Crispy™ Discussion on Ubisoftness of open world games

[PorkyThePaladin]

A lot of us hate Ubisoft and everything it stands for in the context of open world games, but despite that, more and more open world games seem to be incorporating elements of the Ubisoft approach. So given that, I wanted to start a thread that looks into this in more depth:

1. What exactly is the Ubisoftness of open world games?
2. When did it start exactly?
3. What games have adopted it into their own design?
4. Is adopting it an automatic death knell for the quality of the game?


1. What exactly is the Ubisoftness of open world games?

I would love to hear other people's definitions of this, but to me, it's two (somewhat related) things:
1. The strong feel that nothing you do has any meaning whatsoever. You clear a guard post, it respawns back a minute later, you complete some checkmark on the map, nothing changes in the actual game.
2. The work-like approach of having gameplay consist of completing various checklists, clearing up marks on the map, etc.

2. When did it start exactly?

Far Cry 1 was made by Crytek, but by Far Cry 2, Ubisoft took over development with one of their internal studios. The game was probably the first example of the first point of lack of meaning. Everyone complained about respawning guard outposts, and the whole structure of it was you working for 2 enemy factions in an African country, except they would alternate giving you missions, ignoring the fact that you just worked for their enemy, and during all missions, both factions would turn against you. For the record, Far Cry 2 came out in 2008.

For checklist approach, it might be a little harder to nail down. Far Cry 2 didn't really have it yet, as it had a fairly minimal map and UI. They definitely had it by open world Assassin Creed games (Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla), so as far as I can tell it happened somewhere between 2008 and 2017 (Origins). It was probably invented in one of the later Far Cry games (Far Cry 3 or 4, or maybe something like Watch Dogs).

3. What games have adopted it into their own design?

All Ubisoft open world games have it, obviously, Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla, Far Cries, etc. But so do a lot of other open worlders these days, to some degree. Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom have Ubisoft-style towers that uncover areas, and sort of "generic" enemy camps that you have to clear out. Witcher 3 had generic bandit camps and monster nests as well, that appear after visiting a local job board and show up as markers on the map, to be cleared. Mad Max also has a similar structure, with balloons instead of towers, but otherwise, map markers, generic stuff to clear out or complete, the works.

On the flip side, Piranha Bytes open world games have never had anything like this (whether they were good or bad), nor did Bethesda's. Kingdom Come: Deliverance is also an example of an open world game without any generic type content.

4. Is adopting it an automatic death knell for the quality of the game?

This is where nuance comes into play. In the big picture, of course, all elements of the Ubisoft approach point in the direction of the decline. So ideally, open world games should stay away from them. But I would argue that incorporating them into your game is not an automatic stamp of doom. The problem with Ubisoft games is they are all about those elemenents (lack of meaning, generic checklist content, etc). But when other companies make games that incorporate some of these things, the degree of decline can be significantly different.

For example, with Witcher 3, the generic bandit camps/monster nests are offset to a large degree by the meaningful writing and atmosphere and quests. So in this context, you can think of the Ubisoft-style generic stuff as extra padding and filler on top of the non-Ubisoft meaningful stuff. Similarly, with the new Zelda games, there is enough original and immersive gameplay and locations to offset the more generic stuff, and provide a deeply meaningful experience.

Thoughts?

 

[Butter]

Shadow of Mordor (2014) used the full checklist + respawning approach, but wasn't actually made by Ubisoft.

Skyrim (2011) had endlessly respawning bandit camps and an overwhelming sense that nothing the player did mattered, but it wasn't as cynical as to use literal checklists.

 

[NecroLord]

Theme Park game design philosophy.
You have some landmarks where you go and accomplish something and that's it.
Slap a filler, dumb story on top of it and call it a day.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

1. What exactly is the Ubisoftness of open world games?

Busy work?

2. When did it start exactly?

Far Cry 3?

3. What games have adopted it into their own design?

Everything >$100mil

4. Is adopting it an automatic death knell for the quality of the game?

Yes.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

nor did Bethesda's.

Oh, I don't know. Fallout 4's settlement emergencies feel a lot like those respawning watchtowers you mentioned, because no matter what you do to that settlement, you can't ignore attacks on it unless something has changed since I last played it. You can have laser turrets all over the boundaries of that map, big metal walls, and so on. Unless you go there, bad things will happen. When you do go there, all you have to do is stand there and watch the guns mow down the attackers. Going there makes you realize you don't need to be there, but bad things always happen to that settlement if you don't. And no matter what you do to that settlement, it'll keep getting attacked, over and over and over again. The more settlements you have, the worse this gets.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

nor did Bethesda's.

