The problem with Ubisoft games today

Assassin’s Creed Syndicate, the ninth main entry in the series, has recently arrived in the hands of gamers worldwide; yet despite the game being seen as a marked improvement over Unity, there’s an air of apathy and disinterest surrounding the game. It was recently announced that the game has had the worst launch in the series history in the UK (Quite ironic considering the game takes place in London) according to Destructoid, despite reaching number one in the charts. The gaming community has been growing tired of the franchise for a few years now and this raises another question about AAA development at Ubisoft; have their franchises blended in to soulless open world shells comprised of checklists and completion lists? While there are a few unique ideas that come out of the corporation, such as Valiant Hearts: The Great War and Grow Home, most of their AAA games are suffering of late. Here are a few of my own reasons as to why this is the case.

1. Sequels that step backwards, rather than move forwards

It is more difficult than ever to go bigger, to progress forward with every new release, and nowhere is that more evident than in modern video game development. Because of this we’ve seen the annual cycle become widely used to turn a consistent profit and as a result, innovation has suffered. For seven years now, the Assassin’s Creed series has taken the biggest blow from this, with Unity and Rogue in particular suffering in 2014. Unity was not only a fairly sizeable step back from 2013’s pirate focused Black Flag, but it was also released in a buggy state that put a lot of people off. Rogue on the other hand was simply competent and nothing more; a heavily muted farewell to the Colonial era that began with Assassin’s Creed III in 2012. The expectation to progress, to really take a franchise to the next level has become more difficult and less desirable with every passing year. Far Cry has also suffered, though to a lesser extent than Assassin’s Creed. Far Cry 4, which came out last year didn’t receive as much high praise as its predecessor did, and felt like more of an incremental upgrade than a direct sequel. Now we’re seeing the next Far Cry with the caveman focused “Primal”, which is set to release early in 2016. While it may make sense in terms of raking in profits, it would greatly benefit Ubisoft’s franchises if they gave each entry an extra year or so.

2. Reusing and repackaging systems from several franchises

The other major problem with AAA development at Ubisoft is that franchises have begun to blend into each other with similar game mechanics. The most prominent feature which has entered Far Cry and most recently Watch Dogs is the idea of surveying or activating something to plot points on the map. In another case the stealth system from Splinter Cell games has found its way into Assassin’s Creed; this includes crouched movement and outlines that display the last spot the player was discovered. By blending game mechanics in different franchises, Ubisoft titles may end up all feeling the same and this will make the community even less excited than they are currently for Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate. The incremental release cycle has also exposed some deficiencies in mission design which is really holding Ubisoft back from other open world franchises. Stealth missions where you must tail and eavesdrop on targets with instant fail states in Assassin’s Creed, on-rails sections which take control away from the player in Ghost Recon and missions where you find yourself doing busy work with no real payoff in WatchDogs. For every “Kick the Hornet’s Nest” from 2012’s Far Cry 3 we now have five dull tailing missions with little to no spark or imagination. A lack of creativity in this area has left Ubisoft titles feeling less and less memorable by the year; each of Ubisoft’s major franchise needs to work to form its own identity, while also coming up with some unique mission designs to engage the player more effectively.

3. UPLAY and digital rights management

While I didn’t think much of it when playing their games on console, Ubisoft has had a rough reputation with PC players for many years; lacklustre PC ports and graphical downgrades are small potatoes compared to Ubisoft’s highly intrusive and highly undesirable restrictions caused by UPLAY and Digital Rights Management. It all started back in 2009 when the “service” was first implemented alongside the release of Assassin’s Creed II. Hundreds of fans were eager to try out the game on PC, only the find the game was rendered unplayable because of the Ubisoft’s restrictions on UPLAY servers. If the servers were down, then you couldn’t play the game, there were no ifs or buts about it. Some PC players felt so cheated by this that they continue to look upon Ubisoft with disdain and suspicion every time they have a major release. It’s become a constant fixture in nearly every game published by the company and to this day Ubisoft still isn’t budging, despite the overwhelmingly negative reception; they claim that having UPLAY engaged at all times cuts down on piracy when really all they’re doing is alienating those who do want to support the company by putting down money for a new release. It’s an obstacle that continues to get in the way of PC players enjoyment of Ubisoft titles and while the company did scrap the controversial online passes in their games, they still have a ways to go before they earn the full respect of the PC community.

4. A general lack of heart, soul and sometimes effort

Despite the large amount of work that goes into creating each game world in Ubisoft’s franchises, some have become quite static in the way they deal with open world gameplay. It’s argued by some that Assassin’s Creed now boils down to a static map with a series of tick boxes and checklists that stand in for its. I mentioned before that Ubisoft’s recent titles have tended to step backwards rather than move forwards; compounding this irksome trait is the unshakeable feeling that Ubisoft titles don’t really do too much to fix things that have dogged their biggest franchises over the years. With every yearly iteration of Assassin’s Creed, we see a few flaws and negative aspects about gameplay mechanics pop up, particularly where parkour, stealth and enemy AI are concerned. Rarely are these issues ever dealt with fully which again brings up the yearly cycle; it’s just not enough time to polish off the game and more often than not it feels like the corporation is hammering out sequels without giving developers the time they need to make real progress.

Another issue is that Ubisoft’s narratives and game worlds just don’t have very much personality anymore; the characters in the stories are fairly one note and it’s becoming trickier to get invested. Again, this is down to franchise fatigue and the fact that Ubisoft’s biggest competitors, most notably Saint’s Row and Grand Theft Auto do far more than just make the worlds big and beautiful to look at. Assassin’s Creed Unity didn’t do too well in this regard, relying on the tired story of a father’s assassination and making the romance between Arno and Elise too basic and underwhelming. Some players even cried foul of Ubisoft’s refusal to use French actors for a game set in Revolutionary Paris, which made the overall story even more jarring. Ubisoft needs to discover a way to spice things up, something which will set their game worlds and stories apart and bring them back to the same quality of their earlier games.

5. Distracting business practices

Season passes, multiple editions and microtransactions; these have all become common place in several of Ubisoft’s biggest franchises. If we go back two or more years, these kinds of practices were either far less irritating or practically non-existent. We didn’t have to worry about which version to get or how microtransactions would be incorporated; it was buy the game and jump into it, nothing more and nothing less. Today these practices serve as obstacles that hinder the fans from getting into AAA games that Ubisoft releases. How can we become immersed in the beautiful game worlds the developers create if we’ve got credit packs and other in game currencies getting in the way? Why should we care about what we’re doing in the game when the game is offering microtransactions to get it done faster? Microtransactions began to creep into Ubisoft titles with Assassin’s Creed: Black Flag in 2013 and once again they have made their way into the recently released Syndicate. Like Black Flag, the microtransactions are intended to apparently “save time and accelerate progress” which disrupts and interferes with the game’s flow for the third year running. Winning back the engagement and enjoyment of players with microtransactions is a pretty lacklustre way of going about things and at the moment, it looks like they won’t be going away anytime soon.

What do you think about the state of Ubisoft nowadays? Have they lost their touch or are you still enjoying their games year after year? Let me know in the comments.