Mr_Singh

@twitchtvpat It really is funny how this and the other @RoomwithMoose dude’s response to me was sent literally within 1-2 minutes of each other 🤔.

How do you magically know it would not sell? Genuinely. That is not something you can state as fact unless you have access to Ubisoft’s internal projections. What you saw was a brief slice of early footage from a project that was clearly in development trouble. That does not automatically translate to “it would have been awful” or “it would not sell.” Plenty of games have had rough early showings and still released strong after proper time and direction.

But the funny part is you are actually proving my point without realizing it. You are describing a project that looked messy, lacked direction, had developers asking for more time, and a publisher apparently wanting to rush it out anyway. That is not a sign of a healthy creative process. That is a sign of exactly the kind of corporate mismanagement and rushed production I have been talking about this whole time.

And then you follow that up by saying Ubisoft are probably reallocating resources to “make those games better.”

That is the key line.

Because that implies the current output is not good enough and needs fixing. Which is literally my argument. Ubisoft are in a position where they have to pull projects apart, reshuffle teams, and salvage upcoming titles because the recent trajectory has not been working. You are also saying the PoP remake would have been awful, but somehow that is not evidence of Ubisoft’s decline. It is. A remake of one of their most beloved classics ending up in development chaos is not a neutral event. It is another example of them struggling to execute on things they used to do effortlessly.

And saying AC4 cannot be delayed because it was never announced is just semantics. Everyone knows it exists. The fact it has not materialized yet while Ubisoft is in restructuring mode tells you exactly what state things are in behind the scenes. So what you described is not a defense of Ubisoft. It is a description of a company that cannot get its projects into a clean, confident state without turmoil, cancellations, or major intervention. Which is exactly why I say they do not make good games anymore.

@RoomWithaMoose You are missing the point about the awards entirely. The point was not that Doom “swept” in the literal sense. The point was that even a single recent Doom title is showing up in award conversations more than Assassin’s Creed, Avatar, Prince of Persia, and the rest of Ubisoft’s recent catalogue combined. That is the contrast. Studios that used to be peers of Ubisoft are still producing games that stand out in meaningful ways, while Ubisoft’s output is barely part of the conversation anymore. That is what matters. Deflecting to the wording does not change that reality.

You also keep leaning on the idea that I am basing my view purely on personal dislike, while you are calling these games good almost entirely because other people say so. You have not actually offered your own evaluation of these games. Your entire stance rests on review aggregates and the phrase “generally considered good.” That is exactly what I have been pointing out from the start.

This is where the core flaw in your argument sits and you still have not addressed it. You define good as “not bad.” That definition makes almost every modern AAA game good. A safe, bloated, forgettable, technically polished game becomes good. A memorable, ambitious, era defining game also becomes good. Those two things are worlds apart in quality, yet under your definition they sit in the same category. That collapses all meaningful distinction. The word good stops having any value in a discussion about quality because it applies to almost everything that functions.

You collapse every tier of quality into the same label and then act as if that label proves something meaningful. It does not. It removes all meaning from the word. When I say Ubisoft does not make good games anymore, I am not saying they release broken disasters. I am saying they no longer make games that feel distinctive, ambitious, or worthy of the standard they themselves set in the past. You already admitted they are tired. That word does more to support my point than yours. A tired game is one that functions but lacks creative energy. That is precisely the criticism people have of Ubisoft’s modern output.

Going back to why your Superman analogy fails. Modern Ubisoft games clearly have good qualities. Visual polish, scale, animation, production value. Those are baseline expectations in AAA now. They do not automatically qualify a game as good in the way people talk about the great entries of a franchise years later. They make it functional. There is a difference.

You keep separating Ubisoft’s decline as a company from the quality of their games as if they exist in separate worlds. They do not. When multiple releases get decent critic scores yet fail to generate strong engagement, lasting player enthusiasm, or cultural impact, that is evidence that something is missing in the actual experience. Reviews can say “technically solid.” Players decide whether something is worth caring about. That is where Ubisoft has clearly lost ground.

And that is why I used the word standalone when talking about Shadows. As a generic action game, it is not bad. As an Assassin’s Creed game judged against the series history, it is weak. Both of those statements can be true. They are not contradictory. They only seem contradictory if you insist that good simply means not broken.

