The only difference between an Ubisoft game and Zelda are map icons

[Remember_Spinal]

People constantly praise Elden Ring, Zelda Breath of The Wild and Tears of the Kingdom becuase of the “freedom” it allows versus an ‘ubisoft’ game (assassins creed, far cry, horizon, Tsushima, etc.)but the only real difference is the idea that map icons aren’t present on the map

Almost every open world game suffers from the same diseases. Too much map and not enough unique content in the world to cover it all. They all use copy and pasted content, towers, dungeons, bosses and mini-bosse, bandit camps, etc.

I’ve played 200 hours of Tears of The Kingdom and there is so much copy and paste content. Holding up signs, koroks, towers, lighting the depths, bandit camps, a lot of similar looking caves, the same overworld bosses spread over the map, etc.

It’s honestly as easy as removing map icons to make people think the world design in one game is superior to another. In fact I think Horizon Forbidden West did the tower thing way better than Tears of The Kingdom did.

 

[Gods&Monsters]

By the end of the game I had 10 times more icons on Elden Ring map than any Sony game.

Just look at this map. Don't you wanna puke?

https://eldenring.wiki.fextralife.com/Interactive+Map

 

[KnittedKnight]

One of the many reasons Elden Ring is the second to last game on my souls rating list. Fast food gaming. Not a bad game but still. And Nintendo's Zelda well... true pink ponies realm as always - the curve is different with them, whether we like it, or disagree with or not.

Not to discount that dressing a meal a certain way can have different perceptions on how the overall experience is by eating said meal. Satisfaction levels vary.

 

[Nhomnhom]

It’s honestly as easy as removing map icons to make people think the world design in one game is superior to another. In fact I think Horizon Forbidden West did the tower thing way better than Tears of The Kingdom did.

Then maybe Ubisoft should do it? How you present something is important.

Elden Ring is really smart about this, it doesn't even let you figure out the size of the map because it adjust the zoom to only the pieces you have already found and a big part of the map is underground. The devil is in the details for this type of thing.

I remember playing Prince of Persia in 2008 and the game was symmetrical, revealing everything beforehand allowing you to easily guess everything that was coming your way. Every game I played from Ubisoft after that shared the same flaws of severely uninspired game design.

Exploration is still Zelda's strongest aspect alongside the powers, it's everything else that is lacking (story, combat game play, equipment breaking, endless boring lines of non-voiced brain dead dialog).

As for Elden Ring, the massive size comes at the sacrifice of From Software's great level design that we saw all over previous games but that in Elden Ring is reduced to a few small areas.

 

[Gediminas]

People constantly praise Elden Ring, Zelda Breath of The Wild and Tears of the Kingdom because of the “freedom” it allows versus an ‘ubisoft’ game (assassins creed, far cry, horizon, Tsushima, etc.)but the only real difference is the idea that map icons aren’t present on the map

Almost every open world game suffers from the same diseases. Too much map and not enough unique content in the world to cover it all. They all use copy and pasted content, towers, dungeons, bosses and mini-bosse, bandit camps, etc.

I’ve played 200 hours of Tears of The Kingdom and there is so much copy and paste content. Holding up signs, koroks, towers, lighting the depths, bandit camps, a lot of similar looking caves, the same overworld bosses spread over the map, etc.

It’s honestly as easy as removing map icons to make people think the world design in one game is superior to another. In fact I think Horizon Forbidden West did the tower thing way better than Tears of The Kingdom did.

How Elden Ring is freedom, literally, 50% of the game is linear.

 

[Bryank75]

To make such huge games without some element of 'copy and paste' would be insane... so time consuming and so expensive.

The best these companies can really do is have the appearance of being unique, the appearance of being different to the others.... little tricks to make copied content seem different.
Like the smaller tombs / dungeons in Elden Ring all follow a very similar formula... much like shrines in Zelda.

The fog of war on the maps and alternative way they deal with discovering locations all help to make things feel a little unfamiliar...

In the end that was enough for many reviewers and gamers to think it was different enough and novel enough to feel fresh in comparison to other games.

It doesn't take much to break the illusion though and once you see through it, for me it happened in the snowy area of Elden Ring.... it's really not much different at all from other open world games.

It's all about presentation.

