Ubification (The Jimquisition)

/ jimquisition
www.thejimquisi...
sharkrobot.com/...
Is Far Cry 5 good? I think so. The problem with Ubisoft games is you can't tell anymore, they're all the same.
It's understandable when a sequel iterates on its predecessor, but Ubisoft is one publisher with MANY franchises all building off each other.
It's making it hard to care, or at the very least view these games as anything other than fluff.
__
Twitter: / jimsterling
Facebook: / jimsterling0
Jim’s Big Ego (No Relation): bigego.com/
Bandcamp of the Sax Dragon - carlcatron.ban...
Nathan Hanover - / @nhsynthonicorchestra

[@JimSterling]

KZbin is doing that thing where it stops me replying to individual comments, but I wanted to respond to someone asking how this is different from what EA and Activision Blizzard are doing with the online components and monetization strategies: Ubification runs a little deeper than straightforward homogenization. I agree that EA and Activision Blizzard are also overusing formulas, but their games still have structural identities unique to the IP. For now, anyway. Ubisoft games aren't just using the same business models, they're copying each other to the point where even minor details are starting to become library-wide staples, and my video is by no means a comprehensive rundown of the minutia shared between Ubisoft's tentpole releases. While increased generic content is a problem across all the "AAA" space, ain't nobody driving ideas into the ground quite like Ubisoft.

[@AlwaysANemesis]

And it's a damn shame, because despite the repetition with Ubisoft games, it's clear this formula _works_ for people. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but in the context of the 'AAA' bubble, that runs the chance of a pretty dark precedence. Imagine how many publishers they've no doubt already "inspired" to this model, but imagine how many more they'll bring to that outlook with Far Cry 5's success.

[@thunderfiter]

Good video also I noticed the pin 🖒 I can't see what it is but I noticed it

[@oskardirlewanger6083]

Carl Weathers Your ridiculous aggression shows that you're either an imbecile or a troll.

[@JimSterling]

Carl: 1: What kind of plan should KZbinrs enact to "stop" multinational corporations? This should be a laugh. 2: Please learn to apply the word "hypocrite" correctly. 3: Here you come to bitch and complain about my videos but you do nothing to stop my videos. Just bitch, bitch, give me my replies on YT. 4: Point three is a demonstration of how we could correctly apply the word "hypocrite" to you. 5: And that's the bottom line, 'cos Stone Cold said so.

[@magdiel6709]

Jim Sterling What baffles me is the disparity between the apparent public opinion on many of these triple-ay titles and the numbers they're making on sales figures. Despite the fact that Ubisoft is making _multiple franchises_ into the exact same homogenized cookie-cutter garbage, most people are still extremely lenient toward this and hold these games in relatively high regard. On the other end of the spectrum, the Call of Duty franchise tried to innovate several times and people complained that the series was becoming too homogenized and bland. Now I'm not defending Activision's absurd greed, but people who say they're just as bad as Ubi in this particular regard are absolute knobheads.

[@johnhanson5527]

Ubisoft is the literal embodiment of the rating 7/10. Fun and worth it at the retail but definitely worth it at a small discount. I enjoy Ubisoft games but I know what I get into when I buy them.

[@ressljs]

I'm actually really excited for this game. Why? I've only had Nintendo systems for the last 15 years but I'm about to get a PS4. If this is a highly polished version of a game made too many times... Well, it will be new to me! The only Ubisoft games I've play in years all involved Rabbids.

[@johnhanson5527]

ressljs don’t worry you’ll love it! It’s a good game for new people!

[@mohammedsarker5756]

ressljs every Ubisoft franchise is amazing the first time, but the first time only

[@UlshaRS]

A company that is seeing more sales in their titles after a year they come out.

[@thepassingstatic6268]

@@UlshaRS that's not a good sign for the company

[@ThrashMetalAvenger]

Never has the name "Ubiquitous Software" had such a very very specific meaning.

[@jhanschoo]

I enjoy Jim's use of language too, but for a different reason: he spends 17 mins making the same point over and over again, with different examples and different words, and the same point over and over again, but phrased a little differently, and a little variety...

[@Katy133]

This video reminds me of a quote by game director Yoko Taro... "I would like to make a game from a different genre each time. Even if I try new things, in the end it comes out of the same mind, so some aspects end up resembling each other. If there are similarities between games I have worked on thus far, I consider it to be a form of failure. Looking at AAA titles, of course I find them beautiful and interesting, but after 20 minutes of gameplay, I wonder whether it is going to be the same for the following 20 hours. I am a bit tired of this. If possible, I would like to make games that are unexpected, games that keep changing form."

[@Goraka91]

We need more Taros and less suits. Passion is important.

[@violetroseinthedark3071]

I don't mean to be a Devil's advocate, but how can this be reconciled with Jim's Jimquisitions where he slams the Sonic franchise and Square Enix for constantly innovating and losing their audience in the process?

[@Especti1]

But that's the thing. A lot of times people cry for change, but when it comes, then everyone bashes it and says the old was better. People just don't know what they want. And that discourages game companies from making anything new, so they stick to whatever made them more money and kept the customers satisfied.

[@CynicalGamingBlogTerry309]

Yet all he does is make 3d beat em ups...

[@DoveAlexa]

+Emphase + VioletCheeseyname If your dog shits on your bed instead of outside, you don't feel excited at the change of pace. Especially since you never asked for it.

[@Rhino-n-Chips]

People kept telling me Farcry Primal was the same game as the others. I genuinely couldn't believe it, how could a game set in prehistoric times be the same? After buying the game out of stubborn disbelief, I can confirm the game is basically 3 or 4 using only the bow and shitty melee weapons. They had to work really hard to ensure it felt 80% like every other Farcry, I'm impressed.

[@joshdransfield754]

Rhino 'n Chips it literally is Far Cry 4. It uses the same map. It’s as much that as Blood Dragon is Far Cry 3. They should have just called it Far Cry 4: Primal, honestly.

[@saltruist8751]

Yeah but then they couldn't get away with charging full price.

[@pyrojinn]

A lot of people like Primal. I think it’s ok, even though there’s a lot of repetitive stuffs in it.

[@jaylite2826]

after 4 i only will be buying these on sale and goty editions. i love the farcry game play but not the price tags for reskinned gameplay

[@daggern15]

Rhino n' Chips I was the same, couldn't believe it was more of the same. I loved 3, enjoyed 4 even if it was feeling pretty samey all the way through though lacking the interesting characters. Come Primal, I was bored after 3 hours. Another 2 after that point and I had to give up and I haven't been back to that game since Josh Things I can't say I agree with that. Yes, Primal might as well have been Far Cry 4: Primal but Blood Dragon at least had it's own fun edge from 3. It had it's own spark and was fun whereas Primal just feels stale. As much is it would be an incredible waste of programming and effort to do it this particular way, I think Primal would have been much more interesting if they had made it a segment in 4 as if it played off like the Shangri-La missions: You're playing the game in modern world, you're running around with your guns, blah, blah, blah, you find an item aaaand you're suddenly a caveman. You play as a caveman for a bit and then return to the modern day bit of the game and get on with it, leaving Primal to be a fun experience in a big game rather than a niche idea in an very stretched game

[@JaydevRaol]

This has aged really well, especially after what happened with Ghost Recon Breakpoint and how it's failure finally forced Ubisoft to change its inner structure and delay all their upcoming games. So hopefully we will now get Ubisoft games with more personality and immersive worlds that don't just to stick to a formula.

[@harish.g.l.k]

You wish

[@RaymondStormbl3ssed]

Unless their idea of every single one of their games being a "LiVe SeRvIcE" game doesn't die, nothing will change this shitty company The delay will make it seem like there hasn't been a new game from them and once people start to starve for a new game, they'll get back to their day job and start milking everyone's wallets again and people will gladly accept it because it's fucking Ubisoft

[@JaelinBezel]

Breakpoint is like a metaphor for in-breeding: too much genetic homogeny eventually results in severe birth defects.

[@zennistrad]

I'm from the future and I have bad news.

[@ArcaJ]

I own several Ubisoft, open world games. They are fun at first. Then, as you get further into the game, you realize you're just checking items off of a to-do list. Instead of playing a game you're doing chores.

[@FraserSouris]

I feel Sterling is missing the point with his video. It seems he played only a little of each game, decided they were the same and ranted about it (He did admit he played only a little of FC5). Basically, Sterling is making an extremely broad observation on superficial and arbitrary criteria and applying them to every Ubisoft game and then patting himself on the back without really thinking about or specifying what he’s really complaining about. The first problem with this approach is, again, how arbitrary and broad and superficial it all is. As an example, if every Assassin’s Creed is the same, and that includes Origins and Ody who are modelled after Witcher 3, does that make Witcher 3 a Ubisoft Game? By Sterling’s logic, Yes. Looking at other examples, Spider-Man PS4, Breath of the Wild and Horizon Zero Dawn include towers that reveal more of the map, repeated quest types, fetch quests and wide open areas and urban centres and checklists for progression, are they Ubisoft Games as well? Because here’s the thing, by pointing to these broad overlaps in Ubi’s own games, he doesn’t distinguish why these are specific to Ubi and not other games that do similar things. Going further, are Bully, Red Dead and GTA basically the same games from Rockstar because they share similar controls, physics engines and are about open world crime? Secondly, The games he does bring up have enough differences in the micro to have people prefer one over the other. Far Cry may have towers, crafting and all that, but the big draw that makes it specific is the player empowerment FPS mixed with the emergent sandbox gameplay. Look at those videos on its subreddit of the game of the way NPCs pilot helicopters and crash through fences. In contrast, Assassin’s Creed is closer to a Witcher style RPG with a more serious and authentic historical simulation of a world with sci-fi/fantasy elements and doesn’t have as much sandbox emergent gameplay. Someone can enjoy just messing about in Far Cry but not have that same kind of experience in AC. And Vice Versa if they want what AC offers. Watch Dogs is somewhere in the middle by mixing AC’s style with a bit of Far Cry’s sandbox elements but has its own tone and approach to gameplay. The Division May have an Open World set in a modern day, but takes the approach of a more tactical looter shooter. And so on. Basically, these games have their own specifics that mean different players will enjoy them rather than be the same game in different perspectives. There are overlaps, sure, but they are no more than games from other companies. Speaking of which, Thirdly, the reason for the overlaps. The reason why designs from one game may appear in other games is usually because players like them and/or they improve the game. Metal Gear Solid 3 and 4’s control scheme was very cumbersome and unintuitive. In contrast, MGSV opted for a control scheme closer to current shooters and as a result, was much more streamlined, fun and intuitive to play. In the case of Ubisoft, you may complain that checklist style objectives and collectibles are not fun, but apparently, most people enjoy them given games like Witcher 3, Spider-Man PS4 and God of War implemented them in full and nobody complained. You may complain towers are cliched, but they make sense and apprantly, many people enjoy the view. People may complain the gameplay loop of combat, stealth and movement mixed with things of clearing out forts is boring and cliched, but these were enforced more strictly in games like the Arkham Series, Shadow of War etc. I think people are quick to blame Ubisoft for things but ignore it in any other media.