@RoomWithaMoose You keep saying there is no contradiction because you described the games as tired, good not great, and generally considered good. The issue is not whether those words can coexist. The issue is what standard you are using when you call something good.

You are using good to mean technically competent and not broken. I am using good to mean creatively strong, memorable, and worthy of the legacy of the series and the studio behind it. That is the gap you still are not addressing.

When you say tired and good in the same breath, you are admitting the exact point I have been making from the start without realizing it. A tired game is a game that is mechanically functional but creatively drained. That is precisely what people mean when they say Ubisoft’s output has declined. It is not that the games crash or are unplayable. It is that they feel manufactured rather than inspired. So yes, those words can sit together, but they prove my argument far more than yours.

You also keep framing this as if I am calling these games bad in the sense of being broken disasters. I am not. I am saying they are not good by the standard Ubisoft themselves established and by the standard set by their peers today. Under your definition, almost every modern AAA game would qualify as good. That makes the word meaningless because it stops distinguishing quality.

That is why your Superman comparison does not work. Superman has no redeeming qualities at all. Modern Ubisoft games clearly do. Visual polish, scale, production value, and baseline competence are industry norms now. Those are expected. They are not what makes something good in the way people remember great entries in a franchise years later.

And this is where your logic keeps collapsing. You are treating good as the opposite of bad. I am treating good as a positive standard that has to be earned, not a default label for anything that functions. If good simply means not bad, then the term has no value in a discussion about quality.

In other words, you defend a very low bar for what qualifies as good while ignoring the larger point about creative decline. I am pointing out that the definition you are using avoids engaging with the substance of what I am saying.

So we are not actually disagreeing on whether these games are competently made. We are disagreeing on whether competence alone is enough to call them good. I do not think it is. And that is why I say Ubisoft no longer makes good games.

@RoomWithaMoose By the looks of it you haven’t even played any of their recent games apart from Shadows either because you keep saying ‘if other people are saying the games are good then they must be considered “good games” ‘ whilst not once stating your own personal opinion on the game. That’s why I mentioned “standalone” alongside Shadows, meaning when not considered alongside the rest of the AC games. As an AC game I think it’s dog**** when compared to the rest of the entries, but when looked at from a standalone perspective it’s not bad. Same can be said about Far Cry 6. This is where I can’t tell whether reading comprehension genuinely isn’t there for you or you choose to take it out of context just so it can align with whatever narrative you want to use. Let’s use your own analogy against you, I mean after all you even said those games aren’t “great games”, so this means they are bad games then, right?…

@RoomWithaMoose Any essay on an Assassins Creed causing decline for Ubisoft would be cope and irrelevant. The point is recent years nosedive is objectively worse, backed by financial freefall and player exodus. Countless documentaries aren’t bait; they’re from outlets like Bloomberg, Variety, and GamesIndustry.biz documenting the mess. X is full of weak story rants and flop calls, even from fans admitting gameplay’s fun but narrative’s trash. Ubisoft used to peak with Splinter Cell to WD2 soul; now it’s assembly line mid that rarely inspires and the numbers prove it. If liking slop is your vibe, power to you, but don’t gaslight the consensus into “good” when the company’s imploding.

Twisting it as if Tango/EA/Activision are the same boat is insane. Ubisoft’s meltdown is self inflicted and tied directly to recent output (all of which I’ve mentioned above and can happily do so again). It’s not industry wide bad luck; but Ubisoft specific rot from consistent underperformance and greed driven slop that players are rejecting.

Critics gave Shadows an 81 (generally favorable, 84% positive), but user scores are mixed/average at 6.2 aggregate (52% positive, 33% negative, 15% mixed) on Metacritic with 4,507 ratings, call it whatever you wan’t but it’s sustained player disappointment over weak story, bloat, and fatigue. What you said regarding user reviews is gatekeeping because critics are often softer on big publishers whilst users vote with wallets and time. If sales barely correlate then Shadows had 3M players first week but total 4.3M copies after months (lowest among recent ACs, outpaced by Mirage’s 5M in 3 months).

