PDA

View Full Version : I'm worried about the state of Ubisoft "AAA" games



pacmanate
04-21-2016, 12:57 PM
For the past 2 years we have had 2 new Ubisoft AAA IP's release, as well as 2 "Next Gen" Assassin Creeds. The 2 new IP's I will be mentioning in this post are Watch_Dogs and The Division, the 2 AC games are Unity and Syndicate.

Watch_Dogs

This was shown at E3 2012, you guys all probably remember that demo showcase, it looked stunning. Come 2014, what did we get? We got a game that looked nothing like the showcased game on consoles OR PC (This is a big point as the 2012 demo was running on "like next gen specs" but even on PC was only graphically better by a margin). The game was hyped for another 2 years after E3 2012 with a big emphasis on hacking, or as we soon came to realise "Press Square (PS4) to do everything".

The shooting mechanics were subpar
There was no weapon customisation (In a 3rd person shooter it's kinda weird to remove)
Hacking was mostly a serious of 1 button that did everything
Aiden was really bland, he was outshone by the supporting cast by far
The story was anticlimactic, so anticlimactic that it hurts my soul
The final boss was another press 1 button scenario
Upon release, the online services for the game were on and off for a month or more (Can't remember the exact time frame)

Development time = 5 years

So in review of this new "AAA" IP, it took them 5 years to create a bland character, hacking mechanics that consisted of a button, a horrible last "boss" fight, unrealiable online services and they couldn't give a shooter game basic shooter mechanics such as customisation.

The Division

I actually really enjoy this game, but my God is it horrible designed and a glitch fest. As a quick glance of what this game is, it's a loot based 3rd person shooter. The end game is about finding and crafting better loot, some of which can drop from bosses (Named Enemies). The game has a PvP area called the Darkzone, this is where you primarily get loot and the concept of "going rogue" is that other players can kill you and steal your stuff.

Now let me list all the problems this game has had over the past month in terms of gear.

1. Police Academy Glitch - Allowed you to bypass the entire mission up until the last boss fight. Gained the players Credits to get better gear with possibility of a High End.
2. Named Enemies Exploit - In the PvE area, if you killed a name boss and not his buddies, picked the loot then died, you could keep rinsing this as he would always respawn.
3.Hornet Farm - Allowed you to kill the last boss in a high difficulty mission countless times for countless loot drops and Credits (to buy more gear)
4. Incursion Exploit - Allowed you to glitch inside the playable area without triggering enemies so you could focus on the boss. Was later patched to then be replaced with another exploit where you could go out of bounds and shoot inside the map.

In a game where high end loot and high end gear is what makes you more powerful, you can see how people doing all of these can get the advantage over legit players, or just ones that don't play a lot. Now lets go over some gameplay bugs.

1. Backpack glitch = Locked players out of their accounts for a month.
2. "One is none" glitch = This is a talent. If you get a headshot you get a chance the bullet is returned to the mag, however this would glitch so that you wouldnt be able to reload or shoot your gun when you had 1 bullet left in the magazine.
3. "Rehabilitated bug" = This was a perk of a mask that bugged out to give you INFINITE health regeneration.
4. "Reckless bug" = Supposed to give you increased damage output but also reduce your health. However both were bugged to give you increased damage resilience, making you a tank.
5. There is also a bug where you flip between 2 weapons really quickily to stack damage output. This can eventually drop other players in just a short burst.
6. Missions don't always start properly at all.

As you can see, these 10 glitches/bugs/exploits (NOT EVEN THE FULL LIST!) completely break the game when it comes to PvP.

Development Time = 5 years

Amazing. Yet another long development time that has no significance at all.

"And, you know, Massive is fortunate [enough] to work with Ubisoft, that I’ve been with for 15 years, and they really believe in quality and pushing this kind of content."... Clearly.

Source = http://gamerant.com/the-division-delay-explained/

Assassin's Creed Unity

As we are the AC boards I don't need to really write a huge post on this. You all know how it went.

