Taking your time in games - Ubisoft article with Paris Studios game designer | Forums

[NazcaS98]

"Charles Cler, Lead Game Designer at Ubisoft Paris, who worked on the movement of characters on Ghost Recon: Breakpoint, offers Stories an additional explanation when we talk to him about this need to go fast. “I also think that the players have evolved, they are no longer just teenagers. There are many players who have a job, a family, and who have shorter game sessions. And on these sessions, they want to make the most of it, advance the story, do the maximum number of missions. Hence, I think, a need for higher speed of play and movement. Forcing walking would be perceived as super frustrating, especially since running is a natural action that can hardly be prohibited without a solid narrative reason. "It's no coincidence that the cutscenes where the player can move his character without being able to run, in particular not to rush the narration,annoy more than one ."

Oh no. Charles doesn't understand me at all. Or the genre... Or the history of the franchise and basic math.

"...the players have evolved, they are no longer just teenagers."
If you are a long time fan of the franchise, the only way it's possible for you to be a teenager is if you popped out of the womb with a controller in your hand. 2001-2020
The franchise was rated "M" from the beginning, so their target audience should never have been "teenagers".

"There are many players who have a job, a family, and who have shorter game sessions. And on these sessions, they want to make the most of it, advance the story, do the maximum number of missions."
The genre of Tactical shooter has been and never should be about speed. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. Other genes exist to provide those different experiences.
When it comes to shorter play sessions, "making the most of it" comes from enjoyment of the time spent, not how many boxes you can check. NOBODY wants to "Steal the truck" and "Eliminate the squad" 12 times an hour.
The outcry from the community, with Breakpoint specifically, regarding players busy schedules was directly in response to Ubi's "speed over experience" design. Funneling players into the arcade run and gun style. Us 'evolved teenagers' specifically communicated we only have a limited time to play due to RL, don't force our limited game time to be this garbage.

"Hence, I think, a need for higher speed of play and movement. Forcing walking would be perceived as super frustrating, especially since running is a natural action that can hardly be prohibited without a solid narrative reason"
Charles, what is the "Narrative reason" that stops you from running everywhere you go? Did you run from your bed to the front door this morning, did you run through the grocery store on your last trip? Have you been running all over the office all day?
And why does he think it has to be "forced" walking? The game allows walking, it also allows running. It's where you balance the benefits that makes one the play style.

"It's no coincidence that the cutscenes where the player can move his character without being able to run, in particular not to rush the narration,annoy more than one ."
So, instead of creating depth, adding reason, using compelling story telling, just let players run?

Is the studio stuck in some sort of alternate dimension? Some sort of anti-logic zone? Are the walls painted with lead? Is it underneath power lines?

Am I alone here, in reading this article, and having my distrust that UbiParis has any competence underscored? A highlight of how simple their thinking is, and how little effort they put in to solving issues, and how they have no respect for the genre?

Ubi guy 1: "Players have less time to spend in our game per session."
Ubi guy 2: "Let's make everything in the game totally inconsequential. So players can just move from one glowing dot to the next with no need to tell a story or for anything to make sense."
Charles Cler: "And we should make 'em run faster than Usain Bolt!"
Yves: "Good enough! Sell it!"


Blue, I do appreciate you sharing the article. I'd be interested in reading more things like this. But his mindset is soul crushing.

I think the same things man. I think that Ubisoft can't do his job. They Must learn one Si gol thing.. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY

[solokiller]

I think the many cutscenes, conversations and whatnot where we're unable to move at all are more than just annoying.

[rugby_dog]

I think the many cutscenes, conversations and whatnot where we're unable to move at all are more than just annoying.

You mean the cutscenes where Nomad changes his pistol magically, loses his main weapon, loses his hat and his backpack.

Those well implemented ones, that usually force you into a firefight that Nomad would never actually get into.

[Ironmatter]

How quickly the player gets moved through the game is completely relative.

If a gamer starts a new game and has to tactically work their way through an objective over 40 minutes of play, then you've set the benchmark. The player now has an expectation of the time and effort it will take them to achieve objectives throughout the remainder of the game.

When the game then follows up with a storyline full of objectives with drastically different levels of challenge and erratic lengths of time which at times leave the player mentally struggling to understand the relevance to the plot (Gone Fishing), then you've smashed the previously established benchmark and the player now has no reference on which to gauge how long they will need to play to get to the next objective.

The result of this is players racing through a game which nullifies the crucial sense of achievement which players need to keep them investing time and efforts into your game.

One could argue that open-world titles are exempt from this. In fact the opposite applies. The objectives in an open-world titles must still establish a benchmark, however this can be done either by time or space.

The game can either establish an expected length of gameplay time per objective or an expected geographic extent per objective. The latter actually engages the player more as they subconsciously estimate how long a task will take based on the geographic extent the objective is bounded within.

Open to discussion...

[NewFool7]

How quickly the player gets moved through the game is completely relative.

If a gamer starts a new game and has to tactically work their way through an objective over 40 minutes of play, then you've set the benchmark. The player now has an expectation of the time and effort it will take them to achieve objectives throughout the remainder of the game.

