Re: Oh, Ubisoft (October 2024 Edition)

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:15:03 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

On 22/10/2024 15:23, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I've never really had problems with the programming of Ubisoft games.
I've found them to be reasonably good in that regard. Oh, I'm sure
there are some bugs here and there --given the complexity of modern
titles, it's only to be expected-- but they don't stand out to me as a
company infamous for its buggy products <cough cough Bethesda cough>.
 
I_do_ have a problem with their game_design_; the repetitive nature
of their open worlds, filled with grind, a lack of innovation between
titles, and the terrible writing and uninspired setting. Oh, and the
stupid live-service nonsense too.
 
But the programming is fine. ?

>
I've not played Starfield but some of the comments I've read say that it
has bugs that you can trace back to FO:3. My favourites are my horse
levitating across water to get back to the city (Oblivion) and talking
to a clan elder with no head (Skyrim).

That's Bethesda, not Ubisoft though.

I'm not saying Ubisoft games don't have bugs (I'm sure I'd be shouted
down with hundreds of examples of people complaining about some glitch
or other in their many games), just that overall they seem to fall
within a certain 'acceptable tolerance'.

Other companies... not so much. As you pointed out, Bethesda's
insistence on using the creaky Gamebryo/Creation engine means that -
despite end-users finding and fixing the same bugs repeatedly in
fan-made patches- they are _still_ appearing in Bethesda's newest
games. That's not just sloppy programming; that's an active disdain
for its users by refusing to do even minimal quality control.

So while I've a lot of unhappiness with Ubisoft, that is one fault I
can't really level at them.