[@kd9262]

​@@FraserSouris you're cherry picking aspects from triple A games with actual depth and variety. How can you act like you don't know what he's talking about? Those games aren't releasing every time you turn around with the same soul-less and formulaic gameplay. Rockstar games do follow the same pattern, but at least they're carefully crafted for years, and don't feel like a chore after hours of playing . It's quantity over quality

[@FraserSouris]

RJ Macready Firstly, I’m not cherry picking. I’m pointing out the faults in Sterling’s absolutist view. What makes say, Spider-Man with more towers and less ways to interact with them magically better? Other games are even more formulaic but they get a pass? Secondly, “games with actual depth” and “quality” is debatable. For example, many of Rockstar’s Open world games have missions that are as linear as an Uncharted game whereas Ubisoft’s games have consistently open ended missions which actually take advantage of the open world. What’s more of a chore: riding to get in the same kind of firefight every mission, or having ways of circumventing the fighting altogether? As for soul and the like, I can turn that around and argue since Ubi spend more man hours and research on a single game than say, Much of Guerilla’s output, their games have way more effort put into them. Don’t assume that Ubi’s approach is flawed based on a surface level look. There’s a reason why other devs take notes from them.

[@bushdoc9]

@@FraserSouris ha! how can you not seen the difference in quality between Witcher 3 and Origins? Ubisoft sure "borrowed" a lot of ideas, but essentally, all the missions play the same, everything you gotta do is kill people. its the same formula all over. Witcher 3 has surprise, has memorable stories/quests, has individual solutions to problems. I played a lot of both games, and Origins is fast food. Still fun, but nothing more than "okay"

[@FraserSouris]

@@bushdoc9 >" all the missions play the same, everything you gotta do is kill people. its the same formula all over. Witcher 3 has surprise, has memorable stories/quests, has individual solutions to problems

[@Craul08]

This episode was mostly redundant but still pretty good. Like a Ubisoft game.

[@Tormentadeplomo]

I thought the same thing. I love Jim Sterling and I agree with his point of view. But he doesn't need 17 min to say something that takes 5 min (ok, let's say 10 because business).

[@mountaindewslave]

I sort of disagree, part of Jim's videos I look at as being persuasive arguments.... strong arguments cite plenty of reasons/evidence. That's why it's the length it is. This is basically a discussion on the ENTIRETY of Ubisoft's main lineup being redundant, there's plenty to discuss regarding that

[@Wveth]

He does ads on his other videos, but not the Jimquisition.

[@Howtard]

Yeah he kept repeating himself, it's almost as if it's a theme. I heard him say the same thing more or less a few times but I'm not sure if there's a deeper meaning. Doing the same fucking thing, over and over again. I wonder why?

[@adamgr6988]

He already had a contract with Maker studios before he left the Escapist and brought Jimquisition with him to try Patreon, so the Patreon was always for the weekly Jimquisitions, the website with the reviews and podcasts, etc while the rest of the channel is as it was.

[@FangsofYima]

I've gotten very fatigued with gaming since most aaa companies have gone this copy pasta route. To the point where I'm really only enjoying a few games a year now, and my overall play time has been axed. Which has lead to a sort of identity crisis of sorts, If video gaming isnt my main hobby anymore as it has been for over a decade then what am I now. I've taken up reading more and just watching shows, but its jarring to mostly abandon a hobby after so many thousands if not tens of thousands of hours.

[@NotAFakeName1]

Fangs of Yima I just focus my time on older/indie games, getting a handful of the triple a titles that are actually interesting a year. Nothing wrong with enjoying spending your time reading/watching shows, but if you want to get back into gaming, I'd start there.

[@CapitalMort]

I know how you feel. Most games bore me now, I go hiking often now and I have a new appreciation of nature, maybe because I ignored it for most of my life.

[@Bruno-ec8ft]

It's kind of a back and forth. You just do other stuff now and at some point in the future, you'll crave for a game you like and spend more time on it then.

[@sern.21]

I feel the same way... It's hard for a new game to grab my attention and maintain it. My suggestion is to look toward other hobbies in between genuinely good games that come out a few times a year. If you think there's nothing else that would interest you, you're probably wrong and not really investigating alternatives. Not to mention, games can tie into a lot of real world hobbies.

[@TheNefastor]

Fangs of Yima I get you. I love books and shows and movies... but they lack one thing : interactivity.

[@faawks]

People rag on Fallout 4 all the time, but I never expected to find a bunch of funny robot pirates that needed my help, in Skyrim I never expected a cave to just open up into a giant city called Blackreach. The entire time I was playing Far Cry 5 I had fun, but I was never blown away or left in awe, it seems to happen less and less these days. I completely agree that Ubisoft just make the junk food of the gaming world.

[@jansettler4828]

Faawks I was never blown away in Bethesda Games either...I hated Skyrim for its in ability to make anything interesting.

[@faawks]

Well I suppose that's up to you, I don't know what games you find interesting but obviously there's always going to be a minority that aren't impressed or hold a game to far higher standards than what they deserve. In my opinion Skyrim did pretty well, I do prefer Oblivion or The Witcher 3, but Skyrim certainly held me for a long time, it was a good 500 hours before I got bored with it and uninstalled it. And really that's the difference that Jim is talking about here, how many people go back to Bethesda games like Fallout or The Elder Scrolls? Which is why I believe Far Cry 5 has this new "Arcade" mode, to try and get in on some of the longevity of those games, when was the last time you heard of someone playing a Ubisoft game for more than 50 - 60 hours? Meanwhile I find it hard to find anyone who played either of the "Bethesda big 2" franchise games for less than 50 hours.

[@kd9262]

@@jansettler4828 Bethesda goes further and further away from RPG depth with each game. I preferred Oblivion

[@ntigdona7487]

honestly the idea that the better a game is the longer you play it is bollocks! some games are amazing and only have a few hours worth of content! not to mention, enjoying a game might not be the only reason someone plays it longer... there are skiner boxes that can easily eat more than 50 hours and suck far more than ubisoft. if i have to get through one more hallway in uncharted i would just about lose my sht. at that point, why even bother changing locations!

[@metroid2]

Lets not forget Child of Light, another sign of how talented the teams working at Ubi can be if they are given the chance to work freely.

[@FinSasuke]

metroid2 and rayman too

[@Poever]

That wasn’t really them; that was the Lumines studio and Ubisoft just published it

[@star88wars]

Ray man is another example. Those are beautiful games.

[@lambseuslocated8069]

And siege when they saved it

[@Akhibrass]

But even the originally two Assassin's Creed and the first Far Cry's were unique enough to be interesting. They just took those formula's and ran with them. Homogenization due to success.

[@maxx1110]

Are you saying that the ubisoft mission structure is iconic?

[@coreylineberry8557]

Ubisoft Iconic, not real iconic.

[@Phantom_of_Black]

I'd say it's both Ubisoft "iconic" and actual "iconic".

[@griftide]

I love Far Cry 5, but I think I realized it’s because I went years without playing a Ubisoft game for all these reasons you spoke on, so now it’s finally new and refreshing to me. Even then it still has its frustrations.

[@lanceseaman88]

the only Ubisoft games I've played are The Division and Assasins Creed 1 I wonder if I would like this or if ishould play 3 or 4 first... any suggestions???? I am a graphics whore tho so idk if icould deal with Farcry 3... hmmm

[@JimSterling]

Far Cry 5 is an excellently crafted game. Really it is. But yeah, if you've played the rest of Ubisoft's open world output, the quality struggles to shine because it does so much I've seen over and over again across multiple franchises.

[@moosemaimer]

After playing the original, 2, 3, Blood Dragon, and 4 I just didn't feel the need to go through the entire experience again. It's not that I didn't enjoy playing them, but I've liberated plenty of outposts, and now I'm done with that.

[@MaartenKok]

I'm kind of afraid of buying it...I still have AC Origins installed, but burned out on it halfway through (I really need to stop wanting to complete all the icons on the map >_

[@23Scadu]

I haven't played a Ubisoft game since AC: Black Flag, and I couldn't be arsed to finish that. Maybe it's time to give another one a chance? I'll go for one of the older ones, though. No sense in paying full price for a new game.

[@derpchief9614]

How many Ubisoft employees does it take to screw in a lightbulb? They don't replace bulbs, they just expect the old ones to suddenly work again.

[@mikeaft3585]

But what if there is no lightbulb in the first place? You didn't answer that question, You gave the answer to a different question!

[@8mentosik]

I'm an concept artist and I remember when me and lots of my colleges all dreamed to work at Ubisoft...not anymore. The dream studio became the boring studio and it's not only Ubi, but almost any AAA developer. I talked with my fiancee the other day and we both think that the state the triple A games are nowadays is almost (if not straightforward) insulting towards the artists working on them. The ammount of love and dedication they are giving for these games are not (like at all) met with the design and programming work...and it is just sad. You can clearly see where the "weight" is put in this games (shiny things to lure the players) not backed with meaningful content, and I mean meaningful content, not just 100th bandit camp liberation. OF course there are some developers who still care (CD-Project RED, Capcom's Monster Hunter team), but they are just too few. Anyway, end of the rant, nice video Jim, as always ;)

[@nwing07__]

Witcher 3 is repetitive as hell lol and the combat isn't its strongest point. The *story* is what really sold the game if we're being honest. and the Witcher series is what catapulted CPJ into the gaming media mainstream.

[@anecro]

@@nwing07__ I wouldn't call it repetitive simply because every quest feels unique and hand-crafted, there's always something different that adds something to the world. It's the same point people are making about Elden Ring despite having copy-paste bosses. There's lying folk that give you the quest, it may wrap up into some larger conspiracy, the monsters are sometimes the exact opposite and many times your choices will be proven not very well thought-out. Characters from there come and go and sometimes, things tie into the main story or another location / quest. You may also find that the result of a sidestory leaves echoes and details behind too. It feels eerily alive and remains interesting despite the premise always essentially being "start quest to get reward". Sometimes you get your money, sometimes you may not, sometimes you may find something unexpected along the way, sometimes there's no monster to hunt or not even things to scout out and the time between starting and completing varies. There are a lot of quest types and many ways the same concept can go. I'm still finding interesting new stories like 100 hours in the game. Of course I'm not defending CDPR as a company nor am I saying they're doing things right because they aren't (og comment is also before their cataclysmic failure), but as far as the Witcher 3 is concerned it's already leagues above many of these games. It has soul, color and flavor. It's an actually alive open world that's far more convincing and worth diving into than many modern titles (ironic considering the graphics, animation and lipsync in the game).

