same old ubisoft busy work

[Phishfood]

Played when it was just on the Ubisoft store. Fast travel to hub location, talk to NPC, fast travel to quest location, do the thing, fast travel back to hub to get rewards, fast travel back to where you were currently exploring

[MugHug]

Crazy to think that with such a beautifully created world (reported by even the major press outlets) you just fast travel all the time. Is exploration a thing of the past in open world games!!

And to access your 'hub locations' you have to travel on foot or fly there in the first place. And they are not typical 'hub locations' anyway.

Plus many of the quests and resource collection features are not right next to your 'hub locations'.

Hard to see where you are coming from. If players had to travel on foot or fly from one location to another all the time they have to deal with danagers. Dangers such as creatures like the Thanator, packs of dangerous animals and Stormgliders trying to kill you on top of random human patrols, we would be having the game berated even worst and 'mental breakdowns' here.

Plus exploring is great for finding certain features that you will never find if you only 'fast travel' all the time.

Your 'same old' is a 'same old' seen in many other games.

[Phishfood]

I'll give you an example of good open design. Baldur's Gate 3 and Elden Ring.

You find a place that is interesting, you explore it, you do the thing there and you get the reward there and continue exploring without having to fast travel. Though there are some fetch quests that require some fast travelling they are in the minority.

The majority of quests in Ubisoft's open world games require you to speak to someone to trigger an event somewhere on the map, then you fast travel there because you don't need to retread areas you've already been to, do the thing, speak to the quest giver to get the reward. Depending on what you were doing before you activated the quest it can take 3-5 fast travels.

[MugHug]

Originally posted by Phishfood:

I'll give you an example of good open design. Baldur's Gate 3 and Elden Ring.

You find a place that is interesting, you explore it, you do the thing there and you get the reward there and continue exploring without having to fast travel. Though there are some fetch quests that require some fast travelling they are in the minority.

The majority of quests in Ubisoft's open world games require you to speak to someone to trigger an event somewhere on the map, then you fast travel there because you don't need to retread areas you've already been to, do the thing, speak to the quest giver to get the reward. Depending on what you were doing before you activated the quest it can take 3-5 fast travels.

Seems that 'good open design' is subjective here. I remember BG3 and ER not being any more open than Avatar.

So if a game is not considered as good as the rare exceptions of Baldur's Gate 3 and Elden Ring, then it is a fail.

You just made thousands of hard-working and creative game developers all over the world, working crazy hours, very happy and given them justification that their work is appreciated, even if their projects are not as good as your chosen examples.

Why not deal with reality instead of trying to prove your point with untypical and unrepresentative examples that do not reflect what is actually happening in the majority of the gaming industry.

We can always go for the best examples to assist our agenda highlight deficiencies in others, but is that really a valid position and does it really prove our point.

On a side note Avatar is a action-adventure game while BG3 was designed to be a deep RPG inspired by the complexities of tabletop role-playing games, particularly Dungeons & Dragons, Two totally different types of games.

And Elden Ring is considered a "Soulsborne" game, a subgenre of action role-playing games while Avatar is a action-adventure game.

Your two examples are not even in the same genre that Avatar exists in.

[Phishfood]

and yet Elden Ring and BG3 are both games that are very different from each other yet the way the player explores the world, finds challenges and take rewards are very similar.

Are you so lacking in imagination that you cannot think of a Ubisoft open world game using any other quest structure? Does It always has to be fast travel to NPC Area > speak to NPC > fast travel to location > do thing at location > fast travel to NPC area > speak to NPC > get reward > fast travel back to what you were doing before or find another NPC

[Plague]

Originally posted by Phishfood:

Played when it was just on the Ubisoft store. Fast travel to hub location, talk to NPC, fast travel to quest location, do the thing, fast travel back to hub to get rewards, fast travel back to where you were currently exploring

that every open world game, gets old walking around the same mountain 3000 times

[MugHug]

Originally posted by Phishfood:

and yet Elden Ring and BG3 are both games that are very different from each other yet the way the player explores the world, finds challenges and take rewards are very similar.

Are you so lacking in imagination that you cannot think of a Ubisoft open world game using any other quest structure? Does It always has to be fast travel to NPC Area > speak to NPC > fast travel to location > do thing at location > fast travel to NPC area > speak to NPC > get reward > fast travel back to what you were doing before or find another NPC

An accusation that can be applied to many other publishers.

It might be a brain seizure moment but apart from a beautiful world, Avatar is only a reasonable competent 'run of the mill' game and UbiSoft promised nothing else.

As far as I remember, Ubisoft never made any claims that it would equal BG3 or ER. They never made any claims that it was the second-coming compared to Far Cry. They never made any claims about some advance, fantastic questing system.