Not all good games win GOTY, but nearly ALL games get nominated. But fair enough, Ubisoft’s recent stuff isn’t even sniffing strong contention anymore , no GOTY level acclaim outside older AC nods. I know you’re not saying they’re the best publisher, but I heavily disagree that they still make good games. Even if the games aren’t like bad-BAD, they are not good. Of course I’ve played games that are like WAY worse than Shadows. Shadows isn’t a ‘bad’ game when considered standalone, as there were lots of things I liked about it - the visuals and details for example; it’s just that I felt Ubisoft were still lacking and could have done better. So relatively I list it bad when compared up against other entries of the series, not in general.

@RoomWithaMoose Let’s be real, “public consensus” isn’t some monolithic thing you can cherry pick to suit your narrative. I mean okay, critic Metascores hover around 81 - 82 for Shadows, but user ratings tell a different story - mixed at best with a 6.1 aggregate on Metacritic (52% positive, 33% negative, 15% mixed), Steam sitting at “Mostly Positive” but with 40% + recent negatives calling out weak story, bloat, and repetitive quests. Dive into actual comments on Reddit, YouTube reviews, or X threads, and the negativity dominates, endless videos and posts roasting the “flat characters and incoherent plotlines,” “soulless storytelling,” and “barrage of quests that all end the same way.” That’s not bait but raw player feedback from forums to IMDb (where it’s flooded with complaints about bugs, MTX, and “franchise decline”). Videos like “Assassin’s Creed Shadows Review: Let me be BRUTALLY honest” echo this with brutal takedowns of the story as weak and Act 2 as a slog. So yeah, consensus varies wildly depending on where you look, ratings might say decent, but the discourse screams disappointing mid.

Funny how you flip the subjectivity script though
you’re the one asserting these games are “good, not great” based purely on your take, while ignoring the avalanche of evidence that public sentiment has soured hard on recent Ubisoft output. If we’re going by “public consensus” like you claim, then explain the massive negativity spike around Shadows such as user review bombs on Steam and Metacritic far outpace anything Far Cry 4 (user 7.7, mostly positive with minimal hate) or Watch Dogs (user 6.7, but complaints centered on hype vs delivery, not core rot) ever saw. Older ACs like those half”you mentioned had similar positivity in scores (e.g., AC4 Black Flag at 88 critic/8.3 user), but nowhere near Shadows level of backlash, no widespread review bomb accusations, no forums exploding over historical butchery, bland cast, or divisive flop status. Delusional to pretend Shadows’ story could match the narrative highs of Far Cry 4’s chaotic fun or Watch Dogs’ fresh hacking twist those had engagement without the fatigue.

Could also pile on facts since this is about “authority” and “ethos”. Ubisoft’s FY2026 is a bloodbath, €1B operating loss projected, including €650M writedowns from flops like Shadows (which overperformed low expectations but still contributed to exec axings and stock tanking 34 - 39% in a day, market cap below €1B for the first time in over a decade). Guess how many layoffs? 155+ in early Jan alone (third wave after 1,700+ since 2022), studios shuttered in Halifax and Stockholm, voluntary redundancies for 200 HQ roles (18% of Paris staff). Games canceled: six unannounced plus the PoP remake ghosted forever, seven more delayed. Shadows specifics: Steam sales est. 853K (dismal for AAA), peak concurrents 64K crashing to sub 10K by 2026, no TGA GOTY noms (snubbed entirely while rivals swept), just tech crumbs. Outlaws underperformed, Avatar middling 72 critic, PoP Lost Crown - 1.3M sales (team disbanded, sequel scrapped). And yet you blame this on “stagnation” when the reality is that it’s decline fueled by greed, bloat, and lost passion.

Ubisoft doesn’t make good games, if they did then this wouldn’t be happening to them.

@RoomWithaMoose Also, the facts paint a clear picture of Ubisoft’s sharp decline in recent years, and it’s not “just like your opinion”.