[@ODST_Parker]

The comparison to Telltale is very accurate, because it follows the same formula. The story is always extremely different, the location and even time period is always different, the characters are always different. Unfortunately, the gameplay and basic structure of the games are always exactly the same. I'm VERY excited about the final season of Walking Dead, because that's a story series I've loved since its inception. Hell, I'm even hoping there will be a Game of Thrones Season 2 at some point, not to mention Wolf Among Us and all that. That's a formula I've fallen for, not for the unique or exciting gameplay, but for the stories. Each one is different, and each one is fantastic. Ubisoft, on the other hand, is quite different. Their games are mainly focused on gameplay, then story comes second. I can easily watch the story for these games on KZbin or something, because it doesn't rely on branching paths or player choice in the same way as Telltale games. That said, I'm still excited to see what they do with Division 2, because that's actually a game that I enjoy and invested in for quite some time.

[@respecttheyoshi]

It's really an interesting point of note that what a player prioritizes in the game can allow them to tolerate formulas tailored to that aspect. Like you (and of course Jim) said, both Telltale and Ubisoft have developed this formula that works, Telltale focused on stories, Ubisoft on their gameplay. As someone who prioritizes engaging gameplay, with a good story as a nice bonus, I don't play Telltale games, excluding Sam and Max as well as TftB because one's more of an old school point and click adventure and the other is a game series I love and enjoy learning about. Any other, I can watch variations of the story on KZbin and look up a story tree. But I can play a series of Ubi games on month-long binges, 3-6 hours a day, because I love how they play.

[@lemeres2478]

When the gameplay is mostly just a tool for getting the story out... yeah, relatively weaker gameplay is 'ok'. It can be a minus, of course, but it isn't necessary a systematic problem (the fact that very few of your choices actually matter, despite the illusion of player choice is, however, a problem, since it ties directly into that story focus). ...but when the games are being sold for gameplay, then that makes the copy/paste all the worse.

[@pagetvido1850]

It was interesting that the batman series actually increased noticeably in quality post Telltale purge. Hopefully that indicates Telltale is aware of their quality problem. Would be willing to bet the next season of Walking Dead will be very good, as the recovery of their flagship game is vital to their public image.

[@gustman17]

There's something to be said when your gameplay formula is mostly a vessel for conveying an interactive form of storytelling. As story, characters and setting are THE content of the Telltale Games (I mean, that's in the goddamn company name), then having self-derivative gameplay structures is quite expected. Whatever is happening with the Ubisoft shenanigans feels like absolute lack of autorship and an "everything that has worked goes" attitude to development. I think a more Nintendo or Indie approach of having one or two distinctive ideas and then develop content around it would work wonders for their IPs. It already worked fantastically with the Rayman games. Someone just needs to step on the brakes and go back to their basics.

[@Aloyhero]

I stop playing telltale games because they use the same engine over and over again and IGN always gives the 4th episode a low score! but i really like the Life is Strange games because it was a original story not based on a franchise. but my fear is that Square Enix could milk them since two different studios worked on them.

[@royblekman8186]

How about a jimquisition about AAA games turning into early acces games like Sea of Thieves.

[@JimSterling]

I've talked about "Early AAAccess" games a few times.

[@royblekman8186]

Jim Sterling i gues that works than. love your content, greetings from Europe.

[@knavenformed9436]

Jim Sterling Read that in the FMJ "warcry" voice

[@CuriousKey]

Problem is, they're not expecting different results. They're expecting to do exactly the same thing over and over again and have the same thing happen: Them make more money. Unfortunately, they seem to be right for now. It's a bubble that will eventually burst, but it will likely take a while for their audience to get tired of it.

[@zerofox975]

CuriousKey I was actually going to write a comment like yours, but then I figured, someone's probably already mentioned it. So, instead I just scrolled down the comments section until I saw this, and gave it a thumbs up. Good job, dear sir or madam!

[@TayTheDay]

Look at it as poking fun at the consumers, rather than the developer....

[@CuriousKey]

Well really the thrust of argument Jim is making is at Publishers, rather than Developers, but I take your point. My point is partially a dig at both.

[@四as]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why risk losing revenue?

[@Castdeath]

They are making money, but they are being very unambitious about it. They could make more if they try something else, but they just don't seem to like risking it even though they can take the blow.

[@randytyson]

The industry has been awfully quiet on its bullshit lately. It's good because it looks like your covering content that's less time sensitive and more timeless. As in your making content you want to make But It does make me ask: how many topics do you have planned or stored in that brain of yours? I'm not impatient or anything Just curious. Trust me I know, Monday is always coming and so am I

[@celic190]

Be patient, we will find out soon enough :D

[@JimSterling]

Yeah the first half of the year is good for more evergreen topics as the "AAA" heavy hitters aren't shitting all over everything yet. I have a lot. Some topics are backed up *years*, some are on the backburner for research and investigation, and some I'm just waiting for the right angle to approach it from. But yeah, I'm not worried about running out of content. Hell, of the recent episodes I've done, only one was drawn from my pre-existing "to-do" list so far.

[@NittanyTiger1]

Give it time. AAA will always give us something to hate, especially around the later months when they release most of their big-budget games. Corporate greed is eternal.

[@ty_teynium]

Jim Sterling do you have anything to say on Square enixs approach to games as a service model? They've announced over twenty projects including an Avengers title project, a sequel to kingdom hearts and a remake. Unfortunately, all they keep doing is releasing content for a game that costs money and takes up data space, and making dumb statements like ditching old approaches to production and sticking to games as a service model. They were one of the first to actually go this since they first began after leaving squaresoft. They also did content collaboration with Ubisoft for their latest Assassin's Creed game. They also outsourced development of the game to over thirty studios for one game, which is why they releasing content for the same game to return investments and make up for the services they got from the thirty studios.

[@FiendMatadorSlayerOfNoobs]

I believe that they were thinking of cracking down on it for a while before they realized that was going to be a mistake. They felt the strings of criticiscm and felt the urge to scratch. And they,ll probably feel the urge again when things really get rolling. The eyar is still young and the flowers have yet to bloom, as it were.

[@santiagop23]

Let's not forget about the greatest game ever made, FC3 Blood Dragon...

[@benjaminmenken5693]

One of the few ubisoft games I really like.

[@Iamsamg911]

“Games I play between games.” Nail on head there.

[@DrakeBarrow]

I'll give them this: the whole "definition of insanity" thing was pure genius. Ubi isn't bad at casting,at least.

[@AlexOlinkiewicz]

It's kind of funny how something like Horizon: Zero Dawn was able to take allot of inspirations from the Ubisoft formula of open-world, but was able to do enough that it made the game pretty much be its own thing. Granted not everyone see that (their entitled to their opinion), but again I think Horizon: Zero Dawn shows that you don't need to completely reinvent the wheel to give players a memorable experience.

[@coleellis8988]

If Ubisoft made it, everyone would hate it.

[@autumn2526]

It's similar to the Witcher 3 in that regard. Both games manage to inject just enough story, characterisation and world building into the more 'Ubsioft' elements of their open-worlds for the side activities to not feel like a check-list. I *do* think Assassin's Creed Origins came close to doing the same, but Ubisoft will always be Ubisoft.

[@IcyRhythmsthereal]

I agree with crippled. Sony pretty much does the something similar with their games these days. There is tons of focus on the narrative and making things like very cinematic for 10-20hrs. If Ubisoft had made Horizon, people would just be like "yeah. it's good, but it's just another Ubisoft game"

[@cursedex]

Think of it this way: Kirby and Mario are both side scroller platformers made by Nintendo, yet the formula is pretty different, and a player can recognize what mades one or the other good. Same thing with Street Fighter II and Darkstalkers, two fighting games made by Capcom with pretty dissimilar mechanics. Each franchise, even if sharing the genre, had their own things going, which is what Jim argues does not happen with Ubisoft. If Horizon Dawn Zero would have been the exact same game if published by Ubisoft if unkowin, but it's pretty unlikely it would have remained the same game. The reason the above happens with Ubisoft if beause excecutive pressure demands for this specific format, and it wouldn't be surprising they would have "suggested" changes to make HDZ remove individualities in order to accomodate to a tried and tested format.

[@kyotheman69]

+Jordan Doyle difference is story is better in those games, better interface, better UI, better flow of game it doesn't feel tact on, it doesn't make you do side quests its your choice ubisoft games bug you to do them, etc.

[@KastaRules]

As much as we are tired of this pattern I cannot help but think that they have found the video games market *holy grail* and that they are sticking to the formula as long as it sells. From a financial stand point it makes perfect sense.

[@AlphaladZXA]

13:12 then that's all their games will ever be

[@chucktownattack]

Intro is actually so fitting that it's really sad.

[@nystria_]

The biggest difference between Ubisoft and other publishers on this is that Ubisoft repeats its formula through EVERY game, not just a single franchise. Mario games might be repetitive as hell but we don't see any of their shit leaking into Zelda or Kirby. Although on that note, Bethesda's flagship titles are pretty fucking similar too. There's just a wide enough gap between Elder Scrolls and Fallout games that we barely notice (plus ESO throws off the scent hard.)

[@desmondbrown5508]

Actually the idea of the literal "collectathon" has started to seep into modern Nintendo games. Just off the top of my head, the fact that both Mario Odyssey and Zelda felt the need to have hundreds of little collectables as one of the main "things to do". They aren't nearly as bad as Ubisoft, but I remember play Odyssey and thinking, "Did stars really have to be like those stupid korok seeds and just spew a million of them everywhere?"

[@pagetvido1850]

Very true. Ubisoft is screwed when people get over the trend of open world styles games and move onto the next trend.

[@ZombieBarioth]

Desmon Brown To be fair, that's probably more of an open-world game thing than a modern Nintendo game thing. Collectathon 3D platformers are definitely nothing new, especially to Nintendo systems, just not necessarily their own games. Ever played Banjoe-Kazooie? Nintendo probably took a queue from them for Odyssey. Most open-world games have them too, and long before Nintendo put them into Zelda (and games like Skyrim did in-fact influence BotW). Its become a genre staple here too, so naturally they'd put in something they think people have come to expect.

