PDA

View Full Version : Dear Ubisoft, if you are making DLC with "new" side missions, actually make them new



pacmanate
01-10-2016, 05:29 AM
Jack the Ripper DLC Activities compared to Base Game

Bounty Hunts - Same as in the base game
Close The Fight Clubs - Same as in the base game, just renamed
Carriage of Justice - Basically a reversed race where you have to be slow instead of fast
Jacks Lieutenants - Templar Hunts
Walk of Shame - The Kidnapping mechanic (but now, its a WHOLE mission! Yay!)
Brothel attack - Liberate the Children

I have no idea why I only just noticed this.

Apart from a new story, we also got 6 activities that were renames of activities in the base game. How much work went into those?

Honestly I feel cheated now on the DLC. I just got more side missions that I've already played in the base game and a story that takes about 4 hours to complete.

Oh and some other side notes:

1. Glitchier than the base game
2. Lighting was horrible
3. Game lags like hell when in a carriage and boosting locks my game up for a good 2-3 seconds
4. Cheap CHEAP as hell sections in the story where they cant even animate a cutscene, its just dialogue in game (also affects base game, lazy)

Whatever the next AC DLC might be in whatever future game, I hope more work goes into it. Because I think renamed things and passing them off as "new" is pretty deceiving in my opinion.

So again, how much effort went into this DLC? If you REALLY think about it. Because giving us 2 Boroughs that run like crap, look like crap, have more glitches than the base game, have reskinned side missions, was this worth the money?

Hell no.

As a long time AC fan all I can say is what the **** is this? Is this the quality we can expect now? Its a good job we have developers like Techland, Rockstar and CDPR that actually make substantial DLC and take care to give fans value for money as well as trying to offer new experiences.

Dying Lights DLC "The Following", the size of the map is bigger than the 2 maps in the base game combined.
The Witchers DLC, first one had more than 10 hours of gameplay, the 2nd one is giving 20 hours with a whole new area
Red Dead Redemption Undead Nightmare, probably the best "DLC" I've ever come across, completely new experience.


Then you have AC, lets make a list of AC DLC.

AC2 - They keep 2 sequences from us, thanks
ACB - Da Vinci Disappearance, story only with no side missions, takes an average of just over 2 hours
ACR - A first person platformer that only benefits fans who like the lore and actually give a **** about the MD characters
AC3 - Tyranny of King Washington. Firstly, episodic, why? Story content was less than 2 hours. Side missions were random events.
AC4 - Freedom Cry. Side missions were reskins. Saving slaves from a plantation was basically a warehouse raid.
ACU - Dead Kings. Buggy, horrible story. Even though it was free it takes up my hard drive space.
ACS - As listed, reskin galour.

I wonder when Ubi will step up their DLC quality rather than making a 3-4 hour story and padding the gametime out to 10 hours by giving us hundreds of collectibles and side missions that are renamed.

Like I said above though, at least we have developers making DLC's that are new experiences and try to be fresh, at least those will keep me occupied until AC gets some DLC story missions that last longer than 4 hours.

SixKeys
01-10-2016, 09:49 PM
Completely agree. I made a thread complaining about the DLC a few days ago myself. It's the first DLC since ToKW that just pissed me off so much I gave up after 30 minutes.

TO_M
01-10-2016, 10:13 PM
I'm just wondering why Ubi feels the need to introduce new very specific mechanics that will probably never be usefull in other games/settings, in their next-gen DLC's. They did it last year as well with that odd lantern mechanic in Dead Kings.

Assassin_M
01-10-2016, 10:47 PM
Not that I liked the DLC, nor do I dislike HoS, but lets take the example of Witcher DLC and its side missions. What exactly did it offer there that was completely new? It was only more Witcher contracts, more "Go there, investigate, track, kill those" tier quests, more treasure hunts, more dungeons. Even in Undead Nightmare, all the side missions are basically reskins of something from the original game, more or less.

pacmanate
01-10-2016, 11:30 PM
Not that I liked the DLC, nor do I dislike HoS, but lets take the example of Witcher DLC and its side missions. What exactly did it offer there that was completely new? It was only more Witcher contracts, more "Go there, investigate, track, kill those" tier quests, more treasure hunts, more dungeons. Even in Undead Nightmare, all the side missions are basically reskins of something from the original game, more or less.