CO-OP was buggy as hell
The combat was sluggish
Parkour was glitchy
Framerates were horrible
Crowd morphing was jarring
Falling through the map seemed to be a gameplay feature
Enemy AI had a 6th sense (As per every AC game)
Story wasn't well written at all to establish Arno and Elises relationship. We never got to see the relationship evolve, it was already there, like we were picking up the 3rd book in a trilogy. It was one of the reasons I personally didn't care at all about them.

Development time = 4 years

Assassin's Creed Syndicate

Poor framerates
AI Issues
Emphasis on riding carriages when it caused the game on consoles to reach 0fps for about 5 seconds if you tried to boost when the Jack the Ripper DLC arrived
Side missions getting no render cutscenes, just dialogue. A cheap cop out. A "AAA" game shouldn't just have the story containing cutscenes.
Poor animations in the "Last Maharajah" DLC

Development Time = I don't believe it was ever stated, but I think 3-4 years would be a good guess

Summary

As you can see, 2 of Ubisofts new IP's were overhyped, plagued with bugs, didn't run as intended, had game breaking aspects (Looking at you, Division), poor stories, and quiet evidently were not up to standard. AC Unity was also probably the worst launched AC game in history, AC Syndicate learnt a lot, but was far from perfect with its janky cutscenes and not even knowing what direction it wants to take with the series as a whole, which I guess is down to Ubisoft as a whole.

It's been a rough 2 years with 4 "AAA" games that really aren't. I don't expect to pay as much as I do for the quality Ubisoft seem to be pushing out, half finished game with half arsed ideas with QA testers that can't do jack.

Honestly, The Divisions Incursion is defeating an APC. The Development team stated that shooting the APC will not cause damage. Come release, you shoot the APC, IT CAUSES DAMAGE. Did anyone in Ubisofts QA team actually think "Oh, we should try and shoot it to see if it takes damage", evidently the answer was no.

I think it's horrible that Ubisoft think it's okay to push out games like this. Boasting development time has no credibility anymore because it shows that it doesn't reflect game quality at all.

As a company, I've given up on Ubisoft. They need to do a lot to show that they care about the consumer because the past 4 AAA games over the course of 2 years has shown otherwise.

ze_topazio
04-21-2016, 01:12 PM
Open World games are among the hardest to make, Ubisoft's attempt at mass producing them (barely) worked for a while but eventually the limitations of such endeavor showed up and too many problems piled up and everything crashed, specially when they moved to a new generation of hardware they were less knowledgeable about.

m4r-k7
04-21-2016, 01:19 PM
I do feel like Ubisoft need to undergo some changes in terms of their management to their AAA game releases. I know its a business and they are great at making tons of money, but I agree - their games just feel...well standardized. I mean even Far Cry feels the same now (despite their fantastic settings).

Their AA games are fantastic nonetheless - I was playing Grow Home the other day and man is it charming and just pure fun to play - not to mention Rayman, Valiant Hears, Child of Light etc.

Sigma 1313
04-21-2016, 02:40 PM
I know that Assassin's Creed 3 was plagued with working with people around the world with poor communication and management. If the rumor for empire is true, then it sounds like that person never read the GDD, based on how they sounded, (I don't know about this, but oh my god, it looks good!). This leads me to think there's poor communication among the entire team. If communication is this bad for Ubi's lead IP, I can't imagine new IPs are better.

SixKeys
04-21-2016, 03:12 PM
At the risk of sounding like an apologist, I got caught on your comment about the development time of The Division. Admittedly I've mainly been busy with the single-player campaign and haven't ventured far into the Dark Zone yet, so I haven't really encountered all these bugs and exploits you speak of. But the main game has been working smoothly for me, apart from the occasional server disconnects causing you to lose progress, which is annoying. Anyway, my point is that IMO the longer development cycle does show in the overall quality in a positive way, and ALSO the problems you describe sound familiar to everyone who's played some of the biggest open world games out there. Skyrim? Red Dead Redemption? GTA Online? Had long develoment cycles and were riddled with bugs, some of which still persist to this day. That doesn't mean they weren't good games at the core, once the biggest problems had been fixed. I believe this is the case for Division and most open-world games. Even people who played AC Unity six months after the initial release had much fewer complaints than the launch crowd.

