Open World Games: Bethesda vs Ubisoft

With the latest Assassin's Creed game come and gone and with Fallout 4 just on the horizon I wanted to talk about the ways that Ubisoft and Bethesda design their open world games. Because having been replaying Skyrim and Assassin's Creed 2 lately I couldn't help but think how differently these two games were from each other and why I could play one for hours on end and had to take lots of breaks in between play sessions for the other one. Neither of these games are bad, but I do think that one makes use of its wide open world much better than the other one.

All of Assassin's Creed's protagonists. I think Ubisoft needs to be more creative with their character designs.

Let's start by talking about the Assassin Creed games. The original Assassin's Creed at it heart was a stealth game about collecting information on targets in an open world environment before going to actually kill said target in interesting little mission. Assassin's Creed 1 has a lot of interesting ideas that were sadly undermined by a lot of repetitive objectives that you do over and over again with very little change over the course of the game. It wasn't until Assassin's Creed 2 that it began to iron out all of the major issues. The repetitive mission structure was replaced with linear story missions that did a great job of mixing up what the player was doing in each mission. There were still repetitive missions that served little purpose, but they were now side objectives that you didn't need to complete to finish the game and some of them like the Glyph Puzzles and the Assassin Tombs were great fun. Ubisoft finally perfected it's open world formula with Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood which gave the side objectives a greater purpose by liberating more of the map for you to explore.

The map of Ubisoft's Far Cry 4. It may look big, but most of the stuff you can do in this game is mostly indistinct.

However, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood marked the end of Ubisoft's innovations in their open world formula and the beginning of their annualization of the Assassin's Creed franchise. From Assassin's Creed Revelations onward Ubisoft has basically made the same base game with very little distinguishing each individual over the last few years. If that weren't bad enough the Ubisoft Open World Formula, as it has come to be known, has bleed over into their other franchises as well. From Far Cry to Watch Dogs all of Ubisoft's games now follow the same basic formula. That formula being; got to the top of a high vantage point to reveal more of the map, do every little thing that the map reveals, and then the first two things about twenty times over. There are still story mission that help break up the repetition, but even those are blurring into each other now with set pieces being copied from from each of their separate franchises. There is also the fact that everything in the game is a check list that you have to complete like finding every weapon or killing one of every animal the game world. It is made even more infuriating by the fact that some of the check list items can only be obtained by preordering the damn games from several different outlets to clear all the check boxes. As of this writing the most recent entry into the Assassin's Creed series, Assassin's Creed: Syndicate has had mediocre review scores and lower sales than previous years. People are getting tired of an Assassin's Creed game every year and are hungering for something new.

Concept art of Skyrim which emphasizes the size and scope of the world. 

In vast contrast with Ubisoft's over-saturation of it's open world game series, Bethesda spends up to five years making just one entry into it's major open world franchises. The Elder Scrolls and Fallout series alternate between each other and offer fresh new experiences every time a new one is released. The way Bethesda designs it's open world games is also very differently than Ubisoft. Where Ubisoft's open world games focus on either having you run through a linear story with a bunch of repetitive side objectives to fill out check boxes,  Bethesda drops you into a huge open world and asks you to make your own stories. While Bethesda's games do have a main quest that you can follow the real joy comes from simply exploring to your hearts content. There are no vantage points you have to climb to reveal more of the map, no check lists for you to complete, and no day one DLC you have to worry about buying. That is why I enjoy playing Skyrim and Fallout 3 much more than playing Assassin's Creed 3 or Far Cry 3. Because I feel that I am exploring a world at my own pace and that I can forge my own path.

Fallout 3's Capitol Wasteland is a massive place that you can explore to your heart's content.

I know for a fact that Fallout 4 will be great, but that doesn't mean I think it's going to be perfect. I have problems with Bethesda games just like I have problems with Ubisoft games. Bethesda games tend to have lots of technical issues and pretty underwhelming graphics. But the point I'm trying to make is that Bethesda does a much better job at making open world games and that they understand the value of player freedom even if it means undermining other elements of their games. Ubisoft on the other hand has an issue of copy and pasting the same basic formula over all of their games and they really need to give their Assassin's Creed series a break so they can come back with fresh ideas. I hope that Ubisoft's new Far Cry game Far Cry Primal breaks away from a lot of the issues that have been plaguing their games lately. I want to enjoy a Ubisoft open world game again and not just sigh every time I have to climb up a radio tower to reveal more of the map form an millionth time.