How Is Ubisoft Doing These Days?

We hate them, right. Annual releases. DLC. Rehashes. Always online. All that stuff. We hate them. Probably. But maybe not.

They aren't being complete garbage, are they, these days? Rainbow Six: Siege is a cool tacticool game that's actually fun and addictive, despite putting the player into the role of an empowering manly man taking care of the female in need.

For Honor mixes up online combat with an interesting combat scheme, where the only complain lies being ganged up by multiple players, which can be translated to get gud. Check your defense corners. And roll.

Watch Dogs 2. There's nothing special about this game, but it refused to implement the whole check tower to reveal points of interests nonsense.

And on a personal note, AC: Syndicate being one of the better AC games. The assassinations are, by far, the best in the franchise, handing you a Hitman-like goal to get to your target. Very good. Keep learning, Ubisoft.

And Rayman still exists, along with their smaller titles such as Valiant Hearts.

So, how bad are they? In my eyes, they're really not horrible. They can really shine. And I don't see the point in complaining about always online, dlc, season pass bullshit, because so many are doing it. I don't agree with it, but we don't have to single out Ubisoft.

Ubisoft is great. Ubisoft is wise. Ubisoft can not be shit.

For Honor has my attention. But other than that. Meh. But yes they have made some awesome games, some not so great. They have shitty business practices.

For Honor is great. I have not played Siege, but that apparently is also great.

They had a rough patch, but they seem to be on the verge of making amends for now. I definitely like For Honor, and recommend that.

I think they're back to being good again and they're pretty much the only major publisher willing to take chances on weird multiplayer games

Far 4 Cry good.

The Division killed anything i had left for Ubisoft.

Didn't bother with WD2.

I hope Far Cry 5 is solid.

I've always kind of liked them. Their games are often unpolished and buggy, but still good enough to look past that.

Yeah, surprisingly fun in a dumb sort of way

I'm actually becoming a bit of a fan of Ubisoft... I like a lot of what they're doing. I give them credit for giving AC a break (Activision take note with COD!), and I've loved the last few Far Cry games and loved Watch Dogs 2. Plus they're trying some different things with For Honor and their MP titles (which I personally don't really care about).

But one thing I'm disappointed with is that they seemed to have stopped making those smaller titles like Valiant Hearts and Child of Light... they were both brilliant.

Wildlands is supposed to be quite good, At least according to a couple of my mates, who played the closed BETA.

its worst than far cry 3 in every way.

and on topic. they absolutely suck. their games are same boring open world climbing tower formula use in assassins creed, far cry. butchered all 3 tom clancy franchise (rainbow six, ghost recon, splinter cell).

they are just there to compete with EA.

they will rehash far cry and assassins creed crap out of it.

They are getting better.dont really mind annual releases as long as the game is good.

Disagree on syndicate,Hope empire is good although I'm not a fan of the ancient Egypt setting.

They are fine.

The Ubisoft games to be of poor quality of short development time but I like the Farcry franchise to be honest.

They made the amazing The Division, so they're cool in my book. I don't hate them.

Out of the big three (EA, Activision and Ubisoft) it is definitely the lesser evil but I cant forgive the misleading "gameplay" videos they've put out. And they even had the nerve of putting someone mimicking playing at E3 stages when we know today it wasnt real gameplay... that sh*t is unexcusable and they still have a looong way to go for me to forgive them.

Ubisoft tends to have some pretty ambitious ideas but their execution is not always great. I tend to steer clear of Ubisoft. The last two games I bought from Ubisoft I wanted to play coop, specifically sc:conviction and hawx 2 - they both didn't work. Hawx 2 looks like it's older than the original hawx so go figure that one out.

I don't hate them , ... not anymore :)

They're getting better, honestly they are dishing out some good games like far cry 4, smaller games, and I'm excited for the assassins creed that had a longer dev cycle.

Their conferences are fun to watch since they are super awkward/cringe. Outside of sony's conference (for mere quality and quantity of the games), I prefer them than any other conference due to the cringe.

It kind of feels like they have had a good run, money wise, and have now taken their biggest franchises out of the race for a pit stop to brush them up a bit. I have liked many of their games, but I also think they could have been much, much better, with some not so big tweaks. Ubisoft tend to trip over themselves. They have also been a bit too efficient when it comes to slimming the production process, which has made their games feel factory made and like literally doing chores to play.

Really hope they can steer things right, because they have some nice franchises in theory.

I really liked Rayman Origins and Legends.

Apart from that I've kind of had it with Ubisoft games :P

I've heard people are having fun with For Honor. It's good to see Ubi pushing new IP like that.

Still I'd like them to venture more into the unknown, and I'm interested in seeing how AC has changed potentially.

Except it's exactly like Far Cry 3 but with a mini-helicopter and more stuff to do.

If I'd recommend either of the two games, I'd probably recommend Far Cry 4. It's a better experience, but of course Far Cry 3 was a lot "fresher" at the time.

Ubisoft fell on hard times with the transition to current gen. They seem to be picking up the pace now, and I'm willing to give Wildlands a try.

the reskinned far crys after the 3rd have been atrocious

division was a disaster as well

the only good ac was black flag

watch dogs 2 is garbage

for honor has been seeing above average results, but nothing groundbreaking

wildlands beta was one of the worst betas ive participated in

they still seem like the same to me, releasing 1 above average title every other year

I loved Rayman Legends, so much so I'm still grinding for 100% Gamerscore (That awesome level of 11 is a lil'bitch)

I played rainbow solid during launch for a good 3 months, its all I wanted to play. It was incredible with a group of mates, so huge passmark there

Division I was very disappointed in, although from reports the latest DLC is rock solid. I'll give them a chance with Wildlands. My partner has always loved the Assassins series, so I help her with them. They are ok for what they are, biggest issue was the yearly release thing. If they took 18 months/2 years between each one instead they would be more polished, and wouldn't have those infamouse UBI bugs and glitches.

