Ubisoft open-world games typically take place across a map that’s filled with quest markers, and players are often guided with a compass or arrow that directs them to their next objective.
For Oxygen, however, the developers planned to drop a lot of those helpers in favor of requiring players to search harder to figure out where to go, by tracking animals, following the wind or navigating via the position of the stars in the in-game sky.
A core inspiration was FromSoftware’s 2022 hit Elden Ring, which sold millions of copies despite throwing players into an intriguing, hostile world with few obvious pointers about how to survive or proceed.
I feel like I’ve heard this “it’s different this time guys, we swear” spiel about every Ubisoft game in the past five years. Hard to believe or care at this point.
The game you’re looking for is Trackmania, although it’s technically developed by the team Nadeo which is now owned and managed by Ubisoft. (they’re now called Ubisoft Nadeo)
Even the UIs of their games look similar, even though they are from different genres (Division looks similar to AC looks similar to Settlers). IMO that alone shows that they are not about making unique games, but about hammering their franchise into the heads of gamers. They don’t foster creativity, they try to apply the same formula to everything.
I don’t think that’s a bad thing. A big part of effective software development is building things in a way they can be re-used, then adapting that re-use to your use case. You don’t want to re-invent the wheel every time.
With UX specifically, user expectations also play a bigger role, and you need to be careful with how and when you violate expectations. There’s a reason most FPS games have settled on the same control scheme. Unless you have a very good reason for a change, it detracts from the user experience instead of improving it.
There are issues with the fact that the games are done so fast that none really have their own soul, but shared core UX (that’s pretty comparable to most other similar games) is reasonable. It’s the fact that it’s not as good as it should be (mostly by shoe-horning in all the ads for shitty monetization) that’s the issue.
I disagree. The UX design is a critical part of the design language of a game. The Settlers has a completely different setting than Assassins Creed or The Division. For The Division a “cold” and technical UI feels fitting, since this matches with the world it plays in. For Assassins Creed it’s a mixed bag, but since the back story in AC is also extremely futuristic and technical, it still fits. It would likely still be better if the UI was more aligned with the main-setting of the game than with the background-setting, IMO. And finally The Settlers doesn’t fit at all into this theme, yet the UI still looks like it.
Re-using the engine and the development tools is completely logical and a good thing. But the UX should be in line with the setting of the game, not the company that it was developed from. Because that breaks immersion.
Watch Dogs and AC feel eerily similar, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are just swapping out assets, a map, and a standardised game story file format at this point.
IMO their game engine, formula and approach to franchises need to change drastically, if they truly want to demonstrate a fresh start to the public. Anything short of all three is going to feel like a half baked Ubisoft Special, regardless of how talented their writers may be
As much as I love the first Immortals for the characters and setting, it still felt very much like a typical Ubisoft game. I’m only mildly disappointed at this cancellation.
It’s unfortunate that Ubisoft Quebec will not be able to try and shake things up with an unusual setting and a more challenging game play. From what’s described in the article, it sounded like a welcome iteration over the open-world formula.
Honestly, Immortals: Fenyx Rising was superior to Breath of the Wild in every way (for me at least). The world wasn’t “stretched” in size needlessly, “shrines” integrated directly into the overworld, instead of being seperate, the collectibles were sometimes fun (compared to Koroks, which were always bad), there were far more interesting characters and side quests, the world was more alive, the combat was better (if we ignore BotWs weird physics stuff, which has fuckall to do with an action RPG), exploration had an actual point, because you might actually find something nice that doesn’t break five swings in, the story was superior, and the humor was great (to me).
TL;DR: Ubisoft cancels a sequel to their best game in some time, no suprise here.
Yah. I felt exactly the same. I got it on a massive sale for $10 and didn’t think I’d likenit much but I actually liked it more the BOTW. It solved a lot of the problems that BOTW had. I’m bummed they canceled it.
Disappointing. Obviously, there’s no way to tell whether the game would have actually been good or not, but stepping away from the Ubisoft formula and taking some inspiration from Elden Ring would have been a step in the right direction.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !gaming@beehaw.org
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it’s gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
I feel like I’ve heard this “it’s different this time guys, we swear” spiel about every Ubisoft game in the past five years. Hard to believe or care at this point.
The game you’re looking for is Trackmania, although it’s technically developed by the team Nadeo which is now owned and managed by Ubisoft. (they’re now called Ubisoft Nadeo)
Even the UIs of their games look similar, even though they are from different genres (Division looks similar to AC looks similar to Settlers). IMO that alone shows that they are not about making unique games, but about hammering their franchise into the heads of gamers. They don’t foster creativity, they try to apply the same formula to everything.
I don’t think that’s a bad thing. A big part of effective software development is building things in a way they can be re-used, then adapting that re-use to your use case. You don’t want to re-invent the wheel every time.
With UX specifically, user expectations also play a bigger role, and you need to be careful with how and when you violate expectations. There’s a reason most FPS games have settled on the same control scheme. Unless you have a very good reason for a change, it detracts from the user experience instead of improving it.
There are issues with the fact that the games are done so fast that none really have their own soul, but shared core UX (that’s pretty comparable to most other similar games) is reasonable. It’s the fact that it’s not as good as it should be (mostly by shoe-horning in all the ads for shitty monetization) that’s the issue.
I disagree. The UX design is a critical part of the design language of a game. The Settlers has a completely different setting than Assassins Creed or The Division. For The Division a “cold” and technical UI feels fitting, since this matches with the world it plays in. For Assassins Creed it’s a mixed bag, but since the back story in AC is also extremely futuristic and technical, it still fits. It would likely still be better if the UI was more aligned with the main-setting of the game than with the background-setting, IMO. And finally The Settlers doesn’t fit at all into this theme, yet the UI still looks like it.
Re-using the engine and the development tools is completely logical and a good thing. But the UX should be in line with the setting of the game, not the company that it was developed from. Because that breaks immersion.
Watch Dogs and AC feel eerily similar, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are just swapping out assets, a map, and a standardised game story file format at this point.
IMO their game engine, formula and approach to franchises need to change drastically, if they truly want to demonstrate a fresh start to the public. Anything short of all three is going to feel like a half baked Ubisoft Special, regardless of how talented their writers may be
As much as I love the first Immortals for the characters and setting, it still felt very much like a typical Ubisoft game. I’m only mildly disappointed at this cancellation.
It’s unfortunate that Ubisoft Quebec will not be able to try and shake things up with an unusual setting and a more challenging game play. From what’s described in the article, it sounded like a welcome iteration over the open-world formula.
Honestly, Immortals: Fenyx Rising was superior to Breath of the Wild in every way (for me at least). The world wasn’t “stretched” in size needlessly, “shrines” integrated directly into the overworld, instead of being seperate, the collectibles were sometimes fun (compared to Koroks, which were always bad), there were far more interesting characters and side quests, the world was more alive, the combat was better (if we ignore BotWs weird physics stuff, which has fuckall to do with an action RPG), exploration had an actual point, because you might actually find something nice that doesn’t break five swings in, the story was superior, and the humor was great (to me).
TL;DR: Ubisoft cancels a sequel to their best game in some time, no suprise here.
Yah. I felt exactly the same. I got it on a massive sale for $10 and didn’t think I’d likenit much but I actually liked it more the BOTW. It solved a lot of the problems that BOTW had. I’m bummed they canceled it.
Disappointing. Obviously, there’s no way to tell whether the game would have actually been good or not, but stepping away from the Ubisoft formula and taking some inspiration from Elden Ring would have been a step in the right direction.