[@Goldenfish300]

The mass amount of Korok seeds in Breath of the Wild was played with a bit of a self defacing twist though. It's hinted that you're collecting their poo, and if you collect all of them your reward is a bigger turd. You didn't need to collect them all though. 441 of the 900 to get all inventory slots. To get the first 7 slots in each category only takes 131. Sounds like a lot, but the fact that there are so many of them means that you'll run across a lot of them without having to hunt for them. Which was the point in having so many. To reward poking around a bit more on your travels, without having to hunt every square cm of the map for them.

[@wyattknutson]

Bethesda doesn't even need to release Ubisoft-style cookie cutter open world games, they just rerelease Skyrim

[@LonelyIslandKid09]

Anyone else feel that Far Cry 5 is just...fine. I mean is not a bad game but after playing for 10 to 12 hours, I don't see how it is "One of the best Ubisoft game ever". It feels like another Far Cry game with much better sound design but a shittier main villain.

[@WinkysWorldPsionicParallax]

Its the worst game of 2018

[@sideofjellybeans607]

I used to think 'open world' = good and 'linear' = bad. A decade of relentless open worlds later, and now I think of hundreds of carbon copy collectibles, copy/paste bland side missions by the dozens. Near endless padding. And more and more, live services. I still think that there are truly great and immersive open world games, but games like The Last of Us, Journey, Edith Finch, Divinity: OS, Undertale, etc. have felt more worthwhile, even if they aren't as long. I still look forward to good open world games, but I wouldn't want every game to be one.

[@sunlightprince3173]

side of jelly beans I love open world games but the market has been flooded with bad or average "open world" games. The open world has to be interesting, full of content and exploration needs to be fun and too many games fail to deliver that. They just slap "open world" on it so it will sell better but the open world has no soul, is empty an boring. Nothing gives me more pleasure than a great open world game but some games are better off being linear.

[@ci7210]

Same. After playing Just Cause series and Saints Row 4 I'm really over open world games. Although playing Skyrim a lot for the first time on PS4 and really enjoy it. But still prefer Morrowind

[@CuriousKey]

Open World games are all about the, well, world. Ubisoft games tend to neglect making the world itself interesting, and instead go for filling it with little "activities". Skyrim on the other hand has a lot more design work invested in making the world itself interesting. Witcher 3 also put a lot of effort into its world. GTA V is another good example. Those worlds are fun to explore for their own merits. Ubisoft worlds aren't.

[@jarg8]

side of jelly beans Yes! Divinity Original Sin is criminally underrated and is one of the most refreshingly challenging RPGs in a long time. Pillars of Eternity and Witcher 3 should also be given a nod for their impressive work. The deep fiction and system-based gameplay is what's missing in the modern open world genre. Hopefully Cyberpunk 2077 and Underworld Ascendant well continue that trend of quality RPGs.

[@Jian13]

Open World can be good though. The problem is when you focus on that open world aspect while sacrificing content in the process (and cookie cutter "free the base" doesn't count as additional content). As Sterling pointed out in a previous game, one of the best open world games is the Yakuza series. And it's just a district in a city in Tokyo (it's based on Kabukicho in Shinjuku, Tokyo) filled with shit tons to do (as opposed to them recreating Tokyo).

[@zoogoo404]

"Broad as an ocean, deep as a puddle"

[@Kimkong2]

best description of ubisoft game design EVER.

[@edpaolosalting9116]

With the release of Ghost Recon Breakpoint, Jim predicted what came..... AGAIN!!!!

[@RichardBatchelorComposer]

Happy Easter Jim :) hope you had a good one :)

[@JimSterling]

I actually went the whole weekend without hearing or reading the dull phrase "zombie Jesus" so I am doing well OH FUCK I TYPED IT!

[@betweenthepanels9145]

Jim Sterling they got you Jim. Now some troll is laughing in a corner while wanking.

[@sudevsen]

Richard Batchelor thank Jesus for Jim Sterling

[@RichardBatchelorComposer]

Haha! I've certainly heard it a few times, along with Jesus going on the 'worlds greatest sesh' urgh....... Really cool to get a response from you Jim, been a fan for many years, I keep going back to the episode you did a few years ago called 'Crunch' it was just after I had a really awful day working two jobs, office 9-5 then doing pizza delivery till 10, all so I could afford some better software for the video game I was writing music for. I came home watched the episode and your ranting was literally everything I felt in my head at the time and all the abuse I had taken from customers that day, one day the hard work will enable my music writing hobby to become my profession. and after 3 years development the game comes out this year :) hopefully it'll do well on Steam :) Thank god for you Jim :)

[@2GuitarsPlay]

This may the most wholesome KZbin comment I've seen in a while. Thank God for Richard Batchelor.

[@JakePetrolhead]

I think Jim sums up a frustration that a few of us have - Ubisoft's games could be so incredible, yet they somehow aren't. Ubisoft's games usually suffer with Ubification and one fundamental flaw. Take The Crew. A map that large with good road design, a story that wasn't complete garbage and a good selection of cars. Yet it was another Ubisoft sandbox, and the handling was awful. Same thing with The Division. Interesting premise, stunning map, yet the gameplay was boring, grindy and repetitive. Ubisoft could produce some unbelievable games, if only they actually tried.

[@sunlightprince3173]

Jakepetrolhead Fundamentally, The Witcher 3 and Ubisoft games aren't to different from each other. They are open world, have tons of side missions and enemies. But still The Witcher 3 ends up on a completely other level and is much better than the average ubisoft games. If I would have to pinpoint the issue I would say that it is because Ubisofts games are "half-asses". I mean what do you expect if you make 3 open world games a year?

[@Syntek-Alba]

Took me forever to get the handling right for the crew on my elite controller . Once it was dialed in , I had a blast. But although the division was a buggy mess for the longest time. The loot grind was something I really got into. And now I'm Warframed out me nut.

[@AshwinNarasimhan]

I've played FC3, 4 and 5, and you pretty much summed up my thoughts exactly. They're great games, but after playing 3 different games with the exact same gameplay loop, they do deliver a sense of fatigue and "why am I doing this yet again?" feeling.

[@Kockafalva]

PERFECT opening = "Triple AAAAAAA" is insane

[@exantiuse497]

MyBalls Nope. "Insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result". AAA does the same thing expecting the same result, people buying it and giving them money. It's the consumers that keep buying the same shit, expecting a different experience, that are insane

[@Kockafalva]

also true

[@Kockafalva]

Einhanderr ... wtf? are you high? what are you smoking?

[@theodorkipen4069]

I don’t understand why aaa companies don’t try to diversify their portfolio. If you imagine ip like stocks you never invest entirely into one type of stock. If your financial planner said investment everything into banks you should probably fire them. So why do ubisoft shareholders think this is ok?

[@NotAGoodUsername360]

Theodor Kipen Because shareholders these days think they're playing blackjack and not roulette.

[@MaartenKok]

I think it reduces development costs, and because they know the general idea of a 'ubisoft game' is popular, they know every technically competent one they make, makes lots of money.

[@LeMasterofSwords]

Theodor Kipen Nintendo is fairly good at having diverse IPS. But yeah your definitely right

[@themosin1852]

The sad thing is, Ubisoft used to be so diverse, I'm gonna list off some games from Ubisoft that aren't from the ubification period and all play different, Rayman, splinter cell chaos theory, rainbow six 3, ghost recon 2, assassin's creed 1, beyond good and evil, far cry 1, brothers in arms. Those early-mid 2000s games all had different formulas. Rainbow six then is nowhere close to what it looks like now, same thing with ghost recon. Splinter cell used to be a game where running and running was not possible to do, I feel like assassin's creed 1 was the game that made then ubify everything, they tried the formula of open world in far cry 1 and a few years later there you have assassin's creed with all the staples of a Ubisoft game.

[@Bedinsis]

They released For Honor last year. They also planned to release Starlink: Battle for Atlas last year, but it will come this year. They've also released Star Trek: Bridge Crew. So all in all, I'd say they are doing the very thing you are suggesting.

[@PolarPhantom]

It's weird coming from January 2021 and seeing Jim being somewhat nice to Ubisoft. Because good lord they don't deserve it.

[@brandonkypunch7310]

For me, i started to notice this whole Ubification thing back during the heyday off Ass Creed. It really only became more apparent as time went on and they added more series to their regular releases. I hadn't really been able to pinpoint it at the time, but there was always SOMETHING about their games that nagged me a bit. This video pretty much hits it right on the head, though, and now I have a way of explaining it to others (thanks Jim!). My summary of FC5 was "Its a Farcry game. You know what you're getting." That now just extends to "Its a Ubisoft game..."

[@KaiserAfini]

Don't forget ALL Ubisoft games share the same bloated, boring UI design, not only the open world ones. Whoever does their UX design needs multiple injections of ambition and creativity.

[@DisDatK9]

Also it seems that Horrible AI is pretty standard in Ubisoft games, too. I haven't played FC5 so I'm not sure about that, but man the AI is complete and total garbage in Watch Dogs, Assassins Creed, and Ghost Recon Wildlands. It really pulls me out of the immersion.

[@Red_Lanterns_Rage]

you can correct someone's mood but not their creativity, if the creativity trait is lacking you have no business making art.....and sadly in music, TV, Movies and games creativity is sorely lacking....

[@Dr170]

Ambition? Creativity? Is this some kind of DLC you can buy?

[@NotAFakeName1]

KaiserAfini which ones beyond the open world ones have bad ui?

[@KaiserAfini]

Dr170 Yes, its called the Ubirippedoff Platinum Package, available while the Unoplay server (yes, one, actually an old USB....powered by a scrawny hamster on a wheel) is up, so 3....2....1....aand its gone, now you need to buy the Digital Deluxe Edition for $200, which does not contain the full game.

[@SolManDude]

im playing through the witcher 3 right now and that is probably the best open world game out there when it comes to its side objectives. i mean any boring old bandit camp can lead into a quest chain that has you finding old friends or discovering ancient armor recipes or a wierd miniboss.

[@ΈκτοραςΕλευθεριάδης]

Yes it was a amazing game i play it one year ago and i love it.