At least the Witcher as a whole beats AC in every way possible. The DLC at least had a longer story than any AC DLC we have ever got.

Undead Nightmare also had a long *** campaign that was new and fresh and COMPLETELY different from the base game. Having similar side missions isnt really an issue when the main story is so long, fleshed out and different.

Assassin_M
01-10-2016, 11:33 PM
At least the Witcher as a whole beats AC in every way possible.

Undead Nightmare also had a long *** campaign that was new and fresh and COMPLETELY different from the base game. Having similar side missions isnt really an issue when the main story is so long, fleshed out and different.
Then okay, we definitely agree on that. As I said, after playing Jack, I regretted paying $15 for it. HoS and UN were cheaper AND had longer stories. I just thought that your main focus was the side missions, since that's what your title is referring to.

m4r-k7
01-10-2016, 11:48 PM
Theres an easy solution: Just don't buy AC DLC's, they are never that great. Vote with your wallet. If people keep buying these crappy DLC's then Ubisoft will keep releasing them, its as simple as that. I actually got Freedom Cry free on PS+ and thought it was pretty fun and was actually surprised by the longevity of it. Every other AC DLC I have just watched on Youtube and were nothing too special. I generally never buy DLC's unless they are expansions and provide many hours of extra gameplay, with one example being Undead Nightmare.

ze_topazio
01-11-2016, 12:15 AM
I wish we had more crazy dlc like Undead Nightmare and King Washington, dlc where the devs could go wild with their imagination.

Civona
01-11-2016, 12:38 AM
At a certain point, every single mission in an open world is going to be a variant on a previous one. the only difference is if the game is transparent about this by labelling each mission type, or tries to genericise each mission by calling them all "quests" or something vague like that.

But having extra time to work on the game is a good sign for their ability to make each mission feel more distinct from others with similar objectives.

But for real, you're always going to have missions where you need to kill a guy and the main difference between any other "kill a guy" mission is the enemy patrol setup, location, and any unique VO or character designs. This is why a lot of people don't want games to be huge: because games are ALWAYS going to be made off templates to some degree, and with more content it's easier to spot the parameters of each template.

MikeFNY
01-11-2016, 10:52 AM
Ultimately Assassin_M is right, a DLC will almost always have the same formula of the main game, unless a radical deviation is done as it was the case with RDR Undead Nightmare.

But that was a big change and I'm not entirely surely I would like such a big change in AC although in all fairness the JTR DLC was very close to being as equally comical as Undead with those ridiculous scare tactics.

In my opinion an AC DLC should not deviate so much from the original story. Elsewhere we were saying how no background was given on the likes of Clara, Frederick, Ned, etc. Well a DLC on how life was in London before the arrival of the twins would have been a nice idea, we get to meet characters we met in the game, knowing them in more detail, understanding how life was before the Frye twins took over the city.

It would have meant playing as a new character, but I say why not? Henry Green's story sounds fascinating and I love his outfit :)
http://41.media.tumblr.com/69fd5285e09e171a05f031ce521191d3/tumblr_nrj5c3lxA11s9zjv1o1_1280.jpg

He is the so-called leader of the Assassins in London yet when the twins arrive, the city is almost all under the control of the Templars. Why? What happened? These are all answers that a DLC could have answered, giving a solid background of what life was before the main story.

