Ubisoft near the bottom for game publisher Metacritic rankings

[mookiemookie]

I know this will come as a shock to many of us, but the average Metacritic rating of Ubisoft's 2010 releases was lower than every other major publisher except for Konami.

http://features.metacritic.com/features/2011/game-publisher-rankings-for-2010-releases/

Whatever happened to this "commitment to quality" that they were harping on a couple years back?

[goldorak]

Commitment to quality eh ? It all went out the window after SH 3. ;)

[Takeda Shingen]

Nah, SH4 turned out pretty good in the end. SH5 is where we saw the major dip in quality and support.

Anymore, I think twice about any game that bears the UbiSoft logo.

[Feuer Frei!]

They did average 72 for PC releases, which on paper you'd think was above acceptable.
One reason they scored low on the list was their console games.
If they only had PC releases they'd be in the top 6.

[goldorak]

They did average 72 for PC releases, which on paper you'd think was above acceptable.
One reason they scored low on the list was their console games.
If they only had PC releases they'd be in the top 6.


And THIS says something about the lousy state pc gaming is in. :shifty:

[Feuer Frei!]

And THIS says something about the lousy state pc gaming is in. :shifty:
:D
Just lucky we have other Devs around eh :O:

[mookiemookie]

Anymore, I think twice about any game that bears the UbiSoft logo.

As do I. It would take one heck of a title, with sterling reviews from both the gaming press and the public, to get me to buy Ubisoft again.

[UnderseaLcpl]

It's disappointing but I wouldn't call it shocking. A lot of major titles with incredible sales were released this year. Titles like Halo Reach, Call of Duty: Black Ops, and Mass Effect 2 moved the bar higher than it usually is, and Ubi is running out of room to exploit Splinter Cell, which has been a huge franchise for them in the past. Assassin's Creed has been taking up the slack to some degree, and from what I hear the newest installment is just outstanding, but I haven't played it myself; the premise just seems stupid to me.

I'm sure we haven't helped matters any by generally spurning SHV, as good as our reasons might be. The SH series isn't a major source of income for Ubi and I'm afraid they might drop it entirely. Now might be a good time to put the screws to them and remind them that we are a consistent, if small, source of income, provided that they don't try to pull that DRM crap again.

[Takeda Shingen]

For me, in the case of SH5 it's not even the DRM. I can live with being connect to the internet to play so long as the quality of the game is high and there is good support for the game. This was not the case.

[the_tyrant]

its surprising that silent hunter 5 wasn't the worst Ubisoft game last year:hmmm:
I wonder how bad the worst has to be.

[Jimbuna]

I'm certainly not suprised but James has made some excellent points in his post....SH3 covers only a small portion of the Ubisoft business, it would appear they are falling behind in other game areas but no suprises there either.

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm certainly not suprised but James has made some excellent points in his post....SH3 covers only a small portion of the Ubisoft business, it would appear they are falling behind in other game areas but no suprises there either.

Oh, absolutely. The Silent Hunter series beside, UbiSoft is clearly a company on the decline.

[gimpy117]

Ubisoft has sadly lost a lot of quality. SH5 was case and point.

[UnderseaLcpl]

For me, in the case of SH5 it's not even the DRM. I can live with being connect to the internet to play so long as the quality of the game is high and there is good support for the game. This was not the case.

I agree. The DRM factor is not a major cause for concern for me, either, though it remains annoying. It shouldn't even be an issue for me, because it doesn't affect my gameplay to any discernable degree, but the idea of it still pisses me off for some reason.

I play SH5 because I just want to drive a cool-looking U-boat and sink some goddamn ships, and SH5 more or less allows me to do that. However, given that just having a passable (to use the term generously) WW2 subsim is enough for me, the fact that I'm playing SH5 in less and less in favor of GWX is pretty telling.



its surprising that silent hunter 5 wasn't the worst Ubisoft game last year:hmmm:
I wonder how bad the worst has to be.

I wondered that as well since you brought it up. As it turns out, in 2009 they actually made a "Grey's Anatomy" game that got like a 36 percent approval score. I have no idea why they thought it was possible to make a good "Grey's Anatomy" game.

