In a time where games are being announced in advance on Amazon.
Are you implying anyone cares about Ubishit?
>>340355731
OMG OPEN WORLD!
>>340355731
Is this game a response to MGSV?
>>340355731
Oh boy, another completely lifeless open world game from Ubisoft! It's like I'm really playing an unfinished alpha!
>>340355731
Ghost Recon: Wildlands was announced at last years E3 though OP, even had a big trailer.
What games have been announced at Amazon? All I know was Watch Dogs 2 was confirmed, but everyone knew that was happening anyways since Ubi said will not make a game if they can't make a franchise out of it. E3 has it's own announcements, and pre E3 announcements have always been a thing, you just get the big trailer for those early announcements on E3. There are always surprises though.
I can already guess the gameplay of Wildlands
>climb to hill to download satellite info of the area
>liberate a village
>assault a compound
>repeat
I am 100% absolutely certain this will have the same type of release as Hitman.
Look at the trailers, so many biomes with big unique regions. There is no way its all connected and there is no way Ubisoft has all that ready for launch
well there's always the canned, pre rendered trailers showing "actual gameplay" that they'll pretend is some earth shattering reveal
>>340356546
>there are STILL people that get hyped by Ubisoft trailers after they've bullshot every single one as far back as I can remember
http://youtu.be/xNter0oEYxc
Seriously, how can someone still fall for it?
>>340355731
To be told what games to buy by socially progressive bloggers, duh
>>340355731
To watch corporate spokespersons flop around on stage like a fish while bring turbocringe. I can't wait for whatever audiovisual atrocity Ubisoft is going to commit this year.
>>340356953
Wildlands actually looked in game though, It didn't look youched up
>>340357691
Oh, my friend. You poor naive soul. It looks every bit as touched up as The Division.
>>340356953
now I feel really bad
>>340356953
So all the bullshots were just pre-rendered? Wouldn't that double the effort?
>>340359889
I don't think they're prerendered. I think they embellish the engine past what they're developing to make those scripted videos in those sections, then go back to their normal developing.
Alternatively, they develop the whole game in the original quality, and then drop it down massively for consoles and PC equally, as they've said before they think not doing that would give PCs an unfair advantage in graphics for whatever retarded reason.
Don't know which is more likely.
>>340355731
I want this to be good, but my expectations have been curbed.
>>340356953
R6 is probably the most egregious downgrade and yet it got the least amount of backlash. That somewhat upsets me.
>>340357691
Sure it did. The animations and visuals look buttery just like their other trailers.
>>340360410
Actually, now that I think about the Watch Dogs INI editing to restore the graphical quality, the latter seems much more likely.
>>340355731
A lot of publishers are downplaying E3 now. It makes sense, too.
For years now everything is getting leaked in advance, everyone has been mocking the presentations, and publishers have been making bigger and bigger announcements on their own, since thanks to social media, we no longer rely on big press events to get news out.
I was baffled when everyone mocked Nintendo for focusing on just Zelda at E3 this year. Nintendo has been making all their announcements through Nintendo Directs in the past few years, and it works. They're just one of many who are slowly pulling out of E3.
>>340360670
because R6 was/is still pretty good... but don't quote me on that
>>340360813
Watch Dogs editing didn't make it anywhere close to the demo
>>340355731
E3 was never about appealing to gamers, it was about appealing to retailers. Trying to entice them to pick which of their products got shelf space.
Hence why it's still a big deal. The fans may have already been sold but some big executive at target hasn't necessarily. It's going to be ultimately his decision if he buys 400,000 units or 4 of your game.
>>340356953
>there are people that still care about graphics
>>340363896
I don't care about grafix, but I still think it's reprehensible that Ubisoft and others continue to outright lie about a part of their games.
>>340363896
>excusing bullshots because you don't care about grafics
I think that image applies Mich more to you, Anon.
>>340360670
Siege is underrated because of lack of single player.
>Farcry Primal
oh yeah that was a thing that happened
hah
>>340364629
>how do we make more far crys, people?
>what if we removed guns?
>excellent! keep going!
>and uh... forced you to upgrade a camp by collecting shittons of leaves and pelts?
>brilliant! what else?
>how about we set it in the caveman days when nothing interesting happened because they were fucking cavemen?
>Johnson, you're a genius. Get this man a raise.
Arma is the only shooter that did open world right.
Just try and prove me wrong.
>>340356953
This video makes me fucking angry. Watch_Dogs and The Division looked so good early on.
>>340366175
how bout the first ghost recon
>>340366175
I mean, if we're counting ArmA as open world, BF1942, 2, and 2142 should count too.
>>340361637
>>340364412
Don't get me wrong, I play Siege and enjoy it. But between the poor value proposition and that downgrade - which was a bit of a revelation to me since I didn't pay attention to the game pre-release - it just upsets me that no one until this video has really compared the original E3 footage to what we ended up getting.
>>340366175
No, Stalker is
>>340363896
>implying graphics are the only thing that's bullshot
Animations, special effects like environmental destruction, gameplay mechanics. Textures and lighting are just the start.
>>340355731
Ubisoft ruined Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six, fuck them
>>340367569
I got hyped from watching the video from back then and it just makes me feel bad how some features (or lack thereof) just make it so hard to play for beginners/casuals.
I know Ubi owns the rights to it for video games, but doesn't it seem weird for them to market games using a dead man's name?
>>340368108
I've come to really love anything Tom Clancy over the years, books or games.
Heck, I'll even read the crap from Mark Greaney if he puts Tom Clancy in the book title
>>340368108
Brand recognition. They're trying to make "Tom Clancy's" their Call of Duty or Battlefield. Unfortunately it's just become a red flag to avoid the game at all costs for a lot of people.
>>340355731
E3 is for investors and other people involved in the "trade" aspect of video games.
Personally I like getting hyped about gaming news and technology and only get a couple chances to do so each year (especially since i play games a year or two after launch).
>>340368404
My friend, this is not something you should be proud of.
Why don't you guys just watch the streams. In SIGGRAPH and save yourselves the embarrassment?
>>340368608
why the heck not, I like the world-building Tom Clancy has done in the books.
it's pretty hard to let go of a fictional universe when you're hooked by several great books about it.
this is what makes people read Dune books even after Frank Herbert died. they may be gosh darn terrible, but they're something from the Dune universe so sometimes that's all you can ask for.
>>340368854
That's very strange. When an author dies, unless they specifically name someone to continue their work in good faith, I stop reading new titles in it. It'd be equivalent to reading fan fiction.
>>340369143
honestly speaking, most, if not all of Tom Clancy's last several books before he passed away were co-written by one or two authors, who I think for the most part, agreed with him or wrote in the same style or did as much research.
and in these cases I think these co-authors did the bulk of the writing while Tom Clancy just said 'okay this sounds great'. David Michaels wrote Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell books and Mark Greaney did the Jack Ryan Jr. books.
they're honestly not so bad.