In the end the JTR DLC had some interesting elements but it was almost entirely ruined by the introduction of scare tactics and pathetic side missions like the "walk of shame" that I found very annoying, especially when they(the scare tactics) were set as optional objectives.

dxsxhxcx
01-11-2016, 11:17 AM
to add insult to injury



AC2 - They keep 2 sequences from us, thanks (one of which would've made the transition between them less awkward, the Savonarola one)
ACB - Da Vinci Disappearance, story only with no side missions, takes an average of just over 2 hours (that also had a "small" but IMO relevant information that should've appeared in the main game, how they got AC3's grand temple location)
ACR - A first person platformer that only benefits fans who like the lore and actually give a **** about the MD characters (correction: that screwed with fans who gave a **** about the MD because they had to pay for it and another case of information that should've been addressed in the main game delegated to a PAID DLC, the confirmation of Lucy's betrayal, S16's name, etc)


I won't comment about the others because I haven't played them.

crusader_prophet
01-11-2016, 11:23 AM
The only DLC that I have ever felt satisfied after playing is the Shadowbroker DLC for ME2 and Leviathan DLC for ME3.

pacmanate
01-11-2016, 01:18 PM
Then okay, we definitely agree on that. As I said, after playing Jack, I regretted paying $15 for it. HoS and UN were cheaper AND had longer stories. I just thought that your main focus was the side missions, since that's what your title is referring to.

Yeah, sorry. It was on Side Missions but kind of drifted in AC DLC as a whole.


Theres an easy solution: Just don't buy AC DLC's, they are never that great. Vote with your wallet. If people keep buying these crappy DLC's then Ubisoft will keep releasing them, its as simple as that. I actually got Freedom Cry free on PS+ and thought it was pretty fun and was actually surprised by the longevity of it. Every other AC DLC I have just watched on Youtube and were nothing too special. I generally never buy DLC's unless they are expansions and provide many hours of extra gameplay, with one example being Undead Nightmare.

Well after Dead Kings and Jack The Ripper I won't be buying DLC again for AC. I give AC a lot of chances because I do like the games, use to love.

AC3 destroyed AC for me, AC4 redeemed it.
ACU destroyed AC again, ACS redeemed it.

ToKW, Dead Kings and JTR I all gave chances and benefit of the doubt but they just feel like reskins with a new 2-3 hour story

cawatrooper9
01-11-2016, 04:52 PM
I'm just wondering why Ubi feels the need to introduce new very specific mechanics that will probably never be usefull in other games/settings, in their next-gen DLC's. They did it last year as well with that odd lantern mechanic in Dead Kings.

Yeah, that's a pretty good point. The fear mechanic was at least usable, but I honestly kinda found it way too overpowered. In a fight with a bunch of enemies? Just spike two of them, prioritizing brutes, and you're golden.

The lantern was just dumb. It "addressed" a problem that never really existed- bugs being on walls.

pacmanate
01-11-2016, 08:19 PM
Yeah, that's a pretty good point. The fear mechanic was at least usable, but I honestly kinda found it way too overpowered. In a fight with a bunch of enemies? Just spike two of them, prioritizing brutes, and you're golden.

The lantern was just dumb. It "addressed" a problem that never really existed- bugs being on walls.

To add to your point, I liked the Fear Mechanic actually, because I see potential. An Assassin who uses fear and manipulation to clear paths and psychologically get to his/her targets heads seems really cool. Thats why I hoped we would go to India after ACS to explore more of the Indians psychological weaponary.

SixKeys
01-11-2016, 08:20 PM
I'm just wondering why Ubi feels the need to introduce new very specific mechanics that will probably never be usefull in other games/settings, in their next-gen DLC's. They did it last year as well with that odd lantern mechanic in Dead Kings.

My thoughts exactly. The Unity one was really weird because there were only a couple of spots in the whole DLC where you actually needed the lamp to proceed. In JTR they have a bunch of new weapons that are confusing to use and gimmicky. Why do you first need to throw a fear bomb and then quickly switch to another weapon to finish off your foes? Couldn't they combine those two into one? From what little I played, they're also completely pointless for Evie who can use all her other tools which are more efficient and reliable.

