Jump to content
N-Europe

Ubisoft Boycott: 'forced parity' for PS4 versions to be downgraded to Xbone level.

Choze

By Choze
in Other Consoles

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jonnas Collaborator

Jonnas

Posted
Posted

Man, remember when people drew a shitstorm at Gamespot because Twilight Princess got the unbelievably low score of...8.7? Good times.

 

They cant just be patched. It needs more devlopment time. The framerate is 0 fps in some cases.

 

Oh, so the game becomes a screenshot? :heh: We used to call that "freezing" in my day.

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

liger05 Newbie

liger05

Posted
Posted

I think it's bad times when people start to accept games can be released with issues as a patch will fix them down the road.

 

It shouldn't be so easy for developers.

Tales Newbie

Tales

Posted
Posted
Man, remember when people drew a shitstorm at Gamespot because Twilight Princess got the unbelievably low score of...8.7? Good times.

 

 

 

Oh, so the game becomes a screenshot? :heh: We used to call that "freezing" in my day.

 

8.8! I still remember that. Hilarious thinking back on it.

Sheikah Newbie

Sheikah

Posted
Posted (edited)
8.8! I still remember that. Hilarious thinking back on it.

 

You don't have to think too far back. People were calling for Ashley to resign when he gave NSM3DW an 8!

Edited by Sheikah
Zechs Merquise Newbie

Zechs Merquise

Posted
Posted
80% is illuminating?

 

I really don't get it. If you factor in that the graphical issues will probably be patched soon enough, it's a pretty bang on target score for AC. It seems like some people have come to use inflated review scores as the only way to interpret a game's worth. Pretty tragic, really.

 

If you really don't get it, you've been living under a rock.

 

The most reviewed copy of the game is coming in at around 75%. Which is hardly a AAA product.

 

What's more, when you factor in the horrendous close relationship the gaming press has with game producers, advertisers, publishers and industry faces it paints an even bigger picture.

 

This is a game that is part of one of the industry's mega-franchises. Millions of dollars will have been spent on marketing, providing big fat spreads at PR events, huge sums of money will have been paid in advertising fees to the same companies that are reviewing the game.

 

Yet it is getting such mixed reviews and by all accounts is a bug filled, glitchy mess.

 

No one said review scores are the be all and end all, but average review scores are a good indicator as to a game's general quality.

 

And if you think Ubisoft were looking at a 'bang on target score' of 75% from the 'lead version' of the game, then you're clearly deluded. This game will have cost and 8 or even 9 figure sum to produce. They will have wanted glowing reviews.

Sheikah Newbie

Sheikah

Posted
Posted (edited)
If you really don't get it, you've been living under a rock.

 

The most reviewed copy of the game is coming in at around 75%. Which is hardly a AAA product.

 

What's more, when you factor in the horrendous close relationship the gaming press has with game producers, advertisers, publishers and industry faces it paints an even bigger picture.

 

Guess who is throwing their toys out of the pram again over review scores!

 

80% and you were calling for Ashley to resign in the NSM3DW topic. Clearly arbitrary scoring systems are the make or break for you, which I find pretty sad. 79% for the PS4 version (the version I am getting, coincidentally) is pretty good. Especially considering a lot of the mark downs are, most likely, fixable technical issues (most of which I expect will be addressed by the time I do actually come to play it). And I won't be getting micro transactions, so their existence doesn't really bother me. I never bought them in ME3 and I won't buy them here.

 

Actually look beyond the arbitrary score and you'll see that there is actually quite a bit of praise for the environment and the execution of assassinations. Criticisms about snagging as your run around have always been there; not great but certainly not a deal breaker. I have now got a reasonable idea of what to expect, and I'm excited.

 

This is a game that is part of one of the industry's mega-franchises. Millions of dollars will have been spent on marketing, providing big fat spreads at PR events, huge sums of money will have been paid in advertising fees to the same companies that are reviewing the game.

 

What the fuck does how much money is spent on marketing the game have to do with the review scores? AC is a once or twice per year game. It's not a once every X number of years labour of love like The Last or Us or Xenoblade. People buy the games to follow the continuing story and to see cities brought to life, all the while being able to free roam over it, take over the city and play multiplayer. For that, the scores seem fairly reasonable so far.

 

No one said review scores are the be all and end all, but average review scores are a good indicator as to a game's general quality.

 

You know what's a far better indicator? Actually reading the review.