First off, Ubisoft’s “good games” claim falls apart when you look at the company’s actual trajectory: massive restructuring in Jan 2026 canceled six games (including the Prince of Persia remake and delaying potential AC Black Flag remake indefinitely), shut down studios in Halifax and Stockholm, delayed seven others, and projected a €1 billion operating loss for FY2026. Shares plunged 34 - 39% in a single day, the worst drop in company history, tanking market cap below €1 billion for the first time in over a decade. This isn’t mid 360 era “decline” but a full corporate meltdown driven by consistent underperformance and greed fueled slop.

On specific games: AC Shadows got an 81 critic Metacritic (decent but not spectacular), but user scores are mixed/average (around 6.2 overall, with heavy disconnect cited in reviews for bloat, weak story, and Yasuke controversy). Star Wars Outlaws “underperformed expectations” per Ubisoft’s own admissions, sales softer than hoped despite “solid” reviews, contributing to financial hits. Avatar frontiers of Pandora had middling 72 critic scores and average user ratings. But wait, it gets better: Prince of Persia The Lost Crown - Positive reviews but only 1.3 million sales in its first year which is far below expectations, leading to the dev team disbanding and sequel scrapped. No recent Ubisoft game (outside maybe older AC nods) has sniffed a GOTY win or strong nomination in years, Black Flag/Far Cry 3 era is ancient history now.

When countless other veteran fans like me out there (Rayman PS1 to now) feel zero soul in the output, endless bloat, MTX pushes, broken promises (PoP remake ghosted, Black Flag remake delayed forever), and the company is literally imploding financially, it’s not cope to say they don’t make good games anymore.

@RoomWithaMoose Literally everything you presented earlier was subjective and opinion but you presented it as if it were fact.

A lot of people will agree that Ubisoft’s major downfall occurred in recent years because that’s when it went down the drain. Just because downfalls have occurred previously does not mean that those didn’t have points of recovery, it’s just that the latter ones had more impact. Far Cry 6 wouldn’t be relevant because it was a bad entry in the series and didn’t do Ubisoft any justice considering Far Cry 3, Far Cry 4 and Far Cry 5 were all better. You saying Ubi’s downfall occuring mid-360 era doesn’t mean latter downfalls weren’t worse because all I gotta do is type in ‘Ubisoft downfall’ and I’d much rather prefer and watch the countless of satisfying videos and documentaries showcasing and highlighting just how bad Ubisoft has gotten only in recent years.

I would argue that Shadows is the second most s*** in the series and that it’s storyline was dogs*** . And that the first I can play 100x and is better than Shadows. I would then ask you to name me one single Ubisoft game which has been nominated for GOTY that isn’t an Assassins Creed and then I would tell you I’ll wait for your answer. Because Assassins Creed is the only game/series which has allowed Ubisoft to get a GOTY nomination and therefore I would argue that it was not beginning of the end as it allowed them to earn their only GOTY as of this date as well as another AC game (Valhalla) earning them an Action/Adventure nominee.

I didn’t say anything about Outlaws and Whoever or Whatever because I haven’t played Outlaws and Whoever or Whatever as I don’t need to since I’ve seen enough. “considered a good game” and ‘being a good game’ are two different things - but it’s acceptable for someone who may be new to the Assassins Creed series, especially considering AC Shadows is a very bad game with a weak story.

They make bad games now, they don’t make good games anymore. They used to make good games. Their best era was from Splinter Cell - Watch Dogs 2. Since then everything is bad, PoP is bad, PoP remake would have been better.

@wildcat_kickz Okie dokie 👍

@RoomWithaMoose You did misunderstand though, because you mentioned “Assassins Creed” and “Far Cry” without listing a specific entry which lead me to assume that you thought I meant that Ubisoft never made good games in the first place. I mean after all, Far Cry haven’t released an entry for over 4 years now, AC Shadows was a bad game (I don’t care how it was received, I’ve been playing AC games from day 1 when AC 1 was the only one that existed), Mirage was even worse, and Valhalla came out over 5 years ago. Therefore I wouldn’t think of Far Cry 6 as recent, especially when I found it a bad game when compared to it’s previous entries.

Games are not still good, I find them slop as do a lot of others - when playing them they just do not carry the same feeling as previous Ubisoft games. Reason is because these games are driven by corporate greed. If you look hard enough, nearly any game can seem overly positive all because of how they’re ‘fairly universally known’ but there’s varying factors e.g. veteran Ubisoft players, newer gamers etc more likely to find anything good. My comment still stands, Ubisoft doesn’t make good games anymore. Sure one may come along here and there but the exception doesn’t make the rule.