Oh, I don't know. Fallout 4's settlement emergencies feel a lot like those respawning watchtowers you mentioned, because no matter what you do to that settlement, you can't ignore attacks on it unless something has changed since I last played it. You can have laser turrets all over the boundaries of that map, big metal walls, and so on. Unless you go there, bad things will happen. When you do go there, all you have to do is stand there and watch the guns mow down the attackers. Going there makes you realize you don't need to be there, but bad things always happen to that settlement if you don't. And no matter what you do to that settlement, it'll keep getting attacked, over and over and over again. The more settlements you have, the worse this gets.

Yeah, I was actually thinking about this some more, after creating the thread, and I realized Bethesda was basically proto-Ubisoft. In Daggerfall, they used procedural generation to some degree to generate a lot of the content, so it felt less meaningful than hand-crafted locations.

In pretty much all of their games, they have a basic template for Points of Interest (so for example, one template for Daedra Shrine, another for Cave, another for Fort, etc), and then they will generate like 40+ of them, each with a unique layout but following the basic template. And by Skyrim, they already had map markers for PoIs.

So while Bethesda wasn't as blatant about it, they definitely had the core of this copy/paste checklist type gameplay, and probably inspired Ubisoft to some degree.

 

[ind33d]

A lot of us hate Ubisoft and everything it stands for in the context of open world games, but despite that, more and more open world games seem to be incorporating elements of the Ubisoft approach. So given that, I wanted to start a thread that looks into this in more depth:

1. What exactly is the Ubisoftness of open world games?
2. When did it start exactly?
3. What games have adopted it into their own design?
4. Is adopting it an automatic death knell for the quality of the game?


1. What exactly is the Ubisoftness of open world games?

I would love to hear other people's definitions of this, but to me, it's two (somewhat related) things:
1. The strong feel that nothing you do has any meaning whatsoever. You clear a guard post, it respawns back a minute later, you complete some checkmark on the map, nothing changes in the actual game.
2. The work-like approach of having gameplay consist of completing various checklists, clearing up marks on the map, etc.

2. When did it start exactly?

Far Cry 1 was made by Crytek, but by Far Cry 2, Ubisoft took over development with one of their internal studios. The game was probably the first example of the first point of lack of meaning. Everyone complained about respawning guard outposts, and the whole structure of it was you working for 2 enemy factions in an African country, except they would alternate giving you missions, ignoring the fact that you just worked for their enemy, and during all missions, both factions would turn against you. For the record, Far Cry 2 came out in 2008.

For checklist approach, it might be a little harder to nail down. Far Cry 2 didn't really have it yet, as it had a fairly minimal map and UI. They definitely had it by open world Assassin Creed games (Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla), so as far as I can tell it happened somewhere between 2008 and 2017 (Origins). It was probably invented in one of the later Far Cry games (Far Cry 3 or 4, or maybe something like Watch Dogs).

3. What games have adopted it into their own design?

All Ubisoft open world games have it, obviously, Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla, Far Cries, etc. But so do a lot of other open worlders these days, to some degree. Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom have Ubisoft-style towers that uncover areas, and sort of "generic" enemy camps that you have to clear out. Witcher 3 had generic bandit camps and monster nests as well, that appear after visiting a local job board and show up as markers on the map, to be cleared. Mad Max also has a similar structure, with balloons instead of towers, but otherwise, map markers, generic stuff to clear out or complete, the works.

On the flip side, Piranha Bytes open world games have never had anything like this (whether they were good or bad), nor did Bethesda's. Kingdom Come: Deliverance is also an example of an open world game without any generic type content.

4. Is adopting it an automatic death knell for the quality of the game?

This is where nuance comes into play. In the big picture, of course, all elements of the Ubisoft approach point in the direction of the decline. So ideally, open world games should stay away from them. But I would argue that incorporating them into your game is not an automatic stamp of doom. The problem with Ubisoft games is they are all about those elemenents (lack of meaning, generic checklist content, etc). But when other companies make games that incorporate some of these things, the degree of decline can be significantly different.