With all that said, a long development time is of course no guarantee for quality. It really depends on what exactly the problems are. With Watch Dogs, I think they overestimated their ability to deliver the product that people expected after the great-looking E3 demo (also happened with AC3). In Unity's case it was having to adapt to new technology and disagreements between writers on what the story should be. In The Division's case, the online component seems to be the source of most problems because it's unlike anything Ubi have really done before (correct me if I'm wrong).

ModernWaffle
04-21-2016, 03:17 PM
Interesting topic and not an issue I've actually thought about properly despite being somewhat aware of the reception of each of Ubisoft's recently released games. Simply put, the situation they've got themselves in is because they're just way too greedy - releasing an AC game on an annual basis before 2016, releasing Far Cry Primal only 15 months after FC4, two Tom Clancy games within the space of 4 months and so on. It frustrates me as the games they release are fun, but are only half-finished which is not a issue directly on the developers behalf as far as I'm concerned but with the time restrictions they're placed under to complete their projects; it also doesn't help that Ubisoft has a great marketing team who can really build hype for their games, though this always backfires on them when they actually can't deliver on a top-notch AAA game and there's nothing worse when there's something you've been looking forward to for several months to suddenly turn on its head.

The cancellation of an AC game this year is quite intriguing, plus as they've so recently released a Far Cry and Tom Clancy game, I'm kind of curious to see whether they plan to take a break for some of these franchises and whether they're thinking of changing their release schedules to a more realistic approach of releasing AAA games. I certainly hope that at the least, after the 2017 AC game is released, they'll keep the following releases at a 2 year gap interval and where you have a year that has no AC game, they'll focus on releasing another of their main franchise titles.



With all that said, a long development time is of course no guarantee for quality. It really depends on what exactly the problems are. With Watch Dogs, I think they overestimated their ability to deliver the product that people expected after the great-looking E3 demo (also happened with AC3). In Unity's case it was having to adapt to new technology and disagreements between writers on what the story should be. In The Division's case, the online component seems to be the source of most problems because it's unlike anything Ubi have really done before (correct me if I'm wrong).

^All fair points. However, I think short development time is just another factor that makes these problems more likely to appear. As you said, other AAA titles have many glitches but I think Ubisoft (rightly) gets more blame because they are more aware of releasing an unfinished product and do so anyway to fit their quick-pace release schedule. Unity required several large patches to get it to shape and that can't be something they missed entirely, it feels as if they knew the game was not up to scratch (to the point where it actually stops you playing the game) and released it anyway. Whereas in comparison with longer development time games like the Elder Scrolls and GTA series etc. it appears that their glitches are the ones which are more genuinely missed and a result of the inevitable remnants of gltiches in any AAA title no matter how long you spend trying to rid them all.

Sushiglutton
04-21-2016, 05:11 PM
I mean I have complained as much as anyone, but tbh it's of course a very tough industry. Other big producers like THQ crash and burn. It seems to me like Ubisoft are trying to industralize their production of AAA games in some sense. They have standardized some design featrures more or less succesfully. At the same time they are pushing really hard in terms of graphics/tech/scale and so on, rather than making sure the fundamentals are sound. I dunno, I guess they are kind of forced to do that to create selling points for players. A bug-free AC2 won't sell, a 1:1 recreation of Paris with co-op will, even though it will be buggier. It's not an easy balance to strike.


As for downgrades it seems to me the consoles were weaker than Ubisoft anticiapted. Both Unity and Watch_Dogs struggled because of that (my interpretation, may be completely wrong as always haha).


