In my friend group one is really into both ME and AC, he really didn’t like Andromeda but he did like Odyssey.
The other felt that Andromeda was okay/mid but that Odyssey was also a lot of fun.
I never got into ME and the last AC game I played was Black Flag, and that may have legitimately been after Odyssey was long released. So while I can’t speak on these games, from what I gather online and from my friends is that Andromeda was kind of a buggy mediocre game that didn’t do as good of a job for the ME universe as it could have, whereas Odyssey was a bit of a deviation, which the people who don’t like it tend to criticize and everybody else seems to enjoy the game for what it is, if not maybe a little Ubisoft standard fetch quest grindy.
In the case of Odyssey, I think it’s a good potential that is limited by the restraints of Ubisoft, in the same way that has just happened to Star Wars Outlaws. Because for all of the obvious faults we can give Ubisoft, I think it’s fair to give merit to the developers and designers who, for example, completely recreated France for AC: Unity. For all the faults that game had at launch, apparently they did eventually clean it up and my friend really enjoys it.
It sounds like Outlaws has a great world but just didn’t get the polish, like Ubisoft tends to do.
Also some unrelated design choices, I’ve seen in gameplay videos like the repetitive mini-games (which can be turned off - but why design something that players turn off because it gets tedious and annoying?) and the AI during non-stealth combat encounters being completely inept, firing in the complete wrong direction. The little things become cumulative and can easily turn a perfectly fine game into a mish-mash of features that we’re put together with any cohesion. The last thing that I remember in terms of criticisms are that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of impact on the system for reputation. Someone who hates you after an interaction can be completely on your side just by doing a few side missions for that character. Not sure if this continues on into the late game, but if it does it seems to be another instance of just not quite fleshed out design.
The minigame looks fun, but not 4 doors and 3 item crates in a row fun. The reputation system is typically a really engaging and fun thing, but forcing yourself under constraints by choosing to not do missions with someone isn’t as engaging as being put into a situation where you choose one merchant over another, and then that merchant is just done with you forever and may even send goons after you. From what it sounds like, in present state if an event like that happens, just do some odd jobs for the guy and it’s all forgotten?
I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the game - I tend to like games and movies that people are criticizing, since at least lately most of the criticisms have been… severely biased… but sometimes there’s also truly legitimately terrible stuff, like Rebel Moon. There’s always a line of subjectivity of course, there are people out there who enjoyed it, but the other people see the nearly 21 minutes of the movie, legitimately nearly 30% of it, being in slowmo and say, “Hey, that’s pretty awful, why would you do that?” on top of having another mish-mash of ideas that are presented and subsequently dropped to never be heard from again. I don’t think Outlaws is comparable to Rebel Moon, I have a feeling it’s probably better than its reception but still worse than it should be.
WRT the hacking minigame(s), it’s much faster than e.g. Fallout 3/4 hacking and lockpicking. The rotating locks are a rhythm game that take 10-20 seconds. The sudoku-esque “slicing”/ hacking one takes about 30 seconds. Compared to Fallout 4 where you can be mousing through every line of characters to find the bracket pairs that remove a dud choice when you’re hacking, it honestly slows me down less. I haven’t had AI go wonky in combat.
I haven’t seen the reputations bounce around. I got the Pykes angry at me right at the start, and I haven’t managed to claw my way back yet. I haven’t been trying hard, to be fair, but if side missions are there that can easily recover you from negative faction standing, the game definitely isn’t putting it in front of me.
I’m always skeptical of edited videos that show bugs because controversy drives views, so there’s an incentive to find problems.
IMO it’s not amazing and it’s not bad. You need to enjoy stealth to enjoy Outlaws, because you need to use stealth 90% of the time to avoid getting overwhelmed. The worldspace is amazing, just like AssOdyssey. I love Star Wars as a universe, but not the movies themselves, and Outlaws doesn’t focus on Jedis or rehash the same old characters. And this game really feels like Star Wars.
If you’re not either really into Star Wars or really into stealth, I’d recommend waiting until it’s discounted, but mostly just because the Gold Edition price is insane ($110).
This is what mods are meant for… to bring a beautiful setting and game engine to its limits beyond what story and gameplay could be crammed in at release.
Great article. That’s exactly how I feel playing games like that too. They’re so well done, and the world’s are so great. They just forget the game part of the game.
big same. i don’t even know if i’d be here commenting on gaming forums if i hadn’t had Game Informer back in the day. Introduced me to the whole “scene” around gaming!
Bummer. Game Informer was the leading game magazine when Game Pro and Nintendo Power were around, though? I think not. Game Informer was third fiddle at best.