 

[Zzero]

You miss the forest for the trees. Ubisoft is lambasted because all of their open world games felt the same. BotW doesn't even feel like TotK, let alone Elden Ring (or Elder Scrolls.)

 

[Vertigo]

Ubisoft games do not encourage exploration nor do they build worlds interesting to look at either really. Don’t get me wrong, I thought odyssey was stunning at times but the game world and what you do in it is sterile.

 

[Bryank75]

Ubisoft games do not encourage exploration nor do they build worlds interesting to look at either really. Don’t get me wrong, I thought odyssey was stunning at times but the game world and what you do in it is sterile.

Definitely true IMO

 

[Remember_Spinal]

BotW doesn't even feel like TotK

 

[Systemshock2023]

I find more things in common between Ubisoft games and modern Sony tentpole AAA. You can't deny they were heavily influenced by Ubisoft action adventure games (Days gone, HZD, Ghosts, Spiderman, God of War) The extra polish and more interesting characters and stories somewhat helps overcome the Ubisoftian origins.

Zelda and Elden Ring are different. Open world games for sure, but they put the player more in the drivers seat. With these other AAA games you know from the get go that you have collected 1/1567 pebbles, 4/546454 feathers cleaned 2/54 bandit camps and so on and so forth. Its feels more of a job than a game.

And most post Ezio trilogy Ubisoft games in particular, they have this thing... Maybe I am biased but you can feel the tedium as you play them. You can feel the design by comitee. By the numbers gaming. I think Ubisoft its just an AI that pumps games here and there. Its close to the real thing but you can grasp the lack of human element right there.

Other than the Rayman games, Splinter Cell, FC Blood Dragon, and the first Crew game there's not many modern Ubisoft games I enjoyed.

 

[Dr Bass]

It doesn't.

Also disagree with the sentiment of your initial post. Yes there are "types of content" but it hardly feels "copy and paste."

Again, there is a reason people love TotK and it's selling gang busters. Just got told by a coworker today she finished it over the weekend and she called it a "magical experience." She put in nearly 200 hours (like you) as well.

Think about it ... you spent 200 hours on a game released a month and a half ago? That's insane. I've never spent 200 hours on a game in my entire life (that I am aware of, maybe Street Fighter 2?). You aren't putting that much time into something unless it's a ton of fun. Unless of course you are a masochist.

Again, the weird campaign to try and knock this game down a peg continues. I will be shocked if it doesn't win GotY this year. The game is incredible. I don't talk about it a lot here, as I don't really see the point, but I know what I played.

I find more things in common between Ubisoft games and modern Sony tentpole AAA. You can't deny they were heavily influenced by Ubisoft action adventure games (Days gone, HZD, Ghosts, Spiderman, God of War) The extra polish and more interesting characters and stories somewhat helps overcome the Ubisoftian origins.

Zelda and Elden Ring are different. Open world games for sure, but they put the player more in the drivers seat. With these other AAA games you know from the get go that you have collected 1/1567 pebbles, 4/546454 feathers cleaned 2/54 bandit camps and so on and so forth. Its feels more of a job than a game.

And most post Ezio trilogy Ubisoft games in particular, they have this thing... Maybe I am biased but you can feel the tedium as you play them. You can feel the design by comitee. By the numbers gaming. I think Ubisoft its just an AI that pumps games here and there. Its close to the real thing but you can grasp the lack of human element right there.

Other than the Rayman games, Splinter Cell, FC Blood Dragon, and the first Crew game there's not much modern Ubisoft games I enjoyed.

I agree with you that Elden Ring had a more similar feel to Zelda in that it feels like the game is what you make of it. Which is why some people love it and are able to take advantage of what it offers, and others ... don't.

 

[Gediminas]

It doesn't.

Also disagree with the sentiment of your initial post. Yes there are "types of content" but it hardly feels "copy and paste."

Again, there is a reason people love TotK and it's selling gang busters. Just got told by a coworker today she finished it over the weekend and she called it a "magical experience." She put in nearly 200 hours (like you) as well.

Think about it ... you spent 200 hours on a game released a month and a half ago? That's insane. I've never spent 200 hours on a game in my entire life (that I am aware of, maybe Street Fighter 2?). You aren't putting that much time into something unless it's a ton of fun. Unless of course you are a masochist.

