Tryzon's Nostalgic Gaming Trips
Rant #3
Ubisoft: geniuses or fools?
There aren?t many developers that I can say I am a true fan of, mainly because what a company releases can vary wildly in theme and content. There are, however, certain exceptions: Pandemic, with Destroy All Humans! (the first two, namely the GOOD ones), Mercenaries, and Star Wars: Battlefront (not the upcoming one, mind); Free Radical (now Crytek UK), with their Timesplitters series and the lesser-known psychic intrigue adventure Second Sight; finally there?s Rockstar, who make a certain popular crime series that everyone?s played, although their latest instalment came out a bit...bland. Honourable mention goes to Neversoft, who have proven highly capable one the rare occasion they stop with the damn skateboarding. Tony Hawk?s is fun, but have you SEEN how many of the things there are?
Anyway, while I have almost endless respect for those select few organisations that are not only recognised but also welcomed by myself, I have mixed feelings towards Ubisoft. Few companies can consistently pump out clever ideas, but Ubisoft have proved themselves to be contenders in the past, and earned significant praise from me. But then we hit that ***** in the metaphorical road: sequels. I have nothing against sequels which actually accomplish something, and a consistently successful series of titles can help finance a studio?s other, more imaginative projects. That said, sequels can be a massive drag, with the endlessly mediocre Tomb Raider (Indiana Jones, my arse) and the genetically identical FIFA, whose annual appearances I consider as much a part of the year as the first leaves of spring or the last hot day just before three months of classically inconsistent British weather. From my experience, Ubisoft has yet to fall down either of these traps, although they have undoubtedly opened up a whole new tin of rancid worms. I have no idea if the process has a name of any sort, so let?s just call it ?POP fever?, after Prince of Persia, the timeless example of the phenomenon.
2003. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Not only a very good game, but also a landmark title: name a single other 2D game series that was given a decent 3D revamp, let alone an excellent one. Oh wait, Rayman...yet another Ubisoft franchise! Good save, mate. Good save...
2004. Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. Retaining the addictive platforming of the original and much improving the semi-broken fighting, Warrior Within was damn-near the perfect follow-up. In fact, if it wasn?t for the now infamously baffling change of tone from bright and magical to dark and laughably angst-ridden (think Spider-Man 3, albeit sans the cringe-worthiest scene since Attack of the Clones showed the world that the reason Anakin went evil was that he was a whiney, annoying, unlikable, socially inept and ?perhaps most of all- stupid excuse for a galactic saviour) in one swift move that seemed designed to alienate the small but enthusiastic fanbase, I would have to say that it is my favourite of the trilogy. Of particular note is the most backwards-thinking antagonist ever, who tries to prevent her death at the hands of the Prince by attacking him, even after he says that he wants nothing to do with her and is just trying to escape the godforsaken island. Fantastic writing, there.
So what the hell happened? They made a mistake, is all. Shocking is the news may be, people make mistakes on a regular basis. Just search ?FAIL? on Google if you need further persuasion. Of course, clever people learn from their mistakes and adjust accordingly.
2005. Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones. What?s the tone? Sunny with an undercurrent of evil, just like the first time round. Lovely. Dialogue and new gameplay elements? Er...less good.
Against all odds, Ubisoft had almost repaired the damage done by Warrior Within, only to lump yet more issues on top. Of course this time the problems were not only presentation-based, but also rooted in gameplay. Innovation is great thing, and not nearly common enough these days, but I am opposed to change for the sake of change. Most of the time, all I want from a sequel is more levels, maybe a few new weapons, a character editing mode is temporarily distracting...you know, the standard package. What I never want to see is a company who evidently is unaware of what made an exceptional game an exceptional game.
Ubisoft is the embodiment of that company. They have the uncanny knack for coming up with interesting concepts that work well, only to stuff them up later. And don?t get me started on the 2008?s confusingly titled Prince of Persia, which spectacularly failed to even resemble a proper game, and more a maddening high-budget 3D art project.
Rayman? Neat 2D escapade in the days when 3D was becoming the dominant force. Rayman 2? Damn-near classic journey through a sea of entertaining ideas and memorable set-pieces. Rayman 3? Quite remarkably average, only with added unbearable NPCs who followed you through the entire game.
Splinter Cell? Back when it seemed only Hideo Kojima had the know-how to make a stealth-em-up, Ubisoft created their very own tale of tactical espionage action. Splinter Cell 2? More of the same with minimal additions, but significantly more frustrating. More like a lengthy expansion than a true continuation. Splinter Cell 3? Ironed out the chinks in the armour, old and new, giving birth to what was basically the ultimate competitor to Metal Gear?s title. Major innovations included better means of dispatching foes, and a revolutionary sound-meter, which told you for the first time how noisy you were, and whether the background ruckus would be enough to warrant running along those creeky floorboards while firing shotgun shells at a line of china vases filled with fireworks. Splinter Cell 4? A very simple mistake: they completely ruined the HUD. The brightness meter which had proved invaluable and without fault since the series? debut? Replaced by imprecise traffic lights. The wonderful sound bar I just praised? Gone without a trace. Oh the rest of the game may be fine and dandy, but if two essential gizmos have vanished, what are you left with? POP fever.
Do you see my point yet? Ubisoft is a big force in the industry, and far beyond capable when they can get their heads round the right way, but something about sequels just doesn?t agree with them. Some of their stand-alone projects remain among their best to this day, probably because they never had a chance to cock everything up. Prominent examples are XIII, King Kong, Beyond Good & Evil. I am particularly fond of King Kong (Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie, if you want the ridiculously long name), which is one of the rarest games of all: a great movie adaptation.
While most of the titles tainted by POP fever remain good games, it is impossible not to think that they could have been even better. As mentioned, Warrior Within is my favourite Prince of Persia, featuring just the right mix of combat and puzzling, as well as a good twist on the basis mechanics during about a fifth of the game running up to the conclusion, and the only title I know of that has the alternative ending be considered canon. What I also like is the fact that of the trilogy, only Warrior Within has the Prince in a totally alien environment from his perspective, which gives the location an eerie sense of foreboding menace, as if the very castles, cliffs and spires want him dead...over and over...in slow motion. Sands of Time takes place mainly in a palace much like the one that the Prince grew up in, and Two Thrones features a warped version of his home town. Both of those are familiar to him, and so not inherently sinister.
Ubisoft, I have a real love-hate relationship with you, and while I hate to say it, you are to blame. Don?t stop making Prince of Persia, Rayman, or Splinter Cell, just do them properly. Yeah, Raving Rabbids is a means of shutting the toddlers up for an hour or two, but a once-mighty hero like Rayman deserves better than what is basically no more dignified an appearance than a cart racer. Since the October-due Rabbids Go Home does not have Rayman anywhere in it, rumours have been circulating that Rayman 4 could be what follows that. If so, a word of advice: make Rayman 2, only with different levels, more Lums, more crazy flying sections and so forth. Hell, just make the graphics PS1-quality. If people REALLY cared about gameplay over visuals then such an act would be acceptable. Of course, you would have to spend the time not used up drawing pretty effects creating a zany and psychedelic game. Have we got a deal, then?