It baffles me that the devs didn't use the most obvious opportunity for DLC in both Unity and Syndicate: time anomalies. Hands up, who else would prefer a DLC in a completely different era like the WW1 simulation? That sequence in the main game would have made for a better DLC than JTR.

pacmanate
01-11-2016, 08:24 PM
It baffles me that the devs didn't use the most obvious opportunity for DLC in both Unity and Syndicate: time anomalies. Hands up, who else would prefer a DLC in a completely different era like the WW1 simulation? That sequence in the main game would have made for a better DLC than JTR.

Me.

I wanted to play in Paris just after the Crusades in Medieval times because that starting mission and the time anomaly looked so gritty and different to me.
For ACS, they should have let WW1 be a time anomaly again but should have made DLC playing as Lydia Frye and fleshed out the campaign for her a bit more and left that Juno stuff there too to give it a purpose

cawatrooper9
01-11-2016, 08:36 PM
It baffles me that the devs didn't use the most obvious opportunity for DLC in both Unity and Syndicate: time anomalies. Hands up, who else would prefer a DLC in a completely different era like the WW1 simulation?

http://previews.123rf.com/images/thawats/thawats1303/thawats130300338/18624271-Woman-hand-raised-up-Isolated-on-white-background--Stock-Photo-hand-female-arm.jpg

Sushiglutton
01-11-2016, 09:33 PM
AC2 - They keep 2 sequences from us, thanks
ACB - Da Vinci Disappearance, story only with no side missions, takes an average of just over 2 hours
ACR - A first person platformer that only benefits fans who like the lore and actually give a **** about the MD characters
AC3 - Tyranny of King Washington. Firstly, episodic, why? Story content was less than 2 hours. Side missions were random events.
AC4 - Freedom Cry. Side missions were reskins. Saving slaves from a plantation was basically a warehouse raid.
ACU - Dead Kings. Buggy, horrible story. Even though it was free it takes up my hard drive space.


What's that old expression again? Fool me once shame on you, fool me seven times in a row, in the exact same way, shame on me?

pacmanate
01-11-2016, 09:39 PM
What's that old expression again? Fool me once shame on you, fool me seven times in a row, in the exact same way, shame on me?

Hardly a shame on me. I love the franchise, but its not my fault if I keep getting let down. I keep buying the DLC cause I always have hope.

Also I never said the AC2 DLC or ACB DLC was bad, neither for AC4. For AC2 I just find the concept of what the DLC was, bad. For ACB I dislike that its insanely short as is AC4's Freedom Cry.

Sushiglutton
01-11-2016, 09:45 PM
Hardly a shame on me. I love the franchise, but its not my fault if I keep getting let down. I keep buying the DLC cause I always have hope.

Also I never said the AC2 DLC or ACB DLC was bad, neither for AC4. For AC2 I just find the concept of what the DLC was, bad. For ACB I dislike that its insanely short as is AC4's Freedom Cry.

Ha yeah, was just trying (and failing) to be clever :).

cawatrooper9
01-11-2016, 09:53 PM
To be fair, I think the "Short" argument is kind of dumb when complaining about DLC. Almost every DLC that comes out, even otherwise good ones, are criticized for being short. It's almost as if the content is extra content released after the game, rather being the next game in the franchise...

pacmanate
01-11-2016, 10:24 PM
To be fair, I think the "Short" argument is kind of dumb when complaining about DLC. Almost every DLC that comes out, even otherwise good ones, are criticized for being short. It's almost as if the content is extra content released after the game, rather being the next game in the franchise...

How is it kind of dumb? Undead Nightmare wasn't short, that was DLC.

Sure, extra content, great. Then it should be priced correctly. 10 missions for Jack The Ripper for a story and a bunch of recycled/renamed side missions. That should be about 5 seeing as side missions are copy/paste material and the only thing worked on is the story, which in fact doesnt even have cutscenes where there should be cutscenes.

I would have hated myself for BUYING Dead Kings. Even as Free DLC that is abysmal.

TO_M
01-11-2016, 10:34 PM
I would have hated myself for BUYING Dead Kings. Even as Free DLC that is abysmal.