For example, with Witcher 3, the generic bandit camps/monster nests are offset to a large degree by the meaningful writing and atmosphere and quests. So in this context, you can think of the Ubisoft-style generic stuff as extra padding and filler on top of the non-Ubisoft meaningful stuff. Similarly, with the new Zelda games, there is enough original and immersive gameplay and locations to offset the more generic stuff, and provide a deeply meaningful experience.

Thoughts?

Ubisoft game design is fine. The problem is that the default difficulty is too low. Even Watch_Dogs is fun when every bullet you take could kill you. Games just need realistic battle damage, wounding, and hospital costs instead of a binary "Character is totally healthy" or "Character is dead." If you imagine open world radiant quests but with Fallout's crippling system, all the problems vanish. Now you have to think about when to retreat, medkit management, maybe limit saving the game to bedrooms and phone booths, etc. Bullet time, detective vision, wall hacks, and regenerating health are the real offenders, not having filler missions.

 

[Losus4]

Most open world games now are merely slot-machine simulators masquerading as something else. Skyrim is an arcade game when it comes down to it. It's about walking from one point of interest to another, and rolling the slot machine as to what will be in the next container. And yeah, I get it, an RPG needs loot. But there's delving into a Daedric ruin in Morrowind and finding a rare artifact, then there's finding free weapons, gold, jewels and enchanted items, literally just lying about for the taking. Roadside shrines, ransacked wagons, dead bodies.... you're never more than 10ft away from a load of free stuff.

Let's use ironbind barrow as an example. The moment you leave this particular dungeon, you're railroaded to a bunch of dwemer loot just sitting there on the mountaintop. Has not one villager ever taken the 10 minute walk it takes to find this stuff, in the supposed thousands of years it's lay there? The abundance of free stuff depreciates its value. The kind of valuable artefact you would've found in =< 2006 RPGs are in the post-Skyrim era common loot.

 

[NecroLord]

This particular brand of gaming certainly seems to be appealing to the console "gamers".
Like I said, they deserve all the slop they receive. Got no standards or self respect at all...

 

[HumanTotemPole]

2. When did it start exactly?

Circa 2010 with Just Cause 2's success the die are cast. Red Faction: Guerrilla came out the year before as well. Both show some stereotypical Ubishit design tropes 2-3 years before FC3. I liked those games at the time but in retrospect significant negative influences on subsequent genre design trends.

One could argue the likes of Mercenaries or even Boiling Point planted seeds but those games have too much in common with older titles or other genres to draw a direct line.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

Far Cry 3?

earlier than that. as far as i can tell, i point my finger at ass creep. besides, zynga started it all.

 

[luj1]

Far Cry 2

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

In Daggerfall, they used procedural generation to some degree to generate a lot of the content, so it felt less meaningful than hand-crafted locations.

Daggerfall was really ambitious for it's time. They were procedurally generating 3D dungeons, large ones. I think the problem with meaningless is more of a result of the size of the dungeons more than anything else. Look at Diablo II, which Dungeons did you like in that game more? The big ones or the one or two levels ones? Personally, I like the smaller ones in that game so I can get some gear and progress on. The big problem Bethesda had with Daggerfall, particularly with being the first major game with this, is that it's pretty hard to know the best way to size something like that. I think Daggerfall fans figured this out, though, since Daggerfall Unity has a "Smaller Dungeons" option.

 

[gurugeorge]

A lot of it has to do with the console orientation of the design of those games, I think. Like, literal points of interest that are navigable from a list are a convenience for controllers, that type of thing. That, coupled with the casual player focus, with short chunks of gameplay, means everything has to be convenient, so yeah, the feel ends up being ultimately like a theme park or a guided tour or something.

The main thing is the loss of sense of mystery about the virtual world, it's far too "gamified."

 

[moleman]

Assassin's Creed 1: you could collect 100 or so flags in the game that gave you an achievment when you found all of them. I remember when I played this back in the day I could not understand the concept of it.
Why would I want to endure an endless boring task for an achievment that gives me nothing other than: "Look, I did it"?
That is the whole Ubi-open world design for me. They make stunning, beautiful worlds and make them boring.

 

[motherfucker]

1. The strong feel that nothing you do has any meaning whatsoever. You clear a guard post, it respawns back a minute later, you complete some checkmark on the map, nothing changes in the actual game.

Diablo 2(2000) had this

 

[Iucounu]

Assassin's Creed 1: you could collect 100 or so flags in the game that gave you an achievment when you found all of them. I remember when I played this back in the day I could not understand the concept of it.
Why would I want to endure an endless boring task for an achievment that gives me nothing other than: "Look, I did it"?
That is the whole Ubi-open world design for me. They make stunning, beautiful worlds and make them boring.

