1. #1
    LuckyBide's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,582

    Ubisoft will make less storytelling in their future games

    In a french news website (here: http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article...0_4408996.html), there is an interview of Serge Hascoët who works for Ubisoft for 16 years now. He is responsible of Ubisoft's editorial line and said that there will be less narration in their future games.
    I translated (thanks to Google Trad too^^) the part where he talks about it:

    "I don't want the player to undergo the story created by anyone. We still have games like that, but I ask more and more that we let the player write his own story, that he sets himself a long-term goal, identifies the different opportunities which are offered to him , choose and don't follow a path decided for him. This is called "anecdote factory".

    (...) When there are cutscenes in a game, they annoyed me, because my ability to express myself is taken away. During this time, I don't do what I want to do, which is evolve in a world. I don't want the story to be told to me, I want ten thousand stories, that each character is a story, and I can go and question him if I want, without being imposed to me."

    IMO I think that's a huge mistake because that's the right way to make more generic games without any flavor when other AAA studios try on the contrary to improve writing in their games.
    Besides if they apply this to Splinter Cell, I think that would be a disaster...
    Share this post

  2. #2
    This is precisely because of this kind of genius ideas that games are slaughtered.
    Read this:

    Le jeu devient moins important. Ce qui m’intéresse, c’est de faire des mondes qui seraient intéressants pour moi, même en tant que touriste. Si je fais un jeu qui se déroule à San Francisco [comme dans le jeu Watch Dogs 2], même ma mère doit pouvoir s’amuser, faire du bateau, de l’hélicoptère, de la moto. Il faut que les gens qu’on y rencontre soient aussi intéressants, et que l’on s’y sente bien. Ensuite, seulement, que le joueur s’amuse. On lui laisse les moyens : devenir détective privé, assassin, hackeur, chasseur... Il a un métier dans ce monde-là, ses problématiques, et c’est à lui de devenir plus puissant.
    Translation:

    "The game is becoming less important. What I want is to create worlds that would be interested for me, even as a tourist.If i'm making a game in San Francisco [like in Watch dogs 2], even my mother must be able to have fun with that game, to drive some boat, some helicopter, some motorbike... (ie: we want super casual virtual worlds). People that we meet must be interesting , we need to feel good. After, only after, comes the fun of the player. (His litterally saying that his mother playing with a virtual boat is more important than the player's fun). We gives him the mean: he can become a private detective, an assassin, a hacker, a hunter... He has a job in this world, his problematics, and its his job to become more powerfull".

    This guy's vision of the ideal game is a super casual virtual world where the player is not really here to PLAY, but to FEEL GOOD. The player can be what he can't be in real life: A hacker, a hunter, a detective. He said it clearly: "As a tourist"; "Even my mother"; "ONLY AFTER comes the player's fun".



    Let me guess whats next:
    -The player will be able to purchase a new boat in the DLC shop, and also some cool virtual toys for his virtual room.
    -Some aspects of the game will be managable by an app that the "gamer" get on his smartphone.
    -More women, black people and gay people will be implemented as key characters because "Ubisoft cares a lot about equality and tolerance". (hey maybe thats what he meant by saying he wants "interesting people" in his games).

    With this kind of person giving direction to the studio, you bet that the gaming industry is only getting worse.

    PS: as a french person i totally understand the article but my english is not so good
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  3. #3
    SCAgent95's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,530
    Like they were trying to make stories in their last games in their cringeworthy awful plots.

    Overall this doesn't sound good, f*** ubi..
    Share this post

  4. #4
    StrayDog_RR's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    3,080
    Oh the industry is going down even more...

    "We still have games like that" I hope Splinter Cell is still one of those
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Sad, but not surprising.

    The problem is that while it might work, odds are it will be poorly done.

    SC is a franchise based on a story with a set of characters. The game was the vehicle to tell the story.

    Thanks to the impact of RPG-type games of the last 10 years, it's becoming the trend. It can be a good thing when it's done well, but to take a series with established characters and move to a RPG-style of storytelling is difficult at best.

    Half Life had Gordon Freeman - a protagonist with no voice which the Devs said they did so that each player could make Gordon their own. Giving a voice would have taken from that.