[@tt_the_blackout7133]

What I find remarkable about the witcher 3, is that the game is incredibly consistant in delivering quality content. Even though the combined world size is absolutely massive, still nothing feels copy-pasted and there's an astounding level of detail present in the world. The sidequests also consistantly deliver memorable stories and the choices you make in the main quest, for once have a real impact on a lot of the things that happen. When I finished the main story, I thought that it would be years before I'd play something as good as the witcher 3 again, but surprisingly CDprojekt outdid themselves, (TWICE!) with the expansions. Both hearts of stone and blood & wine are in my opinion even better than the main quest! And all of this for only like $90 total (I've even seen the goty edition on sale for $20(!) a lot recently)! Meanwhile we have to believe that games like Battlefront, Destiny, Shadow of War, NEED microtransactions to make their money back? Give me a break...

[@DOGroove]

parasiteve - Breath of the Wild has a better world to explore but pretty much no interesting side quests or story elements. Witcher 3 consistently has good dialog, characters, and side quests. They are both great games but great for completely different reasons.

[@SolManDude]

Rob Smith i still chuckle when i bump into a homeless person as they call geralt a "cocker"

[@Kaledarkwind6151]

Yea that's how you do open world, it wasn't busy work I wanted to explore to discover more storys.

[@tarapapi]

Basically Ubisoft is the Nickelback of videogames. You've played one, you've played them all.

[@jansettler4828]

tarapapi Whichis probably coming from someone who doesnt own a single Nickelback album, because its straight up objectively bullshit.

[@TheDuckClock]

I didn’t know playing Asassins Creed was the same as Mario + Rabbids

[@markdiaz512]

Same for Nintendo

[@DoYouLiekMudkipz_]

markdiaz512 So Fire Emblem = 2D Metroid = 3D Metroid = Zelda = Mario?

[@jackcrack6863]

Where does Rayman and even the Rabbids fall into this again?

[@KainGerc]

I think of Telltale games as more of interactive TV Shows and enjoy them for what they are. at least they aren't as much of a timesink as Ubisoft games where 95% of the time you do the exact same thing and you don't accomplish anything besides filling up progress bars.

[@Revan-eb1wb]

far cry 3 and blood dragon were the last good games from them in my opinion. they had great stories or a funny story for blood dragon. i think only the first 2 assassins creed games were good. the rest was trash ( i dont count black flag as one because it has barely anything to do with assassins creed)

[@thelinedrive]

I would be fine with the Ubisoft formula if they would just take chances with their narratives. I noticed this trend back with the Ezio assassin Creed games, but I didn’t care, because one the narrative as a whole was strong and all of the business work served a purpose. Hell even Far Cry 3 serves this to extent. But right around the release of Watch Dogs it just hit a tipping point where their narratives became generic, despite having the time to make a interesting script thanks to the formula, and the tasks became numbing and an annoyance. Considering the amount of money spent and the fact stock holders don’t really care for the product they invest in when it comes to these games formula is to be expected, but what makes a formula work is what are you doing different narratively that makes me have to play that game.

[@FraserSouris]

Assassin's Creed 3, Unity. Watch Dogs 1 did have risky narriatives and y'all didn't give them the chance

[@AllenHerns]

Do you know what the definition of UbiSanity is? Designing your games with same formula over and over expecting different results.

[@markdiaz512]

Oh you mean Nintendo?

[@fire2box]

they want their games to sell and they do sell by it doing the same gameplay over and over.

[@flaviohaggis4817]

As long as people are having a good/ok time playing, I'd say it works

[@AegixDrakan]

Yo momma got it right. They ARE expecting the same result of piles of money over and over again. And they seem to keep getting it. Turns out that there's a pretty sizeable market for gaming popcorn. ;)

[@benjaminbeltran7004]

Although they don't expect different results. The always expect the same result and that is $$$

[@ghafc-p8i]

It's a fun formula, but the "content" could stand to be much less cookie cutter and assembly line. Even if that meant less content to keep the average quality up, that would be an improvement. But the real problem it's facing is oversaturation. There was a point, towards the end of the popularity of Guitar Hero, when you could make the best Guitar Hero game ever objectively and nobody would buy it, because they were completely burnt out. During the PS2 era, you could make the best console WWII FPS ever objectively and nobody would buy it, because they were completely burnt out. Probably a similar truth for family Wii games and the like.

[@charlieterry8506]

Crowbcat did an important video comparing Farcry 5 to Farcry 2 the short of it is that: Farcry 2 had polish, emotion, and interactivity put into every detail of it's design. A large portion of the video is dedicated to displaying Farcry 2's destructible environment, and Farcry 5's barely existent destructible environment. However, what I think is so stunning about the comparison between Farcry 5 to Farcry 2, goes beyond more than simply bell and whistle game functions like destructible environments. it is the fact that in Farcry 2 the developers were clearly asking themselves more nuanced questions about the design of their game. For example in the video starting at 2:36 I am amazed that in Farcry 2 the developers asked themselves "so what happens when the player shoots an enemy in the foot?" the answer in Farcry 2 is that the enemy gets on one knee, scrambles for a pistol, fires only a few desperate shots at the player, and if the player leaves the wounded enemy be, the enemy actually struggles to their feet, limps to the nearest source of cover, lays down so that they are completely in cover, and does not shoot at the player unless the player actually comes around to the other side of their cover where the enemy has no choice but to shoot. the answer to that same question in Farcry 5 is when an enemy is shot in the foot, the enemy droops to the ground, lying flat on their back or belly, and does nothing except repeat the same threats that are applicable to any situation like a pull string doll, until the loading bar of death above their heads fills up or the player to kills them. here is the video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHTIdqmHa52dj5o

[@Ziomaletto]

Far Cry 2 was just as dull as Far Cry 5 is, but on different terms. The constantly respawning enemies in outpost, gunplay is broken, AI is terrible, plot almost doesn't exist, voice-acting is phoned-in, travelling is fucking atrocious. FC2 environment is also barely destructible - very small wooden houses can be destroyed, but that's about it. I put gameplay over details, since details won't make want to return to game if gameplay itself is stiff. FC5 however keep its entartaining well-done gunplay and other mechanics, but the missions and other activities get boring fast. FC 3 & FC 4 were good enough, Blood Dragon was great, but FC5 made me tired of its mechanics.

[@FraserSouris]

Far Cry 2 was boring, had repetive missions and enemies. All those details are cool and all but 5 is actually worth playing and having fun with

[@rickm2799]

The "open world" craze has ruined a few of my favorite game franchises....I can't wait for it to pass.

[@Lugbzurg]

It's replaced turning everything into a (usually military-themed) first-person shooter with narrow, constricting, linear corridor levels, scripted events up the wazoo, two-weapon slots, regenerating health, etc.

[@sttate]

Scripted events are at least stimulating and unique, every single thing you do in these kinds of open world games are just chores designed to convert the player into a zombie.

[@Lugbzurg]

The entire point of a scripted event is to make sure something always happens in the exact same way every single time. That's the opposite of unique.

[@a.g.m8790]

There’s no going back.. once freedom is given it cannot be taken away

[@sttate]

Kobun37 That's the point, these shitty open world games *don't even give you that.*

[@uristboatmurdered6051]

I feel like if you put Farcry 3, 4 and 5 next to eachother you wouldn't be able to tell which one is which unless you had played them first. Hell even the guns are basically the same models.

[@xTGE]

Why change what isn’t broken? They tried to do a change with Primal (which I found decent) and everyone bitched.

[@toadie2k]

Some of them literally ARE the same models, re-textured. That specific SPAS-12 has been in every Far Cry since 3 (bar Primal), for example. Not a new thing to Ubisoft by far.

[@davidbodor1762]

+xTGE Primal didn't actually change anything though. It has the same bow, same bombs, same poisons, same takedowns, same outposts, same enemy types it changed NOTHING! And it IS broken, FC3-5 are all shit and suffer from the same problems that are never corrected.

[@11nephilim]

The weapon models thing doesn't make much sense to me. If you've already made a high res model of a real - life gun why would you bother remaking it? Presumably the real life gun hasn't changed? It made sense 10+ years ago to update all of your models for each new sequel in a franchise because generally each sequel would have higher graphical fidelity than its predecessors. Not really the case any more. Not saying that Ubisoft don't have all the problems laid out in this video. It just seems to me that if you've got x art budget and a bunch of assets already made, why would you spend your x budget remaking those assets rather than making new stuff?

[@squizzlor]

Helios 4 had less shits given the weapons have no feel to them

[@davevd9944]

To drive this point home CDPR just turned into the richest company of Poland and the N1 of Europe with 3 games or better said 1 game. In the time of witcher 1 (2007) Ubisoft released 20 word pages worth of shit including every AC game and we got like 15 of those fuckers. Quality over quantity.

[@AbbreviatedReviews]

This sort of meothology is great for pumping out games that don't take huge production cycles, don't need tons of writing, and can benefit from a pretty wide assortment of DLC. That's just the nature of systemic gameplay in open world games. That's why they're so prominent. That's why we had a Zelda game that had DLC for the first time. You don't have to craft an entire story with triggers and cutscenes to give people hours of content, and each player can have a unique experience with the same content. I suppose we're lucky this is what makes money since it's actually decent to play. Yet I think the issue is that this is a mechanical thing. It's not unique to Ubisoft. You can take quite a few genres of games from a lot of developers and see the cross pollination of mechanics. The "Souls-like" games that are growing in popularity have the same designs across the board changing things like environments and weapon names but keeping the same sort of content. I think it's hard to try to isolate one of these trends and say it's anything more than that. Ubisoft just seems to be happy putting all of their IPs on to this particular trend and as homogenous as it is, it's keeping franchises alive for a future where they could adopt new and interesting things - like not having towers...

[@EnsignRedshirtRicky]

They also do not take a lot of talent.

[@sunlightprince3173]

Most of them are just boring and repetitive unfortunately. Souless, quick cash-grab attempts

[@Vulgarth1]

Endyo I've yet to play a Souls-like that didn't try and spin it or innovate on the base Souls formula. Including each individual Soulsborne game.

[@CornishCreamtea07]

You make a good argument, there's just 2 big issues. First off while it maybe understandable to have 1 or 2 franchise like that to keep bringing in the money, it is a problem when nearly all your games are like that. And lastly why can't they make a game that takes time and money, they rake in god knows how much a year. I would rather go back and replay MGS4 than another Ubisoft game with 100+ hours of content, the former may be relativity short when you strip away the cutscenes, but at least you keep getting new and interesting stuff too do, and environments that are not copy and pasted 100s of times.

[@LyricalDJ]

Reminds me of certain mobile games. I wonder if Ubisoft games will homogenise even further and become but skins for the same mechanical bones to wrap around (if they aren't already), like those mobile games.