 

And if you think Ubisoft were looking at a 'bang on target score' of 75% from the 'lead version' of the game, then you're clearly deluded. This game will have cost and 8 or even 9 figure sum to produce. They will have wanted glowing reviews.

 

Who the fuck says anyone aims for 75%? Nobody aims for it, but I'm going back to 80% because that's the version I am getting - that is totally acceptable for a serialised once per year game. It must be, because AC (AC4 aside) continuously scores around there. If that wasn't an 'acceptable' score then the series would have been pulled.

 

You've also got to take into account that review scores, unlike to you, don't mean the world to everyone. Destiny is a fantastic game but did not review amazingly, yet still sold buckets. Frankly, I've never played a single game so much. Lately review scores seem to be the bread and butter of arguments made by basement dwelling fanboys. They can be useful for a general taster, but the way some people use them to argue when knowing little else is just silly.

Edited by Sheikah
Zechs Merquise Newbie

Zechs Merquise

Posted
Posted
Guess who is throwing their toys out of the pram again over review scores!

 

80% and you were calling for Ashley to resign in the NSM3DW topic. Clearly arbitrary scoring systems are the make or break for you, which I find pretty sad. 79% for the PS4 version (the version I am getting, coincidentally) is pretty good. Especially considering a lot of the mark downs are, most likely, fixable technical issues (most of which I expect will be addressed by the time I do actually come to play it). And I won't be getting micro transactions, so their existence doesn't really bother me. I never bought them in ME3 and I won't buy them here.

 

Actually look beyond the arbitrary score and you'll see that there is actually quite a bit of praise for the environment and the execution of assassinations. Criticisms about snagging as your run around have always been there; not great but certainly not a deal breaker. I have now got a reasonable idea of what to expect, and I'm excited.

 

What the fuck does how much money is spent on marketing the game have to do with the review scores? AC is a once or twice per year game. It's not a once every X number of years labour of love like The Last or Us or Xenoblade. People buy the games to follow the continuing story and to see cities brought to life, all the while being able to free roam over it, take over the city and play multiplayer. For that, the scores seem fairly reasonable so far.

 

You know what's a far better indicator? Actually reading the review.

 

Who the fuck says anyone aims for 75%? Nobody aims for it, but I'm going back to 80% because that's the version I am getting - that is totally acceptable for a serialised once per year game. It must be, because AC (AC4 aside) continuously scores around there. If that wasn't an 'acceptable' score then the series would have been pulled.

 

You've also got to take into account that review scores, unlike to you, don't mean the world to everyone. Destiny is a fantastic game but did not review amazingly, yet still sold buckets. Frankly, I've never played a single game so much. Lately review scores seem to be the bread and butter of arguments made by basement dwelling fanboys. They can be useful for a general taster, but the way some people use them to argue when knowing little else is just silly.

 

I never called for Ashley to resign. Stop lowering the tone of everything you post to some emotional bullshit in order to try and score points.

 

Also, if you are so naïve to believe that that a huge marketing budget - sizeable sums of which are spent placing ads with the companies that review these games is not a factor in how they score - does not affect review scores then you possibly also believe in the tooth fairy!

 

And no one, least of all me said review scores are the be all and end all, in fact I said (and I quote)

 

No one said review scores are the be all and end all, but average review scores are a good indicator as to a game's general quality.

 

I simply believe that aggregate review scores give a good indicator of the general quality of a game.

 

However when you manage to misquote me, I actually quoted you. You said:

 

it's a pretty bang on target score for AC

 

So you actually stated that the reviews scores the game was getting were 'bang on target for AC (Assassin's Creed)

 

You clearly make this shit up as you go along, throwing around lies, accusations, misquoting people and relying on emotional appeals (ie you wanted Ashley to resign) in order defend what ever sacred cow you're defending at the current point in time.

Sheikah Newbie

Sheikah

Posted
Posted (edited)
I never called for Ashley to resign. Stop lowering the tone of everything you post to some emotional bullshit in order to try and score points.

 

You said that he shouldn't be doing the reviews after he gave SM3DW an 8. You are a disgraceful manchild.

 

Also, if you are so naïve to believe that that a huge marketing budget - sizeable sums of which are spent placing ads with the companies that review these games is not a factor in how they score - does not affect review scores then you possibly also believe in the tooth fairy!

 

Marketing is mostly to sell copies. I want to know, why don't you complain each time FIFA does not get a 10? After all, there is so much money spent marketing that. Same for COD. It's weird, these are all yearly serialised games yet you never have anything to say about that. Do you really think that because companies spend so much money that something is 'up' when they don't score 9s and 10s? You make the association that big budget = automatically should score top marks?