SH5 is also on the list, with a 60-something percent approval score but only a 22% user approval score. Note that user score. That's us, people.

[gimpy117]

not surprised SH5 got a 22% user score. The game felt like an early beta to me when it was dumped on the market.

what was I thinking not returning it for that refund?

[Takeda Shingen]

not surprised SH5 got a 22% user score. The game felt like an early beta to me when it was dumped on the market.

what was I thinking not returning it for that refund?

With mods it's pretty playable, but I'll come out and say it: The base game is garbage.

[Reece]

Nah, SH4 turned out pretty good in the end. SH5 is where we saw the major dip in quality and support.

Anymore, I think twice about any game that bears the UbiSoft logo.
Yes, BOB Storm of War to be released in March by UBI have now renamed it to another IL2 title and removed the dynamic campaign!!:down:

[GT182]

You mean Oleg's IL2 Cliffs of Dover will have UBI on the box? And no dynamic campaigh? No freeking way, that sucks the hairy jalobi!

Yeah named changed and probably by UBI. I would have thought Oleg would have smartened up by now. But I guess he's still under contract with them. Hopefully this will be his last and he can do what he wants after he severs ties with them. If he doesn't, UBI will drag him down with them.

[Raptor1]

Hopefully Oleg's IL2 Cliffs of Dover won't be associated with UBI.

It is, actually. Though since Oleg's development team is independent from Ubi and that Ubi's evil DRM scheme has been confirmed not to be present, I don't expect too many problems with it.

EDIT: Ah, edited...

EDIT 2: As for the dynamic campaign thing, IIRC IL-2 did not have one when it was originally released either. I also expect there will be 3rd party dynamic campaigns for it as well, just like IL-2.

[GT182]

Sorry Raptor.... had to edit after I reread what I posted. LOL

How UBI stacks up to the rest....... http://features.metacritic.com/features/2011/game-publisher-rankings-for-2010-releases/?tag=supplementary-nav;article;1

[Reece]

As for the dynamic campaign thing, IIRC IL-2 did not have one when it was originally released either. I also expect there will be 3rd party dynamic campaigns for it as well, just like IL-2.I certainly hope so, I wont be rushing out to buy it because of UBI's past, I'll wait and follow the forum to see how it turns out!:yep:

[Feuer Frei!]

I must say the general consensus seems to be that because Ubi failed in SH5 that all and any past, present and future titles will be crap.
Am i missing something here? Just asking, is all.
I'm not looking for flame wars here.
Reason i ask is that a fair few are saying that because it has Ubi's logo on it that i will not buy it, or to that effect.
If that's the case, then that's slightly unfair? To them.

[UnderseaLcpl]

With mods it's pretty playable, but I'll come out and say it: The base game is garbage.

Be that as it may, we only have one source for more Silent Hunter titles at the moment. We know it. Ubisoft knows it. I don't know why they tried to pawn off SH5 as something we would appreciate, especially after they directly consulted us, but that's where we're at. I can only assume that Ubisoft Romania was forced to develop the product they did due to decisions that came from higher offices.

Still, this news isn't all bad. If Ubisoft is enduring a general reduction in market share that makes our consistent and entrenched desire for some kind of decent subsim all the more palatable, provided that their management is capable of appreciating a fixed source of income or finding its butt with both hands.

[Rilder]

To be fair I wouldn't trust any "professional" critic. Perhaps ubisoft is just bribing less then the other publishers? Not defending them however, their retarded DRM practices makes their games only worthy of piracy. :shifty:

[STEED]

Too much in a rush to make money? :hmmm:

[Ducimus]

With mods it's pretty playable, but I'll come out and say it: The base game is garbage.



RE SH5:
If you guys haven't already, check out TDW (aka Racerboy's) supermod beta. It really transforms the game. It may even make you change your tune about SH5. I know I've been harsh on the game as of late, but i find myself warming up to it because of his work.

[mookiemookie]

RE SH5:
If you guys haven't already, check out TDW (aka Racerboy's) supermod beta. It really transforms the game. It may even make you change your tune about SH5. I know I'm harsh on the game, but i find myself warming up to it because of his work.

