PDA

View Full Version : Yearly Releases / Dropping MP ?



ProdiGurl
12-10-2011, 08:05 AM
Since we're moving on to AC3 & a new direction, I'm wondering what the opinions are on AC continuing yearly releases but dumping Multi-Player altogether?
Would fans be more Optimistic about a good quality SP game without AC devs having to spend time & resources on MP?

I couldn't think of any more opinion combo's, but I'd like to know how important MP is to AC fans basically.
Are people buying it just for that?

Bipolar Matt
12-10-2011, 08:07 AM
MP is too much of a hit to ever drop. There is no online MP experience like it.

reini03
12-10-2011, 08:24 AM
I'd like to have a 2 year release cycle, with a huuuge SP. But multiplayer should, IMO, not be left out. It's simply too awesome. And besides, the MP is mainly developed by studios other than Montreal anyways.

lukaszep
12-10-2011, 08:24 AM
After AC3 i'd be more than happy to wait 2 years for another console title.
They won't lose the MP now, but i think they should. It was amazing in AC:B and i loved it, but AC:R's MP is poor. I don't know how, but they managed to make everything good about AC:B bad. It's like they...unfixed everything. In AC:B i would be happy to play any game mode, now i only enjoy Deathmatch, and sometimes even that is unbearable. How can they reward players for stealth even when they aren't being stealthy?
I would rather they use other Ubisoft studios to make a longer SP, because to me it seems like they wasted a lot of resources on the MP this time around.
Anyway i won't rant but that's what i think.

adam839
12-10-2011, 08:32 AM
seriously why does anyone want to put out MP? it is even better than in BH and you think singleplayer in AC:R is worse than BH or AC2 or AC? i think AC series only improve with each title and multiplayer is great gaming experience not like all FPS

Serrachio
12-10-2011, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by adam839:
seriously why does anyone want to put out MP? it is even better than in BH and you think singleplayer in AC:R is worse than BH or AC2 or AC? i think AC series only improve with each title and multiplayer is great gaming experience not like all FPS

Trust me, ACR is not better overall. The story may have picked up from <span class="ev_code_WHITE">Tarik's assassination and Cappadocia to Ahmet's death</span>, but it ended rather anticlimactically, and many features in the game weren't worked on to be their fullest potential.

The MP also took what could be called Brotherhood's good functionality and messed it up with the Approach Meter and other features. I understand the concept behind it and all, but it doesn't work as well as it should. Adding a 15k cap amongst other things is also wrong, not to mention the irresponsive button presses (locking, killing and stunning) and awkward view-to-character and camera controls.

I feel that they need to shed some of these extra studios working on the AC series. I think they spend too long trying to get everyone on the same page that they suffered with a lack of time, and features felt tacked on because of it.

I'd say they need around 2 years to fully mature their concepts to be useful, they need to cut out unnecessary studios, and they need much, much better Quality Control.

iNvid22
12-10-2011, 09:46 AM
MP is not going anywhere because

a) its actually a pretty good, unique mode with quite a bit of potential - more story integration etc

b) it allows Ubi to use online passes and discourage used sales

c) keeps people playing the game longer and allows Ubi to throw MP DLC at them for $$$$



2 year cycle with MP would be good

EscoBlades
12-10-2011, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by iNvidious01:
MP is not going anywhere because

a) its actually a pretty good, unique mode with quite a bit of potential - more story integration etc

b) it allows Ubi to use online passes and discourage used sales

c) keeps people playing the game longer and allows Ubi to throw MP DLC at them for $$$$



2 year cycle with MP would be good

Well said.

Animuses
12-10-2011, 09:51 AM
Dropping multiplayer would be ridiculous. Too many people like it.

GunnarGunderson
12-10-2011, 10:27 AM
Ubisoft doesn't know anything about game balance. If people want to play MP they should get ACB or ACR but AC should be a single player series where all of the dev time and resources go into the sp

RzaRecta357
12-10-2011, 10:39 AM
Mplayer is fine. The stories are all great. They tweaked a few things. But they are just Vice City and San Andreas of AC2.

Let's see how AC3 goes first. The mplayer will be fine as they can just cut and paste the mechanics and then add new characters and animations.

Il_Divo
12-10-2011, 11:20 AM
If given the choice, definitely scrap multiplayer. With that out of the way, I'm more indifferent to a 1 vs. 2 year development cycle. Obviously a 2 year cycle gives them more time, but with MP out of the way, that already would be more resources applicable to SP campaign, so a year release could potentially work.

raging8762
12-10-2011, 11:26 AM
I made a thread a while back stating that I whole heartedly disliked the multiplayer aspect of AC and that Ubi should just completely focus on the singleplayer. I was criticised by one person in particular who I won't name. This person claimed that the MP part of the game was developed by a seperate team so it had no effect on the quality of the singleplayer. Funny thing is a few weeks later this same person would post that they also disliked the MP and it would be better if Ubisoft had never implemented it into the series.

AC was never about multiplayer, and it never should have been. Seperate team or not (I still can't find any information regarding that, so that person may have been speaking garbage) Ubi could have invested more time and money into making the singleplayer much longer. I'm sure if there was no emphasis on multiplayer, this would happen.

fyiByas
12-10-2011, 11:58 AM
The Biggest flaw in Assassin's Creed now is the yearly releases IMO. To me I like too see Assassin's Creed 3 to be released at the end of 2013 (at least) I mean I enjoyed Revelations but there needs to be something new. Like the major differences in AC1 too AC2.

