Can Ubisoft Paris learn anything from Cyberpunk 2077??? | Forums

[Steven527]

You are both right. Firstly Ubi needs to understand what GR is supposed to be at core. That is the charter. Then they need to get back to understanding how to make a living world where your choices matter. Even Wildlands didn't really have that as much as it did have a better living world than BP. This is where it seems Cyberpunk shines according to the review Bone Frog posted. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[Bone_Frog]

HOW-LONG-IS-THE-MAP???

Look like our poor boy Franktastic, even in PC he got bad luck when to play to CP2077:

YouTubeShare has been deactivated.
Do you accept the use of cookies to display and allow you to watch the video content?

Well of course. Do we want a dynamic world where choices determine how the world reacts? Yes. Killing certain NPC's, not saving certain civilians, things in Drewski's video about radio towers, electric grids, completing side missions like these to aid in the mission success yet having it directly affect things in-game IE the civilian population, gathering intel or them going hostile on you etc. There can definitely be a wide variety of things of that nature to discuss how GR can be more dynamic but we don't need to say "hey look at Cyberpunk" to get that point across.

Do we want Ubisoft devs from Paris to look at Cyberpunk, see us on the forums saying "ya they can learn from cyberpunk" and think they're going to pinpoint the exact mechanic that might work in GR that we're looking at? Do we trust they'll get it? Cyberpunk is an open world looter shooter RPG with talent tree's. The exact thing we've been complaining about in GR. They start reading forum posts like "oh look at cyberpunk" and they'll start thinking "well, we were close with breakpoint, we just need a more dynamic world!"

I think we all understand we want dynamic worlds in our games but I would never look at cyberpunk and say "yes, devs, look at cyberpunk, this is what we want this in a ghost recon game" because that game is the complete opposite of what a ghost recon game should be imo and I would never want a team of devs to look at the core of that game and then think "oh is this what the community wants?"

The devs are so far from nailing what this genre and this game should be that no, they shouldn't be looking at cyberpunk, at all. They should be re-reading the billboard in their office and hopefully nailing the core fundamentals of the tactical shooter genre, and then we should be making posts about "dynamic worlds" and giving real examples of how it could work but I would absolutely not reference Cyberpunk in hopes that they'd get the exactly mechanic we are trying to reference and be able to recreate it for GR.

IDK... it only took 5yrs for Ubi to essentially reskin and dumb down TW3 to make Valhalla. So yes Ubisoft should be looking at Cyberpunk and any other actually innovative game to see how its done.

Honestly this isn't about Devs. If there is anything we as a fan base should learn from Cyberpunk and the various leaked emails, memos, and open admission by the execs is that the Devs are really not at fault for a game's success or failure. Those decisions are made in boardrooms not dev work space.

Go back to Wildlands and the decision not to make that a dynamic world the way White Hat promised. It was a decision about profit and profitability. So the other thing that Ubisoft should learn from Cyberpunk is that an ambitious game can 100% be profitable. Slapping tried and tired systems together isn't innovation.

[El_Cuervacho]

So the other thing that Ubisoft should learn from Cyberpunk is that an ambitious game can 100% be profitable. Slapping tried and tired systems together isn't innovation.

Indeed; that and commitment to see that vision through.
Rather than recycling the wheel, they would do well to IMPROVE ON IT.

[MajicNomad]

Honestly this isn't about Devs. If there is anything we as a fan base should learn from Cyberpunk and the various leaked emails, memos, and open admission by the execs is that the Devs are really not at fault for a game's success or failure. Those decisions are made in boardrooms not dev work space.

Just so. UbiSoft is loaded with world-class engineering and design talent, people who can make just about anything happen, and that's not the issue at all.

Failures on the scale of Breakpoint are simply not possible under competent leadership. Until the structural dysfunction of its executive management is corrected -- which must start at the top -- UbiSoft, its intellectual properties, partners, staff, shareholders and customers will continue to suffer unnecessarily.

