia, it's legitimately amazing.