They did admit it was an UbiSoft game, which should have told those with their feet in reality what it was most likely to be.

Nothing I see in these pre-launch trailers up to three years old, is missing from the game on my PC. If anything that is my game as I see it in the trailers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axmg1E4HrVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDzw1EKnaIA

Sounds like you built up your own hype in your mind and then instead of telling yourself off for getting it wrong, you put the game down. And you cannot handle it. Otherwise it could just be a generic 'chip on your shoulder' about things you take a dislike to. The last thing is a rational reasoning.

[MugHug]

Originally posted by Plague:

Originally posted by Phishfood:

Played when it was just on the Ubisoft store. Fast travel to hub location, talk to NPC, fast travel to quest location, do the thing, fast travel back to hub to get rewards, fast travel back to where you were currently exploring

that every open world game, gets old walking around the same mountain 3000 times

Tell me about it.

And trying to get from A to B long distance just to farm resources while being tracked, jumped on, hunted and killed by animals gets very old, very quick. Takes the game out of the game and makes it a drag.

[Black Hole]

Rewarding exploration seems to be largely dead in games these days, mostly boring grinding fetch quest.

[Phishfood]

It's funny how desperately you're trying to argue about anything else entirely because you know the quest structure in this game is straight up boring.

Originally posted by MugHug:

Seems that 'good open design' is subjective here. I remember BG3 and ER not being any more open than Avatar.

Wasn't comparing how "open" these games were, just the quest structure.

Originally posted by MugHug:

So if a game is not considered as good as the rare exceptions of Baldur's Gate 3 and Elden Ring, then it is a fail.

Never said if a game isn't as critically acclaimed as Elden Ring or BG3 then it's a fail.

Originally posted by MugHug:

Why not deal with reality instead of trying to prove your point with untypical and unrepresentative examples that do not reflect what is actually happening in the majority of the gaming industry.

and what is happening in the game industry that makes developers have to use this boring quest structure?

Originally posted by MugHug:

We can always go for the best examples to assist our agenda highlight deficiencies in others, but is that really a valid position and does it really prove our point.

Yes. Someone else did it better, so it means this game could have too.

Originally posted by MugHug:

An accusation that can be applied to many other publishers.

Where are you now? Oh right, Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora discussion board on Steam.

Originally posted by MugHug:

It might be a brain seizure moment but apart from a beautiful world, Avatar is only a reasonable competent 'run of the mill' game and UbiSoft promised nothing else.

As far as I remember, Ubisoft never made any claims that it would equal BG3 or ER. They never made any claims that it was the second-coming compared to Far Cry. They never made any claims about some advance, fantastic questing system.

I never said they made that claim. Who actually watches developer interviews and trailers then composes a list of "developer promises" in their head for every upcoming game? I can assure no one at Ubisoft thinks is the behaviour of the average gamer and neither should you.

Originally posted by MugHug:

They did admit it was an UbiSoft game, which should have told those with their feet in reality what it was most likely to be.

Likely but not definitely. Human beings are capable of learning by example and I expected them to do better because of the amount of effort put into the rest of the game.

Originally posted by MugHug:

Nothing I see in these pre-launch trailers up to three years old, is missing from the game on my PC. If anything that is my game as I see it in the trailers:

Who keeps a list of developer promises in their head for every upcoming game? No one, except you.

Originally posted by MugHug:

Sounds like you built up your own hype in your mind and then instead of telling yourself off for getting it wrong, you put the game down. And you cannot handle it. Otherwise it could just be a generic 'chip on your shoulder' about things you take a dislike to. The last thing is a rational reasoning.

Sounds like you want me to argue about anything else because you know sticking to the topic means an automatic loss.

[Phishfood]

Originally posted by MugHug:

And trying to get from A to B long distance just to farm resources while being tracked, jumped on, hunted and killed by animals gets very old, very quick. Takes the game out of the game and makes it a drag.

tracked, jumped on, hunted.

For anyone else reading this, what this user means is drawing aggro from a hostile creature, then having said hostile creature make its way to you to attack. If it's weak enough you kill it easily, if too strong you just run in a straight line until you lose aggro which will happen very quickly.

[MugHug]

Originally posted by Phishfood:

Originally posted by MugHug:

And trying to get from A to B long distance just to farm resources while being tracked, jumped on, hunted and killed by animals gets very old, very quick. Takes the game out of the game and makes it a drag.

tracked, jumped on, hunted.

For anyone else reading this, what this user means is drawing aggro from a hostile creature, then having said hostile creature make its way to you to attack. If it's weak enough you kill it easily, if too strong you just run in a straight line until you lose aggro which will happen very quickly.

You really have issues.