- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
What is The Dark Zone? Anacostia?
Ubisoft Sellout - Bankruptcy Speedrun Any% Thread
- Thread starter Sparky Lurker
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
Div 2 map doesn't expand that far east. There's 3 small, separate DZs (instead of the massive one that covered a big chunk of Mnhattan in Div1) DZ West = Basically all of Georgetown. DZ South = a big chunk of the waterfront. DZ East = A chunk of Capitol Hill, north of the actual Cpitol Building up to Union Station-ish.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
Wow, that sounds like shit. Also, you missed my ghetto joke.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
It absolutely is, literally no-one other than trolls like it. In Div 1 because the DZ was fucking huge you could run around and call a bunch of fake extractions to disguise where you actually were trying to get your loot out. In Div 2 the individual zones are so small that isn't viable because you can cross the entire area in no time.
In my defence it's 1 am, and also I've only ever been to the
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2017
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
they said the same about the new settlers, and look how it turned out...
in ubisoft's defense they kept working on it, and these days I'd actually call it good. still dragged down in parts from ubisoft trying to create their own destiny, but for co-op shenanigans like wildlands or some solo operating it's more than fine by now.
that was the point, their glorious "world 2.0" by not!elon and his version of google got fucked and then abused for money and power (which where the story starts to go off rails a bit). I also like that the DO NO EVIL retards where the ones causing the shit in the first play - by "doing evil" and bombing shit to scare not!elon into compliance, only for him to bring in the same mercs that went and fucked everyone over. they're portrayed as they retarded dipshits they are, which was kinda refreshing and pretty ballsy tbh. still fucked pacing so ubisoft doesn't have to pay their celebrities too much, but after that it's basically it's own story anyway.
Ubisoft has a framework that is too large in scale for their release schedule. These worlds would be perfect for the live service model they want but they need to settle down on a title, if the game is made from the ground up every single time, they're wasting resources but also removing any chance of the live service success, you need a consistent platform for a playerbase to amass and sustain.
There's also the consistent idea that because it's a sandbox and its pve there shouldn't be any sense of balance and that defeats the point of it as a game. I wish their character loadouts/build system would take a page from hoard shooters. Wildlands could've really benefited from loadout restriction, after you finish your 3rd or 4th province, not even a 3rd of the way through the game you'll be unstoppable god of a character. Every gadget is just a new delivery method of an explosion and you end up with no exaggeration like 40 in your loadout at the same time. 2 different mines, grenades, c4, explosive drone, underbarrel grenade launcher on a rifle that fits all purposes and accompanied by a sniper that 1 shots helicopters, both are suppressed so you can fight literal armies and still be stealthy, your drone gets infinite duration, can revive teammates from complete safety 50 meters away. It's a joke how unengaging the game becomes very quickly. It's the groundwork for a good game but its not a good game and they don't even care to support it or properly iterate on it so what's the point? Obviously the business model works so I just have to accept their games aren't for me and move on but also that series died because of how breakpoint flopped so it's not all correct business decisions.
It's just frustrating how they spread themselves so thin they lose any sense of identity in their games. Pre-release when breakpoint was bragging about being 4x larger of a world, it was an immediate red flag, wildlands was already too large for its own good when their gameplay is isolated to its bases making all the space between those effectively loading screens. Traveling between its outposts is just like waiting to start a mission. Its the same problem as all their other games, start with a field and place points of interest, why is this even an open world?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2018
The final boss fight was badly designed. Out of nowhere the guy is equipped with tiny drones that acted like a force field.
It really felt like a last-minute decision. I wonder how was the development behind the scenes. In a way, it reminded me of the final boss battle in Far Cry Primal, with the big guy being bullet-sponge unlike the rest of the enemies encountered throughout the story.
The boss fight was so unfinished and so last minute that it ends up being laughable.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
asscreed still sells well enough for that. far cry too although that kinda came and went given it's budget. people even still play division for some reason. breakpoint would've worked fine if hadn't been tripped to fall flat on it's face right from the start (and fwiw they could've dropped it right then and there, but they didn't). same for watch_dogs - this one is even more retarded because besides GTA there isn't really anything to fill the modern sandbox niche, and GTA V is almost exactly 10 years old at this point. it's volition level idiocy to not exploit the opportunity when the genre juggernaut is content milking retards with shark cards.
I'm also not sure how the financials work out. ubisoft is re-using the same 4 engines, which besides snowdrop probably have a lot of overlap to make it cheaper. the rest is eastern yuro/asian sweatshops churning out assets and maps. the only difference is ubisoft actually owns a lot of those studios, while the rest of the industry is fine with just outsourcing to randoms - which also explains the 40+ minutes credits in starfield for example.
it's a ghost recon game, not just cause. people want operators operating, not g.i. joe (and even the current ones still draw ire when compared to the source or the first few games). also far cry kinda fills that niche of open world and going balls to the wall.
the ghosts are already pretty OP anyway in the "limits" of the setting, they just don't go full michael bay, and when ubisoft tries you get something like the raid in breakpoint, which got plenty of pushback.
it didn't flop because of that when wildlands did well and people still hold it up as a good game.
sense of scale, freedom of progression, amount of "content" etc., same as any other open world game. wildlands would probably have done far worse as a corridor shooter.
people also need to decide what they want, either ubisoft maps are filled to the brim with checkboxes to collect, or "nothing" inbetween, so which one is it?
another aspect of open world is that it appeals to a broader playerbase than walking down a hall and grinding through hordes of enemy spawns. just like there are people that make a beeline for the questmarker like the modern skyrim player, plenty others are gonna dick around and look around while collecting shit.
tbh I can't even remember the final boss
think back then I got it over with and then treated it like a behind enemy lines sandbox, because say what you want the environment and it's production value is 10/10. with that vast open world might as well use it.