When it came to Revelations it was more like "been there done that" for anyone whose played the whole sequel,but it feels fresh for new people to the series which is indeed good

In terms of Multiplayer, it feels clean and some fun for a little while. I don't mind it. Maybe Assassin's Creed 3 might have open world coop/vs. (Like Demon's/Dark Souls or RDR)

So Ubisoft... Ihttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif your games cause of the art and nostalgia... but the yearly releases needs to stop.

Bring more innovation over its predecessor.

ProdiGurl
12-10-2011, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
If given the choice, definitely scrap multiplayer. With that out of the way, I'm more indifferent to a 1 vs. 2 year development cycle. Obviously a 2 year cycle gives them more time, but with MP out of the way, that already would be more resources applicable to SP campaign, so a year release could potentially work.

See that's what I was thinking too. I really don't want to wait 2 years for the next installments.

If you figure this, when you first get the new game, you play it thru in what, a couple days?
I personally take a LONG time to go thru a game, I go slow, check things out & explore etc.
But you can blow thru a game pretty quickly - then you play it 2 times, then you're all done.

So then you have 2 more years to wait for the rest of the story?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

I much prefer yearly just for the sake of remembering what's going on in the story....
but I keep hearing that MP is what takes up alot of time & resource.
It sounds like they won't get rid of MP, people seem to love it (even tho I've seen lots of complaints).

lukaszep
12-10-2011, 12:59 PM
They won't drop the MP because then they'll lose out on a big market. Put the game on a 2 year cycle, make a long SP with lots of side missions etc.
Keep the main MP modes- Wanted, Manhunt, AA, Deathmatch (and maybe Escort or Assassinate), perfect those modes, then include an online Co-Op.

Keep MP audience, gain Co-Op Audience, keep SP audience happy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Animuses
12-10-2011, 01:00 PM
Co-op won't happen.

lukaszep
12-10-2011, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
Co-op won't happen.

Care to elaborate? Ubisoft suggested co-op themselves on the survey from last year.
Co-op can include more than just two people and would include more of a story than MP. I think it's likely the franchise will pick up co-op at some point.

Animuses
12-10-2011, 01:04 PM
They said they haven't found a way to make it work and why would you want another mode? It'll just give singleplayer less development.

lukaszep
12-10-2011, 01:06 PM
A lot of people want a co-op mode, and like i said, there's a large audience of gamers that only play games that include co-op, so if AC did include it, they would have more potential sales.
SP gets the same amount of development as it did since AC1, but since AC2 it's had less time.
I was suggesting the MP studio (Ubisoft Annecy) made the MP smaller and better, and then worked on the Co-Op whilst Montreal continued to work on the SP.

fyiByas
12-10-2011, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
They won't drop the MP because then they'll lose out on a big market. Put the game on a 2 year cycle, make a long SP with lots of side missions etc.
Keep the main MP modes- Wanted, Manhunt, AA, Deathmatch (and maybe Escort or Assassinate), perfect those modes, then include an online Co-Op.

Keep MP audience, gain Co-Op Audience, keep SP audience happy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I agree with you. But I think Animuses is right about the Singleplayer being affected because of Co-op.

It would be cool to see a Multiplayer like Demon's/Dark Souls in Assassin's Creed. You never know though

EscoBlades
12-10-2011, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by RagingXela:
I made a thread a while back stating that I whole heartedly disliked the multiplayer aspect of AC and that Ubi should just completely focus on the singleplayer. I was criticised by one person in particular who I won't name. This person claimed that the MP part of the game was developed by a seperate team so it had no effect on the quality of the singleplayer. Funny thing is a few weeks later this same person would post that they also disliked the MP and it would be better if Ubisoft had never implemented it into the series.

AC was never about multiplayer, and it never should have been. Seperate team or not (I still can't find any information regarding that, so that person may have been speaking garbage) Ubi could have invested more time and money into making the singleplayer much longer. I'm sure if there was no emphasis on multiplayer, this would happen.

MP is developed by Ubisoft Annecy in France. The main game is developed in Montreal, with other studios helping. So whoever told you it was seperate teams had a point. Annecy have no involvement in the SP development. At all.

naran6142
12-10-2011, 01:18 PM
MP is actually pretty good, i like it cuz it is different that most MP out there, tho i wouldn't mind if it disappeared

of course the series would benefit from more than 1 year of development.

AC2 is my favorite in the series, it got its 2 years so it had lots of stuff

ACB i think was supposed to be part of AC2, so ACR is the first AC with actually 1 year of development.

compared to ACB and AC2, ACR had less content(referring mainly to side mission). but i dont think that MP had anything to do with less SP content, i think they just ran out of time

AC3 is coming out 2012, but after that there should be a break.

SolidSage
12-10-2011, 01:19 PM
1 year cycle with full resources. (Gotta have frequent Creed...it makes life worth living! jk) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MP can stay or go, I liked it in ACB but just got bored of it, during ACB. I got up there on the boards, cracked the top 100 on a couple of stats...so I played it a lot....played it out basically. Haven't touched ACR MP and probably won't, too much repetition, and EVERY game has MP based on deathmatch, they're all repeating the same thing, over and over. Yeah, it can go if it improves SP but I doubt it will, fan base is large.

