People have their gripes, but I still quite enjoy a big old open world. There's something about the studio's formula for things like Assassin's Creed and Far Cry that lets me achieve a kind of zen [[link]] state: Just me, a controller, a map full of little icons to tick off, and absolutely zero regions of my brain lighting up. Bliss.

But lord knows I am not the market at large, and it's not difficult to find people criticising the company for its games' samey-ness, or writing, or straight-up technical bugs. Ubisoft knows that too, which is why Assassin's Creed's vice president executive producer Marc-Alexis Coté recently told that "Ubisoft's portfolio has faced criticism in recent years for a perceived inconsistency in quality," and that's why next year.

"Players can afford to be selective, choosing only the best, and they rightfully demand excellence," [[link]] said Côté. Your average player in 2024 expects "more polish, more innovation and deeper engagement from the games we release, and they're not shy about letting us know when they feel we have fallen short." Boy, ?

In other words, Ubisoft has been stung by all the criticism it's gotten, and " represents our opportunity to change that narrative, not just for Assassin's Creed, but I think for Ubisoft as a whole." Hence the shift to a February release after originally being penned in for November this year. "In today's market, being amongst the best is just not enough anymore."

So, to boil it down, it sounds like Côté is saying Shadows was in a good but not great spot for a November release—at least in Ubisoft's estimation—and that the game has been delayed to give it a chance to reach that next level of quality before it gets into players' hands.

What that translates to in non-exec speak is harder to say. Was the game gonna be a trainwreck if it had launched in November? Would it have just been a little buggy? Has Ubisoft been spooked by the on the internet about the game starring a Black samurai, and hopes that by delaying [[link]] it that particular storm in a teacup will blow over?

Well, we might be able to gain some insight by where Côté's mind went next: Assassin's Creed Unity, which was meant to be Ubisoft's big splashy debut on a then-new generation of consoles back in 2014, but that became a laughing stock over the sheer number of (sometimes nightmarish) bugs players ran into. "Its reception at launch, marred by technical issues, left a deep impact on all parts of the company, from production to publishing, especially given Ubisoft's roots as a French company," said Côté.

That was a "low point" for the studio, says Côté, but it also taught the devs "how crucial it was to maintain the quality and integrity of the player experience from day one, a lesson that lives with us to this very day." Which sounds to me like Shadows was maybe a little too busted to be putting out as early as this month, and risked Ubisoft running into another Unity-style fiasco.

A fiasco that still peeves me, I gotta admit. In its fixed-up state, I think Unity is quietly one of the best AC games out there. It has problems—a depiction of the French Revolution so reactionary it could have been written by Charles X, and a UI that sometimes feels like a psychic attack on you, the player. But it was a tightly designed game that felt weighty to play, with combat that was actually kind of challenging, incentivising stealth for perhaps the first time in the series. Honestly? I think it would have been a better direction for AC to go in, rather than its post-Origins open-world style, but what's done is done.

I digress. "Taking this extra time allows us to polish every aspect and set a new standard for the franchise, one that I hope will carry us forward for years," says Côté, "We believe Shadows will shine as a true showcase of Ubisoft's talent and dedication, setting a new benchmark in quality for the franchise." Is that how it'll actually work out? We'll find out this February.