[@aaronsherwood5378]

On the other side of the coin, I'd rather Ubisoft make what they're good at making instead of whatever EA does to companies; making teams work on entirely new genres and then fire them when the product isn't a AAAA smash hit. I'd definitely rather play whatever same-y open world thing Ubisoft put out than Sims 4 Imagine Babies: Give Us Your Wallet. I say this as I play neither company's games anymore for pretty much every reason you've listed in previous videos, but at gunpoint, definitely Ubisoft.

[@phantasticpanda2535]

Aaron Sherwood Rainbow Six Siege had a failed launch and For Honor dropped the ball after it's first month due to technical and balance issues. But you know what? Ubisoft didn't fire their teams, they doubled down on their games. Siege is now one of the biggest competitive shooters, still getting content after 3 years, and it's planned to be supported for the next 6 years. I'm not sure about For Honor but that game is still getting updates and recently, dedicated servers. The Division went through overhauls too making it the game it was meant to be. That makes them waaaaay better than EA already

[@EmergentGamer]

So important. We're glad you made this video. Thanks for ending with the "towers" humor from Far Cry 5 and the Vaas video over and over again. Amazing.

[@MrSpartanspud]

I haven't bought a ubi game since FC3 because of this exact reason basically. Not watchdogs, any of the newer Far Crys or an Assassin's Creed. With the exception of Shadow of Mordor because that had a cool new idea. Oh wait. That was Warner Bros. Gasp! It couldn't be that..... no..... that a lot of AAA games are just the same shite over and over but with a different coat of paint???????

[@ouroldhouse3674]

FC2 was my last Ubi game.

[@KanaiIle]

If you want a good Ubisoft game, buy Horizon. I´d say it currently is the pinnacle of the Ubisoft formula (and it´s not made by Ubisoft, I know).

[@GenesHand]

The last Good ubi game was Blood Dragon and Splinter Cell Black List

[@Silverwind_23]

MrSpartanspud you should try watchdogs 2

[@kkjunior29]

MrSpartanspud the reason why i dont buy games from Activision, ubi, and ea

[@cynicalnoloc5122]

Insanity is not watching a Jimquisition the day it drops; thank God for Jim Sterling

[@zmark7843]

it's interesting to watch this now, that ubisoft did so badly on breakpoint that it literally broke them and they had to re-work their development strategy

[@Adam-kr7sw]

Ubisoft isn't insane. They do same thing over and over again, but they DO NOT want shit to change.

[@Arkayjiya]

They're not, but the players who buy all their game and expect each time something to change are (and they absolutely exist, you can find some in this comment section) xD

[@Mr_Yeah]

So you're saying that Ubisoft's gameplay is... iconic.

[@umbra290]

"Digital Junk-Food." It's perfect.

[@kaptenteo]

I did not need to think about the ubification of Beyond Good and Evil 2. :(

[@LE0NSKA]

I'm surprised that anyone had hopes for that game after the recent trailer/showing.. it did not seem like it had anything to do with BGE other than anthropomorphised characters and name. if someone had made that trailer and called it something else, no one would ever connect it to BGE.

[@SephyClone7]

LE0NSKA we can dream. It was a fun game from a small developer that no one saw coming. I mean a sequel would be nice. But I'm worried they're putting too many ideas and inflating the game more then it should be. Thanks to no mans sky, hearing "space travel" and "several worlds" has me worried when that comes from a new developer team

[@ghostmutton]

Same games, new set of paint.

[@Name-fd2co]

Ghost Mutton It’s a sequel though? Like I understand 4 is nearly identical to 3 but this looks varied enough from the others. It’s an open world shooter what do you expect? Uncharted 3 was like 2 which was like 1. They’re part of a series, I don’t understand what you expect..

[@Doughboy123x]

Devil's advocate here. I'm sure their excuse is that "there's a sucker born every minute". Meaning despite the monotonous nature of Ubisoft's open world games, there's always going to be new audiences that will experience them for the first time, and more likely they will want to play the newest entry(s) rather the older ones.

[@MarissaB]

Doughboy123x like me. First time I played an AC game was Syndicate

[@TheSkaOreo]

That's the pokemon excuse. And I think largely NIntendo gets away with it because Pokemon is much more simpler game whereas Far Cry is a big-budged "AAA" (in classing JIm Sterling mockery) game. Plus, you know, the game is fucking $60.

[@sebastiankrant2738]

Sure. But there is a limit. A series theoretically CAN stretch ad infinitum in a constant cycle of growing with the audience (especially if the audience consists of children) and expanding and than, when said audience is saturated, reboot or appeal to the new one. Alternativly they might just have a constantly shifting audience, old members get saturated, new ones access it. No problem. Especially if there is a fanbase that is either so hardcore they buy every game or, which I do as a fan of the genre, may skip a few but probably return - because, as Jim said, if it was the firs game of that style in the last five years, it would be amazing. HOWEVER: If you want to release a new Far Cry every 2 to 4 years and have two to five series that work almost the same (number increasing) than you may end up with one to three games the same year. And at this point you are just not shifting audiences fast enough.

[@fireassassin1688]

Why the fuck did ubi have the character in far cry 5 a silent protagonist, when 3 and 4 had a protagonist that reacted and responded to the situations happening also whats the point of the character customisation in far cry 5?

[@johnhandzlik659]

Character customisation is if you play Co-op

[@Gonzakoable]

It's just calling back to Far Cry 2

[@lc9271]

Online and CoOp

[@dajam9035]

Fireassassin16 Damn that is just pure laziness right there!! At least with zelda link was always a quiet protagonist.

[@lumen8341]

...wait. I was excited about being able to play a chick (if this is a bother to someone, uh, sorry?) but the only reason I can see for making the character silent IS the ability to change their gender/look... so if it's just in co-op, a silent protagonist does seem like a weird diversion from the usual. Absolutely not a dealbreaker for me but a little odd and disappointing

[@valkir293]

Ubisoft seem to be rolling 'triple A' games off a production line at the minute. It's impossible to be creative when such time pressure is a factor. I'm seriously bum hurt over the Division 2 being announced, such a slap in the face.

[@DubGDJ]

Props for the usage of Allo Allo's Theme.

[@OkSharkey]

It's not great, but it's o Kaye

[@mrpositronia]

It's like the latest season of Britain's Got Talent. You think there will be different and unique acts, but it always boils down to the same dance troups, same dog acts, same child singer and same lame magician.

[@CheesyNoodlez]

mrpositronia gotta throw in a ventriloquist

[@dandy1738]

No one expects the second Jimquisition!

[@ghosface353]

Shouldn't you save that for a weekend when there is two Jimquisition episode. If something make him upset enough, he occasional release a Friday episode. So perhaps save it for one of does special occasions?

[@carkapp]

Jim Sterling, thank you for getting on your adequately sized podium and and regularly producing videos of digestible length. Some of them are small gems. You show some talent.

[@elderscrolls2112]

,I just wanted to say that I made a mod for Civilization 5 that adds a civ lead by the Cornflake Homunculus.... steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1333239537

[@g.zoltan]

A bit OP though, but that's how it should be.

[@FreedomHero4]

It suffers for our entertainment

[@cornflakeshumunculus8373]

It wants to die. Great nutritious flavour.

[@AstraVex]

Hey, Jim! Do you moisturise? Because U-Bi-Soft! ^_~

[@SolarFlairIsBestPony]

Yeah Jim is Bi and Soft, can't dispute these things about that beautiful boy.

[@alritedave]

AstraVex Oh God that stinks lol.

[@Ubersnuber]

Uhhh...That joke didn't work, at fucking all? Rewrite, see me tomorrow - mom

[@AstraVex]

Mattias Forelli Still made you lol :)

[@AstraVex]

Igor Kolosha No! I like it here! :D

[@yutro213]

Over 1 year has passed since this video, and this Ubification still goes on... I believe this Ubification is a strong reason why there are no new Splinter Cell or Prince of Persia games, because Ubisoft can't properly insert them in this model of structural game design.

[@yuurou7927]

So Ubisoft is building a digital pyramid. I wonder who's gonna be in it.

[@mattdamutt5681]

"Doing the same fucking thing over and over, expecting shit to change." The issue is I don't think Ubisoft is insane, cause they don't expect different. In fact, apart from fewer towers in Far Cry 5, I think Ubisoft is fine with their games being Ubified, cause it makes the desired money. Despite being so similar, the games continue to make the expected money, so the formula won't change until the profits start shrinking. As for Beyond Good and Evil 2, will it be as memorable as the first? Probably not, but Ubisoft won't care, because the first had one big problem - it didn't sell well. So they're going to apply the formula they know to sell well.

[@BossSepulcher]

The sad thing is that things like blood dragon are amazingly good ideas with a lot of cool details to em and tongue on cheek writing, and then they're Just The Same Damn Game, Again

[@ducksauce2696]

Shame that this formula Ubisoft is refurnishing game after game is boring me to tears. The last spectacular game Ubi made was Rayman Legends. I would argue that Valiant Hearts, Grow Home and Child of Light are breaking the mold but they don't seem to be interested to make more of those small projects.

[@Pinkanator]

Sure is a shame Far Cry 5's endings are a dumpster fire.

[@acewolfgang276]

paul duncan an interesting dumpster fire. Just very depressing though. Hate you can't continue your current saved game after you beat it so you have to start a new save.

[@johnhandzlik659]

Ace Wolfgang what? YOU can play it after you beat the campaign

[@TheCosta5000]

The ending/s are whack what a waste of time.

[@acewolfgang276]

John Handzlik How? I get returned to the main menu everytime the credits roll

[@acewolfgang276]

I phrased it wrong. You can't play your current saved game anymore once you beat the game.

[@WoobooRidesAgain]

So, ready to hear something dumb? On my part, I confess. The epiphany moment for me regarding the Ubiquity was when I played _Ghost Recon: Wildlands_ -- a game that I will confess to enjoying probably way more than I should--and realized that there were weapons in that game which wren't merely similar, or identical in terms of model type or what have you, but _the exact same model_ to other Ubisoft games, and I'm not even talking about games in the same series. Think I'm kidding? Go look up the weapons lists for the game. While there are plenty of "original" weapons in the game, a lot of them look to be models that were just imported from other Ubisoft games. Most notably, the M1891 Mosin Nagant. It's nearly identical to the one found in _The Division,_ just with a modified bolt. Several others, most notably a good chunk of the Russian weapons in the game, are just asset dumps from _Rainbow Six: Siege._ This practice of literally re-using weapon models goes all the way back to _Watch Dogs,_ which was using weapon models from _Ghost Recon: Future Soldier._ Is it a nitpick? Hell yes, it is. But it is one of those things that just adds to the Ubiquity. I remember watching a review for _Far Cry 5_ where the reviewer questioned why there were multiple weapons of the same type in different flavors (such as the AK-47 and the "AK-47M", which is not only identical but is even named the same as a weapon from _The Division_ ) and realized that most of those weapons they were mentioning were quite literally asset flips from _Far Cry 3,_ _4_ and _The Division._ Hell, at this point, I half expect to come across the same Vityaz-SN as the one in _Rainbow Six: Siege_ in an _Assassin's Creed: Origins_ DLC, given a name like "Iconic Lord Chanka" or something.

