Ben-DutkaI would like to explain and clarify before proceeding:
I've been reviewing video games for 15 years. I have never felt the need to retract a review, although I have made mistakes in my analysis (though none so grievous as to warrant a complete retraction). I have issued reviews based on games I did not complete and despite what the obscenely righteous will say, you're unlikely to find any critic who has completed every game he or she has reviewed. Most times, it's simply not realistic for a wide variety of reasons (lack of resources for the publication, sheer lack of time, etc.).
Secondly, this is not an attack on Ubisoft. In fact, I'm one of their biggest supporters and I appreciate their ambition in new IPs like Watch Dogs . I will add that I'm a huge fan of the Assassin's Creed franchise, so this isn't a personal vendetta against the series. Now, in regards to my review , let me be clear: I stand by the sentiments of the review , although I must now retract the overall score. I will not issue a new review and I won't change that score; I don't believe that's the right thing to do. Rather, I'm offering this editorial to all gamers out there.
You may call it unprofessional if you wish. You can say I should've played the game longer or thought about it for an extended period of time before providing the reading public with a review. Personally, I don't believe I should have to play a game for 50 hours before I start questioning things. But regardless of my beliefs and how I approach my reviews, I'm in the wrong. When you write for a gaming website, you really have to produce reviews quickly if you want to remain competitive; whether gamers don't understand this or don't wish to accept it, I don't know. And it's irrelevant, anyway. What matters is that Assassin's Creed Unity didn't deserve a 9.
I still believe we should reward ambition in this industry. It's the only way we'll progress. I still say much of what we see in Unity is wonderfully ambitious and even astounding. However, after playing for a very long time, I've had to accept some harsh truths: First, while I knew Arno was too "sticky" from the start, I never realized just how much of a problem that could be, especially in the last few missions of the game, and in some of the harder Co-Op and Heist missions. In regards to the obvious technical issues, I can only say that they never bothered me too much; this retraction is not due to those problems. They factor into my decision, but those well-publicized glitches didn't dictate for me.
Up next is the fact that the more you play, the more you feel manipulated. You don't really find out until later that there's no way to earn all the Skill points you require simply by sticking to the single-player missions. Co-Op missions offer way more Skill points and while you can play them solo, they're quite difficult without allies. In order to open Initiate chests, you have to have a Uplay account; in order to open Nomad chests, you have to download (and extensively play) the Companion App; in order to see all the collectibles on the map, you have to use Helix points to snag Time Saver Packs. And as nobody can seem to figure out how to reliably earn Helix points, Ubisoft unsurprisingly asks you to pay for them. Prior to this game, viewpoints unlocked these collectibles and optional missions; now, viewpoints unlock less than half.
Parts of the main game are closed off if you don't get the Dead Kings Expansion. This includes the Guillotine Guns, various pieces of equipment, and a different section of the map; you can see these when you play the game, but you're told several times that in order to access them, you have to get the DLC in question. Granted, that DLC is now free, but only because Ubisoft so badly botched the launch; they originally intended for the DLC to be premium. Except, that's not an expansion. That's something else you need to unlock more of what appears to be the base game. This is wrong. This is the kind of practice we really can't encourage in developers and publishers these days and again, it's not the kind of thing I really noticed until after playing for many hours.
I didn't realize how much Ubisoft wanted you to be "connected" or how devious they were in essentially forcing you to play multiplayer. I will admit that you don't have to do all these things if you wish to simply zip through and finish the game. But really, that's not what an open-world sandbox game is about; almost nobody races through and does nothing else. In this case, it seems like most every optional thing in Unity has a string attached. I've been reflecting on the game as a whole for weeks now. I've tried to convince myself that the original score I handed out is justified, for a number of legitimate reasons. But if I sat down to review it now, after discovering everything that I've discovered, would I assign the same score? The answer, unfortunately, is no. As such, I'm issuing a retraction for the score although not the entire analysis, as a lot of that remains sound.
I'm sure this won't go over well with everyone, especially Ubisoft, but at least my conscience will be clear. 🙂
You can talk about the update all you want. On day one, for all players, it was clear that content in the game was locked and without the upcoming expansion, you wouldn't get it.
Awesome nick! The guy in Mass Effect, right?
Yes sir. I never post much anymore, but I used to be semi active on here a couple years ago.
I have watched Ben throw accusations towards Ubi and users. I've watched him be dismissive and hostile but most of all I have watched him be hypocritical and phony.