CO-OP is the most relevant upgrade that still hasn't been made to this game. Of course we all want to play with friends. I personally want to play the game I originally fell in love with, with a friend, not an adapted (read different) smaller and condensed version of it.

ProdiGurl
12-10-2011, 01:25 PM
I didn't know so many were into MP. Maybe they should just add another team to work w/ the Montreal team for SP only and then release it yearly?
I hate to have to wait 2 years - most other games are just fine being released that often.
Look at Batman's ratings twice in a row.
I haven't played Ark City yet but I did love Ark Asylum - even tho I know it's less involved & detailed than AC.

E-Zekiel
12-10-2011, 01:34 PM
Eh, I like the MP but I'm tired of single player losing its focus as a result.

No reason AC:R MP can't continue to exist. But I'd rather that for AC3, they not develop multiplayer. As one person suggested in another thread, it would not be a terrible idea, however, to basically copy AC:R's multiplayer to AC3, so they you can play it with AC3, and still play with people on both games. Would require minimal development time, while still having MP as an option.

RichardHaro
12-10-2011, 04:02 PM
Assassin's Creed 2 was the best game in the series, and it required 2 years.

Charging the same price and presenting these things as full games but only having 1 city and being a lot smaller is not right.

AC3 needs a new game engine, it needs to be fresh, revolutionise the series. It needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. That should take AT LEAST 2 YEARS.

YuurHeen
12-10-2011, 04:03 PM
I would like to have them sepperated. 1 year the mp and the other year sp. they could show teasers for eachother. o and it would mean 2 year production for both.

rob.davies2014
12-10-2011, 04:21 PM
I don't think there'll be any need to worry about yearly releases after Assassin's Creed 3:
http://www.eurogamer.net/artic...012s-assassins-creed (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-03-first-details-on-2012s-assassins-creed)

Scroll down to the last 2 paragraphs.

Animuses
12-10-2011, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by RussellSparrow:
I don't think there'll be any need to worry about yearly releases after Assassin's Creed 3
After AC3, after Desmond's story. Too late.

ProdiGurl
12-10-2011, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by RussellSparrow:
I don't think there'll be any need to worry about yearly releases after Assassin's Creed 3:
http://www.eurogamer.net/artic...012s-assassins-creed (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-03-first-details-on-2012s-assassins-creed)

Scroll down to the last 2 paragraphs.

So that's why they did the 2 in that timing. Thanks for linking that, it was interesting.
It makes me worry that AC3 might ALL be Desmond?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
I so hope not.

Serrachio
12-10-2011, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by EscoBlades:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RagingXela:
I made a thread a while back stating that I whole heartedly disliked the multiplayer aspect of AC and that Ubi should just completely focus on the singleplayer. I was criticised by one person in particular who I won't name. This person claimed that the MP part of the game was developed by a seperate team so it had no effect on the quality of the singleplayer. Funny thing is a few weeks later this same person would post that they also disliked the MP and it would be better if Ubisoft had never implemented it into the series.

AC was never about multiplayer, and it never should have been. Seperate team or not (I still can't find any information regarding that, so that person may have been speaking garbage) Ubi could have invested more time and money into making the singleplayer much longer. I'm sure if there was no emphasis on multiplayer, this would happen.

MP is developed by Ubisoft Annecy in France. The main game is developed in Montreal, with other studios helping. So whoever told you it was seperate teams had a point. Annecy have no involvement in the SP development. At all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I want to know is, if Annecy made Brotherhood's multiplayer and Revelations' multiplayer, what went wrong in between the two?

Either they must have listened too much to people complaining that ACB MP was "too hard" or that they were too rushed to implement and balance their multiplayer, despite holding a beta and then not changing anything.

It just baffles me really.

AnthonyA85
12-10-2011, 07:22 PM
AT LEAST 2 years development time.

Keep the multiplayer, just change the system it uses, in otherwords, GET. RID. OF. P2P MATCH MAKING.

Seriously, Client-server setups are A LOT more effiecent, and actually WORK, where as P2P can be blocked by ANYTHING, and most of the time, takes hours to get results.

Also, giving players the ability to manually set the length of matches would be a good place to start improvements.

I think, for all the work they have to do, 12 months is NEVER a good strategy, if they don't go back to a 2+ year cycle after AC3, then i can see the AC series degrading in quality, story-wise at least, very quickly.

AkwardPenguin
12-10-2011, 08:02 PM
I think they should have a multiplayer co-op thing where you and a friend in single player

MaKaVeLiTL
12-10-2011, 10:14 PM
I'd have voted for 2+ year releases but need my AC fix, the wait for Revelations seemed to take forever. Although I do agree that after AC3 they should take more time to develop AC4 and wait a couple of years.

Also drop the MP, it's one of the most boring MP experiences I've ever had and is repetitive. All you do is walk around trying to find a target or vice versa. Or capture chests etc, amazing! (just kidding, it's like watching paint dry)

I agree with the above post, co-op would be a nice addition.