True. In Crysis Warhead you could collect frogs.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

In Daggerfall, they used procedural generation to some degree to generate a lot of the content, so it felt less meaningful than hand-crafted locations.

Daggerfall was really ambitious for it's time. They were procedurally generating 3D dungeons, large ones. I think the problem with meaningless is more of a result of the size of the dungeons more than anything else. Look at Diablo II, which Dungeons did you like in that game more? The big ones or the one or two levels ones? Personally, I like the smaller ones in that game so I can get some gear and progress on. The big problem Bethesda had with Daggerfall, particularly with being the first major game with this, is that it's pretty hard to know the best way to size something like that. I think Daggerfall fans figured this out, though, since Daggerfall Unity has a "Smaller Dungeons" option.

If you go procedural, you have to have a lot of systems interacting with each other (like say Dwarf Fortress). If you don't (like in Daggerfall), procedural is very boring, it just creates a lot of boring, soulless content without the emergent stuff needed to breathe life into it.

1. The strong feel that nothing you do has any meaning whatsoever. You clear a guard post, it respawns back a minute later, you complete some checkmark on the map, nothing changes in the actual game.

Diablo 2(2000) had this

It's a little different for Diablo clones, they are games focused entirely on character development and loot, so the meaning comes not from playing in an interesting world, but just obtaining more loot/skills.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

It's a little different for Diablo clones, they are games focused entirely on character development and loot, so the meaning comes not from playing in an interesting world, but just obtaining more loot/skills.

Another thing is that Diablo II was a lot less "random" than Diablo was. If I remember right, Diablo actually had shrines that had negative effects as well and you couldn't tell what the shrine did until you actually touched it. Diablo II also removed the books from the character system, which is how you gained spells and leveled up your spells, which made the exploration more enticing since you'd sift through level 6-10 foraging for those books. I'm not saying that Diablo II's character system is inferior, but the change certainly had a gameplay impact on the player.

By the way, this works much better with procedural generation than it would if the maps were the same every time. Even with Diablo II(I haven't played III or IV), when you're farming something, you don't know exactly where it is. It's not the same boring trek over and over again, even though it is, because things are different each time. As much as I liked Sacred and Sacred II, I never wanted to farm in those games because after a while, I knew where all the chests and bookshelves were, even though the items were different.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

2. When did it start exactly?

In Pac-Man you collect the dots, and all dots are the same. If you are killed, everything respawn. If you beat the level, everything respawn again.

 

[NecroLord]

In Daggerfall, they used procedural generation to some degree to generate a lot of the content, so it felt less meaningful than hand-crafted locations.

Daggerfall was really ambitious for it's time. They were procedurally generating 3D dungeons, large ones. I think the problem with meaningless is more of a result of the size of the dungeons more than anything else. Look at Diablo II, which Dungeons did you like in that game more? The big ones or the one or two levels ones? Personally, I like the smaller ones in that game so I can get some gear and progress on. The big problem Bethesda had with Daggerfall, particularly with being the first major game with this, is that it's pretty hard to know the best way to size something like that. I think Daggerfall fans figured this out, though, since Daggerfall Unity has a "Smaller Dungeons" option.

Colossal Daggerfall dungeons FTW!
That's proper dungeon crawling right there.
You can sometime see corpses or hanged bodies in rooms which really enhances the horror atmosphere and adds to the tension of navigating a massive dungeon filled with all kinds of terrifying monsters like the Ancient Lich, Ancient Vampire, Daedra Lords, etc.

 

[GamerCat_]

I've been thinking about Thomas Harris' novel Red Dragon lately. The novel which was made into the film Manhunter. Which then inspired the tv show CSI. Which has inspired god knows how much since.





Perhaps you already see what I'm getting at, but due to the sheer weight of memes accumulated around the subject matter (in particular the character of Hannibal Lecter) maybe you don't. I'm here to make the same point I have in other threads from another direction. Perhaps we'll get through.

CSI and its derivatives are Manhunter refined to a reproducible formula, or we might say the creation of a form inspired by what Manhunter was doing. And what was Manhunter doing? To most people, it was a thrilling experience about police tracking down weirdos with the novel element in police fiction of attention to scientific details. But to its creator, Michael Mann, it was an attempt at channeling what Thomas Harris was doing. Harris is a man who is known to work very hard at his writing. It doesn't come easy to him. These novels which gave the world Hannibal Lector are not random spins on commercial detective fiction. They are a view of the world and humanity expressed through a few specific human experiences.

