Why are people still putting up with this? | Forums

[TheVidicus]

op...yeh ubi has really low standards when it comes to quality....
...watch dogs 1 and 2 did poorly...
...division same crap different toilet....
...now wildlands... only game that is fun to play...

rockstar does it right...people still play gta4....
fool me once shame on you....fool me twice, shame on me.

I cut down on your quotes to address a few issues Kamikaze703. You speak of Ubisoft producing low quality products. Can you name one game with a higher quality and realistic looking open world than Wildlands? Or a game with more realistic and better animations than The Division? I have been gaming back to the Atari 2600 days, and Wildlands to me is the most realistic looking environment I have ever played in and The Division has some of the best animations I have ever seen. So they may have issues in some areas (networking, PvP for example), but in other areas they shine (as do most developers including Rockstar).

You mentioned Watch dogs 2 not selling well.... yet ALL video game sales are down 40% in the last year. It is not due to the quality of Ubisoft games. All developers are experiencing lower average sales. I personally believe it is due to the economy and things like No Man's Sky... meaning developers taking advantage of the market and how they can lie to the consumer and get away with it. It is coming back to bite developers. Consumers are getting more frugal.

On to your next point, Wildlands not being optimized... I would agree but it runs amazingly well on my PC at a locked 60 frames that may drop to 59 sometimes. You also have to remember when it comes to PC games, the combination of components is infinite. Brand of component, speed, code, amount of ram... etc. These can all make developing a bug free game that runs perfectly on every PC an impossibility. The solution to that is you dumb down the game to run more stable on every platform and configuration.

As the past has shown, when Ubisoft does this people go crazy and blame them for dumbing down the graphics. So the consumer wants the best looking game, yet want it to run perfectly on everything with no bugs. An impossibility basically. The flip side is we all own the exact same components (one console on market for example), this would mean less competition and higher cost (Apple products come to mind). Plus you now have a closed system where independent developers have a harder time thriving. That can mean less innovation in games.

And next is Rockstar. I believe Rockstar's success is due to their demographic. They are attractive to teenagers, middle aged, and older players. Their products are high quality as well. But I believe they have a larger target audience than Ubisoft does with games like The Division or Wildlands. These tactical type shooters will have a much smaller audience than a game like GTA. Plus GTA is a household name really.

And to your last statement... Fool me once... You are absolutely correct in that statement. We as consumers, especially video game consumers can only speak one way, and that is with our money. If you do not like the way a company makes a game, simply do not support them. I do this to an extent. I try to keep my Steam purchases to a minimum because I do not like their business practices.

Anyways, this was a long post proving I have too much free time. Happy gaming.

[araos1]

With digital downloads being the norm... you will be harder and harder pressed to find used games.

Well, at least Steam often has great sales. A lot of times better than the used price listed at GameStop.

[Emptysev3n]

I really don't know what people expect anymore. I understand the gaming industry is a business and they are going to push DLC for more money. PC games have been doing that forever. Newer technology just allows for these things to happen quicker. The reason why everything is not released at once is because they need the money from the base game to pay for the expenses and labor of the future features. They do not want to roll-over project budgets since different companies work on different games under the same umbrella.

GR:W is an excellent game. As one person said before, it is not a simulator. But if you play the game, take your time, use your imagination, and actually role-play, the game will be exactly what you want out of it. Too many people want the gaming companies to hold their hands and create fun for you. Ubisoft gave us our sandbox, now play. Every game has their flaws, it is a man-made computer program, which is expected.

A lot of people complain about stealth too... if you are playing on Extreme and you "get spotted" and everyone knows where you are, then you are doing it wrong. "Extreme" difficulty implies that the billion dollar cartel adds technology and military principals to their militia. So if someone spots you, they got on their radio with a code name for a location and then you are screwed. Is that AI system perfect? NO. But 9/10 it is going to work if you do it correctly. Play the game how a real Navy SEAL would tactically enter a situation and see if you enjoy it more. Wait until night, turn on that thermal, every step counts.