Who retracts a review and leaves the review WITH SCORE up? Answer, someone who wants the traffic, someone who lines his sidebar in footer with click bait terms (some may call that a cash grab or deceptive – a theme in this article).
Ignore common sense brought to you, flame your users and be as harsh as you want as it is your site. I for one will be more careful to not follow click bait to this site or dream of engaging in a reasonable discussion with the proprietor. It was noble though to SAY you retracted your review. Congrats on that I guess and the micro-spike of traffic it produced.
readerExtreme, you are reposting a comment you made not one hour before, with the same content? what has that net you?
I loved the game and had a ton of fun with it. There is so much content you could play it for well over 100 hours. Arno was great along with the coop missions. This was my favorite AC. I will get the Platinum however I am lost and in love with FFXIVARR right now. I played through ACU as a heavy fighter and it was very rewarding. Nothing like lifting the enemies off their feet. Sorry you didn't enjoy it as much as I did.
You're a good man, Ben. Bravo to your honesty and the admittance of your mistakes in the review score.
I commend this article Ben. I have never seen you do something like this in the 5 years I have been coming here. Takes some guts and I respect that.
I also agree with what you are saying about the game. Ubisoft screwed this one up.
Thanks. 🙂
It is always refreshing when someone tries to stand up for what they believe and make right for what they perceive as being "wrong" on their own part.
However, this article is all over the place. It is a complete slam on Ubisoft, even if it is disclaimed otherwise. The same admittedly flawed (from the start) game was initially rated a 9 is now subject to a partial retraction for transgressions that were largely included in the game as it was reviewed.
There are two issues in play here. First, these AAA studios spitting out sub-par AAA games over and over. Second, the marriage of "journalism" to these products is a predominantly one-way street.
Ubisoft has been on a roll of late with their issues. Watchdogs, AC, Far Cry, Monopoly, etc. These are games that mostly look great, play great and are in some way(s) broken. This screams unfinished. Then in their case (as well as others') they want to combine their $60 games with the same microtransaction model found in freemium games. When you take a highly hyped game that is broken and tries to nickel and dime people, you have a bad experience.
The problem here in the initial & retracted review is that this game was graded high as Ubisoft expected. It was broken. It had announced DLC. It was integrated in UPLAY. It was known that multiplayer could enhance the single player experience. Bottom line, this game is exactly what it was in design back when it was a 9. All the retraction does is say "I changed my mind because I played it more and I like it less".
This is not to say that Ubisoft is right for the way they make games. They should obviously fix the broken items BEFORE release and certainly before they try to ask for more money on the same broken product. Many people do not like invasive nature of signing up for yet another service like UPLAY or being thrown into games with strangers (assuming there are some that only play single player games).
That said, they made the game playable without needing the companion app or the multiplier or the DLC or most of the extras. If you don't like them, play without them. Simple. You are not being mislead or cheated. If you want the full experience, pony up. Buy the deodorant to get the unique code there and soak the whole game up.
The days of buying a NEW game with one price tag on one day and having the complete experience are mostly over. It has been proven time and time again that DLC, expansions, promotional items, power ups, etc. come down the road later (or same day) to make your experience better. It is time to adjust the way you look at games if you haven't taken this into account.
The truth is that reviewers will continue to get games for free, go to release events and continue to throw up favorable scores. The masses in turn will look to those "trusted" sources for advice on what to buy and see a "9" and spend their money. Perhaps if the review was thorough or truthful, less people would be inclined to buy the game and then the companies will be called to task for their unfinished work?
i think when it comes to AAA games that are household names in recognition review scores don't have much of effect. Destiny sold amazingly. Cod has always sold well over the last few years with or without critical praise. Heck AW was one of the highest praised CoD games in a while and it sold worse. Look at Pokemon or Skylanders they sell amazing and they're never praised critically
I believe Hollywood and video games share some parallels in what sells best isn't always what rates best.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 1/17/2015 2:35:06 PM
I'd have to disagree with you. These reviews are crucial to the companies and it is obvious how they view them. In the cases of some games that think they will not review favorably, they hold the review embargo until AFTER the game comes out. If people were made aware of how bad a product is, a portion of them will sit it out or wait for the fixes.
See Halo MCC, see the $30 AC UNity prices, etc.
The Hollywood analogy is not that close of one. A $10 & 2 hour investment is a lot easier to swallow than $60 and hours-days of your time. Plus Hollywood can recoup on rentals, streaming, downloads, DVD/Blu, tv, syndication, etc. Games get a crack or two at it.