If there is a point to the novel Red Dragon it is that Will Graham, the criminal hunting psychologist protagonist, Hannibal Lector, the remorseless psychologist murderer, and Francis Dolarhyde, the bright but tortured man who seeks to escape himself through a violent process of becoming, are alike. The main narrative thread of the novel which makes it into the film, Graham's methods of pursuing Dolarhyde, are not the point. There is the thriller aspect even in the original story. The hunt is exciting to observe. This is closer to the point. There is something inherently exciting about "the hunt". That's even a line in The Silence of the Lambs. 'Problem Solving is hunting. It is a savage pleasure and we are born to it.' Remember that, we'll be coming back to it.

Graham, Lector, and Dolarhyde are all exceptional men who live in exceptional ways. Lector, intelligent, shameless, and merciless, lived the life of a vampire aristocrat before his chance discovery and capture. Graham, so sensitive he can't help but to enter into the minds of the most bizarre and horrid people he comes across, to think and feel what they feel. He tries to run and take shelter in simpler living, but some combination of the thrill of the hunt and the pull of his extraordinary capacity of sympathy pull him back into the chase and the minds of the broken. Dolarhyde has extraordinary potential but has learned to hate himself. He wants a new start through a process of becoming. Building a new mythical, powerful self-image through ritualised acts of violence.

Graham is methodical in his pursuit of Dolarhyde. Dolarhdye is also methodical in his pursuit of his victims and his evasion of Graham. While Lector is methodical in his subversion of the investigation. The methodical structure and presentation of the story was not a gimmick spin on detective fiction, but instead a new tailored for purpose approach to a particularly character driven thriller about a particular kind of person.

Different parts of these stories and their various adaptations resonated with different people for different reasons over time, but in terms of sheer volume of media expressing direct influence, the strongest legacy of Harris' work is the creation of CSI and what followed. People didn't care much about Will Graham, people didn't care what Harris was doing or why he wrote these stories this way, people liked Hannibal Lector, mostly for a lurid pleasure they got out of watching Anthony Hopkins acting in a way they saw as "evil".

These novels are an exploration of human nature through what we are into doing. The exploration was lost on most people, but they sure as hell loved the doing. 'Problem Solving is hunting. It is a savage pleasure and we are born to it.'

The fact that people liked the work on this lower level is not necessarily disrespectful. Just an incomplete appreciation. What they saw undeniably was there, and deliberately so. There are people who simply live the human condition, and those capable of reflecting upon it. A new style or form of presenting crime and human pursuit as a means of exploring these subjects. But this new form is of course perfectly suited to mere presentation if that's all you care for. If you're interested in humanity, watch Michael Mann's Manhunter. If you just want to see a succession of men being hunted, watch CSI.

Now. Why am I in this thread? Can you already see?

A stupid person once wondered (or more likely pretended to wonder):

I don't see what ideal, value, philosophy, emotion or experience can be conveyed by a combat system, or a looting mechanic etc.

If people like doing something there is some appeal to what we are in it. Through contemplation of anything humanity enjoys you can understand humanity. What can be conveyed by a "combat system", or a "looting mechanic"? Well, you should start there and work backwards. Why do people enjoy simulated violence and taking things?



82 seconds in if the timestamp doesn't work.

Farcry2 is a game which opens with a succinct summation of a philosophy and a view on human nature, and then the entire rest of the game is effectively set up as a demonstration of that point. Nothing the game does is radically new. We had guns, "open worlds", jobs, all of this before. But the specific arrangement within Farcry2 is tailored for purpose. It can of course use existing forms to a large extent, because the forms of "first person shooter" and "open world game", like the "detective novel", emerged organically in response to existing human desires. 'Problem Solving is hunting. It is a savage pleasure and we are born to it.' Like The Silence of the Lambs and Metal Gear Solid (YOU ENJOY THE KILLING) before it, Farcry2 does not need to convince you of this. The fact you bought the game is proof. You're already on board. You, like the protagonist, chose to come to Africa to hunt The Jackal.