Finally I have to defend WD a bit. Granted I only played it this year and discounted, but I though it was a bery good game. The hacking added to all gameplay areas. When people say they wanted it to be more complex than a one button system I want to know more precisely what they mean. One button still gives a lot of options, while remaining easy to use. Having a mini-game every time you want to say change the trafic lights would ofc be a disaster. I guess they could let you hack and control more advanced machinery (like drones etc), maybe they will go in that direction. Gameplay wise I really didn't think it was worse than GTA while at the same time offering way more options for how to play. Finally it was nice to not have the see-through-wall ability for once (it's in every game these days), but instead use cameras to scout hideouts.

RVSage
04-21-2016, 05:38 PM
I agree with some points and do not with others

Watch Dogs

1. The story was indeed very boring . Very poor lead character
2. However, the gameplay was awesome, with a lot of interesting side activities like playing chess puzzles, a retro style plat forming side mission, ability to finish missions without shooting anyone. I loved the gameplay, even though there were issues with driving, I guess what they achieved was worth five years,
3. There were performance issues, which were fixed

Division

1. I have played the game for 40+ hours solo, I actually never encountered a bug, I played dark zone as well. I know some exploits do exist. But I needed to go looking for them to find one. Any game, given enough time, will have a lingering exploit, if one goes looking for it

2. The issues with online connectivity is exepcted with such a huge game, and this was Ubi's first game in this kind of scale (w.r.t to online features)(I did not play it for PvP anyway)

3. The game performed brilliantly across platforms, especially PC version, considered one of the best PC versions this year, you can see the engine scalability is really good.

4. Personally , I guess this was one of the best games that released this year.

AC Unity and Syndicate


1. Unity is a known mess, enough has been said about it, I agree with all your points

2. Syndicate was better, but still needed a lot of tweaking, again loads of issues

In short Ubisoft can do things , way better. But does it mean everything they did , does not match time taken? No , If you pay attention to the minute details in Ubi;s open world you would appreciate it better. Ubi's open world design, still remains great from a technical stand point. But their executionn ,has not been great

MikeFNY
04-21-2016, 06:04 PM
The irony is that I played the first four games(up to Revelations) without patching them and the game was always flawless.

It's from AC3 that I started to have issues, floating horses, sluggish controls, etc.

I patched it but problems persisted.

Black Flag and Rogue(both patched) were flawless as well.

Unity(fully patched) was also acceptable but it did have the occasional guards bumping in each other and freezing problem which is very, very annoying.

Syndicate was almost perfect, I had that ugly Evie+Jacob disappearing in a cutscene bug but nothing worrying. It's the Last Maharaja DLC that was a mess for me.

BananaBlighter
04-21-2016, 08:10 PM
I don't think those games are really as bad as you make them out to be. I mean, yes they all have flaws, (and I'm sorry but I don't agree with all of yours, some seem a bit nit-picky to me) but there are a lot of good points too which you conveniently omitted (of course though, nearly everything except performance is subjective). Of course, that doesn't mean that we can't improve on the bugs that have generally become more common nowadays.

However I don't think it's just a Ubi thing either, plenty of other open world games suffer from bugs. On top of that, performance-wise, I've had no issues with the Division or Syndicate except the Last Maharaja DLC which I will admit seemed exceptionally rushed (and it seems rather odd since it was only a small DLC that had no announced release date until like 5 days prior). Even the few issues I had with Unity I don't feel detract from the price much because I can easily get over them.