Again, the weird campaign to try and knock this game down a peg continues. I will be shocked if it doesn't win GotY this year. The game is incredible. I don't talk about it a lot here, as I don't really see the point, but I know what I played.



I agree with you that Elden Ring had a more similar feel to Zelda in that it feels like the game is what you make of it. Which is why some people love it and are able to take advantage of what it offers, and others ... don't.

Fortnite and other F2P junk is best games in the world. Candy Crush is super good and powerful, people play over 200h and spend more than 100$. it is ton of fun..

 

[Thief1987]

I don't know about last belda, as I only played botw and it's the most boring game that I ever played. Though i absolutely agree about Elden Ring, it's a bloated a mess in some respects even worse than any Ubisoft game. I would prefer that it had option to show markers in that case I could have skipped dozens of copypasted "dungeons" and other garbage "activities" and maybe even liked game more.

 

[Bryank75]

I find more things in common between Ubisoft games and modern Sony tentpole AAA. You can't deny they were heavily influenced by Ubisoft action adventure games (Days gone, HZD, Ghosts, Spiderman, God of War) The extra polish and more interesting characters and stories somewhat helps overcome the Ubisoftian origins.

This is completely wrong IMO.

Sony tentpole AAA games in the modern age have their roots in the Uncharted Series along with heavy influence from Kojima throughout the history of PlayStation going back to the PS1.

Uncharted and Uncharted 2 were the game development renaissance for Sony, then leading on to 3 and TLOU. The hallmarks of the Sony AAA experience are cinematic storytelling, engaging gameplay, excellent production quality equaling or surpassing basically all others in the industry and USUALLY a wide-linear structure but have moved to more and more open world lately.

Uncharted, TLOU, GOW are all wide linear... even the latest GOW Ragnarok is not open world and has no real Ubisoft qualities at all. So I dont understand why you would lump it in with the rest.

Spider-man needs to have the structure it does, it needs to be set in an open-world New-York, nothing else would really make sense.... if the icons and markers were not accurate and precise, such a location could be come very tedious and annoying as it would be very difficult to find the correct buildings for missions etc. The structure for these games goes all the way back to PS1 and PS2..... predating the Ubisoft model.

The games that do somewhat fit the Ubisoft openworld, map-marker format are things like Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon and Days Gone...
You're not totally off base there. They do use the marker systems and have open worlds with similar climbing mechanics.
The issue with lumping them in with Ubisoft games is that Ubisoft games minute to minute combat is so boring, the landscape is boring and unimaginative IMO, everything in the game including the voice acting, the cutscenes and the story are all flat..... I never feel an ounce of emotion in them....
While Horizon, Ghost of Tsushima and Death Stranding for example have a multitude of things that elevate them, make them incredibly unique and engaging.
GOT combat was so addictive for me, the mythical quests, the duels etc.
Horizon in the first game started out pretty basic... it had some mounts to run around, most of the time you used a bow and combat could get a bit tedious if the robot was heavily armored.... but if you played the latest installment, she can have a flying mount that can also swim, she has a glider and a grappling hook as well as a futuristic weapon that I wont go into detail here because it would spoil things...but it tears through the robots.

I would also say to look back at SOTC...... which was made by Sony and way ahead of its time, it had the open world with very few enemies. Just the colossus.... I think it got a 91 on metacritic. If Nintendo made that, it would have got a 99.

And I don't think a single other publisher would have funded a game like Death Stranding.

So to label them as Ubisoft games or Ubisoft style games is really a huge disrespect for everything Sony has done in gaming IMO.

I don't intend to change your mind or anything, if you don't respect what they've done... I can;t change that.

 

[Gediminas]

This is completely wrong IMO.

Sony tentpole AAA games in the modern age have their roots in the Uncharted Series along with heavy influence from Kojima throughout the history of PlayStation going back to the PS1.

Uncharted and Uncharted 2 were the game development renaissance for Sony, then leading on to 3 and TLOU. The hallmarks of the Sony AAA experience are cinematic storytelling, engaging gameplay, excellent production quality equaling or surpassing basically all others in the industry and USUALLY a wide-linear structure but have moved to more and more open world lately.

Uncharted, TLOU, GOW are all wide linear... even the latest GOW Ragnarok is not open world and has no real Ubisoft qualities at all. So I dont understand why you would lump it in with the rest.