I thought Dead Kings was quite alright content wise. It had a cool new area/town to explore(had some Acre AC1 vibes, which I loved), two new co-op missions and a few other extra activitites. The story might have sucked a bit, but I wouldn't call it short (If I am remembering correct). And the lantern mechanic was a bit redundant imo.

Although maybe my perception of the DLC is a bit skewed since it was free afterall, you're right that it would not have been worth 15 pounds/dollars.

pacmanate
01-11-2016, 10:39 PM
I thought Dead Kings was quite alright content wise. It had a cool new area/town to explore(had some Acre AC1 vibes, which I loved), two new co-op missions and a few other extra activitites. The story might have sucked a bit, but I wouldn't call it short (If I am remembering correct). And the lantern mechanic was a bit redundant imo.

Although maybe my perception of the DLC is a bit skewed since it was free afterall, you're right that it would not have been worth 15 pounds/dollars.

But story wise?

What was Dead Kings story? Get a thing for a guy so I can leave the City. That is the entire story. Hardly gripping. The puzzle sections as main missions were unneeded and guided you to everything so it was basically fetch quests until the ending missions right before you get the magic lantern of death.

Add that on to the horrible combat system that sometimes doesnt have hit detection/freezes from time to time and for some reasons pivots you on the spot during strikes and the poor performance, the DLC wasn't worth it IMO.

cawatrooper9
01-11-2016, 10:51 PM
How is it kind of dumb? Undead Nightmare wasn't short, that was DLC.

Sure, extra content, great. Then it should be priced correctly. 10 missions for Jack The Ripper for a story and a bunch of recycled/renamed side missions. That should be about 5 seeing as side missions are copy/paste material and the only thing worked on is the story, which in fact doesnt even have cutscenes where there should be cutscenes.

I would have hated myself for BUYING Dead Kings. Even as Free DLC that is abysmal.

Yeah, we all want more content- I don't think anyone would argue against that, regardless of how much we actually end up with. But this is DLC. It's always going to pale in comparison with the main game.

As great as it was, Undead Nightmare is by far the exception, not the rule.

AdrianJacek
01-11-2016, 10:59 PM
How is it kind of dumb? Undead Nightmare wasn't short, that was DLC.
Undead Nightmare only had 7 main missions and 6 side quests. The rest of content was fluff like horse taming, animal hunting and retaking settlements over and over and over again.

cawatrooper9
01-11-2016, 11:07 PM
Undead Nightmare only had 7 main missions and 6 side quests. The rest of content was fluff like horse taming, animal hunting and retaking settlements over and over and over again.

That's true. I remember there also being a pretty long and boring scavenger-hunt quest...

And unless I played completely wrong (which is possible, I'm awful at R* games), I think part of the game require simply some in game time to pass before allowing further completion.

pacmanate
01-11-2016, 11:09 PM
Undead Nightmare only had 7 main missions and 6 side quests. The rest of content was fluff like horse taming, animal hunting and retaking settlements over and over and over again.

The DLC cost 8 and changed the entire world and how it worked, had 8 main missions. Thats already 1 a mission. Still better value for money. Also had cutscenes and no short cut dialogue sections.

What is Jack the Ripper? 10 missions, with 2 new things added, spikes and fear bombs. 12. World stays the same. It's not nearly on the same level as Undead Nightmare.

Not to mention I can hand on heart already tell you that The Following for Dying Light and the new DLC for the Witcher 3 will also be better value for money that any AC DLC that has come out.

cawatrooper9
01-11-2016, 11:10 PM
The DLC cost 8 and changed the entire world and how it worked, had 8 main missions. Thats already 1 a mission. Still better value for money. Also had cutscenes and no short cut dialogue sections.

I definitely bought mine for $15 or $20. I'm not great at our exchange rate, but I can tell there's a discrepancy there.

pacmanate
01-12-2016, 12:27 PM
I definitely bought mine for $15 or $20. I'm not great at our exchange rate, but I can tell there's a discrepancy there.

Depends how you bought it. Digitally it was 7.99 on release and as a standalone, because it was bundled with 3 other DLC packs it was about $25