Now that Ubisoft has issued multiple patches that fixed many of the glaring issues in Assassin’s Creed Unity, should critics offer a second analysis?
No, they shouldn't, and for multiple reasons. Firstly, Ubisoft lifted the review embargo till after the game was out. That means that this wasn't a case of outlets reviewing the game under unrealistically accommodating conditions like what happens with a lot of online-focused games like SimCity or Titanfall. They reviewed the exact product that consumers got. Hell, livestreams of retail copies of the game bought by regular folks were airing BEFORE the reviews were even out. Secondly and most importantly, Ubisoft delivered this game in this state and the reviewers reviewed it as such. Ubisoft should not get a second chance here. They willingly released a buggy and broken game to meet a rushed holiday date. Ubisoft management didn't release it against their will. I'm sure there were people on the dev team who knew this game was unfinished and were unhappy with it, but the publisher suits wanted this game done to meet the holiday rush, so the devs couldn't argue against it without losing their jobs. Ubisoft messed up here and the reviews should continue to stand as proof of their mess-up. No do-overs.
I couldn't agree with you less.
Why...I feel that a game should be reviewed at launch. And that's it. No second review. True they've patched the game and that's great but it doesn't count when you know they know they've released a incomplete game. If anything they should have delayed it. Period.. Yeah gamers would have raged but at least would have had a finished product. Second review no......if so then why not re-review every patched game then? Halo and drive club had bad online launches....but at least the single player worked...not many 2nd reviews for them...I say release a working game period. DC and hao had online problems but were in noway broken. This game was released fully broken....the bad reviews should stand.
You think a buggy game deserves to be reviewed again when its been patched? Pathetic!
According to digital foundry this game is still a mess. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Absolutely. Re-reviewing it would mean nothing.
It hasn't been a mess for me. Especially after the patches it's a pretty solid game. I haven't had any real issues with it. Glitchy NPCs at times, but that's about it. Oh, I'm playing the PC version. But I've also played the PS4 version and that didn't seem like a mess either. The framerate can get a little wonky in places, but that is par for the course with most Assassin's Creed games on consoles.
Re reviewing could make the game worse.They'd say the game is bad even after 3 successive patches.So it could get lesser scores.This is better.
That second statement can easily be argued with Halo MCC and CODAW both were released in broken and buggy states but they got 10s. Why does this get trashed on because of bugs (which is reasonable) but those games get a free pass. No they shouldn't change reviews because a review is an unbiased review of the game, if the game is broken or buggy to the point it hinders gameplay than it is going to reflect as a bad game.
Difference I see between this and MCC at least is that 343 at least have plausible excuse in that all the problems were matchmaking side and it's almost impossible to accurately simulate matchmaking for 1000s of people at the same time. Ubi on the other hand knew with 100% accuracy just how bad AC was at launch and released it anyway. Both are bad and imho, put a huge downer on an already disappointing year.
Online aspects having problems, is not equal to an entire game being a buggy mess. Many people marked Halo: MCC lower for it's online issues, however, it's 4 single player campaigns were still fine. Unity was a mess all around. Now tell me is this equal. Game 1: Online matchmaking issues. vs. Game 2: Players falling through the game world, rendering glitches causing faces to distort and look skeletal, consistent framerate drops, players getting locked in animation loops, the game freezing forcing players to hard reset, co-op matches are broken, players have reported dying in a co-op mission and being stuck out of the entire match and framerate crawling into single digits, and that's only the stuff I can think of off the top of my head. This game was a broken mess, and it should not be rewarded with a second chance, because it teaches developers it's okay to releases broken games and simply patch them later.
Unless these re-reviews turned into an industry-wide practice that encompass every game, then no. What's the point of giving one game a re-review when other games, especially those that don't bring a lot of viewers, don't get a chance? While the media is calling for re-reviews, a similar system is already present with user reviews like in Steam's customer reviews. Most recent example of how useful this feature is is during Steam' Exploration Sale. Battlestation Pacific is in my wishlist and it was discounted heavily but a quick glance at the the most recent customer review below mentioned it is unplayable now because of the dead GFWL. Another would be Fallout 3 that have always warned potential buyers that it is not compatible with Windows 7 and 8 but the latest user review gave posted a quick fix to those crashing problems.
As an owner of a digital copy of Unity, your first point is enough to merit an "agree." 100% this^ brother. I played it the week between when it came out, and GTA/Inquisition released, and have been waiting for my fellow consumers to tell me that it is in acceptable working order, before I play it again.
Well said. They can't have it both ways.
Don't you think the review should reflect the product you may be interested in buying in its current state?
If that's the case, we should re-review every game currently on the market, judging them by their current incarnations. Also, every new patch means that a game would need to be reviewed again.
Suppose I were in a position where I had no internet and had to purchase this game @ retail, I would be SUPER MAD! I hope future Ubisoft products reflect this bs in its sales. -1 here
A game should be slated day 1 by reviewers if buggy as hell in fact I don't think reviewers are harsh enough on devs about bugs and glitches. I think gamers need to know about these things the unity bugs and glitches are the sole reason I didn't buy this game. Was really looking forward to the game as love co-op games and instead bought FIFA with the money I saved up for assassins creed. I refuse to pay devs who release a game in this state and other gamers should too. Whoever bought it should be ashamed of themselves. Your encouraging devs to keep doing stuff like this and it's wrong and it's us gamers who lose out in the end. Stand up for this crap and do it with your wallet dammit.
No. Ubisoft deserve no quarter.
