PDA

View Full Version : 1 year is not enough for ac3



an-assassin
06-27-2011, 11:04 AM
Hi. Ac3 is sopposed to come out in 2012. But with revelations they only have one year to Make it. I dont Think that 1 year is enough. Whatelet dó you say?

kriegerdesgottes
06-27-2011, 11:10 AM
No it really isn't. Alex did say that the games overlap, meaning that they will be started on ACIII before Revelations even gets released but that doesn't make me feel better at all. ACII was missing two sequences and the ability to replay missions after 2 years of work because of having "not enough time" according to Patrice Desilets. Plus Brotherhood overlapped ACII and Brotherhood is nowhere near as good of quality as the second game and it becomes incredibly clear when you play the second game, how much work and time and change went into ACII and now we are getting slight upgrades to the same product over and over. I am legitimately worried for ACIII but who knows. Ubisoft really is good at making great quality games. But then again this is the first time they have really milked a franchise to death. I am sure that they know exactly where the next setting will be and who the next character will be and I am positive they have everything planned because Alex Amancio pretty much has already confirmed that, so I am hoping they have started early development on ACIII now with the extra two studios they have brought in and they are making both at the same time.

Mr_Shade
06-27-2011, 11:44 AM
Don't forget there is not only multiple studios working on the AC games, but also AC3 will already have been started a while when ACR is released...


I think at last count, there were something like 500 people working on the games?


Peoples opinions of what is good and bad in titles is something very personal - since many do consider ACB a better single player game than AC2..


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

iN3krO
06-27-2011, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
Peoples opinions of what is good and bad in titles is something very personal - since many do consider ACB a better single player game than AC2..

And how much of them like other action titles where the main char is overpowered?

______________________________________________

If ubisoft have the right decisions of what they should do for Ac3, 1 years is more than enough... if they don't i would say 2 years...

medcsu11
06-27-2011, 11:54 AM
If you would have asked this after AC2 I would have said no. However, it is very obvious that Ubisoft can create multiple titles in a short time line that are expertly done.
Therefore, I have no worry about the games coming out fast. From a creation perspective it shouldnt be too hard (if you think about it) as the game is ran on free run mechanics which they already have created.
Basically, at this point, the games created just need new city creation, story enhancement, weapon/combat enhancement, fine tuning, and music (off the top of my head). Since the major control issues are already created, one year is pretty logical.

Mr_Shade
06-27-2011, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
Peoples opinions of what is good and bad in titles is something very personal - since many do consider ACB a better single player game than AC2..

And how much of them like other action titles where the main char is overpowered?

______________________________________________

If ubisoft have the right decisions of what they should do for Ac3, 1 years is more than enough... if they don't i would say 2 years... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No idea - maybe you should ask them next time you see? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The devs do look at the forums and other places for feedback from the games - so if people made it clear what they did not like when AC2 was released - hopefuly some of those ideas /changes will surface.

Posting ideas or suggestions - late into the Development of a game, is not how things get changed, since they don't have time- if the feedback was posted after the last title, it stands a better chance.

Also the games designers do have their own ideas on what they want, however they do have room for suggestions - however suggestions are just that - and should not be 'demands' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

iN3krO
06-27-2011, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
Peoples opinions of what is good and bad in titles is something very personal - since many do consider ACB a better single player game than AC2..

And how much of them like other action titles where the main char is overpowered?

______________________________________________

If ubisoft have the right decisions of what they should do for Ac3, 1 years is more than enough... if they don't i would say 2 years... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No idea - maybe you should ask them next time you see? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The devs do look at the forums and other places for feedback from the games - so if people made it clear what they did not like when AC2 was released - hopefuly some of those ideas /changes will surface.

Posting ideas or suggestions - late into the Development of a game, is not how things get changed, since they don't have time- if the feedback was posted after the last title, it stands a better chance.

Also the games designers do have their own ideas on what they want, however they do have room for suggestions - however suggestions are just that - and should not be 'demands' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as they balance the current features (and those in AcR) and that they think carefully about adding a new feature that could be umbalanced, the last tittle will be nice and would take about 1 year (when AcR get released, the writter will already have started with Ac3 :P)....