 

That is beyond stupid. Like actually fucking ridiculous if that's what you expect to happen. Indies are scoring just as well as AAA games these days. It just shows that more money does not = should automatically score highly.

 

And no one, least of all me said review scores are the be all and end all, in fact I said (and I quote)

 

You don't need to say it. That's the thing about behaving like a manchild - actions speak louder than words. Suggesting someone should stop doing reviews/go because of an 8 score shows you care too much about scores. Arguing over pages about AC based mostly on an aggregate score, again, shows you care too much about reviews.

 

 

What you're saying is equivalent to an alcoholic on his 15th pint claiming he's not an alcoholic because 'he hasn't said he is'. Lulz.

 

 

I simply believe that aggregate review scores give a good indicator of the general quality of a game.

 

However when you manage to misquote me, I actually quoted you. You said:

 

That's what's tragic. You look at a review score and make your entire assumption. Ok, if I saw a score of 4/10, I'd be inclined to think the game isn't great. Scores are good for low extremes like that. But 75-80% is pretty ambiguous - if it's the sort of game you enjoy, and maybe it has been patched by the time you play it, maybe you'd personally rate it something more like 85-90. Most of all, though, I like to read reviews to find out what the game will be like rather than hinge off the scores. If I went with scores I might have missed out on Destiny. Heck, I've seen you berate Destiny and you don't have it.

 

it's a pretty bang on target score for AC

 

So you actually stated that the reviews scores the game was getting were 'bang on target for AC (Assassin's Creed)

 

In terms of how AC often scores, yes it's close. That's why I don't get why you are slamming this series now. It's a yearly serialised game and people enjoy it. It isn't exactly pushing the boundaries, so I wouldn't expect it to score top marks. But bad? I wouldn't say so at all. I really enjoy these games.

 

You clearly make this shit up as you go along, throwing around lies, accusations, misquoting people and relying on emotional appeals (ie you wanted Ashley to resign) in order defend what ever sacred cow you're defending at the current point in time.

 

Right, if Ashley didn't clean up the posts I'll find it later, that's if you haven't gone and deleted it already. What I'll bet you'll do is hinge on the fact you didn't specifically say 'resign' buy made it very clear that, over a review score, someone shouldn't be doing the reviews anymore. You'll argue out of on a technicality, but that's irrelevant. I'll tell you for sure though, people were seriously pissed off with your childish behaviour there and it ended up resulting in the topic being locked a while as a result!

Edited by Sheikah
Cube Community Regular

Cube

Posted
Posted
These guys are jokers. They even hid the micro transactions from the review copies.

 

They didn't. They announced microtransactions before launch and the link to them was visible in-game.

 

The servers for the store, companion app and other features wasn't running at the time people were playing review copies.

  • 2 weeks later...
Choze Newbie

Choze

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well Since ubisoft were caught lying every second of the way what do you guys think? Reputation wise this has been damaging. Props to everyone for taking part.

Tales Newbie

Tales

Posted
Posted (edited)

Lying about what?

 

My stance on Ubisoft haven't changed a bit. I have enjoyed Unity a lot. One of the most beautiful games on PS4 so far and with hardly any problems. I've seen more glitches in a Mario game.

As for the microtransaction, they're all cheat-the-game purchases, like GTA Online and the last two or three Tales of games and countless other games. Like the aforementioned games it's not an issue as everything can be found or bought with in game currency. Myself, I'm swimming in cash.

Edited by Tales
Choze Newbie

Choze

Posted
  • Author
Posted

As for the microtransaction, they're all cheat-the-game purchases, like GTA Online and the last two or three Tales of games and countless other games. Like the aforementioned games it's not an issue as everything can be found or bought with in game currency. Myself, I'm swimming in cash.

 

So you dont have access to everything unless you pay over £100+

 

Which mario game are you talking about?

Tales Newbie

Tales

Posted
Posted
What do you mean? Paying is just a shortcut, as far as I'm aware.

 

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. Everything is accessible, and easy enough to get. Microtransaction is a non-issue.

Sheikah Newbie

Sheikah

Posted
Posted
Yes, that's what I was trying to say. Everything is accessible, and easy enough to get. Microtransaction is a non-issue.

 

Microtransactions were also there for Black Flag. Nobody said a thing. :p

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...