@Pedro: The difference is Ubisoft worlds feel generic, stale and dead.
Elden Ring (the best of the bunch), Red Dead II, Zelda BOTW, Witcher 3 all feel alive and worth exploring and immersing yourself in.
Ubisoft worlds are objectively far from being generic, stale or dead. Especially when comparing it to Darks Souls, Bloodbourne, Demons Souls and Elden Ring combined. In fact, Dark Souls, Bloodbourne, Demon Souls and Elden Ring are all thematically the same. They are all dead worlds and they use generic fantasy architecture.
You can definitely argue that you find the exploration in these games more interesting because of the attention placed with hidden pathways and nooks. That would be an accurate assessment but let us not pretend that the company that has produce the largest variety of game worlds is generic, stale or dead.
@Pedro: The map requires far more effort to find. You need to explore the area to get it, not just look on the horizon and climb a tower.
Furthermore, the map just reveals the area, nothing else. You still need to find the landmarks, caves, castles, etc yourself.
The map does not require more effort to find. I have simply located the stone on my map and ride to that location. There is only one map that is given me problems to access. I locate the towers in the same manner I have done in Assassin's Origin.
It is also false that the map reveals nothing else. It shows the structures that when visited would become icons on the map. I use the map for identifying areas I want to explore in the same manner I do for every other open world game.
Again, this strange hate to Ubisoft games seems rather extreme and generally unnecessary. I enjoy all the games folks have listed because they all have different design philosophies and themes which they build their worlds around. Gamers have the freedom to decide which is most compatible with their tastes. Personal taste doesn't equate to better, just preference.
Log in to comment