When the game then follows up with a storyline full of objectives with drastically different levels of challenge and erratic lengths of time which at times leave the player mentally struggling to understand the relevance to the plot (Gone Fishing), then you've smashed the previously established benchmark and the player now has no reference on which to gauge how long they will need to play to get to the next objective.

The result of this is players racing through a game which nullifies the crucial sense of achievement which players need to keep them investing time and efforts into your game.

One could argue that open-world titles are exempt from this. In fact the opposite applies. The objectives in an open-world titles must still establish a benchmark, however this can be done either by time or space.

The game can either establish an expected length of gameplay time per objective or an expected geographic extent per objective. The latter actually engages the player more as they subconsciously estimate how long a task will take based on the geographic extent the objective is bounded within.

Open to discussion...

Apologies, what point are you making? You appear to be overspeaking on behalf of many.

[Virtual-Chris]

How quickly the player gets moved through the game is completely relative.

If a gamer starts a new game and has to tactically work their way through an objective over 40 minutes of play, then you've set the benchmark. The player now has an expectation of the time and effort it will take them to achieve objectives throughout the remainder of the game.

When the game then follows up with a storyline full of objectives with drastically different levels of challenge and erratic lengths of time which at times leave the player mentally struggling to understand the relevance to the plot (Gone Fishing), then you've smashed the previously established benchmark and the player now has no reference on which to gauge how long they will need to play to get to the next objective.

The result of this is players racing through a game which nullifies the crucial sense of achievement which players need to keep them investing time and efforts into your game.

One could argue that open-world titles are exempt from this. In fact the opposite applies. The objectives in an open-world titles must still establish a benchmark, however this can be done either by time or space.

The game can either establish an expected length of gameplay time per objective or an expected geographic extent per objective. The latter actually engages the player more as they subconsciously estimate how long a task will take based on the geographic extent the objective is bounded within.

Open to discussion...

I think you’re onto something. One of the things I liked about Wildlands was it was largely geographically focused. You completed one province then moved to the next. Each province had 5 or 6 missions. After you completed the first few missions, you could extrapolate... and go... “holy hell... there’s a ton of content here. It’s going to take me weeks to finish this game”. And the other factor here, is that by being geographically focused, you didn’t need to zoom all over the map, you could take it slower, move on foot or by vehicle and actually ignore helicopters and fast travel. The result was a more immersive and intimate experience with the world.

In Breakpoint, the missions have you travelling all over the map to the extent that you have to use fast travel or helicopters to avoid tedious travel time and countless random encounters zig-zagging all over the map. It was therefore impossible to extrapolate the time it might take to finish the game until someone posted the full mission list and it became clear it was maybe a few evenings worth of content. And because it’s spread all over the place, it’s not fostering that immersive, slow intimate experience with the world. Which is a shame, because the terrain and environment and locations are some of the best parts of the game. But the mission structure, random encounter spam, and stupid Azreal mechanic kill it all.

Breakpoint should really become classroom material for aspiring game designers as it has so many great examples of what NOT to do.

[Virtual-Chris]

I'd walk more if the act of moving around felt more like you're in hostile territory. Right now you can land a helicopter right next to a base without anyone noticing.

Unless it’s a Faction Mission location with exploding trucks.

But seriously, I agree.

On a related note, I’ve never used helicopters to travel on Auroa unless the mission demands it. I’ll use fast travel instead and go the last mile by foot or vehicle. When I fast travel I’m pretending I’m driving or taking a boat. I know a lot of people will disagree, but I just can’t see helicopters fitting the narrative of the situation. It’s preposterous to me that helicopters are a safe viable way for non Sentinel forces to travel on Auroa without being shot down or taken down by a drone swarm. What better way is there to announce Nomads location to everyone on the island.

[Hugo-FOU]

Unless it’s a Faction Mission location with exploding trucks.

But seriously, I agree.

On a related note, I’ve never used helicopters to travel on Auroa unless the mission demands it. I’ll use fast travel instead and go the last mile by foot or vehicle. When I fast travel I’m pretending I’m driving or taking a boat. I know a lot of people will disagree, but I just can’t see helicopters fitting the narrative of the situation. It’s preposterous to me that helicopters are a safe viable way for non Sentinel forces to travel on Auroa without being shot down or taken down by a drone swarm. What better way is there to announce Nomads location to everyone on the island.

Also, the helicopter animations are simply horrible. Just flying one is immersion breaking, even before you consider the narrative.

[Aex_Khves]

With something that should be a tactical shooter, I think it needs balance. A slow methodical approach can be balanced with fast travelling between objectives. Also, taking a slower approach helps to throw those momentS of fast paced action into contrast.

You can't balance these things. You can choose only a casual experience or immersion experience. In the first case, you create Wildlands with bad immersion, with fast travels, support from rebels and vehicles from the sky. In the second case, you create RDR2 with a lot of immersion, but a slow pace. And for me, immersion is important and much better than casual. I will sell my soul for the survival-oriented Division 1 with a lot of immersion instead of what they did in Division 2, and I expect a lot of immersion in Breakpoint after the next TU

[AI BLUEFOX]

The main issue for me is the mission structure in Breakpoint with the travelling around needed to compete the mission. It prevents picking the gear you need, hence is at odds with the ghost experience and as Chris says, it forces you to fast travel about the map. There are also too many in-game triggers that force a battle in the missions.