• ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t buy AAA games at release, and instead try out popular indie titles. They’re usually a quarter of the price and some of them have become my favourite games of all time. Indie games have small teams of passionate devs who have total creative control.

      AAA games will typically release a “game of the year” edition a year or so after release with twice the amount of content the original game had for half the price.

    • YAMAPIKARIYA@lemmyfi.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nowadays buying games at release is doing yourself a disservice. You pay way more for way less than someone 6+ months later who gets it on sale with fixes already done

    • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are hundreds of awesome games available. If all you’re doing is buying the few AAA bug ridden and money grabbing games that come out each year you’re doing yourself a huge disservice.

        • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Nice. I’ve heard good things about that one. I’ll probably pick it up someday.

          But yeah. Indie is where it’s at.

          • RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But yeah. Indie is where it’s at.

            Sometimes, I guess. What percentage of them ever get beyond years of early access limbo and actually end up releasing as finished games? What percentage of those actually end up either being any better than typical AAA games or offer a significant amount of play time?

            Yeah, the good indie games are good, but indie games are no more likely to be especially good, or ever get finished at all, than AAA games are.

            • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re right. Don’t play any indie games because not all of them are good. 👍.

              What was the point of your comment?

              • RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                My point is that it’s stupid as fuck to rightly shit on part of the industry that mostly just churns out trash while verbally jerking off over another part that’s only marginally better, if it’s actually any better at all.

    • stranger@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      real (my passion for gaming has slowly atrophied from childhood as capitalism has taken hold, while passion for creating anything more than a busted cash-grab has long gone)

  • GreenMario@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not to be that guy but the Far Cry games seem pretty damn complete and bug free on release.

    • ydieb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because they are releasing the same game multiple times with just a splash of paint.

      • irmoz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I hate to defend Ubisoft, but this isn’t fair at all.

        That “splash of paint” is the world design of entirely unique locations, a full story, a cast of characters, and new arsenals of weapons.

        As an amateur dev I have a bit of insight into this. I can, and have, made an entire FPS system in less than a day. A play that can move, weapons to shoot, and enemies that can target, follow and shoot at the player with the same weapon system. That part is not where the work is.

        It took two weeks to build on that foundation to barely make one small level. And I didn’t even manage to fit in any story.

        The point is, those mechanics that to you are “the game” take infinitely less time to make than everything “the game” takes place in.

        • ydieb@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Funny thing is that I am an software engineer.

          Anyway, you might be right, but you also might be wrong, it entirely depends on how they have implemented it.

          They are from a gameplay perspective the same game. That ubisoft possibly does the sadly very common “to win the marathon you have to sprint faster”, which makes it take a lot of work to spit out something very similar would not be surprising, but also does not change the fact that they are imo too similar.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I mean I’m not entirely in disagreement with your original statement. I don’t imagine they change much about their gunplay at all, apart from adding some new mechanics each game, and they likely crank the core out quickly by either reverse engineering, refactoring or just copying the whole thing in.

            My main point is just that the “coat of paint” which they do indeed throw over reused mechanics probably takes a whole lot of work. It’s perhaps lazy thinking, but not lazy design exactly.

    • MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d also say, Immortals Fenix Rising was excellent, complete and bug free as far as I remember. It’s too bad they dropped it right next to AC Valhalla and nobody played it.

  • bisby@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know. AC Valhalla doesn’t have achievements on steam, so impossible to tell if I’ve 100% in it

  • Disgustoid@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can safely say that unless their design philosophy changes significantly I will never 100% an Ubisoft cookie cutter open world game because nothing they’ve produced is worth a hundred hours of boring repetitive gameplay.

  • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anno and Far Cry are usually in a very good state from the start. Assassin’s creed isn’t bad either. Unfinished games isn’t that much of a ubisoft problem. There are much worse problems they have and other publishers have worse of the unfinished games problems.

    • Blue and Orange@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember when I bought AC Unity on release it was in a sorry state. Littered with major bugs and the multiplayer was literally (and yes I do mean literally) unplayable for me. Probably the most broken game I’ve ever played on release!

      Generally though I agree, they’re not the worst for bugs. Ubisoft have plenty of other issues with their games but that’s a whole different discussion.