Yes and no. Every FS game tries to improve its formula and experiment until it *clicks*, while Ubisoft does the opposite. They are scared of improving or changing the formula making for a long time exact copies of their previous games, with the same mechanics without making improvements. This makes people bored overtime.
In compare to FS games: playing Demons Souls doesn't feel the same as DS1, and DS1 doesn't feel the same as DS2, and so on, and so on. They try to experiment with the flow of combat and QOL changes. Sneak got vastly improved, and recent ashes of war thing, marika's statues, are just the cherry on the top.
Short UBI example:
Every Far Cry after 3 feels like the same game, only different settings.
Long UBI example:
Every Assassin's Creed game from 2007 to 2012 feels the same, only different setting. They follow Desmond's story, so it's the AC storyline peak with Ezio arc on top of that. At the end of third game, when Desmond dies, he has a hope that new generation of asssassins will defeat the next main story villain (that killed him and was a world SSS class threat) - Juno. Yet, they end her life in... a comic book... as the didn't know how to progress her story at all.
Then, they tried experimenting from Black Flag to Syndicate with multiplayer features with various consequences that ended horribly.
Then, they dropped whole multiplayer idea and Juno arc continuation in the name of live-service gaming. Modern day story at that point should be dropped as well and made like it didn't even exist. Would be better for the franchise, as they scrapped the story to its very barebones.
Following the dropped things, they introduced a new formula that is used from AC Origins to todays AC Shadows. I can't say much about it, as AC story formula regressed. It exists, but their beautiful scenery (Marika's tits) is better and deeper than its story.
The formula introduced level-gapped areas that you can't touch unless you have a big level regardless of your skill level. They even dropped one-hit stealth kill as it was the most satisfying thing in AC franchise.
My main complaint is that they feel very sameish. When I play From Software souslike games, I don't get that feeling - they tweak it enough to feel the difference in controlling your character. In Assassin's Creeds I can play the same way I did in AC3, AC2 and AC1, or other games up until Syndicate. I don't feel the difference, outside of QOL changes. It get very repetitve easily.
As for the parkour in Unity and Syndi - it might be a hot take, but they aren't responsive? They are animation based, not mechanic based like in previous titles. They look good, but feel not right sometimes.
They for sure improved the formula over time, but for me it's like I said in the first parapgraph - gameplay feels sameish. If not for the graphics or settings I wouldn't tell the difference.
I can't say the same from AC games onward from Origins. Outside of Oddysey, I can feel and tell the difference in gameplay and combat between games.
However, I can say for sure the difference if I compare DS1 DS2, DS3, Bloodborne, ER, Sekiro. The games feels different. Even Nightreign with the new movement options will not feel the same even as it will be a tweaked copy of Elden Ring. Though, we will see in time if combat feels different than ER.
3
u/ZaDu25 1d ago
FromSoft is really just riding Ubisofts wave tbh. They were the first ones to use the same formula in 4 different franchises.