@wildcat_kickz I get what you’re saying and I respect that you’re keeping it civil, but that being said - if comments like mines are enough to get to you then perhaps you should refrain from reading comments or stay away? I mean look man, you think I don’t come across countless of comments that I don’t agree with or comments that call out opinions/views which I hold? If we just go after everything or everyone who said something we don’t like then I think it’s unhealthy. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with debating as long as it’s done in a healthy manner, but there’s folk I’ve debated with who have the most unreal cope when it comes to Ubisoft. Folk who no matter what, won’t even accept what it’s become. So in that sense, I reckon it should be considered different from a Ubisoft fan (or once was?) as opposed to someone just trolling for the sake of it.

@RoomWithaMoose You misunderstood my comment, or took it out of context. I wasn’t saying Ubisoft never made good games, but every man and his dog knows that their recent efforts into games are abysmal and profit driven as opposed to the earlier entries and series in which they would pour their souls and hearts into.

I’ve been playing Ubisoft games ever since Rayman on the PS1 days. I’m a HUGE fan of Splinter Cell, Assasins Creed, Far Cry, Watch Dogs and have memorable times playing all of these. The earlier entries were all driven by folk who would pour their hearts and souls into these games, however the same cannot be said about the latest games they have been producing. Yet there are fankids who will still try and cope. Regardless of how the latest Prince of Persia game was received, it was a game nobody asked for and certainly won’t redeem broken promises now that the PoP remake seems long gone and the Black Flag remake being pushed into the horizon. These kinds of things are very damaging towards a company’s reputation.

Imagine defending Ubisoft and thinking they still make ‘good games’ 😳

Yea, couldn’t be me.

That image of Ezio just reminded me though, his VA is actually appearing at a comic con near me in a few months and would be cool to see them.

Dawn of the Bloodwalker

The real deal this time, for sure.

That would have been a really stupid reason to not launch a physical copy, as the game doesn’t entirely revolve around just its story.

I could listen to a podcast between Joel & Ellie all day! Or Mimir and Kratos whilst Mimir does all the talking and Kratos just mumbles and grunts.

Remember back in the days when everyone thought Dave Bautista would be playing Kratos 😆

Imagine defending Ubisoft and thinking they still make ‘good games’ lol.

Yea, couldn't be me 😳

Only vampire game I care about and looking forward to is Blood of The Dawnwalker. That’s had me on fire ever since I learned the devs are ex-CDPR who worked on Witcher 3 and formed their own band.

Only a matter of time before someone manages to successfully infiltrate the building Splinter Cell style and captures leaks.

Man I just wish they’d bring Akuma back and give me a reason to play this game

@DennisReynolds Ahh the cope. Hadn’t even known about the SA cover up until you just mentioned it, so clearly you know more about Ubisoft’s scumminess than I do.

Only the truest Ubisoft fanboys that are blind to the truth would come out and even try to defend that Ubisoft don’t make terrible games. First of all I gotta do is type in ‘What happened to Ubisoft’ or ‘Ubisoft downfall’ on YouTube/Google and I’d rather go through the countless and endless documentaries and articles showcasing and highlighting why Ubisoft has gone down the drain and is nothing but corporate trash - layoffs hitting 155+ employees in the first two weeks of 2026 alone, stock in the toilet, execs suing like this AC boss for $1M constructive dismissal - than listen to one person’s opinion in favour of Ubisoft.

Second of all, literally every game’s opinion you just mentioned is subjective, not fact (even though you just presented it as that). Long time day 1 AC player here and I can confirm that AC Shadows is the second or third worst I have ever played. Only great thing were the stunning visuals and weather effects (user score bombed to 5.8 on metacritic). Outlaws I’m not going to comment on as I haven’t played it (user scores mixed/average). Avatar? Really? Try telling that to GTA V or RDR 2 when it comes to “best open world”, probably the most absurd thing I’ve heard. And one persons opinion over prince of persia TLC (a game nobody even wanted in the first place) doesn’t supersede the negativity and criticism/issues that have been put forth and highlighted by countless players; especially after Ubisoft struggled to keep their word on the actual remake.