Spider-man needs to have the structure it does, it needs to be set in an open-world New-York, nothing else would really make sense.... if the icons and markers were not accurate and precise, such a location could be come very tedious and annoying as it would be very difficult to find the correct buildings for missions etc. The structure for these games goes all the way back to PS1 and PS2..... predating the Ubisoft model.

The games that do somewhat fit the Ubisoft openworld, map-marker format are things like Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon and Days Gone...
You're not totally off base there. They do use the marker systems and have open worlds with similar climbing mechanics.
The issue with lumping them in with Ubisoft games is that Ubisoft games minute to minute combat is so boring, the landscape is boring and unimaginative IMO, everything in the game including the voice acting, the cutscenes and the story are all flat..... I never feel an ounce of emotion in them....
While Horizon, Ghost of Tsushima and Death Stranding for example have a multitude of things that elevate them, make them incredibly unique and engaging.
GOT combat was so addictive for me, the mythical quests, the duels etc.
Horizon in the first game started out pretty basic... it had some mounts to run around, most of the time you used a bow and combat could get a bit tedious if the robot was heavily armored.... but if you played the latest installment, she can have a flying mount that can also swim, she has a glider and a grappling hook as well as a futuristic weapon that I wont go into detail here because it would spoil things...but it tears through the robots.

I would also say to look back at SOTC...... which was made by Sony and way ahead of its time, it had the open world with very few enemies. Just the colossus.... I think it got a 91 on metacritic. If Nintendo made that, it would have got a 99.

And I don't think a single other publisher would have funded a game like Death Stranding.

So to label them as Ubisoft games or Ubisoft style games is really a huge disrespect for everything Sony has done in gaming IMO.

I don't intend to change your mind or anything, if you don't respect what they've done... I can;t change that.

The guy is on repeat to the internet FUD about Playstation.
The same guy blames Sony for Sega, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Some just are uneducated or chose not to be honest.

 

[Systemshock2023]

This is completely wrong IMO.

Sony tentpole AAA games in the modern age have their roots in the Uncharted Series along with heavy influence from Kojima throughout the history of PlayStation going back to the PS1.

Uncharted and Uncharted 2 were the game development renaissance for Sony, then leading on to 3 and TLOU. The hallmarks of the Sony AAA experience are cinematic storytelling, engaging gameplay, excellent production quality equaling or surpassing basically all others in the industry and USUALLY a wide-linear structure but have moved to more and more open world lately.

Uncharted, TLOU, GOW are all wide linear... even the latest GOW Ragnarok is not open world and has no real Ubisoft qualities at all. So I dont understand why you would lump it in with the rest.

Spider-man needs to have the structure it does, it needs to be set in an open-world New-York, nothing else would really make sense.... if the icons and markers were not accurate and precise, such a location could be come very tedious and annoying as it would be very difficult to find the correct buildings for missions etc. The structure for these games goes all the way back to PS1 and PS2..... predating the Ubisoft model.

The games that do somewhat fit the Ubisoft openworld, map-marker format are things like Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon and Days Gone...
You're not totally off base there. They do use the marker systems and have open worlds with similar climbing mechanics.
The issue with lumping them in with Ubisoft games is that Ubisoft games minute to minute combat is so boring, the landscape is boring and unimaginative IMO, everything in the game including the voice acting, the cutscenes and the story are all flat..... I never feel an ounce of emotion in them....
While Horizon, Ghost of Tsushima and Death Stranding for example have a multitude of things that elevate them, make them incredibly unique and engaging.
GOT combat was so addictive for me, the mythical quests, the duels etc.
Horizon in the first game started out pretty basic... it had some mounts to run around, most of the time you used a bow and combat could get a bit tedious if the robot was heavily armored.... but if you played the latest installment, she can have a flying mount that can also swim, she has a glider and a grappling hook as well as a futuristic weapon that I wont go into detail here because it would spoil things...but it tears through the robots.

I would also say to look back at SOTC...... which was made by Sony and way ahead of its time, it had the open world with very few enemies. Just the colossus.... I think it got a 91 on metacritic. If Nintendo made that, it would have got a 99.

And I don't think a single other publisher would have funded a game like Death Stranding.

So to label them as Ubisoft games or Ubisoft style games is really a huge disrespect for everything Sony has done in gaming IMO.

I don't intend to change your mind or anything, if you don't respect what they've done... I can;t change that.