Haven't played WD so I can't say, but from what I've seen, the gameplay looks very nice, and if I had to choose between GTA 5 and that, I'd probably go for WD.

pacmanate
04-21-2016, 11:37 PM
Admittedly I've mainly been busy with the single-player campaign and haven't ventured far into the Dark Zone yet, so I haven't really encountered all these bugs and exploits you speak of. But the main game has been working smoothly for me, apart from the occasional server disconnects causing you to lose progress, which is annoying. Anyway, my point is that IMO the longer development cycle does show in the overall quality in a positive way, and ALSO the problems you describe sound familiar to everyone who's played some of the biggest open world games out there. Skyrim? Red Dead Redemption? GTA Online?
In The Division's case, the online component seems to be the source of most problems because it's unlike anything Ubi have really done before (correct me if I'm wrong).

The bugs and exploits are horrible in The Division. On top of ones I just mentioned, here is everything else that is bugged which makes players God Like (The sheer list size will shock you)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr% 2Fthedivision%2Fcomments%2F4fsvch%2Fheres_the_list _of_all_talents_that_can_be%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fthed ivision%2Fcomments%2F4fsvch%2Fheres_the_list_of_al l_talents_that_can_be%2F&ie=UTF-8&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.1263j0j4&sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.&bvm=bv.119745492,d.bGs&biw=1366&bih=667&dpr=1&ech=1&psi=6VMZV5zQNorF6ASvyYSoBA.1461277667554.3&ei=6VMZV5zQNorF6ASvyYSoBA&emsg=NCSR&noj=1

Skyrim didn't have online functionality, the bugs I'm listing for the most part (and with that link above) or all to do with the PvP aspect of the game. RDR and GTA Online had bugs, sure, but you need to consider the sheer scope of The Divisions.




Finally I have to defend WD a bit. Granted I only played it this year and discounted, but I though it was a bery good game. The hacking added to all gameplay areas. When people say they wanted it to be more complex than a one button system I want to know more precisely what they mean. One button still gives a lot of options, while remaining easy to use. Having a mini-game every time you want to say change the trafic lights would ofc be a disaster. I guess they could let you hack and control more advanced machinery (like drones etc), maybe they will go in that direction. Gameplay wise I really didn't think it was worse than GTA while at the same time offering way more options for how to play. Finally it was nice to not have the see-through-wall ability for once (it's in every game these days), but instead use cameras to scout hideouts.

By no means am I saying W_D was the worst thing ever and had no good points. All the games I've listed definitely do have good aspects but have plenty of bad ones too.


I agree with some points and do not with others

Division

1. I have played the game for 40+ hours solo, I actually never encountered a bug, I played dark zone as well. I know some exploits do exist. But I needed to go looking for them to find one. Any game, given enough time, will have a lingering exploit, if one goes looking for it

2. The issues with online connectivity is exepcted with such a huge game, and this was Ubi's first game in this kind of scale (w.r.t to online features)(I did not play it for PvP anyway)

3. The game performed brilliantly across platforms, especially PC version, considered one of the best PC versions this year, you can see the engine scalability is really good.

4. Personally , I guess this was one of the best games that released this year.

In short Ubisoft can do things , way better. But does it mean everything they did , does not match time taken? No , If you pay attention to the minute details in Ubi;s open world you would appreciate it better. Ubi's open world design, still remains great from a technical stand point. But their executionn ,has not been great

The Division has horrible netcode as per every Ubi game when it comes to PvP. Also please combine my list of gear exploits with the ones in the link I replied to SixKeys with so you can see the sheer scale of bugs and exploits. I never said the performance was bad or that it looked crap, there is just too much ruining PvP. As for the execution not being great, that is entirely the point. Are the games I listed bad at the core? Hell no, they are very sound ideas. But they never reach their full potential. With AC for example, SO MUCH POTENTIAL, but I'm afraid we will never see it. 8 games later and I'm still thinking it has potential but will it ever hit it is the question.


I don't think those games are really as bad as you make them out to be. I mean, yes they all have flaws, (and I'm sorry but I don't agree with all of yours, some seem a bit nit-picky to me) but there are a lot of good points too which you conveniently omitted (of course though, nearly everything except performance is subjective). Of course, that doesn't mean that we can't improve on the bugs that have generally become more common nowadays.