Would love to, but my main issue is lack of target variety. :|\\

Hell, I may give it a whirl just to see...

[Ducimus]

Would love to, but my main issue is lack of target variety. :|\\

.

Hmm good point. I forgot about that granny import issue. Aside from that, what ive scratched at was impressive.

[TorpX]

I must say the general consensus seems to be that because Ubi failed in SH5 that all and any past, present and future titles will be crap.
Am i missing something here? Just asking, is all.
I'm not looking for flame wars here.
Reason i ask is that a fair few are saying that because it has Ubi's logo on it that i will not buy it, or to that effect.
If that's the case, then that's slightly unfair? To them.
I feel like I got burned by Ubi. I bought the early version (v1.1?), then had to buy the "Gold Edition". Of course, there are still problems. In my view, Ubi should not release games, that are so heavily dependant on the efforts of modders. They seem to have the attitude that they are the only game in town, and turning out a fast and cheap product is good enough. I haven't bought SH5, partly because I prefer the PTO, partly because of the DRM thing, but mainly because I anticipate that I would be pulling my hair out trying to play it.

That said, I would still be willing to buy a SH6, if the product was well done. I think a big part of the reason Ubi is so heavily criticised is that we have a succession of failures here. SH4 was a poor job, followed by SH5, a worse one. This does not inspire much optimism.

[Feuer Frei!]

I feel like I got burned by Ubi. I bought the early version (v1.1?), then had to buy the "Gold Edition". Of course, there are still problems. In my view, Ubi should not release games, that are so heavily dependant on the efforts of modders. They seem to have the attitude that they are the only game in town, and turning out a fast and cheap product is good enough. I haven't bought SH5, partly because I prefer the PTO, partly because of the DRM thing, but mainly because I anticipate that I would be pulling my hair out trying to play it.

That said, I would still be willing to buy a SH6, if the product was well done. I think a big part of the reason Ubi is so heavily criticised is that we have a succession of failures here. SH4 was a poor job, followed by SH5, a worse one. This does not inspire much optimism.

I guess what i'm saying in my previous post is that, and i wasn't very specific is that the consensus seems that people are against ANY UBI games. Comments like" if it has the UBI sticker on it i won't buy it" or "UBI game? No thanks".
They seem generalised comments in relation to any games UBI develops. Which, if that is the case, is a tad unfair :hmmm:
On the matter of SH5, well, what do you expect. Since SH5 isn't their primary objective, and never has been.

[Reece]

Comments like" if it has the UBI sticker on it i won't buy it" or "UBI game? No thanks".
They seem generalised comments in relation to any games UBI develops. Which, if that is the case, is a tad unfair :hmmm:

This is mostly due to there stupid DRM, having to be permanently online to play a single player game is going overboard, especially since a lot of people, such as myself, have very poor internet connections or some dialup only, meaning they can't even play their games!:doh: That's straight out prejudice to those living in country areas etc.:x

[mookiemookie]

This is mostly due to there stupid DRM, having to be permanently online to play a single player game is going overboard, especially since a lot of people, such as myself, have very poor internet connections or some dialup only, meaning they can't even play their games!:doh: That's straight out prejudice to those living in country areas etc.:x

Not in my case. My aversion to Ubi is purely based on quality issues. I don't want to support the company that ran the Silent Hunter series into the ground.

[Bilge_Rat]

This is mostly due to there stupid DRM, having to be permanently online to play a single player game is going overboard, especially since a lot of people, such as myself, have very poor internet connections or some dialup only, meaning they can't even play their games!:doh: That's straight out prejudice to those living in country areas etc.:x

agreed.

However, you now only need to login to start the game (which takes all of 5-10 seconds) and you dont need to be plugged in after that. So anyone, regardless of how piss poor their internet connection is can now play the game.

A couple of weeks ago back at our cottage, I was able to log in using only a Blackberry plugged into my PC connecting to the UBI server over the faintest of wireless signals. After a total of 10 seconds, I was logged in. I shut down the phone and played SH5 unplugged for 1 hour.

It took you much longer to type out your reply than it would to log in to play SH5. :arrgh!: