PDA

View Full Version : Post Origins, should the series go annual again?



RVSage
07-19-2017, 09:05 PM
Should the franchise be an annual engagement again post origins or should they take their time , like they are doing with Origins?

dxsxhxcx
07-19-2017, 09:23 PM
No. IMO they should take even more time after they deal with Juno and don't release any game until the writers finish the entire next arc, to avoid dragging out the story.

LoyalACFan
07-19-2017, 09:27 PM
I don't think it would be ideal, but I wouldn't pitch a fit over it either. After seeing what they've done with a one-year break, I'm more confident than ever that it was the right decision to skip 2016, but since they have the groundwork in place for all of the new systems, they won't necessarily need as long of a development cycle for Origins' sequel(s).

So, for example, if the Antiquity Trilogy rumors are true, I wouldn't mind if the games come out in 2017, 2018, and 2019, since they'll all likely be built on the same mechanical framework. Then, we take another break for a year or two while they work on building the foundation for a new "trilogy" in another era.

Samurai587
07-19-2017, 10:23 PM
Assassins Creed has two things now:

1) Restoring fundamental credibility in the Assassins's Creed Community that they can make solid AC games without the experience of Unity and Syndicate.

2) They've realised that they cannot consistently produce games that can be 100% ready out of the box. AC3 had a lot of unused scenes and like Unity suffered a lot of similar issues.

If for Heaven's sake, that AC Unity had come out 100% with a better story like AC2, which I believe the Unity Team was trying to go for, then there would have been sequels. But rushed out issues, forced development just wasted what potential it had. As a result we had a city set up for more future events but it got wasted.

Assassin's Creed cannot go back on the one year per game. I think they saw COD and other games and thought they could do the same, but COD doesn't have any innovation, its the same game being made over and over again. That's from my limited knowledge. But it would be a disaster, I think Ubisoft should get a lot of credit for listening to their fans, because AC4 was a step up from AC3, Syndicate was a step up from AC Unity.

And if they're going Witcher 3 style, they should. It's high time AC got the Witcher 3 style. While AC2 was good and all, when all the cutscenes are done and finished, what else do you? I mean you finish all the contracts in AC4 and then what do you in Havana? Is there anything else? No. The Witcher 3 provided 1000s of hours of content with their small quest lines. The next AC games won't be relying on narrative and I am glad. Most like the modern day but I'm not a big fan. The other problem I think the team has is that after Desmond's removal, the whole plot had been going to confront Juno and defeat her.

AC will change from its limited to narrative to Witcher 3 style and it must. If I play Rome in a future title, I want the full Rome. Not the horrendous Republican Rome. Why the team at Ubisoft claims to say their playground is history when they pick the most boring periods?

American Revolution - meh.
Ancient Egypt - they missed a golden opportunity though when they could have placed this in 1450 BC, you have Ancient Babylon, the Hittie Empire, Assyria, Egypt. I'm not sure I agree Ancient Egyptian history is empty. You could have travelled around those places in 1450 BC!

Ptolemic Egypt is the end of Egypt as we know it before Rome takes over. I don't want them going more future in the past. I want a game in Ancient Mesopotamia, and if the devs do read the forums, MAKE ME EXPLORE ANCIENT BABYLON AND THE HANGING GARDENS!!!!

- You could do Ancient India instead of British India, I don't know why British India is so popular, because it's not a great time period. How about picking a time period when the Tamilians of India ruled over South-East Asia? There are huge temples to climb, so much more stuff you could do. The Chola Empire would be a great AC2 to make upon.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Rajendra_map_new.svg/1200px-Rajendra_map_new.svg.png

Would you not want to climb over this?
http://cdn.historydiscussion.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Kambahareswara-Chola-Temple.jpg
If they did make defeat Juno in the previous games, there would be no more future AC titles because the Assassins and Templars will have finished their conflict, but I might be wrong. Otherwise, when she's gone, making a video game in any period will just be a fight, a previous entry. The fight then won't feel special because you know that Juno is defeated. Hence I believe they've taken the decision to prolong it. Because the modern day stuff advances far faster than the History stuff. So what do you, do you prolong the conflict which means you have less modern day stuff?

You'd then be making History games but they wouldn't be exciting that much. Apart if you researched a credible HF story and then made it based there.

And AC is usually better off without the modern day - I would have it in comics. I play the games solely for history. Others may disagree with me - but AC is very much like Total War, these two apart from Paradox's complex games, allows you to play segments of history that Hollywood would never bother to make, or just make one or two films at the best. They put a lot of effort into their games Ubisoft does. But pointless collectables? I would add small quests. The thing is while AC2 has become a great game, it was entirely dependent on narrative and less side quests. Even AC4's story didn't have a strong plot as it should have been. AC Rogue should have been expanded because I think Shay's character has a big impact but it is not shown, at least in comic story form.

I am glad they got rid of multi-player because lots of games have suffered because of this. RII is a obvious mention, Unity as well. While Multi is great, I don't think it works - a lot of budget money that would have been spent on creating extra quests would have gone over to a multi-side.

But everything is my opinion.

AnimusLover
07-19-2017, 11:08 PM
No. If anything, it's clear that Origins needed even more time.
Ubisoft say they started working on the game after Black Flag but most of the critically acclaimed RPGs take a mininum of 5 years. Horizon Zero Dawn took 6 years to make hence its great graphics, animations and story telling. Origins' animationsare horrible and the graphics aren't all that.
I know people will cry "but it's pre alpha!". Why are they showing pre alpha footage at E3? Your E3 demo is supposed to be the best advertisement of your game at that point in order to get people hyped and you're showing PRE ALPHA footage?

ColdBloodedVet
07-19-2017, 11:17 PM
If the game is what it's supposed to be, which is a great AC story with meaningful side quests and two expansions then we won't need it to be annual. If I remember correctly the website says expansions and not dlc missions. Think about TW3, all sorts of side quests and two full expansions that added more gameplay hours. By the time I finished all of that I had my Witcher fix. Then stack new game plus on top of that and you have a winner. I really hope ACO has a new game plus feature since it's so rpg-ish now.

SixKeys
07-20-2017, 05:56 AM
No. I think having a year in-between has improved people's overall feelings toward the franchise in general. I see so many people saying "I'm actually excited to play AC again, having to wait a year between releases made me miss it again". Better to keep people hungry for more than to keep feeding them until they're sick of it.

An extra year is good for development in any case, gives the devs more time to iron out bugs. I also want the next entries to rework navigation and social stealth as radically as Origins has reworked combat. I don't want the series to go back to the "same thing as last year, only with minor additions" model.

WendysBrioche
07-20-2017, 07:12 AM
I think it's better they just use the extra year to develop as well too.

Assuming it does improve the quality, or add more to the games.

Milking it with dlc is fine by me if that helps the funding of development, I don't know anything about how that works out for ubi in terms of profits or effective business.

I like spending money on game series I truly like and believe in though.

AC has been great because they've been able to re use and improve the assets throughout the series in faster generations than other series. Not saying they should do annual releases, but this is one of the few franchises we've gotten to see grow to this degree with all the installments.

And typically I'd say it has shown to make better versions of the game, the more features that have been added, in that development on the previous games can help the newer titles.

In the animations department, this is probably the most advanced animations of any game to date, and I think it's partly because of frequent releases, ugh I sound like I'm contradicting my own point.

What I mean is, even at bi-annual releases, AC games are releasing much more frequently than say, Rockstar or Bethesda titles. I think bi-annual is fast enough to keep this continual development of systems over the releases still happening, but slow enough to give each game more breathing room, more of the development they deserve, and probably better for sales and the series to avoid franchise fatigue.

pacmanate
07-20-2017, 10:19 AM
I hope not.

This is the first time since 2010 where I have been excited for a release to this scale. Why? Cause we missed out last year. The year break made my excitement come back. For me, AC Games from 2009 - 2015 were a "Well, another year, another AC" thing. I knew they were coming so the excitement dropped off.

SHADOWGARVIN
07-20-2017, 01:19 PM
I hope it does. I liked both Unity and Syndicate. There hasn't been an AC game I disliked so far. I don't buy a lot of games, except AC. I always look forward to a new AC game every year and I was really dissapointed last year when there wasn't a new one. I bought the Ezio collection, but it wasn't the same. I hope ACO is a huge succes, that the reinvention of the series is succesfull and that they will return to annual releases.

ninja4hire10
07-20-2017, 01:27 PM
I don't think it would be ideal, but I wouldn't pitch a fit over it either. After seeing what they've done with a one-year break, I'm more confident than ever that it was the right decision to skip 2016, but since they have the groundwork in place for all of the new systems, they won't necessarily need as long of a development cycle for Origins' sequel(s).

So, for example, if the Antiquity Trilogy rumors are true, I wouldn't mind if the games come out in 2017, 2018, and 2019, since they'll all likely be built on the same mechanical framework. Then, we take another break for a year or two while they work on building the foundation for a new "trilogy" in another era.

Exactly. With Origins' extra year of polish, the logical assumption is the other games, which presumably are in some stage(s) of development, will have and are benefiting from the extra time. If the next entry's ready come 2018, bring it on. And like Loyal said, assuming we're in for a trilogy, the framework's already set.

strigoi1958
07-20-2017, 01:58 PM
I think the delay from Syndicate was used to change the combat and style of the game. The template already exists, the story lines and locations are set so delaying the next games does nothing unless Origins has problems which I doubt.

I understand how desperate some people are for an MD protagonist and think any delay will give time that will be used to focus on that, I even read people who would rather everyone goes without AC games, wanting the series to end... if they cannot have what they want then nobody else should be happy :( If the game works perfectly there is no need to delay the release. If a lot of MD/ 1st Civ is going to be included... it will be included regardless of the release date. If people want to wait longer between playing ac games just buy it 6 months after everyone else, then everyones happy ;)

cawatrooper9
07-20-2017, 04:46 PM
If the games are good, absolutely. There's no reason to stick to some arbitrary "Only once every two years rule" if it doesn't really serve any purpose in production and slows down the series for no reason.

The way I see it:

Good Games Often > Good Games Seldom > Weaker Games Often > Weaker Games Seldom

Sushiglutton
07-20-2017, 09:07 PM
I think Naughty Gods approach with Lost Legacy could be a good model. Basically it's somewhere in between a DLC and an iterative game (at least that's my understanding). Mechanically and tech-wise it seems to borrow heavily from UC4 (which isn't a bad thing :o), but it's fleshed out to be a standalone product sold seperately at a somewhat lower price point.

Those inbetween halfgames could be a bit more out there. Perhaps Ubi could do a historical game in the universe, but one that wasn't primarily focused on the assassin/templar conflict. Or a modern day game set in the desert (the desert is the desert after all lol). Or like a linear game.


This strategy would be a way to avoid franchise fatigue while still be able to reuse a lot of the assets.

Green_Reaper
07-20-2017, 09:49 PM
Not going crazy with consecutive releases would probably mean more time to take a breather and play with ideas to see if they work or not, and bring something fresh to the table, rather than just trying to meet a certain quota and recycling and copy-pasting.

RinoTheBouncer
07-20-2017, 11:43 PM
I honestly do not want the franchise to be annual. I adore Assassin's Creed but we've all seen the fatigue on the brand when it became officially annualized after ACIII (even though it was annual since ACII), but let's be honest, Unity could've been four times better had it been released in 2015 instead of 2014, and same goes for Syndicate. While these games do indeed take more than 2 years in development, yet the feedback from the previous game will arrive way too late to make any tangible effects on the game itself, because for example, the game that will follow ACO is probably already under development, which means any feedback that will come from Origins won't be able to change the course of the game in any significant way.

I want the franchise to take its time to present big stories that will feel both fulfilling as a movie of its own as well as get enough time to develop the overarching narrative which brings back the TV show feeling from Desmond's Saga. I really don't wanna get a game each year that gives me only 10 seconds with Juno or a small cutscene prior to the final battle with a POE that we don't even know what it's for. I'd rather wait like for example Uncharted, The Last of Us or The Witcher and get something that I'd get to play, replay, discuss, write about and analyze for a very long time, rather than finish it within the following 2-3 days and forget about it.

Megas_Doux
07-21-2017, 12:23 AM
I still believe up to this very day that Ezio's trilogy is one the worst things to ever happen to the franchise. It's fair to assume my answer to this.....

WendysBrioche
07-21-2017, 03:50 AM
If the games are good, absolutely. There's no reason to stick to some arbitrary "Only once every two years rule" if it doesn't really serve any purpose in production and slows down the series for no reason.

The way I see it:

Good Games Often > Good Games Seldom > Weaker Games Often > Weaker Games Seldom

Wow Cawa you really think so? Based off your other thoughts on the series I'm surprised you agree with annual releases.

But I mean what about Unity? Aren't you afraid the annual release schedule could lead to something like that happening again, scarcity of story content, and a vast and one of their best open worlds wasted in the potential amount of content and activities that could have filled it etc... ?

I mean if their production capabilities are increased, company growth, more people working on the projects... I suppose it could work in theory.

I'm just a bit worried cause it seems even with an extra year for production, Origins is a little lacking in at least a small few of the features previous games have had, namely the lack of skinning animations when looting animals, no animations for opening chests, and the near complete removal of the cover system from previous games which was a fantastic feature for me at least. Though the game does seem to be improved in all the other areas that matter for sure.

But Idk, for me I think an extra year of production, and more hefty dlc scemes seems to be a better way to go for me.

Green_Reaper
07-21-2017, 06:26 AM
Whatever they do I would like them to explore eastern/asia settings more and stop restricting themselves to the western hemisphere and middle east all the time.

dxsxhxcx
07-21-2017, 04:01 PM
Maybe they could release a main game in a year and in the next release a big expansion for the main game (it could be a pre-quel or a sequel to the events of the main game), the mechanics nor the setting would change (unless extremely necessary to tell the story), the only problem would be if they started cutting content from the main game on purpose to later release it as the expansion.

I believe this would take less resources from the next game in development and still please the fans if the content released is good enough.

ps: I'm talking about a expansion that is worth paying, with a full story arc (and side missions) and not stupid collectibles or aesthetic items.
psē: the expansion's events shouldn't have any effect on the MD or be necessary to understand the main game' story.

cawatrooper9
07-21-2017, 04:43 PM
Wow Cawa you really think so? Based off your other thoughts on the series I'm surprised you agree with annual releases.


.

Haha, just curious, what thoughts are you referring to? :p

I've actually always been pretty pro-annualization, as long as the product doesn't suffer from it.

For instance- I'm highly skeptical that Origins benefited from the 2016 hiatus. I have no way to prove that, and I don't think that Origins is a bad game by any means (love what I've played so far) but I just have a strong suspicion that the hiatus was more to deal with the meta-issue of franchise fatigue than actual time necessary for game design.


But I mean what about Unity? Aren't you afraid the annual release schedule could lead to something like that happening again, scarcity of story content, and a vast and one of their best open worlds wasted in the potential amount of content and activities that could have filled it etc... ?

As far as Unity goes- I don't think another year could've saved it. Sure, it might've used a little more time in production, but the tech isssues were mostly ironed out less than a month after release, through patches. Not ideal, but also didn't take an entire year. No, I think Unity's issues were far deeper seeded- my biggest problem is the story and characters, that didn't feel rushed, but rather disjointed. I don't believe more production time could have necessarily helped that.


I'm just a bit worried cause it seems even with an extra year for production, Origins is a little lacking in at least a small few of the features previous games have had, namely the lack of skinning animations when looting animals, no animations for opening chests, and the near complete removal of the cover system from previous games which was a fantastic feature for me at least. Though the game does seem to be improved in all the other areas that matter for sure.
I think this kind of represents a big part of the issue, actually. Were the skinning animations, for instance, cut because of cutting corners or laziness? Or was it an attempt to streamline the gameplay experience?

Personally, I really appreciated the lack of skinning (or looting) animations in the game. See, I sometimes have very little patience for stuff like that. In the Ezio trilogy I barely ever loot bodies at all, because it takes so ridiculously wrong.

So, I think part of the reason people see "issues" with games is because of their own subjective preferences. Then, you know, the echo-chamber of the internet exacerbates the whole thing.


But Idk, for me I think an extra year of production, and more hefty dlc scemes seems to be a better way to go for me.
Yeah, and I'd like to reiterate- if the extra year is done genuinely for the final product to be significantly better, then I totally agree with it.

strigoi1958
07-21-2017, 05:36 PM
For all we know Unity had TOO much time. Adding in so many things that possibly caused teething problems like the phone app and club competition (which I loved). Who can honestly say those were not responsible for the teething problems? delaying the game was impossible due to the xbox bundle launch date but any changes and additions that were made in the 2 years before it's release would have had a knock on effect.

I imagine the story is one of the FIRST things to be made. It would be difficult making animations and settings/ locations before having some story board cards. So I doubt any extra time would benefit story lines. I think small problems occur when everything gets finally assembled and little things that caused no problems when tested separately conflict when the game is put together. Also last minute additions probably cause problems... having an extra 6 months or a year would only allow more chances to add something else that might cause a problem.

As we all know these games are not made in just 1 year... and during their production things change, new consoles, pc technology, dx versions. Vulkan ... mobile phone apps... gaming trends and (as mentioned before) new ideas to be included. Personally, I'd rather Devs set a cut off point for unforced changes (Maybe 2 years into the project, nothing new can be added) and the game gets finished on time rather than a mad rush to fix all the problems at the end that are caused by including some idea an exec has had 6 months before the release date.

Yes I know it might mean that the game is perfect shortly after the previous one but the devs could work on DLC and look at including the new ideas in that or in the next game.

RVSage
07-21-2017, 07:51 PM
Here is my thoughts Why it should NOT go annual

1. It worked on Ezio's trilogy, because brotherhood and revelations, were more or less expanded DLCs, for which we payed full price. I did not realize it back then. In retrospective, yes they were. Ezio by then was a gold standard in Video game characters

2. ACIV following AC3 worked primarily because of the pirate element, and for regular fans, because of the Kenway connection, the modern day in AC IV which was not liked by many kept it from perfection.

3. AC Syndicate / Unity would have performed better had they had more time, Unity needed more story and performance/bug polish, while syndicate needed a better ending and better side quests.

4. Off late open world games, from other makers has been a notch above AC. Witcher 3 set an standard for Open world games, and recently made even better by Horizon Zero Dawn and Zelda Breath of the Wild. The Open world space, is filled with quality products, now. In order for AC devs to keep their standards above the competition they definitely need time. Since , I believe to Ubisoft AC is their premier franchise.

5. With the confirmation of the anime series, I see this an opportunity to keep AC around in other media, while the games get better time at development. This is great all around.

I guess the 2016 year break is the best thing to happen the franchise in a long time

cawatrooper9
07-21-2017, 08:02 PM
Totally. Again, it's impossible to say without an official statement, but the bloat of useless and unwanted content in Unity does seem indicative of perhaps too much time being spent tinkering in production.

I intended on asking Ash and Jean at E3 exactly how taking an extra year to release Origins (seeing as they started in late 2013/early 2014 they wouldn't view it as a "year off" like fans do) benefited the process and if they viewed it as something that was necessary to the development of the game, but I chickened out. I was worried the question would sound more disrespectful than I intended (and to be honest, I didn't really expect them to publicly denounce the hiatus anyway, even if they felt that way) .

crusader_prophet
07-21-2017, 11:23 PM
The poll needs to be less binary because people's feelings about annualization aren't always that black and white. So maybe include couple more options like "Not sure" and "it's not that simple"
Annualization isn't the sole issue behind the lacklusterness of the recent games. It's the vision, direction, writing, and conceptualization. It's the stuff that is usually built in pre-production stage of the game. I had no game-breaking issues with Unity, except minuscule animation glitches which were comic relief than annoying and the co-op missions. In contrast, I disliked Unity because of its snoozefest narrative, storytelling, characters and just awful mission design and content placement. The story had no direction, no appeal, the characters were boring and cringy, narrative was incoherent, content was under-utilized and misplaced (such as co-op missions were a missed opportunity to fully utilize them as core missions and integrate with the narrative, same with Nostradamus missions) and non-existent modern day section.
Stopping annualization may fix rocky launches but it will not fix the mediocrity of the games. To fix that you need better talent. House-cleaning and reallocating resource and talents, re-strategizing and re-organizing the franchise development structure and personnel (such as instead of multiple studios being at the helm of each game, make the management of the franchise dedicated to a studio) will address that.
Finally, stop being greedy also helps.

strigoi1958
07-21-2017, 11:44 PM
Here are my thoughts as to why it should be annual.

1. I do not care about the story, I just want to play a new game every year. And every game has been great.... some have had far too much included which IMHO causes burn out for people who are compulsive in getting 100% and collecting every collectable/ achievement.... it can become a little tiresome just doing something just for the sake of it.

2. ACB was short and probably could have been AC2's DLC/ extension but Revelations is incredible and any time AC wants to head back to the ottoman empire I'll be very happy :) but being 1 year apart never made them a bad thing... I think as I mentioned before, people are being given far too much content and it is becoming a grind to some, they don't want another long grind so soon...

3. AC3 was great because it improved on Ezio's city/ shop building/ renovating with homestead missions rather than just buy a shop. The puzzles were great and the city/ frontier contrast broke up the gameplay. Also some of the collectables were difficult to find so a nice challenge.
AC4 gave us ships, sailing, underwater, naval battles, whales and jungle scenery... again, maybe too much to collect.

4. Ghost recon wildlands has some features I like.... tracking down informants to discover the location or details about a target, I believe someone has already mentioned ash said something about targets moving about depending on time of day... but side quests that require information gathering and reconnaissance would be better than too many collectables... and I think AC games will be moving that way... borrowing from ghost recon and Far Cry.

5. Seeing how fickle fans are and how quickly the forums went quiet... too long a break might end the series even quicker than if it gets stale. I like games with a long campaign mission and AC games have that... but perhaps making it possible in replays to hide collectables after they have been 100% collected in a previous game would make the games less of a grind to people if they just do the main and side missions... 1 50 hour game and replays of 15 to 20 hours would keep it fresher. :)

WendysBrioche
07-22-2017, 05:44 AM
Haha, just curious, what thoughts are you referring to? :p

I've actually always been pretty pro-annualization, as long as the product doesn't suffer from it.

For instance- I'm highly skeptical that Origins benefited from the 2016 hiatus. I have no way to prove that, and I don't think that Origins is a bad game by any means (love what I've played so far) but I just have a strong suspicion that the hiatus was more to deal with the meta-issue of franchise fatigue than actual time necessary for game design.



As far as Unity goes- I don't think another year could've saved it. Sure, it might've used a little more time in production, but the tech isssues were mostly ironed out less than a month after release, through patches. Not ideal, but also didn't take an entire year. No, I think Unity's issues were far deeper seeded- my biggest problem is the story and characters, that didn't feel rushed, but rather disjointed. I don't believe more production time could have necessarily helped that.


I think this kind of represents a big part of the issue, actually. Were the skinning animations, for instance, cut because of cutting corners or laziness? Or was it an attempt to streamline the gameplay experience?

Personally, I really appreciated the lack of skinning (or looting) animations in the game. See, I sometimes have very little patience for stuff like that. In the Ezio trilogy I barely ever loot bodies at all, because it takes so ridiculously wrong.

So, I think part of the reason people see "issues" with games is because of their own subjective preferences. Then, you know, the echo-chamber of the internet exacerbates the whole thing.


Yeah, and I'd like to reiterate- if the extra year is done genuinely for the final product to be significantly better, then I totally agree with it.

Lol, I was just generically referring. I actually don't remember a specific point you may have brought up.

It just sounded like an opinoon that felt like it it might be surprising compared to son residual memory I had of something I thought you said.

I'm not making sense lol.

I have a bad memory, the way I remember things is by a vague imprint or emotion in my mind of something I thought I've heard, and they're not always correct lol.

Idk, for me I felt Unity was somewhat lacking.

I think the game would've done way better with more story missions, or at the very least any sort of in world activities to do like Syndicate had.

I'm one of those who likes to be overwhelmed with content, even if the content is repetitive. I don't mind, and usually don't need justification for why I have to do something from a narrative perspective as long as it's fun. :)

Of course, story reasons can always be drawn.

I thought Unity would be cool if it had something like, actual battles. Canon fire, where you light the canons during a mission, or just stuff like that.

I personally felt Unity was more of an independent story that used the French Revolution as a backdrop than it did to explore the actual revolution.

The multiplayer missions covered that aspect a lot more, but I barely got to play those, issues connecting and stuff and not enough time to play.

There were things AC III had that Unity didn't though, and I think some of that would've been cool.

I've noticed with current gen games compared to 360 ps3 gen the games now are a lot more demanding in terms of budget and production.

I can't help but suspect a little more time, an extra year could help. If people feel like they haven't had enough Assassin's Creed, there should be more interest.

Rockstar titles have certainly sold more copies than each AC game, and those sales increase greatly with the additional years between releases, if you follow them.

I think AC games partially don't sell as much per game cause there has been a new one each year, no ones going to buy last year's game if the new one's out.

But I don't know how all that works out for Ubi. I'd rather leave that to them, I think they know how best to run their companies and produce their games.

My personal wants for the games is to have a smidgen more content than Unity had offered.

Syndicate had the perfect amount of features imo. With all the boroughs to free from the Blighters, plus the carriage events and such, it was a very interactive and plentiful open world.

And Origins seems to be going the same way +

I'm honestly fine if they do annual releases though. I'm an AC addict. I usually can't get enough of these games.

I regretted getting Syndicate so late cause there was so much to do, and it was a beautiful game. I got bad feedback from friends when it launched.

The voltaic bomb was a bit of a turn off I suppose. And Evies invisibility. And just Jacob Frye lol.

That and I don't really care for steampunk. XD

notfunnybro
07-22-2017, 01:10 PM
I would be ok with having a new AC every other year if they would make a lot of great dlc in the time between games. But really I like having a new setting every year so I think it should be annual and I think they should still make better dlc.

IsAZebraACat
07-22-2017, 01:46 PM
Origins is my favorite setting for a videogame ever, so I'm going to be playing it for more than a year for sure. Heck, I still play Black Flag and Rogue regularly.

I can't think of another place the series could go that would make me want to put Origins down and spend another $60 on an AC game.

Unless... we find out that Sam Fisher is part of the brotherhood.

Sorrosyss
07-22-2017, 09:37 PM
Well, its too early to answer this. What if Origins doesn't deliver even with the extra time? I've seen arguments on both sides for longer and shorter development cycles, with examples on both spectrums of successes. However, if we assume Origins to be a return to form then great. If the next game started development a year after Origins started, and has the same amount of years of development, then by token an annual release next year should be fine. In theory. :p

WendysBrioche
07-23-2017, 12:42 AM
Well, its too early to answer this. What if Origins doesn't deliver even with the extra time? I've seen arguments on both sides for longer and shorter development cycles, with examples on both spectrums of successes. However, if we assume Origins to be a return to form then great. If the next game started development a year after Origins started, and has the same amount of years of development, then by token an annual release next year should be fine. In theory. :p

I say whatever's best for the games, and their success.

If Ubi can pull off the annual again, I'm totally fine with that. Brotherhood, Revelations, AC III, Back Flag, and Syndicate were all fully fleshed out games imo, and those all followed the annual release schedules.

So far Unity seems to be the only game that's suffered because of it. Maybe there were a bunch of other reasons involved, some of what I've read had to do with technical difficulties cause they were trying to push the graphics farther than the hardware and engine could handle at the time.

marvelfannumber
07-23-2017, 03:43 PM
I'll pretty thoroughly say no more annual releases on this one. Even if like some have pointed out they could get the annual releases to work again like they used to, I and alot of other people just wouldn't want it. Franchise fatigue for Assassin's Creed is already bad enough as it is, I hope they don't make it even worse by bringing back annual releases. One just has to look at the activity on this forum in 2012 compared to now to see that alot of people are just burnt out.

They should take a good break between each of the games so they can properly asses critique from previous entries and so they can have time to come up with something new that could change the game, not rush them out every year for quick money.

AnimusLover
07-23-2017, 04:32 PM
As far as Unity goes- I don't think another year could've saved it. Sure, it might've used a little more time in production, but the tech isssues were mostly ironed out less than a month after release, through patches. Not ideal, but also didn't take an entire year. No, I think Unity's issues were far deeper seeded- my biggest problem is the story and characters, that didn't feel rushed, but rather disjointed. I don't believe more production time could have necessarily helped that.

Completely agree. It annoys me that Ubisoft have been able to grow comfortable with this lie that Unity would have been better received if it was polished. The fact of the matter is the game and its story is just poorly executed. Side missions are copied and pasted, virtually all the same, with not even a cut scene to distinguish between them. The whole game's presentation is lazy - compare the murder mysteries to the Dreadful Crimes in Syndicate, for instance. The story is very disconnected from the world.
In ACII, every mission you did whether small or large never made you forget what Ezio was fighting for. For instance, collecting feathers for his mother was about his little brother, the races he took part in reminded him/me of the races he did with his older brother. The world and the characters were interlocked. In Unity, you do missions for the sake of doing them and I never buy that someone as selfish as Arno would take part in those things. And I'm still confused as to why it needed to be set in Paris at that particular time when the history was never really taken advantage of.



5. Seeing how fickle fans are and how quickly the forums went quiet... too long a break might end the series even quicker than if it gets stale.

I think this is very unfair and insulting. The forums went quiet after one terrible game and 1 arguably mediocre one. Any forum would go quiet when there's not much news after such entries. The excitement for Origins is far more than for Syndicate at the time and that's largely because of the year off.

PhilyG213
07-23-2017, 04:32 PM
If Origins blows us away then it's clear as day that they need to stop with annual releases but the game's not out yet so what do I know?

Megas_Doux
07-23-2017, 05:11 PM
I say whatever's best for the games, and their success.

If Ubi can pull off the annual again, I'm totally fine with that. Brotherhood, Revelations, AC III, Back Flag, and Syndicate were all fully fleshed out games imo, and those all followed the annual release schedules.



I have to disagree here, quite a bit....

Even though Revelations is still an Ezio game, back the day there was backlash here and outside the forums due to the lack of content in comparison to AC II and ACB. Even the famous "tombs" were included in the main story to mention something, bare bones through and through. It know that this user of mine dates from 2012, but believe me that I've been here since 2010 and people here was already tired of Ezio and the late XV/early XVI century and in 2012 when AC III was announced the change of setting was IMMENSELY celebrated. Speaking of which....

AC III is a game that I consider to be underrated (worst AC?? Hell no!) but despite its new innovations it felt short in terms of the hype created and the forums were a battlefield for YEARS about the game itself and its protagonist. Outside here is arguably the game has most haters (unfairly I think) after Unity...So, again, NO!


In regards of Syndicate...Well, granted! It's wasn't as universally panned as Unity thanks to the fact it worked at release at the expense of almost getting rid of the Customization, completely eliminating Co-op, lowering the graphics, reducing the amount of accessible buildings, crowds, undergrounds, etc, etc etc. Yet it was from being a great game and financially, well it's the worst selling game of the main ones with the exception of Rogue......So, no!





So far Unity seems to be the only game that's suffered because of it. Maybe there were a bunch of other reasons involved, some of what I've read had to do with technical difficulties cause they were trying to push the graphics farther than the hardware and engine could handle at the time.

Unity's fiasco hurt Syndicate sales, possibly Origins ones and in conjunction with the Watch dogs massive downgrade...Ubi as a whole.

Unity tried to revamp the core of the game and prior to its release I was super hyped for it, something I think it will never be done..... However and besides its many technical issues the story went downhill after killing Bellec and the world was pretty much a chore graphics aside....

So, again, no to annualization. In fact I wish they would have taken 2017 off also....

AnimusLover
07-23-2017, 07:59 PM
I have to disagree here, quite a bit....

Even though Revelations is still an Ezio game, back the day there was backlash here and outside the forums due to the lack of content in comparison to AC II and ACB. Even the famous "tombs" were included in the main story to mention something, bare bones through and through. It know that this user of mine dates from 2012, but believe me that I've been here since 2010 and people here was already tired of Ezio and the late XV/early XVI century and in 2012 when AC III was announced the change of setting was IMMENSELY celebrated. Speaking of which....

Oh, so it's not just me who thinks Revelations was garbage? Glad to know.


In regards of Syndicate...Well, granted! It's wasn't as universally panned as Unity thanks to the fact it worked at release at the expense of almost getting rid of the Customization, completely eliminating Co-op, lowering the graphics, reducing the amount of accessible buildings, crowds, undergrounds, etc, etc etc. Yet it was from being a great game and financially, well it's the worst selling game of the main ones with the exception of Rogue......So, no!

Never like the customisation in Unity mainly because they botched it by tying everything to certain stats. If you're a stealth player like me then you had the ugliest outfits lol
Syndicate sort of did the same thing but ultimately the stats didn't matter once you upgraded your character enough and the outfits on a whole for Jacob were OK. Co-op was also a useless addition, feeling like a mere tack-on rather than some new innovation that was going to change the way you tackled missions like the marketing made out. The accessible buildings in Unity provided nothing but visual pleasure. The things you did whilst inside the buildings in Syndicate were far more interesting. The crowds in Unity felt lifeless and copy and pasted. People like to praise Unity for trying to do something different with the franchise but it was all done so half heartedly it's hard to give it any credit. It's the only game the franchise that I feel a newcomer could skip seeing as it adds nothing to the lore and Syndicate is a superior version of it.

strigoi1958
07-23-2017, 11:36 PM
I'll pretty thoroughly say no more annual releases on this one. Even if like some have pointed out they could get the annual releases to work again like they used to, I and a lot of other people just wouldn't want it. Franchise fatigue for Assassin's Creed is already bad enough as it is.

It makes no difference if some people (even a lot) do not want it annually... as I already said, they can wait (possibly for a sale 6 months later) or even not buy at all, that way it only affects them not the people who do want it. I eat white bread every day but when I want a break and eat brown bread, I don't suggest that everybody else should go without white bread until I have an appetite for it again. :D

But you rightly point out the most important thing... franchise fatigue.... I think that is the problem with any long running franchise. I think what Ubi really needs to do is send out a survey to find out exactly what it is that causes franchise fatigue (and annual release is not a factor.... if a game is good we will play it hundreds and thousands of hours). I'm sure we all have a few favourite games that we replay when we have nothing new.

I'm not bothered about 100% completionist in games or even achievements (if I get them great if not... meh) but it made me look up average game times on the site HLTB (how long to beat) and Unity was 77 hours (average) to get 100% while AC2 was less than half that at 34.5 hours. I think as maps get bigger and as more collectables get added to fill up the map, the more fatiguing it becomes to complete 100%. I think people are happier to replay a shorter game than play a longer game once. I know most games I replay are usually ones I feel were so much fun they ended too soon and the ones I never replay are the ones I think just seemed to go past the peak enjoyment and start to be a long fight to get to the end.

Unity was a big map but when we selected show all ... in the map it was covered in icons (Artifacts, Chests, Cockades, Newspapers, Sync Points) not to mention social events and the club house missions, murder mysteries and enigma puzzles... It was a case of Ubi giving too much... in an effort to put in something for everyone they overfilled the game. so the average 77 hours (plus dead kings and the companion app) was far too much. I enjoyed the club competitions but I never get a big urge to replay Unity which is a shame.

I'm sure some collectables are included just so we visit some great places on the maps that we might otherwise overlook but leaving a lot of them out and spacing out the others and lessening the achievements might help prevent fatigue.

Also we must take into account that players buying Origins as their 1st (or 2nd, 3rd) AC game will not have any franchise fatigue. Why should they be denied access to a game because older fans are not as hyped?


@PhilyG213

If Origins blows us away because we enjoy the new combat system and new extras then why delay the next game? it will be 80 to 90% complete when Origins releases and probably based on the same game design. I could understand if Origins did poorly in sales figures and Ubi wanted time to change things again.

AnimusLover
07-24-2017, 09:11 AM
It makes no difference if some people (even a lot) do not want it annually... as I already said, they can wait (possibly for a sale 6 months later) or even not buy at all, that way it only affects them not the people who do want it. I eat white bread every day but when I want a break and eat brown bread, I don't suggest that everybody else should go without white bread until I have an appetite for it again. :D

People insisting Ubisoft delay their games is not down to getting it too often, it's about making sure they take the time to develop their games properly so that we get something new, innovative and fresh. If that was something that could be done in time for annual release no one would be complaining but the last few entries have proven it cannot.


I think as maps get bigger and as more collectables get added to fill up the map, the more fatiguing it becomes to complete 100%. I think people are happier to replay a shorter game than play a longer game once. I know most games I replay are usually ones I feel were so much fun they ended too soon and the ones I never replay are the ones I think just seemed to go past the peak enjoyment and start to be a long fight to get to the end.

I love a big map with loads of stuff to do. What I don't like is a bunch of repetitive crap, meaningless collectibles and checklisty objectives that constantly remind you you're the player.


Unity was a big map but when we selected show all ... in the map it was covered in icons (Artifacts, Chests, Cockades, Newspapers, Sync Points) not to mention social events and the club house missions, murder mysteries and enigma puzzles... It was a case of Ubi giving too much... in an effort to put in something for everyone they overfilled the game. so the average 77 hours (plus dead kings and the companion app) was far too much. I enjoyed the club competitions but I never get a big urge to replay Unity which is a shame.

Unity did not have "too much". I got all the achievements and 100% it in no time. What it had was too much of one thing copied and pasted all over the place to disguise the fact there wasn't much to do.

dxsxhxcx
07-24-2017, 02:04 PM
People insisting Ubisoft delay their games is not down to getting it too often, it's about making sure they take the time to develop their games properly so that we get something new, innovative and fresh. If that was something that could be done in time for annual release no one would be complaining but the last few entries have proven it cannot.



I love a big map with loads of stuff to do. What I don't like is a bunch of repetitive crap, meaningless collectibles and checklisty objectives that constantly remind you you're the player.


Unity did not have "too much". I got all the achievements and 100% it in no time. What it had was too much of one thing copied and pasted all over the place to disguise the fact there wasn't much to do.

Pretty much this, I just disagree about big maps, IMO the maps' sizes in AC1 and AC2 were perfectly fine, the multiple cities also helped with the pace of the story, making it feel like the time was passing and we were going somewhere rather than running in circles in a single city. IMO they should go back to the old (multiple cities) style and ditch huge maps.

the pace at which the story is told and the constant change of scenery are huge reasons why I can go back to AC1/2 and play them without getting bored.

Hopefully, The Witcher 3 approach they're taking with Origins means that they'll use the map' size wisely in a way that'll make the player feels that things are constantly moving forward.

Nerdman3000
07-24-2017, 03:29 PM
I don't think it would be ideal, but I wouldn't pitch a fit over it either. After seeing what they've done with a one-year break, I'm more confident than ever that it was the right decision to skip 2016, but since they have the groundwork in place for all of the new systems, they won't necessarily need as long of a development cycle for Origins' sequel(s).

So, for example, if the Antiquity Trilogy rumors are true, I wouldn't mind if the games come out in 2017, 2018, and 2019, since they'll all likely be built on the same mechanical framework. Then, we take another break for a year or two while they work on building the foundation for a new "trilogy" in another era.

Like LoyalACFan, I wouldn't mind if we got an Ancient Greece game in 2018 and an Ancient Rome game in 2019, but then have a year break in 2020. That to me is what I would prefer.

cawatrooper9
07-24-2017, 04:07 PM
If Origins blows us away then it's clear as day that they need to stop with annual releases but the game's not out yet so what do I know?

I'd say that one game being good is more of a "correlation not implying causality" kind of thing.

I want it to be good, but I don't think it means taking a year off designates a guaranteed hit, or that not doing so is a condemnation.



1. I do not care about the story, I just want to play a new game every year. And every game has been great.... some have had far too much included which IMHO causes burn out for people who are compulsive in getting 100% and collecting every collectable/ achievement.... it can become a little tiresome just doing something just for the sake of it.


Wow! To each their own, for sure, but even as someone who is generally in the pro-annualization camp, I can't bring myself to agree with this. However, I would say that I remain entirely skeptical that whether or not the game is annualized has much to do with the storyboarding process.

strigoi1958
07-24-2017, 04:57 PM
Wow! To each their own, for sure, but even as someone who is generally in the pro-annualization camp, I can't bring myself to agree with this. However, I would say that I remain entirely skeptical that whether or not the game is annualized has much to do with the storyboarding process.

I don't have franchise fatigue from AC... (possibly because I just like games, I don't need a story to play sports or board games or video games) but fatigue is obviously an issue for some people. If it is possible to find out exactly what is causing it for them it might help in the development of future games. If it is the story then it will always be down to personal taste, but if it is actually something based in the game then that could be addressed.
There will always be people who want delays because the game is not perfect for them and so want everyone else to go without (misery loves company) but there are also genuine concerns that might be worth considering.

I'm sure Ubi are aware that people like/ dislike certain things because of the in game feedback and surveys but perhaps they are not asking the right questions?
There are achievements that are simple to beat and others that might involve a bit of a grind (like destroy 5000 breakables or collect every beer in Syndicate) These are just personal choices, I don't bother with collectables in games unless they offer xp or are very close to me, but I have read a lot of posts from frustrated players who get irate about the 100% completion.... I like a challenge but if it gets to the point where it affects someones enjoyment that can damage the way they see the game or the franchise.

For myself, I'm a huge fan of all ac games but I'll never replay ac2 (AC2 is a great game) but simply because the tombs were so incredibly difficult for me that I associate the game with 0% enjoyment. I undoubtedly had 25 hours of fun and hundreds of hours of frustration ;) and it is the latter that makes AC2 so distasteful to me. So perhaps others who have played the game to the end then spend hours free roaming to get collectables and achievements are not enjoying it as much as when they are playing the game? and maybe that is where the fatigue comes from?

crusader_prophet
07-24-2017, 05:21 PM
Story forms the soul of AC franchise. AC would never be popular as it is today without the narrative appeal and mysticism of the lore it had since the first one, with just gameplay. We are not playing Madden or Rocket League here. Without story, characters and narrative AC will be nothing even with the historical tourism and stabby gameplay which has become boring to me now.

crusader_prophet
07-24-2017, 05:27 PM
If Origins blows us away then it's clear as day that they need to stop with annual releases but the game's not out yet so what do I know?
I sincerely hope your job does not even entail with anything remotely statistics related or forming correlation vs cause-and-effect decisions based on observation and data.

strigoi1958
07-24-2017, 06:23 PM
Story forms the soul of AC franchise. AC would never be popular as it is today without the narrative appeal and mysticism of the lore it had since the first one, with just gameplay. We are not playing Madden or Rocket League here. Without story, characters and narrative AC will be nothing even with the historical tourism and stabby gameplay which has become boring to me now.

I understand that totally, and as incredulous and ridiculous as the MD story became, I have always been a staunch supporter for its inclusion. I don't think the story is causing fatigue (maybe a lesser enjoyment of ac games) but that is something that could be addressed (as long as it does not interfere with the game :) ).

The AC games offer many things, stealth, combat, scavenging, crafting, exploring, puzzles, historical settings, great cities (and even historical tourism with stabby gameplay for those like me who buy games to interact with rather than watch ;) ) as well as a narrative and people are drawn to the games for many different reasons, not just the narrative. But that is just us going off topic unless it is the lessening appeal of the story direction that makes people not want an annual release.

dxsxhxcx
07-24-2017, 07:38 PM
I understand that totally, and as incredulous and ridiculous as the MD story became, I have always been a staunch supporter for its inclusion. I don't think the story is causing fatigue (maybe a lesser enjoyment of ac games) but that is something that could be addressed (as long as it does not interfere with the game :) ).


I can only speak for myself but the lack of Ubisoft's investment on the MD has certainly decreased my overall enjoyment of the franchise, many see the MD only as a plot device to justify the HUD elements but I don't see it that way, I don't want the MD to have more screen time than the historical part, but I want whatever screen time it has to be meaningful narrative-wise and not the afterthought it has been for years now.

If all they want is a excuse to justify the HUD all they need to do is remove the MD story entirely and add a cutscene at the beginning of each game briefly explaining the concept of the animus, treating us as the animus user, pretty much what they tried to do after AC3, but this time without any form of poor interaction from or with the outside world, while they are at it they should remove the TWCB as well and make the games be about the never-ending battle between two factions with different point of views because the POEs and TWCB are only relevant for the MD story since it's the sole reason why we go to the past, I really don't see a point in having these in their current form if they aren't relevant for something else.

You may ask yourself what this has to do with annual releases? IMO the desire to put out as much games as they can is what screwed up with the story, narrative elements seem to have been added for the sole purpose of justifying a game rather than tell a story (for example, I find Revelations' Modern Day segments completely pointless to the grand scheme of things and everything released after AC3 feels like it hasn't moved anywhere, even after 4 years/games).

AnimusLover
07-24-2017, 08:25 PM
I don't have franchise fatigue from AC... (possibly because I just like games, I don't need a story to play sports or board games or video games) but fatigue is obviously an issue for some people. If it is possible to find out exactly what is causing it for them it might help in the development of future games. If it is the story then it will always be down to personal taste, but if it is actually something based in the game then that could be addressed.
There will always be people who want delays because the game is not perfect for them and so want everyone else to go without (misery loves company) but there are also genuine concerns that might be worth considering.

I'm sure Ubi are aware that people like/ dislike certain things because of the in game feedback and surveys but perhaps they are not asking the right questions?
There are achievements that are simple to beat and others that might involve a bit of a grind (like destroy 5000 breakables or collect every beer in Syndicate) These are just personal choices, I don't bother with collectables in games unless they offer xp or are very close to me, but I have read a lot of posts from frustrated players who get irate about the 100% completion.... I like a challenge but if it gets to the point where it affects someones enjoyment that can damage the way they see the game or the franchise.

For myself, I'm a huge fan of all ac games but I'll never replay ac2 (AC2 is a great game) but simply because the tombs were so incredibly difficult for me that I associate the game with 0% enjoyment. I undoubtedly had 25 hours of fun and hundreds of hours of frustration ;) and it is the latter that makes AC2 so distasteful to me. So perhaps others who have played the game to the end then spend hours free roaming to get collectables and achievements are not enjoying it as much as when they are playing the game? and maybe that is where the fatigue comes from?

Every single time somebody says they don't like something about AC you always say it's because they find it too hard, regardless of whether the person has said that or not lol. It's like you constantly project your feelings on to others. 5000 breakables, for instance, was not remotely challenging as all you had to do was run your carriage through breakable objects in a particular area of the city. The problem is that it was BORING doing it over and over again for the sake of an achievement. It was pointless and unfulfilling. Even after I got the trophy I felt insulted afterwards.

There is too much pontless filler in AC games because the devs don't spend the time to come up with good side content. The Dreadful Crimes were some of the best mission designs AC has done in years and you know why? Because they were all so uniquely different, thorough and clever. It was hard to believe Ubisoft had come up with it at times but then I remember how clever ACII was and realise they are capable of more when they allow themselves the time. Dreadful Crimes is Unity's murder mysteries with TIME. I feel like Witcher 3 is like the perfect inverse of Assassin's Creed in terms of how to do side content.

Samurai587
07-24-2017, 09:56 PM
End of the day - I want AC Origins to be a massive success so I can play more AC set in history(personally.)

strigoi1958
07-24-2017, 11:05 PM
End of the day - I want AC Origins to be a massive success so I can play more AC set in history(personally.)

Me too :)

But I completely understand what dxsxhxcx is saying.
Before each game is released the MD fans get excited and hopeful and then it turns to despondency and it's not right that something that brought someone to a game should just fade away. I think the MD went Batsh*t crazy trying to make each ending have a bigger plot twist than before with Lucy and then Desmond.... but it escalated way to quickly and I guess it was either a case of .... not knowing where to go after that... or it was going to be the end of MD and they overdid it and piqued everyones interest even more??? Either way, it's been simmering away in the background and I think it will make a return (when they figure out how) but I'd prefer it to be part of the game (not Desmond walking round a cave, offfice or sports arena) ... something purposeful that appeals to "historical tourists" like Samurai587 and me, as well as MD fans.

I think the only way to remove it would be a series reboot and I really do not want that.

pirate1802
07-25-2017, 05:34 AM
The poll needs to be less binary because people's feelings about annualization aren't always that black and white. So maybe include couple more options like "Not sure" and "it's not that simple"
Annualization isn't the sole issue behind the lacklusterness of the recent games. It's the vision, direction, writing, and conceptualization. It's the stuff that is usually built in pre-production stage of the game. I had no game-breaking issues with Unity, except minuscule animation glitches which were comic relief than annoying and the co-op missions. In contrast, I disliked Unity because of its snoozefest narrative, storytelling, characters and just awful mission design and content placement. The story had no direction, no appeal, the characters were boring and cringy, narrative was incoherent, content was under-utilized and misplaced (such as co-op missions were a missed opportunity to fully utilize them as core missions and integrate with the narrative, same with Nostradamus missions) and non-existent modern day section.
Stopping annualization may fix rocky launches but it will not fix the mediocrity of the games. To fix that you need better talent. House-cleaning and reallocating resource and talents, re-strategizing and re-organizing the franchise development structure and personnel (such as instead of multiple studios being at the helm of each game, make the management of the franchise dedicated to a studio) will address that.
Finally, stop being greedy also helps.


This. All of this. Stopping annual releases won't help you if your core is rotten. When people say Unity was broken and list the bugs as the reasons, for me bugs were only a minor part of the reason the game was broken. The bigger problem was the broken narrative, broken characters and pretty much everything else. And while you can somehow patch up bugs post-release, you can't do the same with narrative. Anyhow..

I feel the easiest way out of this problem which everyone is forgetting is expansions. You know, since we are going for the "Witcher" feel apparently, maybe ubisoft could learn how to make good Witcherlike expansions too. Meaty expansions that feel like a whole new game aka Blood & Wine? Because it's billed as an expansion people wouldn't complain about reused assets and the general sameyness, while on the other hand you get tons of new content at a reasonable price. Win win. You also appear to be supporting your games and keeping them alive with pumping new content. WItcher 3 came out in 2015, B&W in 2016, barely a year later. Yet nobody accused them of milking the series. Had the expansion been given a new name and a full price tag, I assure you plenty of people would have been complaining. Case in point for the AC franchise. And ubisoft themselves have done it in the past with standalone expansions like Farcry 3 Blood Dragon. Such big expansions keep the fans satiated between releases while avoiding complaints of milking. This is why I think going for the "Witcher" feel is all well and good, but what will make their games really shine is if they went for the CDPR feel. A daydream, I know.

SixKeys
07-25-2017, 06:19 AM
Every single time somebody says they don't like something about AC you always say it's because they find it too hard, regardless of whether the person has said that or not lol. It's like you constantly project your feelings on to others. 5000 breakables, for instance, was not remotely challenging as all you had to do was run your carriage through breakable objects in a particular area of the city. The problem is that it was BORING doing it over and over again for the sake of an achievement. It was pointless and unfulfilling. Even after I got the trophy I felt insulted afterwards.

I find it amusing that you went after the achievement even though you found it insulting to your intelligence. If I don't find something worth doing, I don't do it. Ubi keeps track of how many people go after all this pointless fluff and the more you engage with it, the more you're telling them that it's okay for them to keep shoveling it in.
I almost feel like some of these achievements are done just to see "how far can we push it before people say 'enough with this'?" Patrice Desilets put a bunch of pointless flags in AC1 to prove a point and more than ten games later, people are trying to "collect" 5,000 breakable objects for an achievement. Do we need the more heavy-handed Nintendo approach where they literally award you with a golden turd for collecting 900 Korok leaves before people realize it's all a joke?

AnimusLover
07-25-2017, 10:44 AM
I find it amusing that you went after the achievement even though you found it insulting to your intelligence. If I don't find something worth doing, I don't do it.

Because it was so easy and I wanted something to add to my trophy list. Couldn't resist. Plus I paid for the game, might as well get all I can out of it.


Ubi keeps track of how many people go after all this pointless fluff and the more you engage with it, the more you're telling them that it's okay for them to keep shoveling it in.

And that probably explains why Ubisoft is unable to deliver a satisfying experience with games like Unity, despite feeling like they're "giving the fans what they want" - people play the game they are presented out of obligation (OCD, completionist), not fun. That's why we refer to side missions as a "chore".


I almost feel like some of these achievements are done just to see "how far can we push it before people say 'enough with this'?"

That's called 'cutting off your nose to spite your face', as it's only cemented Ubisoft's reputation as a formulaic game dev lacking innovation or ambition.


Patrice Desilets put a bunch of pointless flags in AC1 to prove a point and more than ten games later,

I actually enjoyed the flag collecting in AC1 because they were well hidden, encouraged you to explore areas you wouldn't necessarily explore and it was the first time for me walking in such an incredibly detailed open world that I wanted to spend as much time in it as possible. Plus there wasn't too many. I'd be interested in the quote that confirms this, provided that you haven't just assumed Patrice was being ironic...


This. All of this. Stopping annual releases won't help you if your core is rotten. When people say Unity was broken and list the bugs as the reasons, for me bugs were only a minor part of the reason the game was broken. The bigger problem was the broken narrative, broken characters and pretty much everything else. And while you can somehow patch up bugs post-release, you can't do the same with narrative. Anyhow..

Thank you.


I feel the easiest way out of this problem which everyone is forgetting is expansions. You know, since we are going for the "Witcher" feel apparently, maybe ubisoft could learn how to make good Witcherlike expansions too. Meaty expansions that feel like a whole new game aka Blood & Wine? Because it's billed as an expansion people wouldn't complain about reused assets and the general sameyness, while on the other hand you get tons of new content at a reasonable price. Win win. You also appear to be supporting your games and keeping them alive with pumping new content. WItcher 3 came out in 2015, B&W in 2016, barely a year later. Yet nobody accused them of milking the series. Had the expansion been given a new name and a full price tag, I assure you plenty of people would have been complaining. Case in point for the AC franchise. And ubisoft themselves have done it in the past with standalone expansions like Farcry 3 Blood Dragon. Such big expansions keep the fans satiated between releases while avoiding complaints of milking. This is why I think going for the "Witcher" feel is all well and good, but what will make their games really shine is if they went for the CDPR feel. A daydream, I know.

Not to veer off-topic but I maintain that a person has not completed the Witcher 3 until they've completed Blood and Wine which is the true ending to the game. It was the best game I played all of last year and it was an expansion lol

dxsxhxcx
07-25-2017, 12:57 PM
This. All of this. Stopping annual releases won't help you if your core is rotten. When people say Unity was broken and list the bugs as the reasons, for me bugs were only a minor part of the reason the game was broken. The bigger problem was the broken narrative, broken characters and pretty much everything else. And while you can somehow patch up bugs post-release, you can't do the same with narrative. Anyhow.

That's true as well, but I feel like the annual releases also play a part on it because it forces them to release something and rush production, leading to all the problems mentioned, but you and crusader_prophet are right. it has been 10 years since the release of the first game and they still didn't figure out what to do with the franchise. There are many things they did right in the previous games but for some reason were removed in the later ones, instead of build upon.

Depending of the reception Origins receive IMO they should really consider taking more than a one year break to analyze all the feedback they can get, take a look at the past games and see what could be brought back that could improve the experience and stick with a single formula from now on.

The story would benefit from it as well since it would give them time to write everything beforehand and create a cohesive arc instead of making things up as they go.

cawatrooper9
07-25-2017, 02:17 PM
That's true as well, but I feel like the annual releases also play a part on it because it forces them to release something and rush production, leading to all the problems mentioned...
So wouldn't a better goal for the series be to "stop rushing for annual releases"?

If a game is absolutely ready 12 months after the previous release, why sit on your hands for another year?

adster01
07-25-2017, 10:29 PM
10000000000000000000000000000000000000% it should be annual again this has been the worst year of my life WAITING for it to come back

strigoi1958
07-25-2017, 10:51 PM
That's true as well, but I feel like the annual releases also play a part on it because it forces them to release something and rush production, leading to all the problems mentioned, but you and crusader_prophet are right. it has been 10 years since the release of the first game and they still didn't figure out what to do with the franchise. There are many things they did right in the previous games but for some reason were removed in the later ones, instead of build upon.

Depending of the reception Origins receive IMO they should really consider taking more than a one year break to analyze all the feedback they can get, take a look at the past games and see what could be brought back that could improve the experience and stick with a single formula from now on.

The story would benefit from it as well since it would give them time to write everything beforehand and create a cohesive arc instead of making things up as they go.

The reason some things are removed from games instead of being built upon, is because a lot of people scream "copy and paste" or "lazy devs who are not creative"
.... plus it gives the company something to compare, which gets good or bad feedback when the changes take place the original or the new.... it helps keep the games a bit fresher and things tend to find there way back in if people feedback that they miss them.

Most AC games (so I am led to believe) take 4 to 5 years from concept to release so the next game may already be only 10 months from being finished and 4 more until its release, if they took a year out now... I don't think it could do anything for the story at this late stage and what would the devs do who had finished most of the game? who will pay them for sitting around most of a year with little to do? I know we tend to see things from a fan point of view and not consider it as a business but a lot of studios have disappeared over the years, I doubt that will happen with Ubi but staff get laid off.

For all we know they believe they ARE putting out a cohesive arc... how can they know if it will please 1 million or 10 million? or even how many people are that bothered... there are many casual gamers.

Valerian the movie just cost €200 million to make and it is bombing at the box office but I'm sure when they adapted the story they thought it so great that €200 million was a good investment.

It is an impossible job to try and please every single person so I think they do the best they can and hope the majority are okay with it.... The alternative is to either gauge fans opinion to storylines and risk it being leaked or ask for story suggestions and ideas and risk people suing for plagiarism. I guess they could ask what direction people wanted the story to take but then... who do they ask? :confused:

@adster01 10000000000000000000000000000000000000% it should be annual again this has been the worst year of my life WAITING for it to come back

I know that feeling.

SixKeys
07-26-2017, 02:41 AM
I actually enjoyed the flag collecting in AC1 because they were well hidden, encouraged you to explore areas you wouldn't necessarily explore and it was the first time for me walking in such an incredibly detailed open world that I wanted to spend as much time in it as possible. Plus there wasn't too many. I'd be interested in the quote that confirms this, provided that you haven't just assumed Patrice was being ironic...

Not too many? There were 420 in total.

https://www.engadget.com/2009/06/10/interview-assassins-creed-2-creative-director-patrice-desilet/

"What about the people who got all the flags?

Those are crazy people.

[laughs]

But that's all my fault by the way. I assume it fully. I wanted to show gamers that sometimes collection is just a useless waste of time. So I put in four hundred and twenty flags that were useless. And I knew it.

Are you going to do it again?

No, I'm not that mean! Once is enough."

Fatal-Feit
07-26-2017, 05:24 AM
Not too many? There were 420 in total.

https://www.engadget.com/2009/06/10/interview-assassins-creed-2-creative-director-patrice-desilet/

"What about the people who got all the flags?

Those are crazy people.

[laughs]

But that's all my fault by the way. I assume it fully. I wanted to show gamers that sometimes collection is just a useless waste of time. So I put in four hundred and twenty flags that were useless. And I knew it.

Are you going to do it again?

No, I'm not that mean! Once is enough."

I can't help but feel like that's a cop out Patrice's made up. Every time Patrice speaks about the flags, it's always a different story.

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2007/10/8_things_you_may_not_have_heard_about_assassins_cr eed/

"4. There are 420 flags to collect... and they're more than just collectables... Dotted around each city are flags that Altair can pick up. On the Xbox 360, they act as an achievement. On the PlayStation 3... well, they're just cool to pick up.

There's a bit more to them though. Each time you pick up a flag it will replenish your health and save the game - as long as you're not in the middle of an assassination mission. Definitely one for the power-gamers.


"It's not something we actually thought of," says Desilets. "It's an emergent thing - where your save point is actually a collectable." Sounds like a gaming first to me."

I also recall an article or video I viewed not too long ago (can't find it, atm) where they spoke about how flags were thrown into the game at the last minute as a way to keep play time up because the team lacked time to fill up the world with the content they originally wanted.

Anyway, there are too many features tied to the flags for them to be viewed as anything less than a supplement to the experience. They served as a checkpoint, increased our maximum health, added to 100% sync and were always in our faces at every damn corner. Patrice has to be crazy to think we'd believe flags were intended to be a joke. They were neither that useless, nor hidden well. They weren't much different from the later games, with the exception that the collectibles in the later games were easier to complete without a guide.

WendysBrioche
07-26-2017, 12:46 PM
Too much heated argument here.

I do like the idea of a possible antiquity trilogy or story arch for however many games, 2, more than 3 if it keeps interest.

Someone posted a cool idea about a madman insane assassin for an greece game during the time of the philosophers.

Crazy guy or girl who's unaware they're an assassin and is driven mad by eagle vision.

dxsxhxcx
07-26-2017, 01:36 PM
The reason some things are removed from games instead of being built upon, is because a lot of people scream "copy and paste" or "lazy devs who are not creative"
.... plus it gives the company something to compare, which gets good or bad feedback when the changes take place the original or the new.... it helps keep the games a bit fresher and things tend to find there way back in if people feedback that they miss them.

So they're called lazy and to prove otherwise they do the laziest thing they could do to "remedy" that (remove features that sometimes aren't necessarily broken to add new ones instead of improve the ones already there just to keep the game fresh and take feedback from that, no wonder the fanbase is alienated)?! :confused:

If what you're saying isn't more reason to take more time between each release to properly analyze the feedback received and then correct or modify things in the next one based on it I don't know what is. I'm aware they take more than a year to make these games, but (to me at least) it's clear that feedback isn't being properly used or they at least aren't taking full advantage of it (just in this forum there are tons of threads with incredible people constantly giving them ideas and proper feedback), the fact that these games already begin production with a deadline set in stone doesn't help as well (and IMO is the main issue here).

The Witcher 3, ironically the game from which they are taking inspiration now took 3 and a half years to be made by a little more than 250 people (more 1.500 people were also involved in its production but I assume this number also includes marketing teams and the like), Ubisoft Montreal alone has 3k employees according to their own website and it's known that they use a lot of studios to make each AC, by this time they should've already released tons of The Witcher 3 if they cared a little more about the quality of their products like CD Projekt did and does.

AnimusLover
07-26-2017, 02:39 PM
Not too many? There were 420 in total.

You conveniently ignore the part in my post that says the way they were placed was cleverly done in a way that encouraged the player to explore. It never felt like too many because some thought seemed to be applied as to its placement, especially as they were divided by each city. Unity feels like they vomited the collectibles out and bunched them up randomly. The map was horrible. Not to mention a lot the collectibles were locked behind skill upgrades...which were locked directly behind the campaign (terrible way to do RPG)


https://www.engadget.com/2009/06/10/interview-assassins-creed-2-creative-director-patrice-desilet/

"What about the people who got all the flags?

Those are crazy people.

[laughs]

But that's all my fault by the way. I assume it fully. I wanted to show gamers that sometimes collection is just a useless waste of time. So I put in four hundred and twenty flags that were useless. And I knew it.

Are you going to do it again?

No, I'm not that mean! Once is enough."


That quote is pretentious, especially considering the below poster has called his bluff with some contradictory statements.

strigoi1958
07-26-2017, 03:26 PM
So they're called lazy and to prove otherwise they do the laziest thing they could do to "remedy" that (remove features that sometimes aren't necessarily broken to add new ones instead of improve the ones already there just to keep the game fresh and take feedback from that, no wonder the fanbase is alienated)?! :confused:

If what you're saying isn't more reason to take more time between each release to properly analyze the feedback received and then correct or modify things in the next one based on it I don't know what is. I'm aware they take more than a year to make these games, but (to me at least) it's clear that feedback isn't being properly used or they at least aren't taking full advantage of it (just in this forum there are tons of threads with incredible people constantly giving them ideas and proper feedback), the fact that these games already begin production with a deadline set in stone doesn't help as well (and IMO is the main issue here).

The Witcher 3, ironically the game from which they are taking inspiration now took 3 and a half years to be made by a little more than 250 people (more 1.500 people were also involved in its production but I assume this number also includes marketing teams and the like), Ubisoft Montreal alone has 3k employees according to their own website and it's known that they use a lot of studios to make each AC, by this time they should've already released tons of The Witcher 3 if they cared a little more about the quality of their products like CD Projekt did and does.

How can doing a lot more extra work instead of copying and pasting... be lazy??? copying and pasting is lazy.
If witcher 3 was made in 3.5 years why should AC games be extended from 5 to 6 years if they already have 18 months more than witcher3?
if a game is 90% finished feedback from the last game will have no effect... you'd literally have to not start the next game until 6 months after the last one was released... so you can change the story, business wise it makes no sense to pay staff to do nothing for years. Feedback can only be used on projects that have not started yet (released in 5 year or 6 if people get their way ;) ) or if it can be changed in a game in an early stage so not the next 2 games I'd guess.
The fanbase is NOT alienated... some of the fans are

the extra year.... what happens if the next game has the GREATEST story ever written for the lore/ MD/ 1st Civ fans and before it gets released, and after a lot of complaints they take a year and change it and the new story is absolutely hated by those fans? who is to say the story they now have is wrong?

It is not possible to constantly improve and surpass expectations of a story (especially one like how desmonds finished because the next bigger shock would have been ... Desmonds relative must all be killed or the Universe dies ). I truly believe the story had to go quiet so it could rebuild slowly again and not get that silly, that quickly again. Like chapters in a book, it needs some quiet moments to make the next plot twist have more impact, without those quiet moments, you are forced to just keep on making each ending even more unbelievable.

I do not see much feedback or suggestions, I see a lot of people who say they want an MD protagonist or a better story but without any idea as to what... and I bet if you started a thread asking exactly what was needed and wrote an idea yourself there would be lots of different posts... so if 20 people on this forum cannot even agree ... what is Ubi supposed to do?

I do understand what you want but I am open minded enough to see the problem that Ubi has in trying to run a business and trying to please fans when there are thousands all pointing in different directions... who should they ask?

Returning to deadlines... I've worked in companies with contracts that had deadlines and in the beginning there is a lot of meetings and ideas then a some initial work then progress ebbs and flows until it gets near the end and everyone realises they cannot run at 75% production speed and everyone panics to get the job finished on time.... if you are set a deadline, you tend to work to it... if AC games were given a 4 year deadline they'd be finished in 4 years, the same if they were given a 6 year deadline, as you have pointed out that witcher was completed in 3.5 years then AC games should not require 6 years... how long does it take to write a short story? how long to write 2 shorts stories? 1 for the game and 1 for the MD....

what about additional costs? if a game is given an extra year in production should that cost be passed on to the buyers? should the players pay an extra 10% to cover the cost? and what about people who buy the games just to play and don't care about the MD or story... should they also pay the extra production costs?

Maybe you should suggest that the MD is made as a DLC or expansion and that way Ubi could gauge how much interest is in the MD by how many people are actually willing to pay for it? personally, as I've said I want it to be part of the game even though my feelings towards it are not dislike but it offers me no value or interest. But an added year serves no purpose financially to Ubi or to the story of a game almost finished. We just have to wait and see where Origins heads... who knows it might surprise the MD fans.

WendysBrioche
07-26-2017, 06:46 PM
Well, for what it's worth I for one don't mind if they copy and paste features from previous games.

The AC franchise has done this from the beginning. Every game franchise does.

From time to time everything gets redone to take advatage of new hardware.

The parkour system has been built upon in each game, but it's still roughly been the same system since day one.

Now maybe there's some animations from a previous character that don't match the latest one, some changes there might be important.

In regards to the cover system, I wouldn't have minded so much if they kept 90% of the same cover system animations as long as it's there.

But we at least still have the crouch and cover assassinations at the least so I'm not too concerned about it.

It would be nice if it returned in future games though. I thought it was a huge improvement to the games in terms of additional features that definitely belong there when they introduced it in full in Unity.

SixKeys
07-27-2017, 10:15 AM
Anyway, there are too many features tied to the flags for them to be viewed as anything less than a supplement to the experience. They served as a checkpoint, increased our maximum health, added to 100% sync and were always in our faces at every damn corner. Patrice has to be crazy to think we'd believe flags were intended to be a joke. They were neither that useless, nor hidden well. They weren't much different from the later games, with the exception that the collectibles in the later games were easier to complete without a guide.

It's a bit of both, probably. They probably got some feedback from playtesters that the game needed more save points, so they introduced collectables that worked as a checkpoints of sorts. At the same time, having 420 of them scattered randomly across the map is clearly unnecessary from a pure gameplay POV, so they obviously also served to artifically lengthen playtime. But Patrice didn't want to encourage players to focus on the collectibles like they had any inherent value beyond encouraging exploration, same as Korok leaves in BotW (they're fun, but after a while the puzzles start to repeat so most people don't bother going for all 900 of them).
The joke failed because PS3 and XBox 360 treated it differently: PS3 gave no trophy for collecting the flags whereas XBox did. So they were sending mixed messages to players: are the flags worth collecting or not? Are we supposed to be proud of this achievement or not? PS3 owners actually demanded that the devs should implement the same trophy on the PS release because they felt like XBox owners were getting extra recognition for doing something the devs thought was a stupid thing to do in the first place.

Bear in mind that the interview you cited is from 2007 whereas he has repeatedly stuck to his story about them being an elaborate troll in the years after the initial release. Of course he wasn't going to come out and say "yeah, we put in lots of useless collectibles for crazy people who care about that stuff" while he's still trying to promote his game. :p

cawatrooper9
07-27-2017, 05:01 PM
I guess Patrice could've been covering his tracks, but as a player I see a difference between randomly running across a flag in Jerusalem and thinking "Oh, that's neat", and hunting down every single flag in the entire Holy Land. I can't speak of Patrice or the validity of his statements, but I think it's entirely possible the flags were meant just as a bit of serendipitous filler in the world, and he didn't expect most players to actually spend time getting them all.

That being said, I appreciate the nod to the original Hashashin by putting in 420 flags. Blaze it.

Fatal-Feit
07-27-2017, 10:37 PM
But Patrice didn't want to encourage players to focus on the collectibles like they had any inherent value beyond encouraging exploration, same as Korok leaves in BotW (they're fun, but after a while the puzzles start to repeat so most people don't bother going for all 900 of them).

Seems rather hypocritical for Patrice to try to make a point and then turn the series into a collectibles sim in the sequels. "Collectibles are stupid, but we're going to make them an addiction in the future."

Kiroku
07-28-2017, 12:26 AM
Good games need time. CDPR just changed the release date of witcher 3 several times to ensure the fans a game that is 100% ready to be released. And even Witcher 3 got several patches with bug fixes etc. War Horse Studio with Kingdom Come: Deliverance also changed the release date to early 2018 now. Why? Because its not finished yet.

Same with the development of movies. Avatar came out 2009. The next one is about to release in 2018. 9 Years for a sequel. Why rush things to dissapoint not only the players and fans but also yourself because you whish you had more time to finalize the game and rework some aspects.

And as several people here mentioned before. There was so much pontential in older titles regarding both gameplay and story. The story is actually the most important. I appreciate playing AC1 so much because of the story. Even if your mission is always the same like gather informations and kill the target. The whole story about it was so fascinating that it was really enjoyable and it still is.

I think Ubisoft should advertise about their boards by the way. Like at the and of a video they should show a link refering to the board of the specific game. Feedback is so important and I just see the same 10 to 20 people posting stuff here discussing about a game that was a milestone for ubisoft and sold over millions of copies. Why are we so few?

strigoi1958
07-28-2017, 02:56 AM
As I said before Witcher 3 only took 3.5 years so why should AC games (which are already 5 years in production) be extended longer?

Avatar 2 has not taken 9 years to make... nobody has been working on it...

also assuming that there are no more delays, Avatar 2 will be released on December 25, 2017, followed by Avatar 3 in December 2018, and Avatar 4 in December 2019... so 3 movies in the space of 2 years!
Source Cinemablend.com

The story may be the most important thing to you but it is not the most important thing to many people who simply buy games to play them.

There are so few people here because there was a break between games so people drift away without having a new game to talk about. Also most people who visit the forum either come because they are interested in the story and characters or... They come because they have a problem or a question and do not stay around after they have an answer. So most of the people here I guess are story fans. Also there are several of us who buy lots of ubi games and drift between the different game forums.
As for advertising, the games have links to the forum as does support in uplay, it usually shows the link to the official support and the facebook page and forum. But i know what you mean about getting more people here. :) it would be good.

Speaking as someone who doesn't care about stories in games.... all the AC games have been great... I never completed AC1 as it was a little repetitive but it had lots of potential for the future ac games.... and the following games fulfilled that potential and they've all been excellent.

pirate1802
07-28-2017, 07:22 AM
As I said before Witcher 3 only took 3.5 years so why should AC games (which apparently are already 5 years in production) be extended longer?

Added for effect. Just because they say the game's been so and so years in development doesn't mean it's actually so.


The story may be the most important thing to you but it is not the most important thing to many people who simply buy games to play them.

I wager 100% of the people buy games to "play" them, at least I don't know of any who buy games to stare at their cover arts. But anyway, people can and do "play" games for their stories. How many buy games for the gameplay vs the story? This depends on the franchise. Story-heavy franchises tend to attract the "story" crowd while gameplay-centric games attract "gameplay first" folks. As Ac is a bit of both, I'd say the number of people who buy these games for the story as opposed to the gameplay is probably evenly spaced out.


There are so few people here because there was a break between games so people drift away without having a new game to talk about. Also most people who visit the forum either come because they are interested in the story and characters or... They come because they have a problem or a question and do not stay around after they have an answer. So most of the people here I guess are story fans. Also there are several of us who buy lots of ubi games and drift between the different game forums.

This is a regular occurrence. Been seeing this since Revelations came out (which seems like ages ago). People flock here when a new game is announced, then thin a bit. Flock again when it's released and then thin out gradually. Rinse and repeat for the next game. Same happens in other games/forums. I remember the hype around the time AC III was first teased; the snowy website background with a timer. Just that little thing, and there were probably a dozen speculation threads on that right in the first page. Never seen anything like that since, which probably has some connection to franchise fatigue setting in.

Kiroku
07-28-2017, 12:04 PM
As I said before Witcher 3 only took 3.5 years so why should AC games (which are already 5 years in production) be extended longer?

Avatar 2 has not taken 9 years to make... nobody has been working on it...

also assuming that there are no more delays, Avatar 2 will be released on December 25, 2017, followed by Avatar 3 in December 2018, and Avatar 4 in December 2019... so 3 movies in the space of 2 years!
Source Cinemablend.com

The story may be the most important thing to you but it is not the most important thing to many people who simply buy games to play them.

There are so few people here because there was a break between games so people drift away without having a new game to talk about. Also most people who visit the forum either come because they are interested in the story and characters or... They come because they have a problem or a question and do not stay around after they have an answer. So most of the people here I guess are story fans. Also there are several of us who buy lots of ubi games and drift between the different game forums.
As for advertising, the games have links to the forum as does support in uplay, it usually shows the link to the official support and the facebook page and forum. But i know what you mean about getting more people here. :) it would be good.

Speaking as someone who doesn't care about stories in games.... all the AC games have been great... I never completed AC1 as it was a little repetitive but it had lots of potential for the future ac games.... and the following games fulfilled that potential and they've all been excellent.


I buy games to play them too lol. But I understand your point. For me both needs to be good. Story and gameplay: Which is why I dont go for a lot of games anymore. When choosing a game it feels somewhat like choosing a book you want to read. Since Witcher 3 expectations went really high. Not graphically but story and gameplay wise.

So nevermind if the actual production of Witcher was 5 years or Avatar 9 years or less. Overall we can say the development was longer than 1 year. And the fact that they changed release date several times makes me think that this is the best decision than can be made to ensure a good game which uses full pontential. I know its annoying as fk to compare it over and over again but CDPR just showed us how it works.

I think another reason for being so few here is the crowd that plays the AC franchise. Im 24 years old now but I guess most people playing AC are around 16-22. And most of them just want to play the game for gameplay reasons as you mentioned before. Maybe most of them dont care about an in depth story. Meanwhile roleplay fans actually care and start thinking about the story having theories etc. But now that AC goes for the ARPG genre maybe more people will come and share ideas, theories and feedback. Time will tell us.



Added for effect. Just because they say the game's been so and so years in development doesn't mean it's actually so.



I wager 100% of the people buy games to "play" them, at least I don't know of any who buy games to stare at their cover arts. But anyway, people can and do "play" games for their stories. How many buy games for the gameplay vs the story? This depends on the franchise. Story-heavy franchises tend to attract the "story" crowd while gameplay-centric games attract "gameplay first" folks. As Ac is a bit of both, I'd say the number of people who buy these games for the story as opposed to the gameplay is probably evenly spaced out.



This is a regular occurrence. Been seeing this since Revelations came out (which seems like ages ago). People flock here when a new game is announced, then thin a bit. Flock again when it's released and then thin out gradually. Rinse and repeat for the next game. Same happens in other games/forums. I remember the hype around the time AC III was first teased; the snowy website background with a timer. Just that little thing, and there were probably a dozen speculation threads on that right in the first page. Never seen anything like that since, which probably has some connection to franchise fatigue setting in.

I actually did that too until Origins. Right before another AC was on the way I jumped to the boards and checked out speculations and ideas. Since CDPR listened to a lot of feedback about Witcher 3 and read the forums I was confident after Ashraf said they read the forums. Thats why Im here sharing ideas and feedback. Because maybe its not a complete waste of time.

strigoi1958
07-28-2017, 12:23 PM
If story fans are not enjoying the story it can be addressed by the story taking a direction they like (obviously it will not please all) but some on here find the game play boring.I believe that franchise fatigue is probably due to the overabundance of things in the game. In the past people have expressed their like on the murder mysteries, homestead missions, city building, side quests, assassination targets.... (things that give us satisfaction while we do them) I think the collectables are one of the things (maybe the main thing) that does not give us satisfaction and causes game/ franchise fatigue.

When something is done for no other purpose than to get to the end and say you got all of them it is fatiguing. I remember posts by people who had completed Unity but were running around the rifts looking for collectables and getting frustrated because they were not appearing or they couldn't find them. I personally would remove the pointless collectables all together, I don't mind if they have some bearing on the game, like parts to a weapon and there were just a few parts and we had to solve a puzzle or problem to obtain them, but having 4 or 5 lots of collectables and having so many of each one probably means a large percentage of time in just spent in the pointless pursuit of getting these things for little or no reason.

Checking the "how long to beat" website ... the averages times in Unity

Main game 16.5 hours
Main game + extras 31.5 hours
Completionist 100% 77.5 hours

I believe game/ franchise fatigue lies in the 46 hours that are played (on average) after the game + extras are finished until 100% completionist. It's taking longer to get achievements and collectables than it takes to play the game and the side missions:confused: (and lets not forget we complete some of these while playing the game).

I wonder how many people in Syndicate actually read every script relating to each beer, pressed flower or royal correspondence letter? Wouldn't the story fans have preferred to find JUST 10 puzzle boxes that, when they figured out how to open them, gave information on Juno/ minerva/ pieces of Eden rather than the hundreds of collectables we do have?

I do not think quantity is important (well, I do, too much is bad) but content is important. Collectables that serve no purpose to the game or the story are just time wasting and people who are compelled to get 100% are probably not enjoying it, if it was more enjoyable there would be less game/ franchise fatigued... but that is just my opinion.

I've played mordor so many times I've forgotten, but it has 42 of 1 collectable and 32 of another and both give xp to allow you to unlock skills. it has only 10 survival and 10 hunting quests. completing the survival quests give you health (by eating plants that are abundant not just in isolated locations) and the hunting quest are fairly easy to achieve and most get done during the game. Weapon missions give lots of xp and unlock special skills so although there are a lot less things in mordor, they offer more reason to do them.

I've never tried for all the mordor achievements but the game and all collectables can be done in 12 to 15 hours.... maybe that is why I replay it so often because I am rewarded for the collectables with progress, whereas in ac it is more like, stopping the game to pick up a nearby pointless collectable just because I don't want to come back later just to get it.

Also yes I understand people like witcher 3... they are as enthusiastic as people were about AC in the early days with AC1 and Ezio's games but it may well be different when/ if witcher 10 gets made... people might be saying the same then about the witcher series when it has been going as long as AC

joshoolhorst
07-28-2017, 12:52 PM
1. Give people more options than either YES or NO because some people are still conflicted over annual releases.
2. 1 year more time doesn't matter if there is no spark of inspiration behind the games or less talent or more men power hell maybe Unity's biggest problem instead of making new code lines is because they had thousands of people working on that game I can't imagen to be the person to have control over that team but I didn't work at Ubisoft so I wouldn't know.
3. I wouldn't personal have a annual release again because problems of the early games carry over and the AC brand is getting hate because of it and there is so much released in a year you don't need another game that was one of the reasons why I stopped being a fan long ago because they released so much.

pirate1802
07-28-2017, 01:03 PM
Also yes I understand people like witcher 3... they are as enthusiastic as people were about AC in the early days with AC1 and Ezio's games but it may well be different when/ if witcher 10 gets made... people might be saying the same then about the witcher series when it has been going as long as AC

The Witcher saga has already ended. The last expansion wraps the story up fully and gives the protagonist a grand farewell. Therein lies the critical difference between Witcher and AC.

Also, it's not for no reason people constantly compare this game with Witcher 3, after all the devs themselves set this expectation.

strigoi1958
07-28-2017, 01:18 PM
True but no matter how much we really like something, familiarity breeds contempt.... the longer something goes on, the less appealing it becomes. Witcher peaked and ended it was 3 games long... it will not have to try to constantly improve (just to be considered the same level as 3 or to be held up to be compared to 3) so it got out while the going was good :D

If ac had ended after ac3 (which I thought it would ... and is probably why the MD story was so climactic) Then people would probably have been talking about AC with reverence and missing it.

Maybe Ac games should just be released in trilogies each as a standalone from the others, a new MD cell of people, a new protagonist that people can bond with over 3 games and a short story ending in the 3rd game.... rather than dragging things on unfinished.

WendysBrioche
07-28-2017, 01:42 PM
Honestly, I can guarantee everyone on TW3 we haven't seen the last of The Witcher franchise.

I mean, that's what they said when Luke brought balance to the force, not left it in darkness. ;)

Can't wait for Star Wars.....

Anyways. Ain't no one in their right mind would walk away from a fanbase as dedicated as Witcher's. I hear about that video game in every video games forum I've been on, and it's left a huge influence on the entire games industry, at least as far as the open world genre is concerned.

pirate1802
07-28-2017, 02:07 PM
True but no matter how much we really like something, familiarity breeds contempt.... the longer something goes on, the less appealing it becomes.

All the more reason to space out your games. If it there was a new Witcher every year since Witcher 2 people would have been a lot less sympathetic to Witcher 3, even if it had been just as good.


Witcher peaked and ended it was 3 games long... it will not have to try to constantly improve (just to be considered the same level as 3 or to be held up to be compared to 3) so it got out while the going was good :

Expectation is always there. For example I expect Cyberpunk 2077 to be better than Witcher 3 or at least just as good, not the least because it's my favourite genre unlike fantasy. people's minds don't just become blank at the end of a franchise. They remember who made what and what they are capable of.


Maybe Ac games should just be released in trilogies each as a standalone from the others, a new MD cell of people, a new protagonist that people can bond with over 3 games and a short story ending in the 3rd game.... rather than dragging things on unfinished.

That's an idea I had thought of. Finish the story with AC III and then do standalone games featuring the Assassins in Villa Auditore. It was so in-your-face that I honestly thought it was bound to happen. Making self-contained trilogies would have taken care of so many of the franchise's problems.


Honestly, I can guarantee everyone on TW3 we haven't seen the last of The Witcher franchise.

Obviously, there's a Netflix TV series in production, and more books are being writter by Sapkowski.


Anyways. Ain't no one in their right mind would walk away from a fanbase as dedicated as Witcher's. I hear about that video game in every video games forum I've been on, and it's left a huge influence on the entire games industry, at least as far as the open world genre is concerned.

The huge influence is actually because of the publisher's business practices and their talent, something that can easily be reciprocated and even bettered in other fields. Also, the Witcher fanbase has existed since the 90s, it continues existing and I bet there will be more books in the future. There is the previously-mentioned Witcher Netflix series planned and there might even be movies in the future. So the fanbase is alive and continue to grow. Sure, the games gave a boost to the franchise but now it has attained a critical mass and doesn't depend solely on the games. Also, if they wanted to fleece the franchise they could easily have. People forget but The Witcher 2 was a critically acclaimed game as well, and that came out in 2011. So.. two games in 6 years. Instead, they give away free DLCs that any other company would charge money for and people would be okay with, and they make a huge expansion that could have easily have been its own separate game. All the evidence points towards CDPR not thinking like any other average ip-holders, which is why you hear them praised so much. They actually treat their work with respect, and it shows in the games.

strigoi1958
07-28-2017, 03:53 PM
@dxsxhxcx

As I've enjoyed every ac game annual releases have been excellent for me. I'd be happy for a new ac game every 6 months or even a huge expansion 6 months later... if Black flag had allowed us to meet up with friends and take separate ships and together attack convoys and other Ai or players bases/ forts.... I'd never have bought another game I'd play BF forever :D

Removing pointless stuff like collectables would make the game less time consuming and free up staff for other things. Regardless of the franchise... working on multiple projects and games at the same time is good business... ford do not build a car then wait until it's sold before building the next.... everything nowadays is a production line.