Sarari
12-10-2011, 10:23 PM
Here's the problem, in my opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ubisoft can't pay full attention with the SP story and everything in it if they're working 40% on MP. It's just not gonna work out. Why was AC1 and 2 so good? Because it was all focusing on SP, and had the time to polish many things.

I think they should keep Multiplayer in sequels, like ACB and ACR. But in the true story game like AC1, AC2, and AC3, they should take it out to focus on the main story and the writing. They truly weren't as good in the writing as in AC2 and definitely not as in AC1.

kriegerdesgottes
12-10-2011, 10:53 PM
Ubisoft will never drop MP. If Ubisoft announced today they are dropping MP I would be ecstatic but it is actually pretty good for online MP and it's too popular and financially viable for Ubisoft to cut. I do hope that Ubisoft reconsiders the annual game crap though. That needs to end.

ProdiGurl
12-11-2011, 04:32 AM
I would love to see the actual stats on how many buy AC for the MP experience alone - or wouldn't buy AC if it didn't come w/ MP.

Someone in this thread already mentioned that an entirely different team works on MP alone, it's the Montreal team who's doing the SP w/ a few others.
So maybe MP time & resources isn't responsible for taking away anything from SP.
But I somehow think it has to be involved in some way

firefing
12-11-2011, 05:16 AM
Without the Multiplayer the Single-Player may develop more, be longer more in-depth perhaps larger and more exciting, But when i complete the story i see no replay value in the game what-so-ever i know the story and thats what i played the Singleplayer for, Without the Multiplayer the game would lose loads of replay value and the fact that the style is so unique makes it all the more exciting.

If they were to remove multiplayer they'd need to compensate with giving Single-Player replay value, Maybe turn the managing cities into smaller missions where you play your assassin, I don't know but personally i'm fine for 1 or 2 year releases but i'd prefer it with the Multiplayer

crash3
12-11-2011, 09:10 AM
Surely those templar agents should be trained by the time AC3 comes out so there wouldnt be a need for multiplayer and ubisoft can focus on making a much longer and in depth storyline

fyiByas
12-11-2011, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by AnthonyA85:
AT LEAST 2 years development time.

Keep the multiplayer, just change the system it uses, in otherwords, GET. RID. OF. P2P MATCH MAKING.

Seriously, Client-server setups are A LOT more effiecent, and actually WORK, where as P2P can be blocked by ANYTHING, and most of the time, takes hours to get results.

Also, giving players the ability to manually set the length of matches would be a good place to start improvements.

I think, for all the work they have to do, 12 months is NEVER a good strategy, if they don't go back to a 2+ year cycle after AC3, then i can see the AC series degrading in quality, story-wise at least, very quickly.

Yep, a two year cycle would be nice for AC3. Either if it's a one year cycle, I will probably still enjoy the next AC but would probably be mildly dissapointed.

lukaszep
12-11-2011, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Sarari:
Here's the problem, in my opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ubisoft can't pay full attention with the SP story and everything in it if they're working 40% on MP. It's just not gonna work out. Why was AC1 and 2 so good? Because it was all focusing on SP, and had the time to polish many things.

I think they should keep Multiplayer in sequels, like ACB and ACR. But in the true story game like AC1, AC2, and AC3, they should take it out to focus on the main story and the writing. They truly weren't as good in the writing as in AC2 and definitely not as in AC1.

But Ubisoft Montreal, the studio that makes the SP, does not make the MP. The problem they have though, is not having much time for production.
I think this, along with the games being released yearly makes me enjoy them less, because the wait (although seems long at the time) is short, and i don't seem to appreciate the new story, city etc. int he game. I think that is why many people loved AC2 so much.

masterfenix2009
12-11-2011, 10:55 AM
Keep the yearly releases and the MP. For now.

I haven't noticed a significant drop of quality. I really don't see why people complain about ACB or ACR. They are expansions after all. Of course they will be short. I knew that as soon as ACB came out, they were going to make another expansion. Then AC3 would come out. It is quite obvious that they have been making AC3 since AC2's release. That means they already have two years of development. Besides, it would be kind of stupid to have game that is based around 2012 to release in 2013.

Serrachio
12-11-2011, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sarari:
Here's the problem, in my opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ubisoft can't pay full attention with the SP story and everything in it if they're working 40% on MP. It's just not gonna work out. Why was AC1 and 2 so good? Because it was all focusing on SP, and had the time to polish many things.

I think they should keep Multiplayer in sequels, like ACB and ACR. But in the true story game like AC1, AC2, and AC3, they should take it out to focus on the main story and the writing. They truly weren't as good in the writing as in AC2 and definitely not as in AC1.

But Ubisoft Montreal, the studio that makes the SP, does not make the MP. The problem they have though, is not having much time for production.
I think this, along with the games being released yearly makes me enjoy them less, because the wait (although seems long at the time) is short, and i don't seem to appreciate the new story, city etc. int he game. I think that is why many people loved AC2 so much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The team that focuses on the Single player still has to co-ordinate with the MP team.

If the MP wasn't there though, there wouldn't need to be that distraction.

