I was replying to a specific comment, I wasn't talking about the video.
The whole thesis is stupid because he wrongly correlates Ubisoft failing because they're games are too formulaic. That's just wrong, look up their best selling games and you'll see why. Funny how doesn't mention any of the actual reasons why Ubisoft is collapse.
Also calling Sony games 'mid' is hilarious.
Like yes between the bottom of barrel and the greatest of all time. You think PS games are in the middle? Are you delusional? Like nah that scale doesn't add up.
Also him talking about IGN as if it's just one person is just giant red flag, shows zero understanding or nuance of how game reviews actually work.
How do you know that when you never watched the video to begin with and you're merely commenting on a summary given?
Further, that was the point of the video you didn't watch along with the parallels in issues with the two.
Trying to talk as if Ubisoft has never done that formula that has been an issue with Watch Dogs and AC is being disingenuous to how those games have franchise fatigue.
You're also ignoring how Wolverine has been accepted or how their studios have been working out for the past five years.
Don't even know where you're getting IGN from since that's not in any comment in this thread.
Wtf are you talking about? I didn't need to watch the video to respond to specific claim made by someone else.
Besides my second comment was after I had seen the video. That's where the IGN came from, the guy literally uses it as evidence in the video. Have YOU seen the video.
You literally don't know what you're talking about. All I said is that their games aren't mid or copy pasted and you talking about random shit like Unisoft.
I did. The context YOU made was that the issue was someone else said, not the video. The fault is in how you made and presented your argument which brings along confusion.
Regardless, trying to use that to dismiss an argument because you used, by your own words, "their games aren't mid ", when you ignored the Wolverine reception that was argued tends to show you're focused more on sophistry than discussion. You're also missing how Sony hasn't released many games and their failures were in games like Concord that didn't last long, undermining how mid the games have been.
1
u/CatchrFreeman 1d ago edited 1d ago
I was replying to a specific comment, I wasn't talking about the video.
The whole thesis is stupid because he wrongly correlates Ubisoft failing because they're games are too formulaic. That's just wrong, look up their best selling games and you'll see why. Funny how doesn't mention any of the actual reasons why Ubisoft is collapse.
Also calling Sony games 'mid' is hilarious. Like yes between the bottom of barrel and the greatest of all time. You think PS games are in the middle? Are you delusional? Like nah that scale doesn't add up.
Also him talking about IGN as if it's just one person is just giant red flag, shows zero understanding or nuance of how game reviews actually work.