Assassin's Creed: Unity

[Dunning1874]

Anyone got this?

Ubisoft appear to have really outdone themselves this time.

Many more where that came from. How about actually testing a game properly before release?

[19QOS19]

Wid!

Ordinarily I'd somehow try and defend Ubisoft as I'm a fan of their games and AC is probably my favourite franchise. However, since they have basically bowed down to Xbox I find myself unable to blindly defend them

[Liam.]

Should have bought the "Have a Face" DLC tbh.

[killie_lad]

Yes I preordered it and it's every bit as bad as it's being made out, awful frame rate and glitches galore. Tbh it's one of the worst states I've seen a game be shipped in ( this is after a near 1 gig, day 1 patch btw) honestly how they could decide the game was ready to go is an absolute joke, none of the issues are hidden away or hard to find and the frame rate almost always feels jerky and very rarely even manages to run at 30.

I got it on Tuesday and have played on and off about 3 hours in total, desperately trying to get past how awful it is because I love AC but I'm done until there is a patch.

funnily enough this glitch is actually at one of the points where the game is actually running quite well, I think that says it all.

[Fraz]

Do they actually test games at all these days or just fling them out laughing 'f**k it we've got their money, we'll patch it at some point lololololol'

[Zing.]

I got this today and would agree that it's currently a total mess. Needs fixed before I'll play it again.

[Dunning1874]

Do they actually test games at all these days or just fling them out laughing 'f**k it we've got their money, we'll patch it at some point lololololol'

That's exactly the problem. It's all too easy to come across as a 'back in my day' type or some other kind of seething moron when talking about this, but it's entirely true. In the days of the PS2 and Xbox you simply didn't have games being released with this number of glitches regularly, never mind any AAA game that was part of highly popular and successful franchise.

The option to put out a patch for major flaws has caused utter laziness in the gaming industry: they can forget about testing properly, knowing that if something major comes up they can put out a patch after release when they've already made a massive profit, while any bugs which aren't game-breaking can just be ignored as they'll still rake in money anyway. See every EA game ever.

[djchapsticks]

I'll be getting this at Xmas. Glad I'm holding off though as it'll probably not be before then that everything is fixed.

Culling the PS4 frame rate and 1080p to run it at 30fps and 900p to appease Microsoft by making both games the exact same is a fucking major no-no, though.

Another thing that annoys me in today's gaming, and has done for a long time: I remember back in the days of Sega vs Nintendo and latterly Sony. Not only did you get a lot more exclusives, which made owning both consoles a fair prospect, a lot of the games which were cross platform either differed enough to instantly notice which was which, or in some cases, (like Aladdin and Hook on snes vs mega drive) two totally different games.

[Mackie The Staggie]

When they put a review embargo on it meaning no reviews could be made public until after release I knew there were going to be issues. Ubisoft have lost a lot of faith with the gaming public over the past few years (Uplay is still a massive turd that can kick it's self off for no reason) and this will not help.

[Dave1875]

Not sure whether to get it now or wait till they sort it out

[killie_lad]

Not sure whether to get it now or wait till they sort it out

I'm a massive AC fan but can't even force myself to play this. Just wait.

[19QOS19]

Not sure whether to get it now or wait till they sort it out

Hold off until it's sorted. Far Cry will be out on Tuesday; problem solved.

[Dave1875]

Hold off until it's sorted. Far Cry will be out on Tuesday; problem solved.

Not interested at all in Far Cry. Ordered Unity off Amazon, should be here on Monday, if it turns out to be crap I've got GTA V arriving on Tuesday to quell me over

[forameus]

That's exactly the problem. It's all too easy to come across as a 'back in my day' type or some other kind of seething moron when talking about this, but it's entirely true. In the days of the PS2 and Xbox you simply didn't have games being released with this number of glitches regularly, never mind any AAA game that was part of highly popular and successful franchise.

The option to put out a patch for major flaws has caused utter laziness in the gaming industry: they can forget about testing properly, knowing that if something major comes up they can put out a patch after release when they've already made a massive profit, while any bugs which aren't game-breaking can just be ignored as they'll still rake in money anyway. See every EA game ever.

To be fair, it's not always that simple. A lot of games that are released with bugs will have gone through rigorous testing, and still get released with bugs. It's software, it happens.

However, in this case, it's hard to argue against it. I don't think it's laziness though - probably more the pressure the development team were under to release such a high-profile title. The publisher's attitude is probably going to be more along the lines of "it's alright, we'll magically fix it later", where the developers will be completely the opposite. Unfortunately, the publisher usually wins.

Has there ever been one this bad though? Sim City is the only one I remember being as bad as this.