Animuses
12-11-2011, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by assassino151:
I really don't see why people complain about ACB or ACR. They are expansions after all. Of course they will be short. Full retail price = full game, not expansion.

kriegerdesgottes
12-11-2011, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by assassino151:
I really don't see why people complain about ACB or ACR. They are expansions after all. Of course they will be short. Full retail price = full game, not expansion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where are people getting this false "Expansion" idea from? Ubisoft has never made the claim " oh it's ok guys these are just expansions" These games are "full retail products" according to Ubisoft and just like Animuses said, even if they were viewed as expansions by Ubisoft, that wouldn't cost $60.00

masterfenix2009
12-11-2011, 11:56 AM
I accept them as expansions. They are just advertised and priced as a full game. And I think it has enough stuff in it to be priced that way. 15 hour single player, side-missions, and multiplayer. It took me a week to do everything. I'm satisfied.

ProdiGurl
12-11-2011, 12:03 PM
I agree w/ that Assassino.

I spent days on ACR. It's no expansion imo. I had plenty to do and keep me busy.

Animuses
12-11-2011, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by assassino151:
I accept them as expansions. So you accept less for the same price?

kriegerdesgottes
12-11-2011, 12:32 PM
You know what's kind of pathetic is that Undead Nightmare, the expansion pack for RDR is only slightly shorter than Brotherhood and Revelations and offers better random missions and more sidequests for like $30.

ProdiGurl
12-11-2011, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
You know what's kind of pathetic is that Undead Nightmare, the expansion pack for RDR is only slightly shorter than Brotherhood and Revelations and offers better random missions and more sidequests for like $30.

Is that what it originally sold as at Release or sells as today?

And this can easily be alleviated by not buying ACR right away & waiting a few months till the price comes down (or rent it or buy it used).

kriegerdesgottes
12-11-2011, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
You know what's kind of pathetic is that Undead Nightmare, the expansion pack for RDR is only slightly shorter than Brotherhood and Revelations and offers better random missions and more sidequests for like $30.

Is that what it originally sold as at Release or sells as today?

And this can easily be alleviated by not buying ACR right away & waiting a few months till the price comes down (or rent it or buy it used). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it was originally like 30 bucks or something like that. I'm sure you can find it now for much cheaper but it was never $60.00 and it had a way bigger map too because you were just in the same area as RDR which was enormous.

ProdiGurl
12-11-2011, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
You know what's kind of pathetic is that Undead Nightmare, the expansion pack for RDR is only slightly shorter than Brotherhood and Revelations and offers better random missions and more sidequests for like $30.

Is that what it originally sold as at Release or sells as today?

And this can easily be alleviated by not buying ACR right away & waiting a few months till the price comes down (or rent it or buy it used). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it was originally like 30 bucks or something like that. I'm sure you can find it now for much cheaper but it was never $60.00 and it had a way bigger map too because you were just in the same area as RDR which was enormous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya I have RDR and I'm hopefully getting the undead game for Cmas - it was on my list but who knows. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But Ubi didn't use the old map, they made completely new cities & stuff - it's just longer than an expansion imo.
It's only shorter than two very long AC games.

Animuses
12-11-2011, 12:54 PM
I got Undead Nightmare for $10 on it's release day... best DLC ever.

ProdiGurl
12-11-2011, 12:59 PM
AWESOME !!

Oh, Amazon is having a one day sale... I think Tues. at midnight on all their Vid games.
I might set my alarm
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Skuldpt
12-11-2011, 01:07 PM
I came into the series because of the MP, so.... please UBI don't remove it! 2 Years with MP

SteelCity999
12-11-2011, 02:40 PM
MP is a good addition and should be included until it becomes stale. I think they do need to work really hard on bringing something creative to the experience in the next release or 2 to keep it advancing. It is already a unique exprience and good for MP everyhere but they can definitely expand.

Having said that....SP is suffering.

Sarari
12-11-2011, 04:00 PM
But Ubisoft Montreal, the studio that makes the SP, does not make the MP. The problem they have though, is not having much time for production.
I think this, along with the games being released yearly makes me enjoy them less, because the wait (although seems long at the time) is short, and i don't seem to appreciate the new story, city etc. int he game. I think that is why many people loved AC2 so much.
But they have to share the income they received from their game sales.

Sarari
12-11-2011, 04:07 PM
Well, now that I think of it, MP isn't really the problem with AC now. Maybe in small parts of the game, but to me, the biggest reason why AC is suffering in SP is because they changed the script writers/story writers after AC1 and AC2.

If you haven't noticed, the game is cheesy in so many scenes. I'll give an example:

The cut scene where he finds Yusuf dead. After he he put him to rest, he turns around and sees the other assassins, then Ezio gives this mini speech that really gives me ****** chills (chills that happen when you feel like something is entirely corny.)

I don't like how the script is written and the story is getting much more complicated than it really has to be. If they stuck with the same writers, this series would be a lot more basic but much more entertaining no doubt.

C112408E
12-11-2011, 04:49 PM
I'm shaking my head at all the votes for "Yearly Releases, leave the MP in". You guys actually LIKE them being the rushed, rehashed, boring game the past two have been?

dxsxhxcx
12-11-2011, 05:05 PM
They'll never remove MP but I hope they stop with the annual releases after AC3, not only because is obvious that they can make a much better game with more time but because I'm starting to get tired of AC, not because isn't cool, but one game per year is too much and IMO they don't need 3 games to tell the ancestor story, only 1 or 2 games (with the second game being in a different setting and more important, with a different story and not continuing the story from the previous game like they did with ACB and the Borgia) are more than enough...

lukaszep
12-11-2011, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
Well, now that I think of it, MP isn't really the problem with AC now. Maybe in small parts of the game, but to me, the biggest reason why AC is suffering in SP is because they changed the script writers/story writers after AC1 and AC2.