However I don't think it's just a Ubi thing either, plenty of other open world games suffer from bugs. On top of that, performance-wise, I've had no issues with the Division or Syndicate except the Last Maharaja DLC which I will admit seemed exceptionally rushed (and it seems rather odd since it was only a small DLC that had no announced release date until like 5 days prior). Even the few issues I had with Unity I don't feel detract from the price much because I can easily get over them.


Ah, but am I making them sound bad... or average. The topic is AAA standard. Of course I left out good points, thats not the point of the thread, i'm talking about issues. You cant defend the Division, please see link above, and also AC Syndicates issues were well documented, the carriage thing especially. All addressed on the forums and by the com devs here and in patches.

BananaBlighter
04-22-2016, 12:25 AM
My issue is that you're using the games' flaws to create this negative image of them so that you can then say that the development time isn't justified, when there are tonnes of other notable things that were done during that time. Especially with stuff like bugs and glitches, that kind of stuff has so much less to do with development time than with ambition and how complex the systems in the game are. Trying to fix bugs often creates more, as we've seen on numerous occasions, most noticeably with Syndicate's patches, and so however long you spend fixing bugs, if your game is really ambitious (like Unity for example) they will never go away. I feel that Syndicate's gameplay has worsened since day 1, due to patching that has reduced the fluidity of the parkour, especially with the rope launcher. I'd say Syndicates development time was well spent, concentrating on the big stuff first, like London itself which turned out IMO pretty impressive.

I completely agree about execution not being great, and that it can prevent these games from reaching their full potential, especially AC, which has so much due to being one of the most unique franchises out there. However I'm not talking about performance here, just pretty general gameplay and story stuff. When I play AC I'm always thinking about how this and that could be better, but at the same time I do this so much more for AC, not because it falls short, but because I love it so much, and see that it has potential way beyond what it is now.

LoyalACFan
04-22-2016, 01:05 AM
Ubisoft's problem in my view is that they attempt to use the same assembly-line formula for every franchise they own without putting enough thought into what the core of each game is supposed to be about. Ubi's games are actually extraordinarily polished in some ways; they always look gorgeous, the animations are always best-in-the-business, and their open worlds are phenomenally detailed. But in a sense, it's just window dressing... In a lot of instances they really seem to have problems with central mechanics moreso than "polish." I mean, the fact that AC's core pillars are combat/stealth/parkour and we've had multiple successful threads on this board suggesting ground-up revamps of those systems should be something of a red flag, I think.

I haven't played or followed The Division so I can't really comment on the issues there, but I'll use Watch_Dogs as another example. By all rights it was a pretty game; not as stellar as the E3 demo made it seem, but still, it was plenty "polished" in that sense. But the driving, aka one of the principal gameplay mechanics, was absolutely unbearable, and the gunplay was pretty shaky at times too. It seems an issue of prioritization to me... they always put out these beautiful, sexy-looking games that don't really have a strong center, and they trade entirely on looks without taking enough time to properly test the IMPORTANT stuff. It works wonders for marketing, but in the long run it's going to really tarnish their brand.

Sorrosyss
04-22-2016, 08:31 AM
I think everyone have covered the major points, but I fully agree on Unity and Syndicate's technical issues. A few months after release these things are usually patched, but Syndicate still has issues even now - carriage hitching for one.

As for Watch Dogs, I really liked the game, but yeah the handling of the vehicles wasn't the greatest. The Division I've enjoyed, but it has an absolute lack of an end game, and the Incursion they have released is so glitch filled that I dare say most of the player base have finished it non-legitimately at this point. There is something to be said for having public test servers on large MMO type games - not just dumping content on to live servers.