Out of interest...
What do you think will improve the game for you that you would want to see it sold annually?


@pirate1802

If the games are fun then we look forward to playing them, it doesn't matter about the time in between. (hence my point about Mordor, it is full of relevant things to do and not so many that it becomes a chore and for that reason alone, I've probably played it 8 or 9 times this year and twice in 1 week). We are both suggesting less is more... You suggest longer between the games, while I'd prefer 46 hours less pointless time consuming stuff that makes people not want to play another AC game for a while.... and I'd rather they replace those collectables with 5 hours of fun stuff, making people feel excited about the next game (or the next replay).

Expectation is usually a bad thing :) If you surprise someone with $500,000 they are ecstatic.... if you lead them to think they have a surprise coming and they are expecting $10,000,000 and get $500,000 they feel it is an anti climax. To me Cyberpunk 2077 will be as good as Cyberpunk 2077.... setting an expectation can make a great game seem bad because it is expected to be as epic as a different epic game. Games should be good or bad for what they are rather than what they are not, but that's just me :)


And yes self contained trilogies may well be the solution to franchise fatigue as they start and end. The next is a whole different thing. Hey maybe between us we solved it ;) Ubi send the cheques ;) ;)

cawatrooper9
07-28-2017, 04:03 PM
If the games are fun then we look forward to playing them, it doesn't matter about the time in between. (hence my point about Mordor, it is full of relevant things to do and not so many that it becomes a chore and for that reason alone, I've probably played it 8 or 9 times this year and twice in 1 week). We are both suggesting less is more... You suggest longer between the games, while I'd prefer 46 hours less pointless time consuming stuff that makes people not want to play another AC game for a while.... and I'd rather they replace those collectables with 5 hours of fun stuff, making people feel excited about the next game (or the next replay).

Expectation is usually a bad thing :) If you surprise someone with $500,000 they are ecstatic.... if you lead them to think they have a surprise coming and they are expecting $10,000,000 and get $500,000 they feel it is an anti climax. To me Cyberpunk 2077 will be as good as Cyberpunk 2077.... setting an expectation can make a great game seem bad because it is expected to be as epic as a different epic game. Games should be good or bad for what they are rather than what they are not, but that's just me :)

Just because players may spend a majority of their time getting collectibles doesn't necessarily mean those features ate into a majority of the development time. I guess I can't say for certain, but I think that a big part of why collectibles are included is because they have a pretty big return on the Effort to Implement vs Time Spent in Game ratio- the idea that they're not too hard to put in, but it can give some players more to do in the game.

Though, that obviously falls apart for players like me who spend absolutely no time searching for collectibles.

Shadow of Mordor is a pretty good example of this, I'm glad you brought it up (and it is such a good game!). There are a ton of side activities and a full campaign in Shadow of Mordor, but the vast majority of my time has been spent simply hunting orcs.

Imagine if AC had such a system as the Nemesis system! What if the London gang leaders adhered to a similar system, where they wouldn't necessarily entirely die when attacked, allowing for them to return all bandaged up and with a vendetta against Jacob and Evie. Then, throw in the ability to assign Rooks to infiltrate the Blighters gangs and hold key positions (substituting for the current gang takeover of "Do a few of four different types of missions and have an underwhelming boss fight" and all of a sudden Syndicate's replayability is through the roof, no collectibles required.

Would that take more than a year to implement? I don't know. Maybe, at least maybe for the first year that it was used in an AC game. But maybe not.

As I said, having more random but tailored experiences (not totally unlike the ships in Black Flag, but even more so) goes a far longer way than stuff like ****ens (you know, Charles of Great Expectations, since the filter here has a sense of humor) missions or music box collecting, even if it would take a little longer to do.

strigoi1958
07-28-2017, 05:20 PM
Sorry I cannot figure out how to multi quote :confused:

But anyway @Cawa

"Just because players may spend a majority of their time getting collectibles doesn't necessarily mean those features ate into a majority of the development time. I guess I can't say for certain, but I think that a big part of why collectibles are included is because they have a pretty big return on the Effort to Implement vs Time Spent in Game ratio- the idea that they're not too hard to put in, but it can give some players more to do in the game."

I think you're right, I don't think it takes a lot of effort to make them... I guess someone designs and places the items and makes an entry with all the information about each beer, or letter or flower and that is added to the library or data where we read them. But even if it only took 1 guy 1 week to do that..... He could write 10 small intriguing or informative messages about 1st Civ or Md or pieces of Eden as they are more relevant to the game than beer, flowers or letters. And locking them away in a puzzle or a difficult location (like climbing to the top of the church via scaffolding and chandeliers in the previous AC game) will give more satisfaction than collecting pointless collectables or destroying 5000 destructables with a carriage. I think it is better to have a lesser amount of time spent doing something fun, rather than spending a long time just to get an achievement that has no relevance to the game.




"Shadow of Mordor is a pretty good example of this, I'm glad you brought it up (and it is such a good game!). There are a ton of side activities and a full campaign in Shadow of Mordor, but the vast majority of my time has been spent simply hunting orcs.
Imagine if AC had such a system as the Nemesis system! What if the London gang leaders adhered to a similar system, where they wouldn't necessarily entirely die when attacked, allowing for them to return all bandaged up and with a vendetta against Jacob and Evie. Then, throw in the ability to assign Rooks to infiltrate the Blighters gangs and hold key positions (substituting for the current gang takeover of "Do a few of four different types of missions and have an underwhelming boss fight" and all of a sudden Syndicate's replayability is through the roof, no collectibles required.

Would that take more than a year to implement? I don't know. Maybe, at least maybe for the first year that it was used in an AC game. But maybe not.

As I said, having more random but tailored experiences (not totally unlike the ships in Black Flag, but even more so) goes a far longer way than stuff like ****ens (you know, Charles of Great Expectations, since the filter here has a sense of humor) missions or music box collecting, even if it would take a little longer to do."

Those are perfect examples. You are right it is all about maximising the enjoyment in the game, making the players want to do things because they are having fun rather than doing them because they are there. Collectables can be good as long as they add to the experience and are not just filling for the map. :)

cawatrooper9
07-28-2017, 10:29 PM
Sorry I cannot figure out how to multi quote :confused:


Usually I just quote as the original post. Then, I copy paste stuff underneath, and highlight the quote. Click on the speech bubble, and it marks that section as a quote. ;)


it is all about maximising the enjoyment in the game, making the players want to do things because they are having fun rather than doing them because they are there.
Bingo- that should be the philosophy that all game designers use in the approach, in my opinion.

ERICATHERINE
07-29-2017, 01:55 AM
It's a bit of both, probably. They probably got some feedback from playtesters that the game needed more save points, so they introduced collectables that worked as a checkpoints of sorts. At the same time, having 420 of them scattered randomly across the map is clearly unnecessary from a pure gameplay POV, so they obviously also served to artifically lengthen playtime. But Patrice didn't want to encourage players to focus on the collectibles like they had any inherent value beyond encouraging exploration, same as Korok leaves in BotW (they're fun, but after a while the puzzles start to repeat so most people don't bother going for all 900 of them).
The joke failed because PS3 and XBox 360 treated it differently: PS3 gave no trophy for collecting the flags whereas XBox did. So they were sending mixed messages to players: are the flags worth collecting or not? Are we supposed to be proud of this achievement or not? PS3 owners actually demanded that the devs should implement the same trophy on the PS release because they felt like XBox owners were getting extra recognition for doing something the devs thought was a stupid thing to do in the first place.

Bear in mind that the interview you cited is from 2007 whereas he has repeatedly stuck to his story about them being an elaborate troll in the years after the initial release. Of course he wasn't going to come out and say "yeah, we put in lots of useless collectibles for crazy people who care about that stuff" while he's still trying to promote his game. :p

Hello. Hd in Hb told me you were worried about me. :p

I appologies if I really made anyone worry. Thruth be told, I actually forgot to put the generic "I'm going dark, guys", in my last comment.

The thing is, with all the things I learned about ac origins, during E3, I feel like the only way to let myself get some surprises is to not go on the ubisoft forum until I actually get the game. Of course, I'll still try to think to make a return somewhere in September.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E781QE7ZQK8

After all, you should know by now how much I love using this video. ^-^


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw

And you know what this video means, when I use it in one of my thread, while we are so close to the release of a new ac game.

Have you you guessed it. Just to be sure you know the implication of all those things, let me tell you. It will be our secret. A secret shared between everyone reading this comment and me.

It will be "my 2017 final countdown thread". I bet you're all mind blown. XD


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvV99vLYGWM

(lol, I've always wanted to use that meme. I hope that you you found enough like a "captain obvious")
So, yea. Until somewhere in September (if I remember it at the rigth time), I'm going dark. ^-^

AnimusLover
07-29-2017, 01:36 PM
Honestly, I can guarantee everyone on TW3 we haven't seen the last of The Witcher franchise.

I mean, that's what they said when Luke brought balance to the force, not left it in darkness. ;)

Can't wait for Star Wars.....

Anyways. Ain't no one in their right mind would walk away from a fanbase as dedicated as Witcher's. I hear about that video game in every video games forum I've been on, and it's left a huge influence on the entire games industry, at least as far as the open world genre is concerned.

Yeah, I don't believe for one second that Witcher is over lol. I think Geralt's story is over but then we'll move on to a new Witcher story.
You're right about the Witcher 3 being hugely influential. It set the standard for historical/fantasy games the way GTA set the standard for modern open world games.
All this talk has got me started on my second playthrough on new game plus. Loving it. Origins has big shoes to fill if it even hopes to compete.

WendysBrioche
08-01-2017, 03:32 PM
Yeah, I don't believe for one second that Witcher is over lol. I think Geralt's story is over but then we'll move on to a new Witcher story.
You're right about the Witcher 3 being hugely influential. It set the standard for historical/fantasy games the way GTA set the standard for modern open world games.
All this talk has got me started on my second playthrough on new game plus. Loving it. Origins has big shoes to fill if it even hopes to compete.

I'm actually feeling a little disappointed cause I never got to beat Witcher 3.

I had to delete it to make space for other games, and it was a big sacrifice cause I was really getting into it.

My hard drive failed a month ago, and I have the game installed on a new hard drive that has twice the space, as soon as my power supply gets,delivered maybe I'll get a chance to play it again.

I'm gonna be super busy this year though in a couple weeks. I need to work more and get a crap ton of money and I'm preparing to move to a new state. And what with all the games coming out, origins, red dead, idk what all I'll have time to play.

AC Origins and Red Dead 2 are my priorities for gaming this year and first 3/4ths of next year.

These games are like.... incense and myrr... to me....

I have no idea what I'm saying

dxsxhxcx
08-03-2017, 12:12 PM
Yeah, I don't believe for one second that Witcher is over lol. I think Geralt's story is over but then we'll move on to a new Witcher story.
You're right about the Witcher 3 being hugely influential. It set the standard for historical/fantasy games the way GTA set the standard for modern open world games.
All this talk has got me started on my second playthrough on new game plus. Loving it. Origins has big shoes to fill if it even hopes to compete.

in the future if they feel comfortable enough to make another Witcher game they'll certainly do, the difference is that (I believe) they'll take their time with it like they did with the previous games, I doubt it'll be a direct sequel though because they've already said that they planned The Witcher to be a trilogy, right now if I'm not wrong they're going to focus on Cyberpunk (expected to be released in 2019) and are starting to mount a team to work on a new IP as well.

guest-5rir8GDV
08-05-2017, 11:23 PM
I would be fine with annual if they could deliver good games but the last three AC games have been complete garbage (Rogue, Syndicate and Unity) so its probably better that they take their time.