If you haven't noticed, the game is cheesy in so many scenes. I'll give an example:

The cut scene where he finds Yusuf dead. After he he put him to rest, he turns around and sees the other assassins, then Ezio gives this mini speech that really gives me ****** chills (chills that happen when you feel like something is entirely corny.)

I don't like how the script is written and the story is getting much more complicated than it really has to be. If they stuck with the same writers, this series would be a lot more basic but much more entertaining no doubt.

What!? I'm sorry, but i can't let this go. (http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)
I know AC;R didn't seem to make much progress in terms of Assassin's vs. Templar's, but it's given so much to the series in other areas. If you pay a lot of attention to the story, it brings so many things to the players attention, such as the Assassin's morals, and the lives they lead. It calls attention to the fact they AREN'T heroes, and that they sacrifice a "normal" life for a cause they believe greater than themselves. AC:R also added so much more depth and meaning to the modern day story, including a background to Desmond which will help us to relate to him more n AC:3, his final chapter. I'm sorry but AC:R has done what the 3 previous games couldn't, and given the series a global, historical and emotional footing, and (you may not believe it now, but) it will give AC3 a much greater impact http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Serrachio
12-11-2011, 05:52 PM
ACR did not give Desmond a back story. His back story was already there, pretty much at the very start of AC1.

They added a little of his feelings and bridged some tiny gaps in between the events of his escape from the Farm, but it did not expand much at all from already established information.

If they wanted me to be a little more immersed in Desmond's events before Abstergo capturing him, they needed flashbacks, visual accompanyment, instead of him droning on in the background, some barely noticeable black and white projections and some Portal-esque gameplay.

Nothing puts you as much in Desmond's shoes as literally seeing things through his eyes, and how his reactions in those situations link in with his emotions of the events.

And to be honest, they had the framing element. Desmond's mind was broken, and he needed to fix it. Playing through the segments could have brought those flashbacks into his head, as if they were reforming and slotting back into his subconcious to make Desmond whole again.

LightRey
12-11-2011, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Serrachio:
ACR did not give Desmond a back story. His back story was already there, pretty much at the very start of AC1.

They added a little of his feelings and bridges some tiny gaps in between the events of his escape from the Farm, but it did not expand much at all from already established information.

If they wanted me to be a little more immersed in Desmond's events before Abstergo capturing him, they needed flashbacks, visual accompanyment, instead of him droning on in the background, some barely noticeable black and white projections and some Portal-esque gameplay.

Nothing puts you as much in Desmond's shoes as literally seeing things through his eyes, and how his reactions in those situations link in with his emotions of the events.

And to be honest, they had the framing element. Desmond's mind was broken, and he needed to fix it. Playing through the segments could have brought those flashbacks into his head, as if they were reforming and slotting back into his subconcious to make Desmond whole again.
Eh, they did give visual accompaniment. If you hadn't noticed, every area was an abstract version of the places he was "reliving". Not to mention almost every room had a picture showing something from that part of his life.

There's also the fact that they played sounds from those same events, in between his narrations of his own story.

Desmond's missions revealed how he had to endure life on The Farm, why he left the place, how he left, why he went to New York and what it was like for him in New York.

I'd say all of that revealed much about his life. Especially concerning what his life was like for him, which was exactly what the fans wanted. Desmond finally got a personality.

Serrachio
12-11-2011, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Serrachio:
ACR did not give Desmond a back story. His back story was already there, pretty much at the very start of AC1.

They added a little of his feelings and bridges some tiny gaps in between the events of his escape from the Farm, but it did not expand much at all from already established information.

If they wanted me to be a little more immersed in Desmond's events before Abstergo capturing him, they needed flashbacks, visual accompanyment, instead of him droning on in the background, some barely noticeable black and white projections and some Portal-esque gameplay.

Nothing puts you as much in Desmond's shoes as literally seeing things through his eyes, and how his reactions in those situations link in with his emotions of the events.

And to be honest, they had the framing element. Desmond's mind was broken, and he needed to fix it. Playing through the segments could have brought those flashbacks into his head, as if they were reforming and slotting back into his subconcious to make Desmond whole again.
Eh, they did give visual accompaniment. If you hadn't noticed, every area was an abstract version of the places he was "reliving". Not to mention almost every room had a picture showing something from that part of his life.

There's also the fact that they played sounds from those same events, in between his narrations of his own story.

Desmond's missions revealed how he had to endure life on The Farm, why he left the place, how he left, why he went to New York and what it was like for him in New York.

I'd say all of that revealed much about his life. Especially concerning what his life was like for him, which was exactly what the fans wanted. Desmond finally got a personality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As abstract as it was, I wouldn't say it did the same job, because it could come across as just level design.

Having a flashback whenever he interacted with one of those prompts would have connected me more with the situation that Desmond encountered I feel.

LightRey
12-11-2011, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Serrachio:
As abstract as it was, I wouldn't say it did the same job, because it could come across as just level design.