Overall, I like them, despite their push for season pass in a lot of there stuff. EA on the other hand is one company I have trouble supporting...

it looks like they are trying to get out of a rut, but they are not quite there yet

Without Ass Creed as their biggest title of the year *every year*. I feel less hate toward them.

They're hit or miss, but usually release better games than a lot of their competitors (well on the multiplayer side). Siege is awesome, For Honor looks interesting, The Division was okay, but definitely not great. Haven't tried Watch_Dogs 2 yet, but hear it's good. Steep is a game I really want to try, it's too bad that it got scathing reviews.

Other than Assassin's Creed milking and misleading game trailers, they aren't awful.

Can't wait for south park: fracture butt hole. Hopefully the delay was for a switch release with stick of truth added for 0.

i think thei games are wierd.

for honor- call of duty domination with swords and samurais

steep - an open world snow boarding game

rayman- a wierd creature with no arms or legs that catches fairies

------

then the boring game

the division- bullet sponge infinite loot game

rainbow 6 seige- made for campers

watchdogs 1/2- openworld see through walls hacking game

----

only franchies i like is

assassins creed- mostly just to look at graphics of famous periods in history. love AC on PC.

rayman- but only the 3d games....2d meh

----

then there is ghost recon... on 360/ps3 it was garbage. lets see how the new one is.

R6 Siege is great. Watch Dogs 2 is alright. The Division blows.

They are hit or miss for me. I look forward to picking up For Honor when it goes on sale for $40 and Ghost Recon Wildlands looks interesting.

Some good, some bad.

This betrays the fact that you really have no understanding of this game.

I think Ubisoft is doing great, chilled out a bit with Assassins Creed, launching new IP, great implementation of dlc when applicable(rb6seige/for honor free maps n characters obtainable through gameplay).

Give some reasons why.

It's the same game.

C'mon, man. Having the Buzzer is such a big game-changer in how the game is played. Assuming you get the hang of flying and shooting from it, it has such an impact.

Same thing with auto-drive and having an AI companion on call. You can now also fight and shoot from any mode of transportation, including the hang glider and parachute.

There's also the artillery mortar which makes a comeback from Far Cry 2.

Animals can also harm you now even if you're operating a vehicle.

Besides the Buzzer, I'm a big fan of the auto-drive and AI companion when I'm stuck on the ground. In Far Cry 3, the best you can do while driving is to run people over.....which is also fun in its own way. ;) But, I prefer being able to shoot back while on the move.

Haven't really been interested in their games since AC Black Flag. That was 2013...

Far Cry is great, not into the other Ubisoft titles much.

They are still probably shit. This is probably a long con. You know lul you into sleep with Siege n For Honor being good, and then BAM, maximum Ubisoft bullshit.

If you don't see the point in complaining about always online, bad DLC practices/intentionally cut content and season passes you're part of the problem.

I'm waiting for the next AC or Farcry. I may checkout Wildlands. As for Ubi, meh their E3s have been crappy the past few years.

Ubi Montreal are ok but they concentrate too much on the presentation aspect of their game.

Ubi Montpellier are good. Ubi Paris are mediocre and I'm being nice.

I really don't get the Ubi hate these days anymore. At least not on the level that it exists.

They put out a wide variety of games. Some hold up better than others, but that's to be expected. Far Cry is a decent series, Watch Dogs wasn't all that great, but they improved on it with the second one. Rainbow Six is an excellent game with continued support. The Division is a very good game with continued support. For Honor is a good game. AC is a quality franchise that was getting a bit long in the tooth, so Ubi did the right thing and took the extra time to go back to the drawing board.

However.... Ubisoft deserves eternity in the pit of Hades for dropping Micheal Ironside as Sam Fisher.

I can get why people call Far Cry 3 a better game. It had a more realised villain, Vaas, its gameplay was a big improvement over FC2 making it feel fresh at the time.

But Far Cry 4 has a more varried location, more weapons, more animals, more stuff to do, more modes of transportation.

It's like Vice City was to GTA III. GTA III was a major improvement at the time, Vice City just had a better setting and more (fun) stuff to do.

I really liked using the mortar and MG42 in this game. The first thing I did in Far Cry 3&4 is upgrade weapon slots lol, I want to carry all the weapons and be like this one-man army xD

They've always been under the gun and dare I say they're underrated.

They need to make another Splinter Cell game and pay Mr Ironside whatever he wants to voice it, and get onto it ASAP. Until then they will be mostly irrelevant to me.

Never have any beef with Ubisoft games, there okay in my books. Same goes for EA.

People are being too anal with Ubisoft and only criticise their open world games when they have the most diverse portfolio compared to the rest. Their loss.

I evaluate Ubisoft on a game to game basis. Some of the vitriol hurled at them were deserved such as their past issues with DRM and the unoptimized state of some games at launch.

Then, there's the toning down of the graphics from the preview to the release version of some games. Personally, I'm not big on that. So long as they look decent enough.

Some didn't like Ubisoft for using the same formula of unlocking towers to reveal the map. Not a problem to me either. There are other developers that make repeated use of their own formulas and they get a free pass. I have the Mass Effect Trilogy and the three games all look and act the same to me. Yet, no one vilified them like some Ubisoft games were.

That said, The Far Cry games are just about the only Ubisoft games I have and I skipped Primal. I've been happy with them for the most part (even FC2).