Major difference is Wildlands launched in a far superior state was far more content and had more mechanics that have yet to be reimplemented into the sequel. Prone camo and slowly picking up bodies is cool new additions, but why ditch things like holstering weapons, incognito driving, all that personal drone utility, among many other things that they just yeeted.Originally Posted by Stomp0nMybaIls Go to original post
Wildlands still launched really buggy in year 1 though, the difference was that Wildlands was the highest selling GR ever, Breakpoint is a critical failure, Ubisoft had more of an incentive to put more money towards that, than it does now (besides obvious year 1 obligations), why they removed features is just the cost of rushing and releasing a game way to early, I mean Breakpoint originally had in the E3 trailer a mechanic of civilians alerting Sentinel to your position, which got cut. That's what happens when you push a game that isn't even close to done, just because some corporate leach wanted Q4 profits.Originally Posted by Ballzinfern2017 Go to original post
Rational.Originally Posted by Stomp0nMybaIls Go to original post
i bought wildlands on release day and had a blast with that game. even on day one i was enjoyin that crap btw year 2 came around wildland was the game i most played according to the hours.
breakpoint is just straight crap. anyone who defends this game you have serious case of stockholm syndrome.
stockholm syndrome example:
criminals kidnap you and hold you up for ransom, they let you use the bathroom so you start to feel sorry for them and think they are actually good people who made wrong choices..then start to defend them for their actions and some even stand up for them in court, tryin to make sob story.
people who bypass stockholm syndrome to due to common sense:
use the bathroom?? first of all, should have never kidnapped you in the first place and held you up for ransom. first of all good people dont make stupid choices to become a criminal.
ubiparis defenders who have stockholm:
consumers got deceived by ubisoft with a broken product on release, but stockholm syndrome folks will defend them "be grateful that they gave us something, you guys are children, spoiled, ubiparis could have just dumped this game, etc, etc blah." while ubiPARIS is constantly giving consumers broken updates. ubiPARIS throws a bone at the floor all the stockholm hungry dogs lap it up and defend them. good boy and wag your tail...talkin to you ai bluefox beta.
consumers who dont have stockholm syndrome and can see pass ubiparis bullcrap:
they should have never sold consumers a broken game to begin with.
now you can see the two types of people on these forums going back and forth.
btw were supposed to get a special event as well, not one mention of that as well. i mean what you expect they still cant fix bugs that were from release.....
Love all of it. Been trying to get that concept across for a while.Originally Posted by Player-fdc1d Go to original post
Deep State isn't over though, they still have more missions to drip feed out like the "Hawkins and Grant" stuff or the mission "Behind the curtain", because they have to make episode 2 last at least till june/July, and also quite frankly it's extremely childish to insult someone over a their opinion on a video game, and act like Ubisoft Paris killed your mother.Originally Posted by Player-fdc1d Go to original post
Judging the level of support a game gets by a simplistic numerical count of patches is meaningless. Different games very obviously suffer different issues which require different amounts and types of work to correct, which takes different amounts of time for different teams of coders to complete. This isn't even an apples to oranges comparison, this is like comparing apples to MIG welders![]()
Nah, you're way off. Both are Ubisoft games. Your analogy is stupid.Originally Posted by DarkFire1978 Go to original post