Having a flashback whenever he interacted with one of those prompts would have connected me more with the situation that Desmond encountered I feel.
It didn't do the same job because they didn't intend for it to do the same job. It was supposed to be this puzzle-like gameplay. The fact that the environment was so abstract and that it became less and less abstract with every memory was very interesting as well. I'm guessing that it's either to represent Desmond "rebuilding" his mind, or it's to represent older memories being less clear.

Serrachio
12-11-2011, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Serrachio:
As abstract as it was, I wouldn't say it did the same job, because it could come across as just level design.

Having a flashback whenever he interacted with one of those prompts would have connected me more with the situation that Desmond encountered I feel.
It didn't do the same job because they didn't intend for it to do the same job. It was supposed to be this puzzle-like gameplay. The fact that the environment was so abstract and that it became less and less abstract with every memory was very interesting as well. I'm guessing that it's either to represent Desmond "rebuilding" his mind, or it's to represent older memories being less clear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While that is true, it came across as bland in my view.

I understand what it would imply, but it didn't leave many a player feeling that satisfied to play through it, or after they had played through them.

Ubisoft can tie it to artistic choice if they please, but it wasn't engaging, and what makes for interesting characters despite them showing you their flaws, is that they keep you entertained through everything.

I know I'm supposed to be watching his past unfold before me, but I never really felt involved with it. It was just that sort of alien detachment that was odd.

Edit: If you'd like to continue our discussion Rey, please send me a PM.

masterfenix2009
12-11-2011, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by C112408E:
I'm shaking my head at all the votes for "Yearly Releases, leave the MP in". You guys actually LIKE them being the rushed, rehashed, boring game the past two have been? Say what you want about rushed, but ACR and ACB are NOT boring games.

C112408E
12-11-2011, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by assassino151:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by C112408E:
I'm shaking my head at all the votes for "Yearly Releases, leave the MP in". You guys actually LIKE them being the rushed, rehashed, boring game the past two have been? Say what you want about rushed, but ACR and ACB are NOT boring games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find them boring because they are practically the EXACT same game as AC2. I LOVED AC2, but playing a copy+paste of it twice in a row makes it lose its charm. This is one of the reasons I can't stand Call of Duty. It's literally a copy of the previous game, but with some new maps and some new weapons tacked on -- and that's pretty much what AC has become. What they need to change about this game are the core elements. That's what will make it actually feel like a full game and not some overpriced expansion pack. The engine needs to be changed or updated or something. It just annoys me so much to see some of the same glitches from AC1 STILL be in the series. It shows that Ubi is hardly even play-testing their games; and part of it is their own fault. If they had given themselves more time to make these games, they wouldn't be rushed, glitch-fests. With only the year that they give themselves, all they can do is create the new city, new story, and all that stuff.

Anyway, don't me wrong, I thing the story is excellent and the overall uniqueness of the game is awesome, but when it comes down to it, the game is becoming insanely repetitive due to Ubisoft forcing themselves along the path of yearly releases of a copy and paste of the previous year's game, just with some cheap little gimmicks tacked on at the end.

Teknykk
12-11-2011, 08:09 PM
Hm, I could take or leave a Yearly release really. I'm one of the many who adore Ezio and his story because of the original game with him that really made you feel for the character and wanted more because it felt he had more to do.

I enjoyed all three games with him in it much more than the original with Altair...though it was nice to see his story come to an end too and I kind of felt sad for him as well. But I could do with or without a yearly "add-on" to the current generation's ancestor, I'm not bothered either way.

As for multplayer...well, it is a very unique experience as someone said and will be rather impossible to drop after how popular it's become, I just wish it wasn't full of "zerging halfwits" that run around blindly like a bunch of little kids on speed and constantly resort to cheap uses of skills...it's an Assassin game, I wish every player would act like it because their stupid method of playing ruins it for the proper players.

But I do like it...I just feel there's far too many idiot players who fail to understand it's proper concept and "still" do better than you as a result, when they shouldn't.

But I'd like to see it stay as well...just to be greatly improved to remove the silly urge to run around like a complete halfwit, such as giving players who act like a real Assassin points for walking and hiding...or penalties to people who run around for no reason...like not being in a chase for example.

And as much as hate these players, I have no choice but to play with them because of how stupidly long game-searching can get on some days.

That said though, it can be a lot of fun at times with the good players...especially in Manhunt and Corruption, I get good scores there and the people play properly most of the time, so it becomes a bit of a thrill.

ProdiGurl
12-12-2011, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by assassino151:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by C112408E:
I'm shaking my head at all the votes for "Yearly Releases, leave the MP in". You guys actually LIKE them being the rushed, rehashed, boring game the past two have been? Say what you want about rushed, but ACR and ACB are NOT boring games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

It's probably a case of people liking one Assassin's game concept & then being bored of it & they should move on to other games that actually keep their interest.

luckyto
12-12-2011, 07:53 AM
Good poll, Prodigurl http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Originally posted by iNvidious01:
MP is not going anywhere because

a) its actually a pretty good, unique mode with quite a bit of potential - more story integration etc

b) it allows Ubi to use online passes and discourage used sales

c) keeps people playing the game longer and allows Ubi to throw MP DLC at them for $$$$



2 year cycle with MP would be good

I love my single-player. But if they went with a 2-year cycle, I'm all for keeping multiplayer. I admit --- it is wildly fun.