This was not the main point of my tldr; post though.
I'm sure it matters but it doesn't seem to matter as much for some games as others. Games that don't have a high profile recognition can still get by just fine with lower scores. Of course publishers will do whatever they can to mitigate bad press but it's not the dead ringer like it is for other games.
Games below that status need the scores. Games like Demon's Souls would've never had succeeded had it scored 6's or 7's, whereas Destiny has succeeded just fine without the praise.
Similarly Transformers movies don't need the critics either to be the best selling movies. My point really didn't have anything to do with cost or duration of time and many of the best rated games do see deep price cuts and sales within a season of time. I've had the occasion a number of times to get Dragon Age inquisition for $30…. a high rated game.
EDIT: and there was a time when gaming was less mainstream that any game that rated high was always the most popular in console land. These days that's not always the case.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 1/17/2015 3:31:28 PM
Typo. I meant to say games that DO have a high profile recognition etc etc
The last part tells me all I need to know. Like most gamers, you actually believe that journalists and critics in the field have zero integrity and will give a game a higher score because they get stuff for free. We're not 8 years old. Nobody falls for that and publishers don't expect us to. And then this:
"The problem here in the initial & retracted review is that this game was graded high as Ubisoft expected. It was broken. It had announced DLC. It was integrated in UPLAY. It was known that multiplayer could enhance the single player experience. Bottom line, this game is exactly what it was in design back when it was a 9. All the retraction does is say "I changed my mind because I played it more and I like it less"."
All wrong. For a long period of time, there's really no way of knowing just how intrusive these things are. Even hardcore, long-time Assassin's Creed players would assume viewpoints would unlock all the collectibles on the screen. And until you play for a long time, you don't start to realize how far behind you're lagging in Skill Points if you don't do the Co-Op missions, which offer more – sometimes twice as many – SP as any single-player mission.
But I don't really feel the need to clarify. The insulting bit at the end really did tell me all I need to know.
It is unfortunate that you took one small piece and neglected the rest. I made a generalization about the well-documented issue of (indirect) pay for play. There is a reason for the trips, unlimited drink tabs, 5-star hotels and unprecedented access. It works.
There is plenty of journalistic integrity and nowhere did I call to question yours. I did not say you were 8 or gave it a good score because it was free. If anything I made generalizations about some reviewers. If that doesn't apply to you, that is great.
That said, if all you took from that was "the insult" then you missed what it was really about. How this game was some massive deception or crippled-by-pay-gate software. It was a broken game that can ENHANCED by all the goofy OPTIONAL extras.
I agree with you that these things hamper the "full experience". I think their practices of late are TERRIBLE (caps essential). But they aren't fooling anybody. There is no secret that there was DLC planned, that buying shaving gel got you a special outfit, that syncing with Unity added to it, etc. It's too much and it sucks to have to go through all the hoops… but you weren't duped. If anything the inflated reviews are as much responsible for the expectations to execution disconnect. If a game rates as a 9, one would think it would function properly.
There is a big problem in the industry. Do you trust companies like Ubi who you claim a deceitful? Do you trust reviews that may be changed later after the game is played more? Do you blindly spend the $60 and hope the company made a quality product and that the reviews tell the whole story? It is hard to tell.
You wrote a lot, but the content to your message wasn't as lengthy.
@Underdog15
"You wrote a lot, but the content to your message wasn't as lengthy."
I'm not sure what the point of that was just as you clearly missed the points I made. You wrote very little, but the content didn't exist.
You know Ben you're alright.
I don't care what Underdog says about you.
Ben, nothing wrong with changing your views on a game. You initial review was honest at the time and now you are doing an honest update to that review after spending more time with the game.
I have not always agreed with some of your reviews, but they do help me to decide whether or not to look more closer at a purchase or not.
Good on you.
Keep playing… and reviewing.
To all: I'd like to make one thing perfectly clear.
I did this for the gamers out there. It does me no good. In fact, I know how it makes me look. Despite the fact that I've faithfully served the gaming community for a decade and a half, often on no pay at all, and despite the fact that I take my reviews extremely seriously, it seems the only thing people can notice is this retraction.
But that's what I expected. Game critics and journalists have served an unappreciative and hostile group of fans since the industry began, really. Endless accusations of critics being on the take (because they get free stuff, which of course means we're all 8-year-olds who accept bribes), lazy critics, critics with bias and personal vendettas, etc. Yes, I've gone through all of it and it never changes, no matter how hard I work. Is it any wonder that I often think about ditching all this and moving to a field where there's at least some semblance of maturity and respect?