Try it.

Could certain features be "better", of course. Also, no one is forcing you to buy anything off the cash shop. None of that stuff is even good to look at. The actual tactical gear that comes with the game as promised is what you payed for. Not a clown suit.

[TheVidicus]

Good points Emptysev3n. I have the most fun in Wildlands when I turn off all HUD elements except weapon (so I can see if I have grenade launcher or rounds loaded), on extreme, and I travel by foot. So much of the game is breathtaking to explore. Walking through the forest and jungle and sneaking through the brush to look at a camp via binoculars before deciding on a tactic is great fun. I try to approach each fight as if those bullets are real. I put forth effort to make each bullet count. If it were a real tactical situation you would take every precaution to minimize your risk. I try and do the same in game.

[AI BLUEFOX]

I guess some people will look at games from a perspective of which one is the worst, concentrating only on the negatives, and some will look at them from a perspective of which one is the best.

GTA is a wonderful game, great for the fans that love it, but it leaves me cold. I'm just not into it, but I can see its merits. Wildlands is also a wonderful, wonderful game and I am agog at the sheer beauty of it and the play space it provides. It is more than I could have hoped for a few years ago and still has potential to be even more.

Wildlands isn't poor because GTA is great and vice versa; Wildlands isn't this or that because CoD or Battlefield is that or this, FFS. We are spoiled for choice compared to not many years ago and we have brilliant games to enjoy. If that isn't enough for you, if your mindset is in tune with the OP, then honestly, take it from an older and wiser gamer, go play outside.

[jeannaq]

I will admit that Wildlands is a pretty decent game, but it could have been so much better. The problem is that Ubisoft constantly pushes out unfinished games that lack polish. I'm starting to get to the point to where I don't know if Ubisoft can do some of these things or they can, but chose not to invest in it in fears that it eats into the "profits" too much. You don't have to play very long before you notice that somethings are very bad and should have been changed before the game even released. Good game, but all the little things that should be changed or shouldn't be at all really taint the game for a lot of people.

[Flaw3dGenius23]

Wildlands isn't poor because GTA is great and vice versa

Your right Wildlands is more a poor Far Cry Lets just hope the next Ghost Recon title is a good Ghost Recon game!

[DanHibikiFanXM]

This game was a fairly big disappointment for me. It's not awful, it's just not good either. To me it's the literal definition of the word "mediocre." It fails to satisfy me as a tactical shooter due to extremely simplistic/restrictive squad commands and brain dead AI. It fails to satisfy me as an open world game due to clunky controls, horrid flight controls, and the sensation that I get that none of my choices have a consequence. The biggest fault is that this game literally feels like Far Cry 4 minus the animal attacks...very little Ghost Recon is there to be found. The RPG progression is nonsensical also and the unlocks basically destroy the meta of the game (the Advanced Suppressor for example...).

This is always the problem with Ubisoft titles - they are great concepts ruined by asinine game design choices.

[mezzatron]

Ubisoft continually ships out unfinished, broken games. The gameplay quality is extremely underwhelming, the storylines seem like they're written by a 12 year old with no imagination, they're riddled with bugs and exploits, they have no end game quality, they're full of cheaters and they're just bad games.

It's pretty simple, stop wasting your mother's money on Ubisoft games and you will be fine.
You won't have to waste your time crying and moaning on the forums either.

You should just spend your precious time playing other games that are finished; unbroken, with quality gameplay; great storyline; with no bugs and exploits; great end game content and no cheaters.

Have fun Felicia.

[Flaw3dGenius23]

It's pretty simple, stop wasting your mother's money on Ubisoft games and you will be fine.
You won't have to waste your time crying and moaning on the forums either.

You should just spend your precious time playing other games that are finished; unbroken, with quality gameplay; great storyline; with no bugs and exploits; great end game content and no cheaters.

Have fun Felicia.

Gotta love the kids that start bringing others "mothers" into it if they dont have the same opinion.