Go to a 2-year cycle, add one more map to the SP and a half-dozen missions, keep the MP ---- and then drop a big FAT expansion pack on the years in-between.


Originally posted by C112408E:
I find them boring because they are practically the EXACT same game as AC2. I LOVED AC2, but playing a copy+paste of it twice in a row makes it lose its charm. This is one of the reasons I can't stand Call of Duty. It's literally a copy of the previous game, but with some new maps and some new weapons tacked on -- and that's pretty much what AC has become.

On the contrary, I would argue they've done too much. They've gone WAY too far from the original formula and I would happily like to see them scale it back and bring it back towards the style of the original Assassin's Creed. Just give me new maps and story. That's it.

I love my Coke, and I don't want "New Coke"; if I did, I'd go buy a Pepsi.

I do agree that the 1-year development cycle is hurting the franchise in a very bad way. Because they shortcut maps, story and testing; and are filling it with gimmicks. Some work and some don't, but they are gimmicks compared to the core game mechanics. I don't understand how people don't see that either, but reviewers are getting wise to it - so maybe there is hope.

syyujhhg
12-12-2011, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
They'll never remove MP but I hope they stop with the annual releases after AC3, not only because is obvious that they can make a much better game with more time but because I'm starting to get tired of AC, not because isn't cool, but one game per year is too much and IMO they don't need 3 games to tell the ancestor story, only 1 or 2 games (with the second game being in a different setting and more important, with a different story and not continuing the story from the previous game like they did with ACB and the Borgia) are more than enough...

Mikl-90-
12-12-2011, 09:57 AM
They should take as much time as they need to make the games. No less than two years at least.

ACR was a wasted opportunity. The game was still good but it could have been the best AC if they had just taken their time to fully develop the story.

Like it or not, yearly releases are ruining this franchise. Why would they settle with making a decent game when they could easily make a great one?

ProdiGurl
12-12-2011, 10:17 AM
The game was still good but it could have been the best AC if they had just taken their time to fully develop the story.

I consider the game was great but could have been alot greater w/ a more developed story - a few (2 or 3) of the Characters needed more depth & interaction with.
That sadistic Shakulu dude could have totally been amped up, Sofia - where do I start with what I WISH happened in the story btwn those two & the final Ahmet guy... maybe more w/ him.

Tack on a few more missions this would have been epic stuff. As it is, it ties w/ my ACB as favorite which was near impossible to do.
The missions were just too fun & less restrictive.


Good poll, Prodigurl Smile

Hey thanks. Finally lol. But I was really getting concerned w/ all the stuff I was hearing about this -
I seriously do NOT want to wait 2 years for AC games tho.
*sigh.

HOIRiIZON
12-12-2011, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
Since we're moving on to AC3 & a new direction, I'm wondering what the opinions are on AC continuing yearly releases but dumping Multi-Player altogether?
Would fans be more Optimistic about a good quality SP game without AC devs having to spend time & resources on MP?

I couldn't think of any more opinion combo's, but I'd like to know how important MP is to AC fans basically.
Are people buying it just for that? Sorry you had no option for make a game every three years period and never make a garbage game like ACR again.

SolidSage
12-12-2011, 11:29 AM
Sniff sniff*, I smell Troll.

How about the MP gets upgraded to include free running races. I just played the mission where you have to beat Yusuf to Topakia (?) and the 3 recruits fan out in front of you. Each one takes you on a nice route if followed closely. Imagine just playing follow the leader across a full map with 3 or 4 friends? Time trials, tag, etc. SO much potential.

luckyto
12-12-2011, 02:05 PM
Capture the Chest is good fun.

sassinscreed
12-13-2011, 10:16 AM
i was little disappointed with both revelations and brotherhood compared to ac2 because they were too short and not enough main story missions, not enough places to explore so i think ubisoft are rushing with ac too much

if they already do it in limited time i think it would be better to drop multiplayer and make us full singleplayer experience, don't get me wrong here multiplayer is fun but i would rather have better singleplayer than too short singleplayer with multiplayer

but i think it would be the best that ubisoft take enough time for making good singleplayer and multiplayer experience, proof is that ac2 had 14 sequences, 3 bigger cities and some smaller places, long and interesting story and lots of sidequestes and that is the game that was made in longer time

in ac:b and ac:r we got short singleplayer with only 9 short sequences, rushed story and not many story missions as in ac:2 brotherhood had lots of sidequestes but lots of them were boring and in ac:r there were almost no sidequestes
i would rather wait longer and get better game

and about multiplayer if ac game has to be done in limited time i would rather have them spend all time they spend on multiplayer on singleplayer but the best would be just to take as long as it takes to make a good game with both multi and singleplayer

SixKeys
12-13-2011, 02:34 PM
I'd be fine with 2+ years and keeping the multiplayer. One year of development worked for Brotherhood, less so for ACR. I'm afraid if they keep going with the annual releases, the franchise is going to quickly run out of steam. I'm looking forward to AC3 to see how Desmond's story ends, after that I'm going to sit back and watch carefully how Ubi handles the franchise's future. I don't think MP is the problem as it's handled by a separate studio, the problem with single-player is rushed deadlines. The MP is fun and as long as it stays fun it should stay.