Prince of Persia, Sprinter Cell, earlier AC and Farcry games deifinetly have a cult following; and for good reason. Some of these were not only inventive, even genre defining games but also commercial successes, meaning many people got to enjoy them and have fond memories.
It feels like these days the focus is on extracting as much shareholder value out of gamers via microtransactions which means game design has changed, often for the worse: making longer, more drawn out games and progression which you can speed up by paying and also forcing the player to spend more time on the game hoping you will buy more microtransactions, loot boxes or tiered gear (pay for higher number - more damage, etc.)
It also doesn’t help that writing has also generally suffered. Not that older games had perfect storylines but at least they had loveable characters. Try playing a modern ubisoft game and it is this designed by committee, appealing to the widest possible audience slop that even Giancarlo Esposito can’t make interesting.
Overall, older games feel like they had some soul. Even if it was a huge corporate machine back then too, there were more passionate people involved in their creation. The modern games are technically better in many ways, but they lost some of what made them special.
My estimate is that after WatchDogs 1 and Far Cry 4 is when everything ubisoft became empty slop. Far Cry 5 and AC Origins every enemy became damage sponges.
I greatly enjoy the first watchdogs game; it feels unusually alive compared to many other games set in cities. Great atmosphere, the ability to play music in-game and just walk around is a fantastic feature.
I have yet to play a game that has single-player PvE combat as good as Far Cry 2.
Prince of Persia, Sprinter Cell, earlier AC and Farcry games deifinetly have a cult following; and for good reason. Some of these were not only inventive, even genre defining games but also commercial successes, meaning many people got to enjoy them and have fond memories.
It feels like these days the focus is on extracting as much shareholder value out of gamers via microtransactions which means game design has changed, often for the worse: making longer, more drawn out games and progression which you can speed up by paying and also forcing the player to spend more time on the game hoping you will buy more microtransactions, loot boxes or tiered gear (pay for higher number - more damage, etc.)
It also doesn’t help that writing has also generally suffered. Not that older games had perfect storylines but at least they had loveable characters. Try playing a modern ubisoft game and it is this designed by committee, appealing to the widest possible audience slop that even Giancarlo Esposito can’t make interesting.
Overall, older games feel like they had some soul. Even if it was a huge corporate machine back then too, there were more passionate people involved in their creation. The modern games are technically better in many ways, but they lost some of what made them special.
Prince of Persia was published by Broderbund?
The 3D Prince of Persia games were Ubisoft
Oh, didn’t know those exist.
My estimate is that after WatchDogs 1 and Far Cry 4 is when everything ubisoft became empty slop. Far Cry 5 and AC Origins every enemy became damage sponges.
I greatly enjoy the first watchdogs game; it feels unusually alive compared to many other games set in cities. Great atmosphere, the ability to play music in-game and just walk around is a fantastic feature.
I have yet to play a game that has single-player PvE combat as good as Far Cry 2.