[@NomadSoul76]

You remind me of the time whichever developers of the moment were caught using the same building model in a COD game that was in a previous game. I believe it was a different map, not one of their lazy copy and paste re-releases, but it was found to have a copy of a building from the last game.

[@WoobooRidesAgain]

Wall of text incoming, so don't say I didn't warn ya'. My comment wasn't solely about that they used the same gun in different games. That would be like complaining about how different _Call of Duty_ games have the same type of gun in them, or that a _Forza_ game and a _Need for Speed_ game have the same type of car. I'm not even complaining solely about asset reuse, since that's a convenient and time-saving method if development is in a crunch or if you want to do a bit of harmless corner cutting, so long as you don't go overboard with it. Because when you do, it stops becoming a time saver, and just makes you look lazy. My issue, such as it is (and it was less of a complaint to start with and more a personal 'eureka' moment), is that it is one, admittedly tiny symptom of the larger cookie-cutter syndrome of these Ubisoft titles. These aren't just one time asset flips done once or twice in a game. These are models that are used over and over again across multiple games both in the same series and in others. I honestly focused on the guns because they are among the most prominent features of any Ubisoft open world shooter (what with being the things one uses to shoot with), but it could have been with anything, like the comment above yours bringing up the instance of blatant, lazy asset reuse in a _Call of Duty_ game. This isn't just becoming a case of rehashed thematic elements or gameplay mechanics, but the lazy, cookie-cutter approach to these games is actually starting to become something we're seeing in the in-game assets. Sometimes I wonder if they keep constantly bringing back Hurk because they just want to import his character model over and over again, rather than just because he's someone's obvious creator's pet. Here's a further example of what I am talking about, since you brought up that thing about "you'd only have three weapons". You know that aforementioned AK in my first comment? Going by a quick glance, I'd wager that roughly half of the weapons in _Far Cry 5_ are reused assets, either from previous _Far Cry_ games going back to 3, or in the case of the AK, asset flips from other Ubisoft titles. The truly bizarre thing about it is that these reused weapons are often slightly altered versions of other weapons _in the same game._ There are two AK's, two M-14 variants, two near-identical .50 caliber sniper rifles, a sawed-off and a long barrel double-barreled shotgun and two variants of MP5. The case of the AK from _The Divison_ is especially baffling to me. They took a model from a third person shooter, adjusted it for a first person shooter, copy-pasted the textures to the animation model of the _other_ AK they already had in the game, and then changed its paint colors and added a whole bunch more. It really makes me wonder if it would have really been that much more difficult and time-consuming to make an entirely new weapon model, rather than just make the same weapon twice for the sake of making an asset flip.

[@synthdriver8817]

Ubisoft is doing what any big company that has a successful business formula does, they're finding new ways to stretch it. It works well because it saves them money, and makes games that they know they can sell consistently. Ubisoft's titles are nothing more than (slightly less tainted) victims of video game industry corporatization. The only thing that will fix this is a mass effort on part of all video game consumers (including the casual normies) to stop buying games until all that's left are the people who make games because they want to make something unique that has passion. It would take another video game crash of 1983 to fix this industry. Right now, the industry is relatively over saturated. In a perfect world, this is what would kill the industry. Eventually, people will (hopefully) get tired of the same mundane shit that's being shoveled out on a regular basis and stop buying it. However, I'm not convinced that that's going to happen. Recent controversies like loot crates, microtransactions, and the fact that most gamers seem to forget about these things as soon as a new worse controversy comes along tells me that we're in for a long nasty era of corporate mainstream games with subpar quality to boot. Now you might ask me why I think this is the case. It's because gaming has become mainstream. I assume that most of us here played games before they were considered cool. We grew up on games made by small, 10 man teams for specific niches. We were criticized for "burning our eyes out" playing video games for hours on end. We were outsiders because the traditional media of movies and television weren't enough to keep us satisfied. This has changed dramatically. Now, games are made by large corporations like Ubisoft and EA because they make for a lucrative profit. Why? Because most people play video games now. So they can be profitable. However, large corporations and money centered companies don't take the same approach to making games as a small 10-30 man team does. They make games that make money. Therefore, they're more inclined to make subpar games that sell well in order to maximize profit margins. Think about the film industry. Every so often, you get gems like Blade Runner 2049. Now think about the majority of films that release in-between these excellent films. Transformers, Fast&Furious, even Marvel films. Notice how they lack the finesse and quality of films like Blade Runner 2049 in objective ways such as CGI, storytelling, and character development. Why? Because the target audience of such films can't tell the difference between an excellent experience and a subpar one. They aren't focused on the quality of CGI, storytelling or characters. They're just there for the fun of it. This is why mainstream media is average to below average in quality. It's also the same reason why most games are made of "cookie cutter experiences." All that matters to these companies is selling you the product. Don't ever forget that.

[@ouroldhouse3674]

Gotta agree with this. Basically, Ubisoft don't make games for "us" anymore, their portfolio is now sort of like the Michael Bay movies of the games industry. They WILL sell, so they do NOT care. Whether they're creatively barren or not, targeted (and expensive) marketing and mastery of the mainstream demographic guarantee sales way beyond a game that has true artistic merit from more well-meaning developers. In fact, a while ago, there was an interview with Shinji Mikami, who stated that in the '90s, game development on games such as Resident Evil was a lot more similar to how Indie developers work now. Small groups, they have a discussion on what game they want to make, then they go and make it. With AAA these days, there's a whole bunch of people constantly organising pointless meetings with many people who don't even need to be there, and they dictate the the ins and outs of the finished product. Clinical and sterile. Fucking boring, to be frank.

[@nioutest]

Well said.

[@corporalcallosum2222]

Wish I could thumbs up twice!

[@moebiusjdx7288]

I think the saddest thing about all of this is that the actual developers themselves don't actually want to make these scrappy cookie cutter games, but they no longer have a choice in the matter. The corporate fat cats have seen that video games are a lucrative industry so they decided to sink their filthy claws into it and tainted the best ones. There was a time when EA, Ubisoft, Capcom and Square were the go to teams for the best games, but as they grew more successful and raked in their first well deserved millions for their excellent titles, those corporate fat cats saw the money flowing and decided it should all be going into their pockets. They sent out their lawyers to these developers with generous offers which were hard to refuse. Once their claws were in, they decided to start to dictate policies because they were holding the pursestrings. They corrupted these companies so that their goal was only maximum profit above all else. This why you see a lot of old designers have split off from the companies that made them famous.

[@MasouShizuka]

By the goddess, what happend to you, Mobius 1.

[@bottlecapbellybutton]

I would like to see Ubisoft take an uncomfortable step into the unknown, and make a different type of experience. But from a business standpoint, why would they? They know they don't have to put the extra resources into that when people will keep buying the same games with the same loop. Don't get me wrong, Farcry 5 looks great, but I couldn't agree more with your points Jim. P. S....... I want another Dead Space.... Does that make me horrible?

[@WindHashira]

Bottlecap Bellybutton no i would like another dead space as well.

[@RaifSeverence]

Bottlecap Bellybutton “an uncomfortable step into the unknown and make a different type of experience” like Child of light?

[@accelerator8558]

RaifSeverence fucking love Child of Light

[@bottlecapbellybutton]

RaifSeverence exactly like child of light! We need more of that 😁

[@deadpoolsays_hi3524]

So are you deliberately pretending that Rainbow six siege and For honor never happened to fit your "ubisoft is bad" agenda or are you actually incapable at looking at a calendar for past releases?

[@timothyho1490]

See thats why Far Cry 3 was memorable not only in the villain Vaas.. but the fact that Vaas literally spelt out the definition of Ubisoft.

[@CrowPiper]

cant wait til CDproject red to come out with their cyberpunk game and show ubi how its done

[@jackhazardous4008]

Or crash and burn.

[@dakota4384]

We have so much faith in them for some ducking reason, it took them 3 tries to make a good game

[@ryanmiller820]

Soon as they find staff to replace the previous ones :(

[@KindredBrujah]

So they went from: Rubbish, great, fantastic in just three games? Yeah, I reckon they'll be fine.

[@Kaledarkwind6151]

Ikr!

[@lordstorm7237]

I just noticed. Jim and Joseph Seed wear the same sunglasses. And they both speak from a pulpit. Jim Sterling/Joseph Seed...

[@DeathBringer769]

And they even share the same initials... JS ;)

[@TJOEL20]

That intro clip.. Savage start lmao

[@petitnicollas]

At least they still make some good Rayman games.

[@LyricalDJ]

I can't wait for the next Rayman game, set in an open world. With 3d platforming and many, many objectives spread about. *ahem*

[@Pyke64]

"They still make..." Uhhhhhh, they don't make those anymore :(

[@jordirapper]

Petit don't. It still hurts :(

[@AkumaKristian]

I think you meant to say "At least they still rerelease good Rayman games."

[@NSFSponsor]

LyricalDJ So Rayman Odyssey?

[@terrab1ter4]

If only Jim had known at this point about the systemic abuse going on at Ubisoft at the time... O yeah, Ubisoft helped cover up abuse allegations and management is basically trash.

[@allecazzam8224]

This is still one of my favorite episodes! I really enjoyed the hell out of FC5

[@smjaiteh]

Ubisoft stands for “Ubiquitous Software”. Or “Le Software Ubiquitique” en françois. (I don’t know French...)

[@darthlazurus4382]

TheDragon_Fister omelette du fromage

[@stagpie6449]

They should've used the word iconic!

[@maximedurante7574]

"Software" is "logiciel"

[@maximedurante7574]

That doesn't mean anything: "souligner" is "underline".

[@StellaFangX]

"Ubiquitous" is an appropriate adjective, as you can find the same gimmicks in every game they creates.

[@cereal_chick2515]

lmao at that screen of Biomutant.

[@tarrker]

As someone who grew up in 'Murica farm/mountain country, it was really strange playing a triple A sandbox shooter in such a familiar location. Not sure how to even describe the feeling but it felt very bizarre. I mean, usually these things are out in some unknown desert or tropical something such. This time it was like I was running around the town I grew up in. Just... strange.

