Changing the question

That is an old setting that has been around for over 30 years. It comes from either market research or politico logy. You see, that setting was given as “If the answer does such the mines not match, change the question” and it has been used in all kinds of media for decades. As such I get to the article in question (at https://insider-gaming.com/ubisoft-far-cry-7-and-maverick/) we are given ‘Ubisoft wants to change the ‘Far Cry formula’ with Far Cry 7 and Maverick’. I found the setting hilarious. You see, we have AC odyssey (2018), AC Valhalla (2020), Far Cry 6 (2021), The Division, (2016), Ghost Recon Breakpoint (2019). That is a mere 5 titles that (as I personally see it) flopped because of shoddy programming ad even worse play testing. I personally see Far Cry 5 as a failure as well, but I have a few personal resentments against it, and I will not hold Ubisoft to blame for that. A stack of failures where the price of these titles drop by over 40% within the first month. It got to be that bad. Riddles with auto assumptions in these games to a much larger effect. As such when the article gives us “It’s understood that both games have had a significant overhaul to their movement systems, too, including the addition of tactical sprinting, sliding, vaulting, and more. Seemingly, this is due to both projects originating from the same game and sharing similar movement mechanics, with the similarities of both games bleeding into one another.” Well, in the past a lot of movement mechanics were blamed, but I saw that as shoddy programming. And as we look at blunder after blunder, the issue isn’t the system, it is the programmer, the director and the play testers. These three sides should be intertwined in creating a top product and they weren’t. As such I will not touch any Ubisoft product until I see a proper version and properly assessed. YouTube influencers are useless as I see it. So as I see it see it, the quote “Ubisoft is seemingly trying to break its own trend of chasing trends, and Far Cry 7 (or whatever it’s called) and Maverick seems to be a step in the right direction, albeit a considerable risk.” Should be seen as a proper one, but I for one see the larger danger in ‘chasing trends’ because gamers are not trends, they need to feel the comfort of a game and that results too often in more of the same. As such we might see AC Odyssey as a part of a revolving trend, but the auto assumption comes in play and the gamer gets into too many ship battles on day one, all whilst the serious setting of ships battles were that they happened seldom and with large gaps in between, all whilst the predecessor (Origins) was a solid product. 

Then there was the breakpoint failure. With a headshot resulting in the ping of a Triangle and the helmet flies up for over 30 feet (I remember headshots in 1982 playing out differently) and that ping was not part of the equation, neither was the flying helmet. Then there are all kinds of other settings that made little or no sense. All whilst gamers want to see ‘some’ level of ‘reality’ in that. The games had become a joke. No actor of any level could fix that (in this case Jon Bernthal). Ubisoft obscured their own view to the entire world. As such the answers never fit the bill, so they changed the question and most people will accept that software was the cause. As I personally see it, Ubisoft had much bigger concerns, solid programming being the first issue to address, when in doubt watch Assassins Creed: Syndicate, they are on Youtube. Flying carriages, I asked Tinkerbell and she denies every pixie dusting any carriages, she also reminded me that carriages cannot have happy thoughts. That is merely one setting, one of dozens why Ubisoft is phasing out of the gaming industry. I am not a sceptic thinking it should all be 100%, I have seen my share of stuff floating on air. But for the most when it doesn’t hinder the game, it doesn’t bother me, when carriages go awry in air, it becomes an issue and the waves of panicking NPC’s in AC Paris is just a little too much of a shift in playability. So, yes they can change the question, but gamers have a long memory and they have upset too many of them. As such as I foresee it, there is a setting that makes the Ubisoft stock go down another 25%-35%. Remember that in 2021 it was €84.60, it is now €12.86, that is already an 80% drop and it could get worse. The next released title tends to be the instigator. As such it might depend on Assassins Creed Shadows how this plays out.

Have an awesome 2025 this January.