I suppose that many would question the capability of the QA teams, but I think in the end it comes down to pressures to hit deadlines. A lot of stuff gets dropped or pushed. We can't just level this at Ubisoft though. Near every game you buy now has a launch day patch. In essence, publishers are releasing titles that are broken in the box. It is now part of the gaming market now, and consumers have accepted it seemingly. I suppose there is something to be said for the cartridge generation, when developers had to properly bug test and complete games before release. Admittedly games have become far more complicated and larger in code, but at the same time the internet has basically given them a free pass to be leisurely with QA lead times. I'm really not sure what the solution is, as often long development time doesn't help either, as developers end up trying to put even more functionality in, sometimes worsening the issue.

Ubisoft could maybe benefit from expanding its beta testing program, and getting more players in to properly test and break their games. Are they prepared to delay releases if something doesn't measure up? Well, that's entirely up to them. But the negativity surrounding Unity's abysmal launch is hopefully not lost on them, and one I hope not to see repeated. Though again, Syndicate was hardly brilliant technically either.

Farlander1991
04-22-2016, 09:51 AM
Near every game you buy now has a launch day patch. In essence, publishers are releasing titles that are broken in the box. It is now part of the gaming market now, and consumers have accepted it seemingly. I suppose there is something to be said for the cartridge generation, when developers had to properly bug test and complete games before release.

I don't want to sound rude or as a 'know-it-all', but this is a big misunderstanding of what's happening. Because what's happening is not 'previously games were better tested and they had less bugs', they had lots and lots of bugs (and there are plenty of examples of game-breaking bugs some of which forced a full reprints of games, like there was a Final Fantasy game with such issue for example). The thing is, most of the bugs require a particular set of actions to be done to manifest (some of which can be incredibly elusive), so it's very rare for somebody to see most of them, unless the game is in a pretty bad state (which, by the way, they were games like that previously as well).

The difference is that due to the power of Internet and patching, players are now aware that those bugs existed in some form. Because developers can more easily fix them and put them out there and provide a better overall experience, even though for most that actually wouldn't make a difference since, generally speaking, for each bug listed in a patch there's only like 1-5% of players tops that encounter it (of course, there can always be exceptions, but generally speaking).

So, in short:
Pre-Internet previous generations consoles: developers had to fix by the release date the most important issues and as many of less important as they could, and then either not do anything or maybe fix more things for a reprint of the game if possible, only gamers wouldn't know about most of it.
Post-Internet current gen consoles: developers had to fix by the release date the most important issues and as many of less important as they could, only after submission they also can fix and release patches for issues that are left and not be restricted by the retail cycle/process and players are fully aware of it.

The irony is that because gamers have more visibility on what's happening, they view it as a bad thing and remember the 'good old days when games had less bugs' which is bull, they just didn't know about it.

EDIT: Case in point, here's a list (http://www.mariowiki.com/List_of_Super_Mario_Bros._3_glitches) of known steadily reproduceable bugs (i.e. not mentioning the random gltiches that might occur that people are not sure how it is reproduced) of Super Mario Bros. 3 on Nintendo. To be fair, some of those are intended secrets, but still. It's a much simpler game but it's possible for art to not properly show up, to get stuck, lose a life for no reason, get off the map on world map without ability to get back, etc. In today's world half of it could be fixed in day/week 1 patch, but then people would go 'oh, Nintendo just releases a broken Mario game' or something :p

Jessigirl2013
04-22-2016, 09:00 PM
Open World games are among the hardest to make, Ubisoft's attempt at mass producing them (barely) worked for a while but eventually the limitations of such endeavor showed up and too many problems piled up and everything crashed, specially when they moved to a new generation of hardware they were less knowledgeable about.

^THIS!

With AC aside, UBIs biggest flops were both watch dogs and the division.
Not only where they open world but they where two brand new IPs!!!

Even AC1 has issues which where addressed in AC2 and look at what a gem of a game that was.:rolleyes:

I'll give UBI a break on the new IPs, as its difficult to get a polished new IP.

If the sequels are awful however... that's a different matter...:rolleyes: