We'll get it right next time

And the next time. And the next time.

The creation of video games is an intensely complicated and multi-layered procedure requiring the collaboration of a ludicrous number of specialities tied together with a vested interest. And even when you have all the ingredients you should need to get everything right, there's a good chance, nay a simple inevitability, that whatever you put out won't be to the standard you originally set for yourself. (Which is why we don't make promises before we make the game, Sean Murray) So whilst it might seem that would mean all Video games are destined to be disappoints, game designers tend to be pretty ambitious folk so even missing their dreams can be pretty out there in the result. But what happens when everything doesn't just go peachy? What do you do when best laid plans go wayward and you're left with a game that lets down yourself and your audience?

There's been a few titles out there where the answer has wrapped around for a query like that and ended off simply with a shrug and a: "We'll get it next time." As if all the wrongs of today are completely and irrevocably reversed by the law of 'fool me once'. "See, if we never get to 'twice' then I'm the only one who's allowed to be upset." And whilst I will say that it's nice to have a little optimism; yes, you weren't so good today but you'll definitely make up for it tomorrow, there have been a few times when such a promise has really settled a little too well within the work cycle. In the way that the issues of today are always been laid on the backburner because they can be handled tomorrow. 'The cycle of procrastination', I call it. I just wanted to see how this was working out with our favourite games.

Take the Division, Ubisoft's Tom Clancy looter shooter that roared onto the scene all the way back in 2016 with grand promises of what it could be and the heights of a gameplay loop it wanted to achieve. Basically the game wanted to be Destiny without the crazy good visuals, supremely tight first person controls, and all the other benefits you get from literally having half a billion dollars thrown towards your project. And Destiny was what The Division ended up shaping like, only in all the stupid ways that no one wanted to emulate. It had an extreme lack of content problem which left a crazy level grind that could only be achieved by the sort of endless monotonous repetition that would make a WOW veteran blush, and at the end of the day even the best gameplay in the world isn't going to save you from a grind that ba- okay, Destiny's gameplay did kinda save it, not gonna lie. But The Division was not to third person shooters what Destiny is to First person ones, and so The Division was sort of left in the dirt.

At least that was the initial prognosis, but Ubisoft went and turned that around with the sequel which addressed all the areas that people had issue with and has gone on to become a Looter shooter that new comers get compared too. The Division 2 is an example of a situation where repairing the problems of the last entry primarily ended up working out well for the studio, and I think that may come to the nature of Looter Shooters as a genre. Most people who like those games are in it for the longhaul as it is, so as long as you create a decent enough gameplay loop that can sustain interest for that longhaul. That's pretty much what The Division 2 fixed from 1, and remains the reason why it's probably going to be a good long while before the Division 3 rocks up in stores; heck, if they handle their treatment like Rockstar does with Grand Theft Auto Online, Ubisoft might never have to update.

Of course, I now go from one extreme to the other, and using the same company as a reference to prove that this trend can effect anyone. Here's one game that doesn't nail the art of iteration nearly as well, because the developers are forever stuck making the next game what the last one should have been. Yes, I'm talking Watch_Dogs. Watch_Dogs one was sold as being this incredibly freeing GTA-like game where the freedom of the user is expanded upon with these ludicrously tactile and utility-driven hacking abilities. Except, that's what Watch Dogs 2 was, one just sort of pretended to be that in missions. The hacking just felt so situational and limited, something tacked onto the city as an afterthought and clearly geared for use in missions more than in general play. Watch Dogs 2 fixed that, but then felt a little dated by the time it did, introducing one note characters, a plot which bordered on silly and a final product that was serviceable, but not quite what the Watch Dogs name felt capable of. In a way, the other open world games of the time; The Witcher 3, Fallout 4, etc; really made the Watch Dogs 2 world feel like a relic of the old way of making games like these. They'd need to catch up once again or change the type of genre they were saddling up to entirely. (Pure open world games do tend to be pretty competitive.)

Watch Dogs Legion was the solution to those troubles. It was a game that would transcend the Watch Dogs formula from being just enough GTA clone with a gimmick to something completely of it's own. (Now it would be Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor with a Hacking gimmick) In a way this would be their solution to getting stuck in that inescapable catch-up saga which has shadowed Ubisoft's other series, Assassin's Creed, for nearly a decade now. (Ubisoft in particular really have a problem with this habit.) Unfortunately, Watch Dogs managed to create it's USP that changed the series substantially, but forgot to make the final product an engaging out and out experience, which is somewhat understandable when you consider the amount of technical ingenuity that went into bringing the thing to life in the first place, but still means that a ball was dropped. Maybe for the next entry they can work on that and hope that a new Shadow of Mordor game doesn't come out in the meantime to make their systems suddenly look obsolete.

Which brings us around to Cyberpunk, and the thoughts that although 2077 was a let down, 2080 (or whatever the sequel ends up being) will be the one to live up to 2077's promise. Even if it does, is that something we're willing to accept? Traditionally buyers remorse works purely on revenge punishment in the Video game world, wherein people who buy a bad game will not then turn out to buy the next game in the series, but developers have managed to work their way around this by saying "next time will be the time we make it." Now Cyberpunk 2077 wasn't a bad game, per se, it was just wildly oversold; but that still sets a stigma of mistruth which, typically, wouldn't be rewarded. I want the next Cyberpunk to be great, and I'm sure it will be, but I can't help but feel they'll be a bad taste in my mouth when I rock up to pick up the game I should have got in December 2020. (Theoretically, of course; I'm not buying the next Cyberpunk game in person or on day one. Digital second hand- baby!)

I think it's a strange trend for development to fall into, where the key driving force is fixing your last attempts mistakes. Of course there should be the desire to always improve, but that should be driven by a promise of innovation not of reiterating what was broken before in an act of image fixing. That just seems like such a reductive way to approach creative design. What's more, as with Ubisoft, it becomes too easy to fall into a rhythm of unending catchup as your try to meet the tastes of an audience from two years who have since changed their tastes; you'll never make the game you wanna make or keep fans happy, so why bother? Should Cyberpunk of the future wipe it's hands of the fictionalised Cyberpunk 2077 and never try to live up to the vision? Yes. They should work on what made the first game fun, the gameplay, and lean heavier into that for a less open, but more concise and better designed, branching main quest. Leave the open world to the experts, guys, it's what they're there for.

Are Ubisoft finally changing things up?

Only now, at the end, do you understand.

Oh, the sweet sound of being right about a topic for a change; could there be anything so devilishly piquant? For years now it feels like I've been in the absolute lowest minority when it comes to calling out Ubisoft for being the idea-bankrupt hacks they are. (Or rather, that the Ubisoft A-team are. The B-Teams put together some cool games every once and a while.) Time and time again our argument was met that those who enjoyed lapping up the same game year upon year, as though these people loved the prospect of signing up to the industry's highest-bar season pass. In their defence, however, there was quite a lot of hyperbole from our side of the argument, but it didn't change the fact that Ubisoft reveled in their mediocrity to such a degree that Yves Guillemot offered a complimentary backhand to 'Breath of the Wild', claiming they did nothing new and just copied Ubisoft's formula, albeit to a flawless execution. (I love you, Yves, but that's some bull and you know it.)

But all this outrage and finger pointing can finally rest now that we have an admission of defeat on Ubisoft's end. For, you see, not too long ago it became public knowledge, as reported by Polygon, that Ubisoft are on the road to restructuring their editorial team going forward. A change, it would seem, brought about due to the similarities between 'Ghost Recon Breakpoint' and 'The Division 2'. (Something which seems to have cost both games dearly in terms of sales.) Of course, that isn't the only problem that those two games, or more the former game, suffered from; but it was a huge source of public and critical backlash throughout the launch period of those games.

'Ghost Recon: Wildlands', the game which bought the 'Ghost Recon' brand into the modern world of oversized open-worlds, was an action stealth game wherein all that players had to actively worry about was the state of their ammo pouch. 'Breakpoint' decided to 'shake up' this system by throwing in a pointless RPG system that would require players to constantly cycle out 'underleveled' guns and switch them for new guns as well as breaking down items for materials that would then be crafted into new guns and- God it all just makes me want to tear my hair out! Oh, and I did I say this system was 'pointless'? Sorry, I misspoke. What I meant to say was, this system did nothing to add value to the formula, rather just provided an excuse to ramp up monetisation to a 'pay-to-win' degree wherein the team could charge for anything from raw material to cool customization pieces to skill points. (Oh wait, sorry they're called: 'time savers'.) Seems most people weren't dense enough to fall for any of that, because mass audiences dropped 'Breakpoint' like a brick and here Ubisoft is, trying to recover from the backlash.

