Development. Development never changes.
Ubisoft, sometimes I really wonder what is going on in that studio. Sometimes the biggest games studio in Europe, Ubisoft has the money and power to put out anything that they want to, be as experimental as they want to, carve out a path of their own however they see fit, and yet they default to the same tips and tricks time and time again. It's really fascinating, as even EA takes the odd wildcard decision such as with 'Jedi Fallen Order' or 'Star Wars Squadron', (albeit, they may have been slightly coerced to go that direction) Activision steps outside of it's comfort zone a bit with their F2P Call of Duty title (not the one in China) Warzones and yet you have Ubisoft as this sort of snail who do just enough to keep the tech decent, but simply cannot bring themselves to have an original thought enter the development process. I learnt this a good while ago, but even then I'll admit I was curious when I heard word of Valhalla and the 'unique narrative structure' that was supposed to be unlike anything that had been done before. That's a mighty empty-sounding promise there, guys, I wonder how that'll turn out... It's basically just like a series. Self contained arcs strung together that sort of from one long story if you squint your eyes and give out all the doubt you can muster. (Real innovative there, Ubisoft.)
But if there's one repetition in regards to Valhalla that truly has me baffled, it's the policies behind the scenes that they've implemented to, once again, try and make up for uneven balance for the game. Now that may sound like a positive but fear not, ladies and gents, because the actual 'solutions' here are duplicitous and greedy in all those ways we've come to just love from our developers. So what am I talking about here? Well, you know time saver microtransactions? You know, the little options that developers having been adding since the early Forza Horizon games where you pay, not for any new content, but in order to get some of the content in the game you already purchased faster? Don't you just love that? Paying for a game and then being asked to play less out that game whilst being told this is for your convenience? Isn't that just great? Well that's exactly what Ubisoft have thrown into Valhalla merely a handful of weeks after launch and I am positively muddled by such news. I cannot comprehend it, or else I don't want to.
For histories sake lets try to find the heart of this, because Ubisoft didn't always charge through the nose for basic amenities before, oh no. In fact, the first time I really noticed anything like this really entering into my Assassin's Creed experience it was all the way back in Unity in which a lot of the gear could be purchased directly with real money instead of being found in the world. This was significant because Unity was the first game to really implement something of a half-way meaningful gear system where more powerful items were required to progress. (Or at least, they were required until you hit about the midgame mark at which point you pretty much grew powerful enough to take out anyone with anything, like Assassin's Creed is meant to be.) This expanded in Origins to actual time saver packs and reached it's final form in Odyssey where literal offline XP boosters were hawked to the audience whilst they complained of the grindy and gating nature of the progression. (Bad look guys.) So I wonder how that sort of deal turned out for Ubisoft...
Oh, that's right! It turned out poorly. I don't think there's even been a single moment in history where anyone has bought this apologist crap about time saver packs saving time for the audience. Everyone sees through it as Ubisoft just selling the cure to the affliction they caused and it reflects badly on them each and every time. (We all played Deus Ex, guys, this sort of grift isn't going to work!) But regardless, Ubisoft have done the exact same thing all over again despite apparently acknowledging how it's a problem! We even heard the developers themselves admit that they received criticism that Odyssey was too bloated and that they would do something about it, only for Valhalla to be somehow even more bloated and for them to do the exact same thing. At this point I'm not even sure that Ubisoft are being this way on purpose, they've been cursed to relieve the same development issues in perpetuity like it's freakin' groundhog day or something.
And though it might be beside the point of this particular blog, it is worth mentioning how disingenuously this very 'time saver' pack thing has been imparted. Rather than have these things in the game at launch, the team waited for several weeks after the game has been out and had all of it's reviews so that none of the people who played the games could factor in these generally disliked practises. It's just sort of a giveaway that you're doing something at least a little wrong if you're going to these sorts of lengths to obscure and hide it from the reviewing public. They did the exact same thing with 'Ghost Recon: Breakpoint' and quite honestly is was the bookend to that game's popularity, because it seems all the crowds either dropped off or stopped talking about this embarrassment to the industry. But Ubisoft have never been one's to learn from their own mistakes, I guess. They're all into 'try, try and try again'.
Now to be clear, there is a demand out there for something to be done about the ludicrously overbearing length of 'Assassin's Creed Valhalla', there has been since launch. Remember that this is game which purposefully shirked traditional storytelling methods and narrative rhythm in order for something... different, (not really better and arguably much worse) which allowed the game to be ballooned far further than the breadth of enjoyment on offer here. For some reason the team decided it would be in the best interest of the players to take part in literally every single part of the invasion of England, despite having known as far back as Assassin's Creed 2 that cherry picking key moments makes for a much better play experience. But then, should anyone really be surprised that this is the state of the franchise right now? I mean, this is exactly where Odyssey implied the series would be going, so is it really Ubisoft's fault for putting themselves in this position or ours for following suit and allowing them to?
I can't help but wonder if this is going to just the state of gaming for the next few years, with games coming out that are far too big for their own good. Both Assassin's Creed games of the last few years have suffered from this issue (albeit in slightly different fashions) although accusations of the franchise heading this way have been around for years; and the spending habits of the average consumer is certainly fanning these flames. Look at the other big game to release around this time (but whom I won't name because I've spoken about it negatively far too often) that also suffered under the weight of it's size, but it also secured enough Pre-orders to refund development costs before release. And what has been the game which snuck to the leaderboards after that game's fall from grace? Why Assassin's Creed Valhalla, of course. It's sort of hard to for the community to besmirch the bloat emblematic of oversized games whilst simultaneously flocking to these games in droves, and If I were Ubisoft I too would listen to the money over the free advice. Let the money tell you where your customer's hearts are at, I guess.
I remember a time when I couldn't really understand the problem with a game that was deemed 'too big'. I loved the idea of a game that could keep me occupied seemingly perpetually and couldn't comprehend what the problem would be if that meant a huge open world or prolonged story; I was in no rush to finish games and I'm still not. It all sounded like the problems of a reviewer rather than that of a consumer. And to this day I think there are shades of that in the review culture, but I can also see the detriment to actual vision which bloat can have, to the point where great ideas fall apart or unravel in them. I'm not fan of 'Time saver packs' but a chaotic side of me can understand their existence and even somewhat sympathise in an industry that seems to encourage uneven and overblown design. So I guess at the end of the day the question bounces back to the start, who is the bigger fool: The developers who step on the same rakes or the consumers who reward them for doing so?
No comments:
Post a Comment