Archaeology of Gaming

The idea of re-hashing and re-using systems in video games is not an unfamiliar concept to me. In the increasing 'hollywood-isation' of the gaming industry and big publishers having an increasing reliance on existing franchises and remakes/re-imaginings, and going to the extent of using mostly the same assets and little new in their sequels (FarCry3-4) has been going on for years. The idea of archaeology in gaming is strange and rest on a fine line between research and a lack of innovation. Not that it is inherently bad, combining elements of different prior games to formulate something different or exciting is clearly a good business practice. My hesitance to this subject is brought forward by the way certain companies treat their franchises and even every game they make. So Ubisoft. The last time I truly respected Ubisoft as a company was after the release of FarCry Blood Dragon. It was in the wake of the excellent FarCry 3 (a project whose developers where clearly passionate about), Assassin's Creed was yet to become completely boring and Blood Dragon was a good value mini- FarCry experience with the best riff on 80's cinema and VHS I have ever scene.

The success of FarCry clearly went to Ubisofts heads. Every game they publish now seems to play the same. Be it FarCry, Assassin's Creed, Watchdogs or the Division, all have the same map, littered with the same busy work, with the same watchtowers to climb. For enthusiasts and critics this repetition has become a bore as now for any Ubisoft release you know exactly what you are getting into. Not only that but other developers are starting to take not at this continued success. Fallout 4 had a greater focus on the shooting mechanics and less on the story and at times while playing it I couldn't help but feel I was playing a FarCry game with Fallout's skin atop it.