An Huge Issue with The Game's State | Forums

[MrBdur]

Now There we go... A reasoning logic worthy of Prof. MrBdur Xavier.

Yes, it's perfectly logical to continue investing in a game with no future, so when the sequel is ready, both games are at a good level, and the user database will be split between the two games and then neither will succeed.

Of course you know this from a secure source? These are not assumptions, and clearly a Ubisoft representative is coming here to confirm this, right?

We already discussed the fact that it's simply my opinion that they are working on a sequel so attacking that is a little... silly. My point was that my opinions follow a path of logic. It just makes sense for them to be limited in what they can and can't do with the current game and so in order to improve the game the way we all want, they need a sequel.

Again, that's just my personal opinion, but it is one that follows a logical path.

You were basically stating that Ubisoft purposely made their game bad so that they would be able to sell a sequel, which is not following a logical path. That is just assumptions based on ill feelings you harbour towards Ubisoft.

If they made their game bad on purpose, then no one would buy a sequel because no one would want that to happen again. On top of that, there are rarely full teams of people willing to screw others over like that. Maybe one or two but plenty of the team would he morally against decisions like that and someone in these 4 years would have broken the silence about it at some point or another.

To assume they just choose not to fix things simply because they don't want to is just ludacris.

It is more believable that they just mucked some stuff up as genuine mistakes, or that their tech is limiting their decisions.

The idea that they purposely keep the game mediocre is moronic especially with the dominion series getting traction.

You are essentially writing a conspiracy theory against Ubisoft with no hard evidence.

My assumptions don't require me reaching very far because they just make sense.

Edit:

Something I want to add. You say that two successful games in one franchise is illogical, splits the playerbase, and means no success for either as a result?

Sooooooo you are telling me that Call Of Duty is not successful? Battlefield? Forza? The other thousand franchises that have a successful sequel even though plenty of players keep playing the previous game?

I don't have a clue where you are getting your ideas from, but I highly recommend you find a new source of information.

[MrBdur]

The reason to keep improving what we have now is to make it easier to port to the next iteration of the game.

If they stop improving heroes and wait for the sequel, then they have that much more work to do on the sequel after it's release. Why not just keep improving fighters in the meantime and then just transfer the updated info to the new game?

Where are you getting lost, Pico?

[PicoAncus]

Again, that's just my personal opinion, but it is one that follows a logical path.

You were basically stating that Ubisoft purposely made their game bad so that they would be able to sell a sequel, which is not following a logical path. That is just assumptions based on ill feelings you harbour towards Ubisoft.

If they made their game bad on purpose, then no one would buy a sequel because no one would want that to happen again.

To assume they just choose not to fix things simply because they don't want to is just ludacris.

It is more believable that they just mucked some stuff up as genuine mistakes, or that their tech is limiting their decisions.

The idea that they purposely keep the game mediocre is moronic especially with the dominion series getting traction.

You are essentially writing a conspiracy theory against Ubisoft with no hard evidence.

I don't have a clue where you are getting your ideas from, but I highly recommend you find a new source of information.

It's your opinion, and I agree or not, respect. I don't think I'm more or less smart than you.

I never said, that Ubisoft made mistakes on purpose, with ulterior motives. I said, they had to assume their mistakes, not the users to assume.

I like For Honor, and what I say it because it's what I read, what i talk about with other users, and it makes sense. I have nothing against Ubisoft. As I said at the beginning, it's just a cold analysis.

I said that there would be grudges, and that there are users who won't buy a sequel if they're not satisfied with the initial game. This is logical.

I also said, that the Devs were probably not at fault, and that they probably do what they can with the resources they have at their disposal.
I personally think that JC really knows what he is doing with the reworks. Hope hes making Jorm one day.

Not conspiracy. Just my opinion.
It doesnt matter who my sources are or not.
What i sad, is that this all mess, that was not made on purpose, its just convenient...

Pleasr note that there are things that are not the same read, than eared. And i sad some flips that probably you took to serious.

[PicoAncus]

The reason to keep improving what we have now is to make it easier to port to the next iteration of the game.

If they stop improving heroes and wait for the sequel, then they have that much more work to do on the sequel after it's release. Why not just keep improving fighters in the meantime and then just transfer the updated info to the new game?

Where are you getting lost, Pico?

I already stated that I agree with the sequel, if you transfer the progress, cosmetic.
So it's fair.

I'm just sorry that the attitude of the reworks has started now. Might as well have done it sooner. You have the case of Aramusha for example... What was F Tier how long?

I paid for Jorm and others to be tricked and nerfed later. I didn't pay a nerfed Jorm. I paid what came out and what was advertised. (just an example of misleading advertising)

These are the things that are annoying. These mistakes, which are completely avoidable, if they knew how to balance the commercial sense, with the balance of the characters in the game.

But there are always secondary concerns unfortunately.

[MrBdur]

I appreciate you clarifying as you are correct. Many things read worse than they sound in actual conversation. Context gets lost. Facial expressions and tones cannot be conveyed.

I can agree to most of these 2 posts of yours while still remaining aligned to my own differing opinions without trouble now.

[PicoAncus]

I appreciate you clarifying as you are correct. Many things read worse than they sound in actual conversation. Context gets lost. Facial expressions and tones cannot be conveyed.

I can agree to most of these 2 posts of yours while still remaining aligned to my own differing opinions without trouble now.

Both want For Honor better.
Thats a fact buddy. And this is the spirit.

[CRIMS0NM0NKEY]

I was thinking that maybe Ubisoft put reworks into high gear not for For Honor sake. Maybe they are smoothing out the game play of for honor as a prototype for the star wars game they are making.

[King_of_Xibalba]

I was thinking that maybe Ubisoft put reworks into high gear not for For Honor sake. Maybe they are smoothing out the game play of for honor as a prototype for the star wars game they are making.

this is feasible, from an economic standpoint.
Like if for honor was a huge experiment for gaming social dinamics, I myself thought this also.

[PicoAncus]

Friends...Companys spin around money.
Thats the only purpose.

[MrBdur]

Both want For Honor better.
Thats a fact buddy. And this is the spirit.

Agreed