If they don't balance the current features (cuz casual gamers would prefer overpowered features rather than balanced ones) and implement new features that are most likely to be overpowered (only to make the game seem cooler for casuals, which i see stupid at this stage of the franchise, who didn't like any ac until know will never like it), Ac3 won't be better than Ac1 and Ac2 and will take more time to do (new features = more testing time)

___________________

For what you've said:

I don't demand anything, i just think that ubisoft is getting to far from what i got love from the franchise (beside the story) and that's why i'm trying to make them think twice... however i will always beat every Ac cuz the story is really nice. One thing is beat the game, another thing is buy, rent or download and this depends on how does ubisoft manage to do the next title (AcR).

ThaWhistle
06-27-2011, 12:27 PM
i reckon the story for ACR is done, and they are working on the AC3 story now.

cjutd
06-27-2011, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
No it really isn't. Alex did say that the games overlap, meaning that they will be started on ACIII before Revelations even gets released but that doesn't make me feel better at all. ACII was missing two sequences and the ability to replay missions after 2 years of work because of having "not enough time" according to Patrice Desilets. Plus Brotherhood overlapped ACII and Brotherhood is nowhere near as good of quality as the second game and it becomes incredibly clear when you play the second game, how much work and time and change went into ACII and now we are getting slight upgrades to the same product over and over. I am legitimately worried for ACIII but who knows. Ubisoft really is good at making great quality games. But then again this is the first time they have really milked a franchise to death. I am sure that they know exactly where the next setting will be and who the next character will be and I am positive they have everything planned because Alex Amancio pretty much has already confirmed that, so I am hoping they have started early development on ACIII now with the extra two studios they have brought in and they are making both at the same time. Spot on, couldn't have said it better.

masterfenix2009
06-27-2011, 02:07 PM
Yes for the reasons stated above

Calvarok
06-27-2011, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
No it really isn't. Alex did say that the games overlap, meaning that they will be started on ACIII before Revelations even gets released but that doesn't make me feel better at all. ACII was missing two sequences and the ability to replay missions after 2 years of work because of having "not enough time" according to Patrice Desilets. Plus Brotherhood overlapped ACII and Brotherhood is nowhere near as good of quality as the second game and it becomes incredibly clear when you play the second game, how much work and time and change went into ACII and now we are getting slight upgrades to the same product over and over. I am legitimately worried for ACIII but who knows. Ubisoft really is good at making great quality games. But then again this is the first time they have really milked a franchise to death. I am sure that they know exactly where the next setting will be and who the next character will be and I am positive they have everything planned because Alex Amancio pretty much has already confirmed that, so I am hoping they have started early development on ACIII now with the extra two studios they have brought in and they are making both at the same time.
Less people were working on AC2 than Brotherhood, and way more people are working on Revelations than Brotherhood. I'm thinking they're going to go into a serious overdrive if they want to get AC3 finished in a year. IMO, the quality of ACR will indicate wether or not it's going to be awesome.

scope2005
06-27-2011, 02:54 PM
Ubisoft should allow a good 2 years for AC3, as it will be a true sequel the time put into it should reflect this.

2 Years without any Assassins Creed content is a LONG TIME to wait however...

So if resources allow, Ubisoft should have a dedicated team to create an "expansion sized" DLC for Revelations, taking a good year to develop so we have something to fill the Gap.

I wouldn't mind shelling out a good 20$-30$, for a new campaign sized DLC that adds a new city and an in depth side story...

Hey Ubi could even go back to Altair for a DLC expansion, perhaps something which explains the book "Secret Crusade", but as an actual good 9 sequenced campaign.

Perhaps even a remake of "Altair Chronicles" or "Bloodlines", using the Revelations engine.

Thats if The devs dont keep the ending open for more Adventures as Ezio.

sassinscreed
06-27-2011, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
Peoples opinions of what is good and bad in titles is something very personal - since many do consider ACB a better single player game than AC2..

And how much of them like other action titles where the main char is overpowered?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

main character is overpowered in every game, because in any game with some action main character can kill 100 people alone and survive

Assassin_M
06-27-2011, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by sassinscreed:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
Peoples opinions of what is good and bad in titles is something very personal - since many do consider ACB a better single player game than AC2..

And how much of them like other action titles where the main char is overpowered?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

main character is overpowered in every game, because in any game with some action main character can kill 100 people alone and survive </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
RIP John Marston http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Eric_490
06-27-2011, 03:09 PM
I actually enjoyed the singleplayer in ACB more than ACII.

I didn't like the story any better, or worse for that matter, but both were really good.