You gradually ended up agreeing with my post.I never mentioned naughty dog or Kojima, because those are games that do not follow ubisofts approach. Kojima does games like nobody else. And naughty dog kept iterating on the 7th gen cinematic game without adding much bloat. Some survival elements on TLOU but that was it.

Modern God of war games, while not fully open world and bloated like your Ubisoft game, still have RPG lite elements that I find very ubisoftian. Specially since AC origins. God of war was character action until 2018, you just had a handful of weapons, health and magic. No crafting, no diablo like loot, no additional stats for kratos to level up.

 

[Box]

To make such huge games without some element of 'copy and paste' would be insane... so time consuming and so expensive.

The best these companies can really do is have the appearance of being unique, the appearance of being different to the others.... little tricks to make copied content seem different.
Like the smaller tombs / dungeons in Elden Ring all follow a very similar formula... much like shrines in Zelda.

The fog of war on the maps and alternative way they deal with discovering locations all help to make things feel a little unfamiliar...

In the end that was enough for many reviewers and gamers to think it was different enough and novel enough to feel fresh in comparison to other games.

It doesn't take much to break the illusion though and once you see through it, for me it happened in the snowy area of Elden Ring.... it's really not much different at all from other open world games.

It's all about presentation.

Unless we want billion dollar budgets and 15 year development times, it just isn't possible.

 

[Bryank75]

You gradually ended up agreeing with my post.I never mentioned naughty dog or Kojima, because those are games that do not follow ubisofts approach. Kojima does games like nobody else. And naughty dog kept iterating on the 7th gen cinematic game without adding much bloat. Some survival elements on TLOU but that was it.

Modern God of war games, while not fully open world and bloated like your Ubisoft game, still have RPG lite elements that I find very ubisoftian. Specially since AC origins. God of war was character action until 2018, you just had a handful of weapons, health and magic. No crafting, no diablo like loot, no additional stats for kratos to level up.

Nope, I showed you how most of the games differ vastly from Ubi games... and the ones that you THOUGHT fitted the mold are actually not like them at all and have influences that predate Ubisoft style games. (Apart from the two I mentioned)

GOW has usually had a range of weapons to collect, along with magics, relics, bows etc.... and yes, you could upgrade each weapon, usually three times. The magic was on a cooldown AND you upgraded your life bar and magic by collecting the relevant chests.

Much of this has remained the same... but I would actually say Kratos has a far smaller arsenal of weapons now, which goes counter to your point.
But he does get armor with stats....which only make a difference really in a handful of setups. Magic is on a cooldown, as it was in previous games, the bow is now used by Atreus instead of Kratos.

If you play the game, most of Kratos moves are the same or similar to the old games, only perspective changed. The only differences really are in the presentation of weapons being upgraded and that you collect items from sidequests to do that.... it adds depth to the game and makes sense in context.... instead of upgrading them by feeding souls into them in a menu.

But as I said....you can trace all these things back to the old games.

The camera in Ubisoft games is out further from the character, the combat has no feeling, it's just a set combination with numbers coming off the enemy now and there is a loot system of blue, purple and gold items that all look the same but with higher stats.... much like the Division.

The bloat you're talking about really doesn't apply to GOW, the same way it would to a modern AC game, which has areas locked behind grinding up levels to over 100 and the game can take well over 100 hours to complete and many have 200 or more hours invested in it, doing very similar missions all over an absolutely immense map that is really needlessly big.

Contrast that with GOW, which remains very video gamey.... with each realm being very unique, immediately identifiable, beautifully detailed and full of interesting things to do.... unique missions for each realm, such as dragon hunts, unfreezing trolls to fight, Barbarian fights, freeing large creatures, solving puzzles to traverse certain areas, massive bossbattles and setpieces.... basically a fantasy version of Uncharted or TLOU with a lot of OG GOW influence.
GOW also has loads of arena battles.... most battles are arena style.... so nothing like a Ubi game again. They couldn't be more different.

GOW is nothing like a Ubisoft game in any way. You're reaching.

As I said... Spider-man was there before Ubisoft games and had that structure.

Horizon and Ghost.... sure have that Ubi structure but are just superior in every way.

 

[Airbus]

Story and open world in zelda are still better

Zelda ToK will be in the running for GOTY contender this year and Ubisoft game wil not