[bunglebonce]

When they put a review embargo on it meaning no reviews could be made public until after release I knew there were going to be issues. Ubisoft have lost a lot of faith with the gaming public over the past few years (Uplay is still a massive turd that can kick it's self off for no reason) and this will not help.

The review embargo thing is a near-faultless way if telling if something is going to be a major let-down or not.

I used to really like Ubisoft titles.

2002/3 had Rainbow Six Raven Shield, Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell on the PC, then ports/equivalents on the consoles.

Beyond Good and Evil was terrific, and so different. There's no way that would have been made in today's climate.

I fell in love with the concept and ambition of Assassin's Creed, with 2 and Brotherhood the pinnacle albeit slightly samey. From that point it's been converted into a cash cow that has been milked dry. I must have played between 5 to 10 hours of Black Flag, and while I really enjoyed the sailing, the bog-standard missions on land were so tedious. The tailing missions were out of date in the first title, after the umpteenth tailing mission in Black Flag I realised I just wasn't enjoying it enough and promptly sold it.

Plus you can take your pick from any of AC, Far Cry or Watch Dogs, they all look and play the same. The setting or perspective changes but it's the same core gameplay from each. They've been done to death, I can't be arsed with it.

The option to put out a patch for major flaws has caused utter laziness in the gaming industry: they can forget about testing properly, knowing that if something major comes up they can put out a patch after release when they've already made a massive profit, while any bugs which aren't game-breaking can just be ignored as they'll still rake in money anyway. See every EA game ever.

Big publishers only care about regular income streams, not what state the title arrives through the postbox. With DLC and pay-to-win models, publishers are potentially extracting £100+ from each player when 'unlock everything' used to be obtained through a cheat code.

Now Ubisoft are as bad as EA. The only EA titles I've bought since Fifa '10 were Mass Effect 2&3 and I won't buy anything else from them unless it's extraordinary. The only Ubi title I'm keen on is the Rainbow Six Seige game, and maybe The Division, but given how average Watch Dogs looked compared to the initial reveal I hold no hopes for the others.

[Dave1875]

Disappointed this didn't arrive today as the order said it would. Was looking forward to playing it when I got home from work all day

[Gaz]

Do they actually test games at all these days or just fling them out laughing 'f**k it we've got their money, we'll patch it at some point lololololol'

Just look at the FM thread every year.

Ships with more bugs each release than yon planet in Starship Troopers. Sells millions each time.

[Fraz]

To be fair, it's not always that simple. A lot of games that are released with bugs will have gone through rigorous testing, and still get released with bugs. It's software, it happens.

However, in this case, it's hard to argue against it. I don't think it's laziness though - probably more the pressure the development team were under to release such a high-profile title. The publisher's attitude is probably going to be more along the lines of "it's alright, we'll magically fix it later", where the developers will be completely the opposite. Unfortunately, the publisher usually wins.

Has there ever been one this bad though? Sim City is the only one I remember being as bad as this.

AAA titles are bigger and are no doubt more complex then they were in the past however they also cost millions to make and have hundreds of people working on them. so there should be a reasonable level of quality control. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a few bugs in these games however the likes of Destiny. Halo: MCC & AC Unity have all been atrocious one way or another. Destiny still suffers from server problems not helped that it needs to be online, Halo's matchmaking is shambolic (my HUD is also invisible on Halo 3 ) and we can see above for AC's problems. If people are paying £40 plus the least that can be expected is that it works as described the majority of the time.

Edit- grammar

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

Has there ever been one this bad though? Sim City is the only one I remember being as bad as this.

DriveClub springs to mind.

[forameus]

AAA titles are bigger and are no doubt more complex then they were in the past however they also cost millions to make and have hundreds of people working on them. so there should be a reasonable level of quality control. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a few bugs in these games however the likes of Destiny. Halo: MCC & AC Unity have all been atrocious one way or another. Destiny still suffers from server problems not helped that it needs to be online, Halo's matchmaking is shambolic (my HUD is also invisible on Halo 3 ) and we can see above for AC's problems. If people are paying £40 plus the least that can be expected is that it works as described the majority of the time.

Edit- grammar

Not entirely disagreeing, but money and more people doesn't always raise the level of quality control. It should, and you'd think that the higher profile the title, the higher the level of "oh-shit-this-better-go-well" would be.

In the end though, Ubisoft will look at the money they made from the game, and use that alone as a measure of how succesful they've been. Their share price took a dive, yes, but if it turns out they still sold eleventy squillion copies then that'll recover and the game will be considered a success. That counts for double when you consider the micro-transactions. It actually makes total business sense for micro-transactions. They've got that $80 "unlock all" option. 99.9% of players won't touch that, but they're not aiming for those. They're aiming for that 0.1% that can't say no, and in their case, then you've just made the equivalent of (at least) three copies of the game. From a developer/publisher perspective, why wouldn't you use microtransactions really?