2006 is a bit late in the game. Game magazines as a relevant medium peaked in the 90s. By 2006 you have a pretty robust internet, what’s the point? Yeah, sure, if you stick them in every single B&N they’ll sell, but Game Pro and Nintendo Power were institutions in the 90s. If you wanted to know about games, that was the way.
Fair point! Looks like Nintendo Power had well over a million throughout the 90s and Game Pro sat around half a million. GI didn’t start until 1991 so it would’ve been significantly lower, but it started getting pushed harder by 2000.
We’ve probably done more research in this thread than the person writing the article lol
Honestly I mostly just know because I have a big stack of old Game Pros and Nintendo Powers from the 90s and I only ever remember seeing Game Informer in Barnes and Noble once those became a thing.
Same here, back in the 90’s had multiple year’s worth of Nintendo Power magazines & later on Game Pro as well. I do remember seeing Game Informer around & sometimes bought those issues but never really got into them. I can’t even think of any friends that had Game Informer magazines back in those days.
TBH I’m kind of surprised at those numbers /u/GammaGames@beehaw.org posted, maybe Game Informer was a bigger thing outside of the northeast U.S. where I was.
It was mostly distributed by FuncoLand, and only really started to pick up when they included it in their Fan Club subscription. B&N bought them in 2000 and pushed it hard while expanding stores, eventually they got big enough that they could get exclusive reveals.
So it’s a case of pretty much always being bundled in with another service!
What’s up with everyone calling it ugly? It’s a shit car, but I think it looks cool. Something that has no place in reality, but fitting in a video game.
The cybertruck has enough issues that I wouldn’t want one, but yeah I would like a car looking like that, if it was actually a good car not made by Tesla.
Yet another reason for me to never play this game. It’s full of contextless characters, appropriated and stolen dances/animations, microtransactions and now this rubbish.
Sadly, it remains a great game to play with friends bc even casual gamers understand the appeal. So alas…it continues to take up 60gb on my games drive.
I hope this person tries out real games. Like counter strike 3, halo 1, battlefield 3, call of duty 4 or something like that. Current games kinda suck.
Why is Fortnite not a real game? It’s fine to not like things, and good to criticize Epic for their terrible practices in and out of Fortnite, but saying it isn’t a real game smells gatekeepy to me.
I always wonder this with these brand crossovers that fortnite has become synonymous with. My guess is that it’s something close to “neither” - there is a contract that is signed, but I think because both parties benefit, very little money actually changes hands between Epic and the IP owner.
Car manufacturers get the last say on how their cars are used on any media; and they typically go with licence agreements of some sorts.
The licencing is typically done on a set time frame (which is why most car games that uses real cars does get taken off of stores like 5-7 years later.).
On Fortnite, revenue sharing is done between the IP owner and Epic Games based on how much the said item sells. Since they can this item launch as a limited time sale; this gives a big playerbase an incentive to buy it.
Usually, when it’s a one-off like this, the video game gets “paid” to put the stuff in their game. That payment may be in-kind advertising campaigns, etc.
For something like Need for Speed, Forza, etc, the game will be licensing the likeness of the vehicles and the company logos in the game. I don’t know the costs, but the fact that it’s also advertising will factor in.
In this case, there are a few likely scenarios:
The game director or art director or someone high up at Epic has a hard-on for the Cybertruck and really wanted it in the game. So they pursued Tesla and made a deal.
Epic wanted to add vehicles to the game and decided to go with licensed vehicles. Their merchandising people reached out to merchandising people at all the auto companies and then figured out some deals.
Someone high up at Tesla (maybe even Musk) loves, or has a kid who loves, Fortnite and decided they want the Cybertruck in the game. So they pursued Epic to make a deal.
Number 2 is most likely, but I don’t know the game well enough to know the vehicle situation in it.
For all of them, you have to factor in a bunch of details to figure out who is paying who:
who wants it more (/ power imbalance)
how much money is it going to cost to make the models, animations, etc
how much is it going to cost players to get the item
are there aspects that either company finds undesirable (E.g. sometimes car companies don’t like their cars shown with damage)
who will be doing the bulk of the marketing, and who has the marketing budget to spend on the venture
probably a lot more
So, it’s hard to say without more inside info. Games I’ve worked on have had 1 and 2, but not 3 as far as I know. I think it was pretty much an in-kind deal for the 1 situation though (like we got the likenesses, they got advertising through the game, ostensibly we sold more games with the likenesses, but I think it just stroked someone’s ego…) All of the 2 situations were done to bring in money for the game’s marketing budget / or were in-kind marketing deals, possibly bringing money directly to the bottom line, but I don’t know.
kotaku.com
Gorące