I'm saying it should be open world but is too large for its own good. Wildlands isn't an interconnected world like Watch_dogs or Assassin's creed, it's an outpost simulator. The gameplay is in infiltrating bases, doing an objective, gathering resources/collectibles for bonus reward and extracting. This is most of Ubisoft's catalogue at this point, it's also MGSV's core gameplay loop. Aside from convoy takedowns the space between outposts isn't real gameplay, it's just traveling, driving is terrible so that time between should be shortened so that you're primarily playing the good part, the outposts. The in-between stuff is just filler, and that'd be fine if it was a bit shorter. But the game has no interest in making those parts painless, vehicle spawns are the worst in this regard because they always spawn too far away, in forests where they don't fit, helicopters spawn too close to powerlines/trees that immediately break them, sometimes on hills in view of a SAM turret, they'll spawn across bodies of water, over mountains, every problem that could exist, does.
It's funny that Ubisoft consoomers will buy into these brand names despite being just unpolished goyslop shit
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
I can defend it in a "realistic" setting like ghost recon, because most areas on earth are last swaths of nothing, maybe fields for agriculture.
gameplay-wise it also adds another layer, losing your heli in bumfuck nowhere suddenly becomes an issue. now you have to figure out how to get around the map, time vs convenience etc. dying suddenly becomes annoying when you have get back there which takes time etc. "space" as a gameplay element is highly underused, and when it is often done wrong or neutered for the sake of "fun" (which is highly subjective).
some might see that as pointless busywork, but any (good) game needs filler, just like a cake. you can't just eat frosting all the time without getting sick of it. or for vidya have everything so streamlined and convenient that you just press buttons like in a telltale game. it's another challenge to overcome.
or you just port back and forth, which makes the whole discussion moot anyway.
after cp2077 and most other AAA games ubisoft slop is pretty polished (division and breakpoint notwithstanding). I never heard of any issues like other games have - unless they fuck it up by stacking 2 copy protections on top each other or never bother to properly change/update denuvo like in starlink's case.
and even as slop it still fills a niche. how many games have you run around in pseudo-historical setting with AAA production values? that's why asscreed still works and other games don't.
one reason ubisoft is so retarded is that they either not try to fill other lucrative niches, or compete with themselves. I mean think about it, imagine you have the whole of tom clancy's IP on lock - and do absolute nothing with it. they add pvp to every ghost recon, where is the fucking COD clone? battlefield's corpse is getting raped by dice sweden, where is the battlefield clone? instead they shit out another battle royale, way too late when fortnite already dominates the industry, then a valorant clone trying to get on the hero shooter train after overwatch has become a sad laughing stock... the second news reported MS was gonna buy activision and possibly make COD exclusive the frogfags in charge should have picked up the fucking phone and called jim ryan and tell him if he needs a military shooter, from CS to BF, they can provide it.
or take for honor, which has pretty good gameplay but is locked in multiplayer. where's the RPG with that combat system? where's the fucking soulsclone after people have been eating that shit up for over a decade?
I already raged about watch_dogs, but the same applies. other companies with the means ubisoft has would salivate over situations like this, but instead I have to hear how many fucking woman work at ubisoft, after most of their games suck. nice self-own frogfags...
Either way, Ubi is still shit
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
Minor correction, they don't have Tom Clancy's IP on lock, they have using his name for video games on lock. The only actual Clancy IP they have currently is Rainbow 6. The rest of your point still stands, they definitely should have been much less retarded at chasing gaming trends to cash in.
It's sad that ActiBlizz is doing better at chasing current gaming trends, and that's a very low bar considering chasing any trend is just retarded
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2018
#MeToo really fucked up the company, now the only trend they're after is ESG.
The game is very arcadey, the core gameplay is about tactics not realism, its not a sim. Tactics are positioning, team coordination, accounting for mistakes, resource management and in a real time game, execution.
You don't lose your heli in the middle of nowhere because there's nothing to make you lose it. Also you can just call in another one.
Good games don't have filler, good games have a core gameplay loop and execute it well, any additional mechanics would then feed into the core gameplay. In the case of wildlands almost every additional mechanic is superfluous or works against the core gameplay. Weapon choices are non-existent, attachments do nearly nothing aside from suppressors and underbarrel GLs, skills remove mechanics rather than modifying them and some are actually downgrades.
If you increase your bleedout timer it actually makes it so you just have to wait longer before respawning. You can still be revived past the bleedout but you can't respawn before it. If you're playing solo your bots teleport to revive you unless they glitch out in which case the bleedout timer is again, more waiting. It only helps in ghost mode but ghost mode sucks because of how buggy the game is. You can literally fall through the floor at random so a perma death mode makes no sense for a game this inconsistent. Wildlands is a bad game that has one strength entirely unique to it and no other game, uninterrupted coop.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2020
XDefiant has failed certification from Sony and Microsoft
How does a AAA publisher fuck something up so hard?
How does a AAA publisher fuck something up so hard?
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
We already know why; Ubisoft's back-end team is the worst among AAA studios. A more pressing question is who's the retard that greenlit making this blogpost unasked for?