Hey guess what? AC Odyssey is my fav AC game and I truly believe its the best AC game ever - want me to try and present my opinion as fact to the majority of those hating on it? Nah. That’s your playbook. Ubi haters aren’t “blind internet” , they’re players burned by endless slop, microtransaction hell, and broken promises. I’ve been playing Ubisoft games since the Rayman days on PS1 and can admit they were my fav publisher/devs at one point due to the heart and soul they would pour into each and every one of their games. Boycott’s real for the games AND the SA rot. Remasters/remakes > new Ubisoft trash any day.

Should I be glad I saved it in my backlog for like 3+ years now

To hell with Ubisoft. To think there was actually a time they brought out series like the early AC games, Far Cry, Watch Dogs, Splinter Cell.

At this point I’m looking more forward to remasters/remakes rather than new titles. Only thing that will make me give a $**t about Ubisoft today is if they upgrade the Ezio collection to 60fps + HDR, give Watch Dogs 1 and 2 current gen upgrades such as 60fps + HDR (remake would be even better), and Splinter Cell trilogy having a PS5 upgrade (its already on PS3).

If you go onto the official announcement teaser on YouTube that was released 7 years ago, scroll to the comments and click ‘New/Recent’ , you will see at least 2 individuals that have been posting daily comments as a journal for over 3 years now… that’s how much this long wait has fried people’s brains.

Sad lol.

How about the Assassins Creed Ezio collection too, along with HDR upgrades, and the same for Watch Dogs 1 and 2? Perhaps even current gen remakes. Would be a perfect time.

Ahh Ubisoft, Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia, Assassins Creed, Far Cry, Watch Dogs. What a time eh?

@Flaming_Kaiser Two weeks later and your best comeback is… this? Bro, you just proved my point harder than ever.

Yes, AI demand is causing a massive RAM shortage right now, Micron literally quit the consumer market in 2026 to sell everything to AI companies, DDR5 prices are up 100-130% in months, and reports from late 2025 say PS6 and next Xbox launches might get delayed to 2029-2030 exactly because consoles can’t get affordable memory anymore. That’s not “cheap RAM abundance”, but its the exact opposite, and it’s all because the AI train is eating the supply.
Netherlands grid issues are real , yea, congestion around Amsterdam led to restrictions and delays on new data centers. But that’s local growing pains while the country (and world) races to add renewables, nuclear, and direct high-voltage connections to handle the boom. Grids adapt, just like they did for electrification, internet, and every tech wave before.

You’re still clutching that 1972 pamphlet, watching the future happen without you. Meanwhile people who adapted are thriving.
Keep coping if you want , the rest of us will be on the ship you missed. 🚀

@Mr_RC Thanks a lot for letting me know all that, I appreciate it. But whenever I do get around to it, whenever that may be… I’ll start off with Yakuza 0 (PS4) first and just go through the Kiwamis, 3,4,5, 6, and the rest in terms of release order. With the platinums I already know they’re going to be tough as I have seen the trophy guide requirements for each one and they’re all marked as like 7 out of 10s in terms of difficulty with each requiring 100+ hours or so. I love challenges and don’t mind difficult trophies but there’s most likely no way I’ve got the time and commitment to 100% all of them back to back. However it gives me an opportunity to revisit them in the future and replay them in English DUB (the ones that feature it). But I’m definitely looking forward to them all.

Now, I actually own every single Yakuza and Like a Dragon game on PS4/PS5 (except Pirate Yakuza in Hawaii) physicslly, as I’ve been recently interested in playing them since around 2022, however have just been unable to all because of a MASSIVE gaming backlog. I’ve always wanted to play every title back to back instead of playing other games in between, so Yakuza / Like a Dragon have been something I have been invested in for a long time. Along the way I have wondered whether it would have been best to start with Yakuza 0 (PS4) or play in order of release date, but those around me who have played them all have always recommended me to start at 0 as not only is it the best game but would serve as a great starting point.