From its opening onwards the structure of Farcry2 is a journey through the philosophy of The Jackal (and Clint Hocking), riding along the established lines of genre entertainment. The fact his philosophy aligns so closely with entertainment is vindication rather than refutation, since he's talking about what people like. Farcry2 was particularly striking and fun because it was so thoughtfully constructed, from a position of thoughtful meta contemplation of what makes action fun. It was also divisive and sooner or later boring as a deliberate extension of this process.



The Jackal is first presented as a monster in his element, but he's been doing this for a long time. He's doubting himself, getting existential. Not necessarily suffering under Christian morality, but just fucking BORED of a life of pointless conflict that goes forever.

Farcry 2, like Red Dragon, is already meta study of the new form it is creating. This might seem odd at first, but is in fact if anything the most common way of this. Because this kind of contemplative perspective is such a rich source of innovation.

1. What exactly is the Ubisoftness of open world games?

I would love to hear other people's definitions of this, but to me, it's two (somewhat related) things:
1. The strong feel that nothing you do has any meaning whatsoever. You clear a guard post, it respawns back a minute later, you complete some checkmark on the map, nothing changes in the actual game.

Listen to The Jackal talk. Farcry2 is not a game about winning a war. Farcry2 is a game about your life BECOMING WAR. Even if this one ends, then what? All that waits for you in your future is more of the same. You will seek it out yourself. You either put down or complete Farcry2, feeling sick of it all (rather like The Jackal), and then you bought another game about shooting people. Maybe that game was Farcry3.

2. The work-like approach of having gameplay consist of completing various checklists, clearing up marks on the map, etc.

In Farcry2, things taking on a not necessarily boring, but mundane, job-like nature was very much the point.

And, like Red Dragon's successors, the successors of Farcry2, the 'Ubisoft Open World Games', divorced from the context from which their defining traits emerged and were justified, succeeded. We can say these works were boring or bad. We can even hate the original. But the lasting success is undeniable.

'Problem Solving is hunting. It is a savage pleasure and we are born to it.'

And to organise a really good hunt, you need to think about human nature. But you only need to do the thinking once. We're all still playing Clint Hocking's Hunt of Men 16 years later.

I'm going to sign out of this account and probably forget my details now. As it was just cleverly put to me earlier tonight, RPGcodex does not scale to my level.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Hhhmm, somewhat interesting post, but I dunno. I don't really make the connection. They could've done Far Cry 2 along those lines (war is absurd, nothing matters, shades of Heart of Darkness, which is what they shot for), by having meaningful missions in and of themselves, and meaningful gameplay, which then over the course of the game was gradually revealed to be ultimately pointless or absurd. That would've been the correct way to do it.

You can't point out absurdity of life/war/whatever on a deep level by being absurd on a shallow level. I can't write a great play/novel by writing lalalala blablabla over and over, and Far Cry 2's gameplay is the equivalent of blablahbla.

 

[Elttharion]

Assassin's Creed 1: you could collect 100 or so flags in the game that gave you an achievment when you found all of them. I remember when I played this back in the day I could not understand the concept of it.
Why would I want to endure an endless boring task for an achievment that gives me nothing other than: "Look, I did it"?
That is the whole Ubi-open world design for me. They make stunning, beautiful worlds and make them boring.

Funny thing is that the Ass Creed devs did it to make people.

What about the people who got all the flags?

Those are crazy people.

[laughs]

But that's all my fault by the way. I assume it fully. I wanted to show gamers that sometimes collection is just a useless waste of time. So I put in four hundred and twenty flags that were useless. And I knew it.

Are you going to do it again?

No, I'm not that mean! Once is enough.

Nowadays this is pretty much standard open world design.

I cant pinpoint when it became so prevalent but imo it was with Ass creed 2 and its two sequels. There were games with these elements before but I think they truly laid the foundation to the system with those 3 games. Ubisoft showed you could pump games very quickly by using this design as a standard and it was a 'good' way to inflate game time.

 

[Ash]

This particular brand of gaming certainly seems to be appealing to the console "gamers".
Like I said, they deserve all the slop they receive. Got no standards or self respect at all...

You say that like Steam's top 100 is ever any better, when it's often filled with the same shit-tier games. GTAV and Skyrim was in the top ten for the longest time, for example. Ubisoft games are also often at the top around release. The sad reality is, there's about 5% of PC gamers with sensible standards, and about 2.5% of console gamers with sensible standards (well, not truly possible these days as modern consoles are entirely pointless), and then there is everyone else.