Better title: Should publishers get paid for releasing obviously buggy games?
this is the best AC since 2, so yeah
Agreed. I'm sure some people legitimately are having issues, but I haven't had any problems playing the game, other than some glitchy NPCs. It's one of the best games in the series in my opinion. I've honestly had more issues with Far Cry 4 and Dragon Age Inquisition on PC than with AC Unity.
Unfortunately people dont care about gamers who actually dont have bugs in the game Quick to hate Ubisoft and blinded by it too, they think all of them are shit.
Omg this AC was horrible.
Does it really make that much difference? I think it came out before it was ready since they had to meet the deadline for the Xbox one bundle, which also might be why they focused a little more on the Xbox one version.
Hmm, me thinks you has a point...
Nope. They released it as finished on that day. Well, I guess they could take a look back to see what was fixed, and maybe put an "update" for it, but the review should be as it stands. Because the review tells us what to expect on day one when we buy from a company.
No Do Overs!
Yeah rereviewing this game would give it credit that Ubisoft doesnt deserve. I am all for developers fixing issues that games have but in this case there were so many terrible issues that it cost the game dearly and people have moved on. Would rather play Shadow of Mordor, Dragon Age Inquisition, and Super Smash bros U than this broken mess.
I think a better question is how many gamers still purchase games based on reviewers opinions? I'd actually love to see numbers on this.
I would like to see this too, but I'm afraid it would be a much higher number than I'd like. I stopped trusting reviews back in 2001, I was 13 and old enough to figure out if I was going to like a game or not myself.
Of course not, they launched the game in a somewhat broken state, and took a few weeks to patch it up. A responsible game publisher should have taken these few weeks to make sure the game would be as bug-free as it can be at launch. I could see why review scores could be changed when it comes to server issues, as these are expected when millions of people try to log in the servers at the same time and will go away on their own after a while. But launching a buggy or a content-lacking game and expecting a new review once patches start rolling out is unacceptable. No one put gun to Ubisoft's head to force them to launch Unity before it was ready; it's a decision they made, and it's only fair for them to live with it.
No, they shouldn't. If anything review points should be taken off depending on how long it takes to fix a game post-release. Ubisoft released a flawed game, its their fault. Don't want bad scores? Don't release a rushed and broken game.
The only games that i feel should have ongoing reviews or a rereview is an MMO. Any other type of game should get that one and only review. That includes remasters.
I absolutely feel releasing unfinished games that need day one patches to make them playable needs to stop. I also feel as gamers we need to support the industry we are so passionate about. If no one plays or enjoys a game because of a bad initial review, no one wins. The lost sales from launch due to negative press should be more than enough incentive to not release a game this unfinished again. Boycotting a game you may enjoy isn't helping anyone.
This article seems like it's out trying to disprove the FAIl that ACU was and is.....really a game out the gate is oh so important and ACU stumbled and failed....first impressions are lasting... If you look deeper into this mess you will see the real reasons why it was rushed.... Fall 2014/Black Friday/bundles game should of been delayed by atleast a year or 6 months now they are paying the price....no need to re-review games still a mess
The game still broken.
If that happens, then I want that B**** at IGN to review Little Big Planet 3 again.
If you ship a broken game and get a shitty score, eat it and do better next time
The industry had changed since the day I was folding around with my floppy of Wolfe's tainted 3D. And sadly not for the better. In the older time cartridges didn't had the ability to patch bugs and issues and I remember few certain games on my Sega genesis and Nintendo that sadly would break the game. Those were rare circumstances however, majority of the time games were finished, no paid dlc or other nonsense and expansion packs were free and actually added hours of content. I don't even want to start with today's age of gaming developers and publishers power and money hungry industry which only got more greedy thanks to the popularity of quick easy money that smartphones age brought on us. You think not finished games are bad, which they are, just wait few more years, it already started but micro transactions will play a even more gruesome role in our gaming hobby. Sadly, until we as gamers don't start voting our wallets not much will change for the better..
Like most people said, and I am no longer supporting Ubisoft buying their games new. My copy of Unity will be grabbed off the used rack at GameStop on my next visit, and if I beat it within a week or still find the game a buggy mess I will return it.
No, there should be no re-do's. But this game IS very good, I had a great time with it, the graphics are stunning, and I look forward to the free DLC.
No do-overs, you reap what you sow. If this game gets a re-review, it pretty much tells devs and publishers "sure, release your broken game, we're okay with that and will recommend it to our friends, so long as you fix the bugs after." It's a real shame that it was released in the state it was, because a lot of people put a lot of hard work into it.
Short answer, no. Long answer.............. NO! Publishers should face the consequences of releasing unfinished games at their worst! Either way, I'm sure Unity was nothing short of a financial success. Which saddens me, because A, people keep buying yearly releases and B, because why in hell would you still play Assassin's Creed? It's been literally the same game since Brotherhood (because of the inclusion of a big city to explore).
Gameplay wise this is the best AC yet. I love the level of character customization they have put in the game. However, post patch you still come across bugs, and they are annoying, it does sour try experience a bit. so I think the current score of 73 is a fair reflection
I don't think so. I live in a rural area and don't have access to high speed internet. Therefore patches are non existent to me. A game I pay good money for has to be good from the get go. So when I pick up a copy of Unity, it will be when its under ten dollars at gamestop.
nope. iam done with AC as well as COD forever.
People are stupid af, when I said "I couldn't agree with you less." that means I full agree with him... which is you know, the CORRECT way of saying it (in terms of English grammar). Stupid idiots downvoting me as they're too stupid to know proper English.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.