As for The Division 2, I can't speak from first-hand experience for it's troubles, actually from what I've heard on an anecdotal level, folk seem to like it. If I were to guess, that game's greatest failings may have been due to the fact that 'Breakpoint' worked to poach it's sales with a ludicrously similar premise, which would explain why Ubisoft have finally woken up to the fact that their systems need a significant change. As Polygon reports it, Ubisoft CEO has blamed the lackluster sales of both those titles (Which, remember, both hailed from the storied 'Tom Clancy' brand, and so should have been easy sellers) on "a lack of differentiation in consumers' minds". Now, ignoring the fact that he just called us all stupid, it does make sense, in a twisted way, that fans will grow tired with a game developer who puts out essentially the same product every year. (Unless you're a sports fan. They live off that repetition.) In today's age there are a plethora of other exciting titles all vying for attention of fans and all offering something wild, new and attention grabbing. If Ubisoft can't remain competitive in that market, it's only fair that they get left behind in the dust.

In regards to the actual steps being taken, we won't be seeing a complete reshuffle of the company's ranks, but more of a light overhual. To that end, Ubisoft's chief creative Officer, Serge Hascoet, won't be moving from his cushy seat as head of the editorial group, (You know, despite his failure to encourage creativity.) but instead he'll be given more subordinates with more autonomy of their own. Oh, add more rungs on the ladder... that'll help communication. According to the report, this will help Ubisoft's flagship franchises like Assassin's Creed, Watch Dogs and For Honor, feel more distinct. Woah, hold up... 'For Honor'? That title has one game which barely scrapes into the most played online games list even at peak times, how does that even count as a franchise let alone flagship? (Don't get me wrong, I would very much like a sequel to come out and fix all of the problems of the first game but we don't yet live in that world.)

Allegedly, and I can't stress how alleged this is, the previous system of rule over at Ubisoft often meant that tastes and opinions of one or two important folk in the editorial team often managed to work it's way into the games themselves. And that just makes sense, doesn't it? That's why, after Watch Dogs 2 introduced a drone for spotting enemies, that same drone found it's way into the Division, Ghost Recon Wildlands and 'Assassin's Creed Origins'. (Through means of 'recon eagle') Way to take a fad and push it to it's absolute extreme, guys, you're doing gods work in making every single game feel the same and uninspired.

Of course, that isn't the only factor contributing to the 'samey-ness' of all these titles. As the Polygon article pointed out, Ubisoft have officially geared their company more towards open world titles that all have some sort of live service angle to them of late, meaning that every single pitch meeting for these titles have the exact same whiteboard set-up. ("Here is the circle for the recurrency loops and here is the level-gating to force players to spend money.") Guillemot believes that their upcoming games could suffer from the same lack of diversity that harmed the Tom Clancy titles. And that's likely why we haven't heard a peep out of 'Watch Dogs: Legion' since it's recent delay.

Ultimately, will this save Ubisoft games and make them more of a contender on the AAA stage, likely not, but this may work to halt their decline for the time being. Fans are just starting to realize how Ubisoft are half-arsing their creative process, and taking active steps to obfuscate that might just placate the immediate problem. I fear the real issue with Ubisoft titles are more deeply ingrained, however, and lie at the heart of the franchises themselves. Or should I say, lack thereof. Take a look at their most well known flagship, Assassin's Creed, and how pitiful it's storyline has been ever since the 3rd game; at this point there is not point getting these games to continue the story and reconnect with favourite characters, just to go sight seeing in whatever time period Ubisoft has picked next. Or how about the upcoming 'Beyond Good and Evil 2' which plans to divorce fans from their hero main character and have them take over some lifeless 'make you own character' avatar. (Showing that folks don't realize that is was the heart of BGE that made it so memorable.)

Maybe given time and enough effort, Ubisoft can start to reform this franchises into something as epic as they rightly should be. There's no reason why 'Assassin's Creed' shouldn't be as much of a landmark event as a new 'Final Fantasy', all it will take is time, talent and a bevy of creativity. For one, they could start by finally mixing Assassin's Creed and Watch Dogs into one mega franchise before fans get bored of speculating about when that's going to happen. Or they could just shift gears and start making brand new franchises from the ground up. (I'm throwing ideas at Ubisoft for free. Anymore are going to cost you, Yves.) Unfortunately, it's going to be a number of years before we see these policies have any serious effect on Ubisoft games, and we can only hope that the company haven't sunk into irrelevancy in that time. That's probably unlikely, but the gaming world does tend to move faster than any other medium (afterall, look what happened to Bethesda) so you never rightly know.