There were one or two who swore by not playing 0 first but start starting at Kiwami, stating that I should play 0 after Yakuza 5 as that was the original release date order and that 0 would make more sense since there would be ‘throwbacks’ in it I’d only understand having completed the other games. Anyways, after having gathering everything in, I had only decided that I would start with Yakuza 0, but then the Directors Cut was announced which I was hyped for as I thought this would a better way for me to experience the game, with the additions of Kiwami 1 + 2 also being upgraded to PS5. However this time around, everyone who had told me the the earlier opinions of playing 0 first now said to play the original PS4 version instead, to leave out the Directors Cut out completely or at least save it till the end, since they feel it doesn’t hold true to the original.

Me personally? I cannot say anything as I haven’t played them, but for those that have I definitely wouldn’t mind reading your thoughts, as I found the whole series of events hilarious. Regardless, I will still look forward to every title, especially the Directors Cut whenever I get around to it, even if it doesn’t hold up when compared to a previous title. Could just give me a great reason to replay it or go for the 100% platinum.

@MFTWrecks Exactly. My comment wasn’t arguing against the use of AI but more of a wake up to those who keep opposing it simply for the sake of it. AI is used in my profession as well as it changing my life for the better. I’ve mentioned this to other users in the comments here if you read them but the quicker folk accept the uses of AI the better, as it’s here to stay.

It’s 2025, almost 2026, people want something to be upset about simply because ‘others are doing it too’.

@theheadofabroom At the end of the day, regardless of how much someone want's to fight or push against it, there is absolutely nothing they can do to stop or push it back as it's here to stay. Because of AI, I'm now able to live in multiple locations and have my whole entire next year already mapped out - 3 months in Tokyo, 3 months in Singapore, 3 months in Dubai, and 3 in either Switzerland or Italy, wherever I want to choose. That's not even a flex, it's just showcasing and highlighting what I am able to do because I turned something that can be considered 'negative' into something positive all whilst bringing harm onto absolutely nobody. Of course it's totally wrong when it's genuinely bringing harm upon someone, but it depends on the context and scenario of it too. We can't pitchfork against it in a case where someone's lost their job as a cashier in a large chain grocery store because even in a case like that they have to realize it was inevitable, however how that individual responds to it is what matters. I can say lots, lots more, but one of the guy's I work with currently now was in that very exact same situation, losing his job to AI and almost flipping out over it, which would have been understandable and justifiable. However they decided to take action and keep moving forward, and now they're able to be more free than before. But that doesn't mean I have to stop the other things I enjoy which AI has taken over. Why should I stop drawing? Just because AI can now do it too or even better? No, I still continue to love doing it. Same with anything else. Survival of the fittest.

@theheadofabroom Yup, just like your original comment to me was also removed due to not being in line with this site's ToS. Perhaps you can check your emails which can display the full response, I do not know. My main earlier points were on acceptance of AI taking over the world. As I said to another user, this isn't about agreeing or disagreeing on it's uses - everyone has the right to do that. But there comes a point where you have to realize and accept what's staying and what isn't. Some things are worth fighting for or against such as mass surveillance, or the newly announced mandatory digital ID's. Things like those are in an early stage where there is currently a window frame to get things pushed back or overturned, however uses of AI (in a general or practical sense) isn't. Billions everyday are being invested into it and it's evolving and increasing at an alarmingly rapid rate. Personally I disagree with the use of it in video games but elsewhere there is lots that is being done out of it, more good than harm. We can all sit and cherry pick the negatives; if you look hard enough we can pick at straws at nearly anything. I invested time in lots of different things, tried this and that and guess what? I honestly loved it all, different trades and skills, none of it was any problem because I loved it and enjoyed my time, I had fun and good experiences. Then when A.I. rolled in I could have sat back and constantly just whined, instead I decided to think outside the box and take a different approach. Why? Because I took time to research and take in everything, and thought: Hold on, wait a second. That's all it took. Just like that I was able to change my entire life around.

Only reason I even mention this is to get the point across that what I say isn't a troll or hate on any individual who argues against AI or it's uses - by all means keep doing it, its their life at the end of the day - but there's a difference between people who fully understand it's capabilities and uses as opposed to those who just want to complain for the sake of it.