[@grandad1982]

ahhhh allo allo. great memories.

[@jacobyne]

Good moaning!

[@MegaPhilX]

Yup. Ubisoft games have become routine.

[@richardhutnik]

I never thought I would see a Second Life reference pop up in a Jim M'fin Sterling video.

[@thewotsit]

As Immortan Joe once said: Mediocre.

[@John.Diaper]

Bambi never sought revenge or even became angry over the death of a family member. Did you mean to use Simba?

[@schism15]

Welp, it's 2023 and looks like everything described here is finally catching up with them.

[@shreddingupontheshore]

Amidst all the fanfare and hype Far Cry 5 has been receiving, nobody wants to just admit that it plays out like it could be a glorified Ghost Recon Wildlands sequel. The map lay-out is the same, the enemy antagonists who control areas of the map are the same, the generic enemy types are the same and there are even marked targets driving along the roads that are the same. I can't tell if Far Cry is now just copying Ghost Recon, or if Ghost Recon changed and it's copying Far Cry. One thing's for sure: Ghost Recon used to be a strategic shooter that required planning, precision and skill. Now it's just morphed into this action game that shares everything in common with all the stuff you've talked about in this video. I dunno why Ubisoft has decided to change all their IPs to be so similar, but it drives me bananas knowing everyone is heaping praise on Far Cry 5 and saying stuff like "its cool that they took a break from the formula" when in fact, they haven't, we just got it all in a different game last year called Ghost Recon Wildlands. I am enjoying Far Cry 5, but at this point, it's a Ghost Recon Wildlands add-on in First Person POV, which is to also say Ghost Recon is now a Far Cry 3 or 4 add-on in 3rd Person POV. With that being said, I am not sure how people can just naively throw Far Cry praise at this point. Ubisoft are clearly just recycling assets at this point with these games, and just changing the camera angle for the two. Anyone who says otherwise, is too easily fooled and entertained.

[@ChosenOne41]

I'm pretty sure that is because most Far Cry fans are just simply unaware of what the Ghost Recon series is doing. Ultimately though if Far Cry 5 is giving people enjoyment then why does it matter what is or isn't recycled from a game in a different series that they don't care about? Also calling people fools for enjoying a game you don't like is amazingly childish and I suggest you learn to grow up a bit.

[@icantthinkofaname1009]

It definitely hasn’t innovated in FC5, but I think the Ubisoft formula in general just works better in the Far Cry games than it does in the other series. I tried Ghost Recon and felt like I was generally punished for playing around with the sandbox too much. In addition the design of the world was just uninteresting and gave me no incentive to explore it. So while FC5 isn’t innovating, the difference for me is that it’s designed in a way that actively encourages me to explore and fuck around see how far I can push the boundaries of the world and the game’s design.

[@JoeyMarshall]

Why do I feel like the only person who only actually understood what this episode was trying to say? Maybe it's an american thing to wildly misinterpret what people say to suit your own agenda or something... I didn't see any bashing of Ubisoft really, just a statement of fact about their business in which every game is structurally the same. This statement is not untrue and Jim even says multiple times that this is not a bad thing, it's just "fine" and not exceptional. When did we decide that video games were purely about making money and "painting by numbers" is completely fine as long as they keep making shed loads of money. I understand that they have no incentive to change due to the massive amounts of cash they make... I understand that the common gamer doesn't care about any of this because they don't play every single game and so the AAA game market bullshit isn't relatable to everyone BUT to people who do see the patterns and can connect the dots it's very concerning that this is the way the "Industry" is going and has been for a very long time. I don't expect Ubisoft to change, Jim probably doesn't either to be quite fair to him BUT wouldn't it be nice if all the teams were allowed to properly put their hearts and souls into the creations they wanted to make instead of their money driven shareholder taskmasters? (this goes for all AAA companies as well). We'd certainly see a lot of more interesting titles if this was allowed to happen, even if we had a few more rough diamonds in the mix... I think it'd be better than this gloop of samey games we seem to be getting served.

[@civilians4326]

Joseph Marshall The 3% who disliked the video and writing comments are just SJWs.

[@WinkysWorldPsionicParallax]

Lol

[@FraserSouris]

I feel Sterling is missing the point with his video. It seems he played only a little of each game, decided they were the same and ranted about it (He did admit he played only a little of FC5). Basically, Sterling is making an extremely broad observation on superficial and arbitrary criteria and applying them to every Ubisoft game and then patting himself on the back without really thinking about or specifying what he’s really complaining about. The first problem with this approach is, again, how arbitrary and broad and superficial it all is. As an example, if every Assassin’s Creed is the same, and that includes Origins and Ody who are modelled after Witcher 3, does that make Witcher 3 a Ubisoft Game? By Sterling’s logic, Yes. Looking at other examples, Spider-Man PS4, Breath of the Wild and Horizon Zero Dawn include towers that reveal more of the map, repeated quest types, fetch quests and wide open areas and urban centres and checklists for progression, are they Ubisoft Games as well? Because here’s the thing, by pointing to these broad overlaps in Ubi’s own games, he doesn’t distinguish why these are specific to Ubi and not other games that do similar things. Going further, are Bully, Red Dead and GTA basically the same games from Rockstar because they share similar controls, physics engines and are about open world crime? Secondly, The games he does bring up have enough differences in the micro to have people prefer one over the other. Far Cry may have towers, crafting and all that, but the big draw that makes it specific is the player empowerment FPS mixed with the emergent sandbox gameplay. Look at those videos on its subreddit of the game of the way NPCs pilot helicopters and crash through fences. In contrast, Assassin’s Creed is closer to a Witcher style RPG with a more serious and authentic historical simulation of a world with sci-fi/fantasy elements and doesn’t have as much sandbox emergent gameplay. Someone can enjoy just messing about in Far Cry but not have that same kind of experience in AC. And Vice Versa if they want what AC offers. Watch Dogs is somewhere in the middle by mixing AC’s style with a bit of Far Cry’s sandbox elements but has its own tone and approach to gameplay. The Division May have an Open World set in a modern day, but takes the approach of a more tactical looter shooter. And so on. Basically, these games have their own specifics that mean different players will enjoy them rather than be the same game in different perspectives. There are overlaps, sure, but they are no more than games from other companies. Speaking of which, Thirdly, the reason for the overlaps. The reason why designs from one game may appear in other games is usually because players like them and/or they improve the game. Metal Gear Solid 3 and 4’s control scheme was very cumbersome and unintuitive. In contrast, MGSV opted for a control scheme closer to current shooters and as a result, was much more streamlined, fun and intuitive to play. In the case of Ubisoft, you may complain that checklist style objectives and collectibles are not fun, but apparently, most people enjoy them given games like Witcher 3, Spider-Man PS4 and God of War implemented them in full and nobody complained. You may complain towers are cliched, but they make sense and apprantly, many people enjoy the view. People may complain the gameplay loop of combat, stealth and movement mixed with things of clearing out forts is boring and cliched, but these were enforced more strictly in games like the Arkham Series, Shadow of War etc. I think people are quick to blame Ubisoft for things but ignore it in any other media.

[@eonnephilim852]

@@FraserSouris It kind of is true though. We just don't think about it all too much because... they're just fucking games. I play Ubisoft games with my brain turned off at this point. Same can't be said about other games (or at least not to the same degree I can say it about Ubi games).

[@JadeLockpicker]

And now I'm imagining the hell of programming Rayman Legends in SecondLIfe's scripting code. Thank you Jim.

[@murfeel1173]

I've YETTT to finish AC Odyssey, cuz omg yes. The same thing over & over: missions, bandit camps & fortresses, enemy/animal types, every. effing. time. No dynamic world AT ALL. The game's not bad; just meh, too easy to get distracted away from.

[@IchiDaGooner]

I didn't bother with Far Cry 5 exactly for this reason. Bored with the same old formula. Yawn........

[@jarg8]

Chris Denton Same. It sucks because Far Cry 3 was so damn good. Then Blood Dragon was awesome....then 4 was fun but overly formulaic...then Primal was overly formulaic again...and now here we are at Far Cry 5 and nothing has changed despite the lack of actual outposts and radiotowers. Plus the story seems really dumb this time around which sucks even more because the concept behind it is so enticing. Oh well, at least Rainbow Six Siege is awesome.

[@Thunderbolt210]

I’m sure that’s why your not playing far cry 5 some stand point that about boring formula. Lol

[@IchiDaGooner]

Thunderbolt210 It is though. Same shit. Different coat of paint. Why pay £60 for the same game? EA did the same with FIFA for years...... And then they added micro transactions. Flogging a dead horse. It's boring and lazy.

[@Thunderbolt210]

Chris Denton the micro transactions make no sense as the game doesn’t need them. You can tell the game was built first and then they added the micro transactions after. If you play the game there is no reason to buy micro transactions as you don’t need them. My issue is that yes the Ubisoft formula is repetitive but a good game is still a good game. And last I checked isn’t that what we’re in it for. Gamers in general are fickle anyway. So when you have a winning formula why change it. Far cry 5 is different enough that it a fun experience but it’s core gameplay is still that of a Ubisoft game. I don’t see how that’s a bad thing. It’s far cry it’s Assassin creed what do you want them to do to change the formula lol. Like what else can you do with far cry turn into a linear game with out the open world. Like what can be done to actually change what far cry is. People complain but as I’ve said gamers don’t know what they want Jim said it out of his own mouth this is the best Ubisoft game ever made...but it’s got that core unisoft gameplay. Like think about it, this might be the best game I’ve ever played by Ubisoft but idk it’s too much like far cry and Assassin creed. Like he’s not wrong but don’t forget the fact it’s still a really good game.

[@IchiDaGooner]

Thunderbolt210 I never said Far Cry 5 was a bad game. I just think it's lazy. I've been playing video games for over 35 years and seen most things. There's only so much you can do with bread. Lol. If it's the first Far Cry game you play, then yeah, it's great. It's no innovation though. I'm expressing my opinion. It's just lazy development which I think isn't worthy of my cash. Especially if they slip micro transactions in for no reason whatsoever to squeeze more money out of gamers. No more, more expensive, dry toast for me. I ain't paying for that crap.

[@PkGam]

It's strange you mentioned this because I was just thinking recently that I couldn't tell a bunch of their games apart from looking at footage of them.

[@GachaMofo]

Did Jim ever do that Warframe Jimquisition?

[@Minihood31770]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnTVYZyQn718iMU

[@MrMarci878]

Funny to see Nepfans as Hyperdimension is doing exactly what has been talked about in the video