Unfortunately, the current trend is not encouraging, but these things take time, UbiSoft is still vast and successful in many ways, and I don't think it's too late yet. Here's hoping the Board of Directors or their successors are aware of and capable of resolving the company's fundamental problems before they become more widespread or unrecoverable.

[AI BLUEFOX]

This is an interesting interview with some Devs about the possible problems with CyberPunk. There are some parallels with what we see with Breakpoint's technical issues. Noting of course that most of Breakpoint's actual issues were designed in.

https://www.gamingbible.co.uk/featur...lVEa5Kawohcl78

[Kean_1]

Any parallels to technical challenges aside (and to your point Blue) the big difference here is that Breakpoint failed due to Ubi's vision not aligning with what the majority of fans wanted.

CP2077 is a game fans would love but it happens to be mired with issues. That's it's problem and that is where nearly all the complaints about the game stem from. Breakpoint on the other hand is a game most fans would have still hated even if it were released bug free. All of the criticism during development was almost exclusively about the content, game mechanics, etc. which followed it through release.

Had GR:B been an improved game based on a lot of the popular feedback from WL, my friends and I would have happily bought it because there would have still been a game worth investing in and supporting under all those bugs.

That is why I can't agree with the earlier remark about Ubi taking more flak simply because they're Ubi. Had they created a "GR" fans wanted, criticism would have been more focused on the technical problems rather than the design / vision and they wouldn't have spent all of this time trying to reinvent core aspects of the game. .....or bothered taking polls on the game's mechanics. ....or admit that they failed by trying to make their games too similar. ......or question the influence higher-ups had on title development. .....or restructured their company and so on.

There's a big difference in why CP2077 is in trouble right now and what led to GR:B's demise IMO.

[Steven527]

apparently cdpr rolled out some more patches today, along with one of the dreaded yellow tweets saying they are sorry, and promising more patches in 7 days.

we'll see how that goes. Iirc this kind of launch lead to some free dlc on tw3. So it will be interesting to see how cdpr handles this one. Imo the response and communication have been better than grbp's radio silence. The situation still isn't good for people who didn't get the finished product they paid for, but the communication and seeming eagerness to fix it are a welcome breath of fresh air.

THIS
patches and then more patches in 7 days? Despite the online only hype from Ubi that it was going to allow them to update the game better we haven't seen anything like this. BP usually is waiting months at best. And then communication on top of that?! Be still my heart.

[ko102crew]

Learn what? How not to put out a buggy piece of garbage? This is Ubisoft after all.....

I'm sorry but bottom line is if you pay top dollar for a product you should expect that productt to work correctly.
If I buy a coffee maker and it fails to make coffee correctly then its a broken product and I should be able to return it without any problems. I know CDPR said people can get refunds but honestly that's scary. They KNEW damn well it wasn't going to work properly on older consoles and hid that fact. Thats down right BS.

If I buy a game that's been in production for 7 FREAKING YEARS then I should expect it to work right.

Giving these companies a pass on **** like this is only hurting the consumer. People need to stand up and say enough is enough.

Gaming companies have been getting worse and worse every year with BS like this.

[SofaJockey]

This thread hasn't aged well.

I think Breakpoint at launch was considerably less broken at launch than Cyberpunk.

And Ubisoft have extensively patched and added what people were asking for, I hope CDPR do as well fixing their game.

[El_Cuervacho]

This thread hasn't aged well.

I think Breakpoint at launch was considerably less broken at launch than Cyberpunk.

And Ubisoft have extensively patched and added what people were asking for, I hope CDPR do as well fixing their game.

It hasn't aged anywhere as badly as BP itself though.
BP's technical quality has little to do with it's failure; and whilst it's true that CP2077's state at launch coupled with CDPR's shady behaviour were indeed disgraceful, I'd bet in one year time, when all the bugs are dealt with, CP2077 will be in far better shape, as a game than BP is, or ever had the potential of being.