    Dead Space did the same with the protagonist in the first game...then went to a voice actor for later games.

    Mass Effect gave the player the choice of which way the character developed, then they cocked it up in the ending of the final game.

    The real issue is that how do you establish "canon" across titles when the game is designed to let the player pick the path?

    Sam Fisher has a background, a personality, and a story. If you go to a RPG-style of gameplay where the player shapes the character, you have to have a canonized ending that carries to the next game or a way to import a save so the next title builds on what's come before. Each subsequent game becomes more and more difficult to honor all of the possible combination of choices (or ultimately has to cull the impact of most of them) in order to keep the game development manageable.

    If they want to go to RPG storytelling in Splinter Cell, ditch Sam Fisher as the protagonist and go with more of a "blank slate" guy with minimal background information. That would at least provide a fighting chance of it working. I can't see how you turn a deep character like Fisher into a RPG-type of protagonist without having a lot of problems making it work.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    H0EY's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,359
    Maybe i'm picking it up wrong but to me that first quote sounds like he's saying freedom of approach, no forced action/cut scenes during missions interrupting or dictating play.
    That would be ok if that second quote didn't exist, it does sound like "We want open worlds with a mish mash of any old s*** we can cram in"
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Jazz117Volkov's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    6,401
    Yeah, it's pronounced Dark Souls.

    There's definitely a wrong way to build a game, but I don't think there's a definitive right way. It's sort of like beauty: nonlinear. So, while I'm not a fan of this explanation - a little too self-important - I do understand the motivation and destination, and indeed approve.

    However.

    Authored stories will always carry more weight. When the production is there to explicitly support the written fantasy, it's always going to be more powerful. To illustrate, look no further than Dark Souls, perhaps the king of unscripted gameplay...or so you would think. Then google "Soul of Cinder reactions" and you'll learn just how much of a fiddle you've been (played like a fiddle, anyone? Nevermind). The takeaway is, if you can forgive the expression, there's more than one way to skin a cat. (I like cats.)
    Share this post

  8. #8
    The4orTy67's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Micronesia
    Posts
    552
    They also mention the next AC being the first example of this new approach.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Dome500's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    - Access Denied -
    Posts
    10,431
    Originally Posted by Jazz117Volkov Go to original post
    Yeah, it's pronounced Dark Souls.

    There's definitely a wrong way to build a game, but I don't think there's a definitive right way. It's sort of like beauty: nonlinear. So, while I'm not a fan of this explanation - a little too self-important - I do understand the motivation and destination, and indeed approve.

    However.

    Authored stories will always carry more weight. When the production is there to explicitly support the written fantasy, it's always going to be more powerful. To illustrate, look no further than Dark Souls, perhaps the king of unscripted gameplay...or so you would think. Then google "Soul of Cinder reactions" and you'll learn just how much of a fiddle you've been (played like a fiddle, anyone? Nevermind). The takeaway is, if you can forgive the expression, there's more than one way to skin a cat. (I like cats.)
    Yeah.

    Generally I think the ideal way to do things highly depend on the game you want to make.
    I hate that Ubisoft is always trying to limit themselves one way or the other. It's always like "we have set a new course", "this will REVOLUTIONIZE gaming in Ubisoft games", and it always has to be the norm, (almost) every game has to follow it, they have to have that formula.

    Not only this, as much as I love non-linearity in games like SC, this is not what he is saying here if we look at the context. What he seems to propose here is a generalization of all Ubisoft games with a heavy focus on environments and gameplay that EVERYONE enjoys (streamlining, casualization) and less and less focus on what makes and individual game strong.

    I wish that instead of trying to make a game that everyone can "enjoy" from grandma to young kids and (often) failing at it (or at least getting less and less popular) they would actually MAKE a game that grandma can enjoy, separately. If you can follow me.

    I think Ubisoft is just too much about catching everyone in their big (audience) net, and as a result the net is too big and a lot of Fish just swim through the ropes. And if everyone of their games is like that it will be one of those "played one, played them all" kind of thing. It's a logical flaw in the design approach if you ask me.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    The4orTy67's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Micronesia
    Posts
    552
    Splinter Cells: Global Ops looking more and more likely.
    Share this post