Miyazaki specifically stated he would never make anything new in the King’s Field series out of respect for Naotoshi Jin, unless Naotoshi had huge invovlement in the game.
Naotoshi doesn’t do much with FromSoft these days, his last role he was credited for was Supervisor on Dark Souls Remastered in 2018.
I’d love a new King’s Field game, but Miyazaki is right on this one. Without its original creator, it would be a completely different game.
All developers eventually become “soulless corporations grinding away at an IP to maximize profits for the next quarter.” They have to, because otherwise they die forever and take their IPs with them to the grave or sell them to corporations.
Support who you want, but understand that the developers who work for Ubisoft, at the very least some of them, have passion and good ideas. There are circumstances that can lead to those people not being at the surface or even being intentionally held back/bullied from realizing those ideas.
I partially disagree. I don’t want Ubisoft to die. I want them to make good and fun games, like they used to 15 years ago. I want AAA to be like it once was. And I reward when AAA games are like that by buying them.
Gamers want to give our money to developers and publishers. But we want good quality games that at the very least match (but ideally surpass) the quality of experiences we used to get in the past. Recently, Ubisoft has not been providing that, and thus Ubisoft sales have been plummeting. Now, is this a failure of executives? Developers? I say likely both.
Give the developers autonomy for one game, where there is zero executive involvement in the development and see how it goes. If it does well, then just let them make another game with full autonomy. If it goes poorly, make employment cuts on the team or move them around because clearly they didn’t do well even without executive direction. But also keep in mind if another huge competitor takes over, like releasing next to GTA6, pretty much every other games sales will suffer most likely (unless its $100 at launch lol).
Its not a hard decision to make when it comes to business. Any person with a single braincell can see this. The problem is that giving a studio full autonomy is a financial risk. There is great potential for failure when executives feel like they have no control. Businesses are too risk averse now to make such simple decisions. They would rather maintain control of a sinking ship instead of giving crew members autonomy to try to right the ship. Its crazy to me.
Wait until you get to the real Star Trek, the actual good ones. Next Generation, DS9, Voyager, etc. Whatever they’re making now is literally garbage compared to what they used to make.
But to be fair, that is exactly the same case as Star Wars. Used to be pretty good, now Disney has run it into the floor.
What? I thought Ubisoft was saying sales were really strong and how Outlaws was such a big success?
I’m going to guess this is the exact same case with Assassins Creed. An AC game set in feudal Japan should have been a Grand Slam. Literally everyone wanted it. But leave it up to Ubisoft to find ways to make money from a printer drop right into the shredder.
It’s more than just bugs and “blandness.” Clearly people aren’t buying what Ubisoft is making, and they keep changing stuff but none of the things they change are the reasons people aren’t buying their games. It is crazy to me that executives continue to learn the wrong lesson from failed games 100% of the time. And then they ignore gamers when we straight up tell them what they should have changed. Crazy.
Its was similar in some way, but it was also very different in others.
With the exception of Ghost Recon 1, which was first person, the series was always a third person shooter genre, but it occasionally was first person depending on the platform and the game (Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1 is in first person only for PS2, Xbox, and PC, but is optionally third person on Xbox 360. GRAW 2 is in third person for all platforms). Most Ghost Recon games are third person, and this was likely an intentional choice to make a game that does not directly compete with Rainbow Six, another Ubisoft series.
Ghost Recon had some semblance of realism, but not on the level of Rainbow Six and definitely not on the level of Ready or Not. Rainbow Six in its later years also began to lose its realistic style and became more and more fanciful, culminating in Siege having crossovers that don’t make sense for the game or genre (I love NieR, but 2B does not belong in Rainbow Six, and her model in the game looks awful anyway).
Ghost Recons biggest difference is that Ghost Recon has a military focus, whereas Rainbow Six is more focused on SWAT or counterterrorism efforts. To this end, Rainbow Six often featured levels with enclosed spaces such as the inside of buildings or airplanes and a lot of close quarters combat, while Ghost Recon favors more open maps and long range encounters. Ghost Recon also featured vehicles and vehicular combat sections while Rainbow Six generally did not. For example, Ghost Recon would sometimes have a helicopter or tank appear to assist your squad in combat, perhaps against another enemy vehicle. If Rainbow Six ever featured a vehicle, it definitely wasnt a tank assisting your squad, and at most was a helicopter shooting through building glass or something similar.
It’s this. Japanese businesses almost always only truly care about the Japanese market. If something does well in foreign countries but does poorly in Japan, it can be expected that product will never be made again, or changes will be made to attempt to make it sell more in Japan, even if that means alienating the rest of the foreign market that already liked the way it was.