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?
Shaz from GL writes: "Assassin’s Creed Unity is looked at as one of the worst in Ubisoft’s iconic franchise. But playing it nearly 10 years later reveals it may just be the best"
Small video game maps that are packed with things to do are better than huge but empty maps. Here are five small but brilliant maps in games.
GF365: "Since the first Assassin’s Creed game, there have been entries up until now. There are more than a few titles that are far from an ideal stealth game. Let’s discuss why 2014’s Assassin’s Creed Unity is one of the best games in the series."
Glitchy as hell and flat story, nah this aint it. AC2, brotherhood and 4 were amazing games in every respective
After constant glitches Arno being boring nah I am good I skipped Unity. I will always like the Ezio trilogy, Black Flag, Rogue, Odyssey, Syndicate. I use to love the franchise but now it feels stale and boring. But my list of favorite entries into the franchise will vary from other players favorite entries.
It’s funny because, at launch, it was universally panned for being unplayable. It’s a great game that holds up today. I’m glad they fixed it.
The only good things i remember from Unity are pretty graphics and really good descending mechanics (even though it sometimes didn't make much sense, when your character can drop down from like 10 meter height onto a flagpole perfectly).
Game is glitchy to this day, i was playing in it years after the release date (with all the DLCs) and it's still broken. You had to reload missions too often for my taste (characters do not spawn, you fall through the floor, getting stuck in falling/sitting/aiming animation, hidden blade stop working, assassination target running away at the start of the mission). Story was meh, searching for all the treasures wasn't enjoyable at all. Coop was pretty much useless, i've beaten every coop mission in solo. Helix rifts were awful as well.
Not saying i hate this game or anything, but it got too many problems.
Assassin's Creed (i know it's a controversial opinion) and Assassin's Creed 2 are still great to this day.
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.
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
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.