I said I was wrong in the article. I admitted as much and I did that for all of YOU. I did it so someone reading that review will see the follow-up editorial in the future. I did it for the consumer, as I do everything in this job. There's really nothing else to talk about.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 1/17/2015 9:38:50 PM
For what it is worth…
I assume you lump me and my position in with the hostile or ungrateful fans that you described in this message. I assure you I am not. I have a high respect for what you do and also see what you do as essential.
If you enjoy what you do, keep doing it. Understand that if you put your thoughts out there, people will have thoughts on it. Your thoughts and mine are very similar on the game except in one area. You believe they were being "devious" and I believe that you are being naive on that front. All other points, I agree. I even appreciate the idea that you owned your "mistake", if you want to call it that.
Just know that people look to you and other reviewers (including the bad ones – which there for sure are). People will trust what you say and might spend money accordingly based on your thoughts. If you change your stance AFTER they spend their money, surely you can see why people might be miffed by it.
Side note: I only found your article because it was aggregated at the top of a news site. Thus this being my only interaction with you and your site.
I'm aware of all that. Thank you.
I'll say it again I think it's great what you did Ben. We might have our quarrels now and again but we also agree on a lot of things this being one of them.
ReaderExtreme, Ubisoft is absolutely being devious, when you have a game that does micros like this you know that they are only there for a cash grab. I've been playing free to play games on the PC since they were created and in that time you learn how to see the scummy scummy free to play models from the not so scummy.
Unity is NOT free to play so that almost makes its Micros worse, in fact it does make them worse. Sure it is all optional but when the game and currency accumulation is designed in such a grindy way to make you want to purchase the micros well then we have a problem.
The PR Ubisoft had leading up to the launch was also misleading.
The other reason why they will make most of the skill points unlocked in MP is that is where people are going to be most willing to spend on micros. So Ubisoft had intentions to make money on this mode.
All in all good on you Ben, and Readerextreme I think we agree more than disagree. In what way do you think Ben was being Naive?
@xenris – thank you for engaging in a conversation on this. You are right, we are closer to agreement on almost all of this than not. I too appreciate Ben for standing up for his thoughts and having been compelled to share that with his audience while "trying to do the good thing". No problem in that from my standpoint.
Where I disagree with both of you is the perception of deception or something shady. To be clear… I think the microtransaction model in this already expensive game is a bit over the top, greedy and not the best fit. You want to sell new characters or levels, sure, we expect that. But all that other is too much… as pointed out by Ben.
But this was not a secret. This was not bait and switch. Saying it is devious is a stretch. A perfect example is the point made about seeing the Dead King's expansion but not being able to play it. There are literally hundreds of games that do this… pinball with DLC tables, COD with multiplayer maps, racing games with premium cares and on and on.
The naivety comment stems from acting like examples like above are new or tucked away into the game rather than stock ways that companies have been capitalizing on us for awhile now. Also for ignoring technical difficulties on the grounds that they didn't bother him Lastly for blindly defending bad journalists because he himself is not one.
Again, I am not pleased with Ubi on this game (for many of the reasons Ben and yourself listed), Monopoly, some of the issues with Watchdogs and most recently some of the issues in Far Cry 4. We agree they suck, I'm just willing to be surprised by it.
Thanks for the discussion.
RIGHT ON!
I'm curious…if not a nine, what would you rank it now? I was so incredibly let down by this game that I'm glad you took the time to re-adjust your review on the game. If anything, I do hope Ubisoft re-evaluates its use of micro transactions as I truly feel the way it was structured in AC unity completely wasted the game….I actually felt punished for playing and I didn't feel compelled to even keep the game once the final credits rolled. Unlike far cry 4 where I reset the game and started anew….
It'd be very difficult to assign a score but I'm thinking an 8, give or take a few tenths.
It's actually rare in today's culture for one to admit to a fault. I commend thee.
And I just wanted to add something. Our culture has taught us from a very young age that making mistakes is among the worst things one can do. But never being mistaken goes hand in hand with no change, no growth and no greater becoming. Why should we be enslaved by the fear of making mistakes? Mistakes are glimmering opportunities beckoning us toward greatness. We must work toward overcoming the destructive attitude that dictates each individual work tirelessly to hide their shortcomings out of fear. We can do it. Slowly, gently, bit by bit.
Greatness awaits.
did ubisux fix the mountain high pile of bugs and glitches in AC Unity yet?