I try to enjoy games instead of spending a large amount of my time trying to find reasons that its not realistic. It easy to make ACB harder. Dont put any armor on, use all the bad weapons, and turn off the HUD.

Play through the entire game like that and say the gameplay sucks.

Also on 90% of the singleplayer missions you know, the ones that involve stealth, use it.

Dont just storm in and kill everyone and say OMG ACB stealth sucks. Its there and its fun.

If Ezio was a complete wuss who got his *** kicked by 4 guards everyone would complain about that. He's a freaking MASTER ASSASSIN. You know when guards come after you, you dont have to sit there and fight them. You can try to run and hide.

But This is the late 1400s and early 1500s. Hes not gunna run around never fighting anyone and only using a sword and small hidden blade.

Funny how people complained about AC1 being repetitive and some complained about it being to hard.

Ubi made it so AC is not repetitive at all and still hard, but with the option of being easier. Depends on the route the player wants to take.

They are near perfect games, that's why they all get high ratings.

iN3krO
06-27-2011, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by sassinscreed:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
Peoples opinions of what is good and bad in titles is something very personal - since many do consider ACB a better single player game than AC2..

And how much of them like other action titles where the main char is overpowered?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

main character is overpowered in every game, because in any game with some action main character can kill 100 people alone and survive </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In Ac1 it's not the case if the player is not skill enough... sadly, for ac2 and acB that's not the case http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Eric_490
06-27-2011, 03:13 PM
It was the same in AC1. As soon as you get counter kill fights become extremely easy.

Of mannn do I remember reading players reviews and reading on forums back when AC1 came out.

Everyone was screaming like little kids about how it was to easy once you get counter kill.

Hes a damn Master Assassin.

albertwesker22
06-27-2011, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Assassin_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sassinscreed:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
Peoples opinions of what is good and bad in titles is something very personal - since many do consider ACB a better single player game than AC2..

And how much of them like other action titles where the main char is overpowered?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

main character is overpowered in every game, because in any game with some action main character can kill 100 people alone and survive </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
RIP John Marston http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Marston would have owned them all if he hadn't had a sudden attack of Carpal tunnel.

Assassin_M
06-27-2011, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by albertwesker22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sassinscreed:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
Peoples opinions of what is good and bad in titles is something very personal - since many do consider ACB a better single player game than AC2..

And how much of them like other action titles where the main char is overpowered?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

main character is overpowered in every game, because in any game with some action main character can kill 100 people alone and survive </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
RIP John Marston http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Marston would have owned them all if he hadn't had a sudden attack of Carpal tunnel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No he wouldnt, no gun has a capacity of 28 bullets "The exact number of Soldiers"

Eric_490
06-27-2011, 03:24 PM
I think if John had used dead eye and the Evans Repeater, He could have killed 22 of them and then pulled the Lemat or the high power or the mauser and killed the rest taking only a few bullet hits.

Lol if it was an actual mission he coulda got them.

Ending made me tear up though.

albertwesker22
06-27-2011, 03:26 PM
No he wouldnt, no gun has a capacity of 28 bullets "The exact number of Soldiers"

Well he'll get his revenge as a zombie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Back on topic though. I think they are dead set on releasing AC 3 in 2012(and we all know why) Ubisoft know that they have to set the bar higher for AC 3 and I have full confidence in them(half confidence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif)

iN3krO
06-27-2011, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Eric_490:
It was the same in AC1. As soon as you get counter kill fights become extremely easy.

Of mannn do I remember reading players reviews and reading on forums back when AC1 came out.

Everyone was screaming like little kids about how it was to easy once you get counter kill.

Hes a damn Master Assassin.

but what was faster? being stealth or combat with only counter kill?... being stealth!

And what was faster? being stealth or combat agresive and counter-attacking when guards attack you? Combat agresive...

What was harder? being stealth or combat agresive? Combat agresive.

acjake
06-27-2011, 04:33 PM
I am pretty sure Ubi has been working on AC3 ever since AC2...AC3 is going to be a critical game in the franchise they wouldn't rush it. I am not saying this is a fact but I personally think AC3 is well under way and it will have a 2.5 year dev cycle maybe even a little more. I have a feeling AC3 will blow everyone away like AC2 did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

kosmoscreed
06-27-2011, 09:59 PM
From the development point of view maybe is enough but I think they need to slow down a little, maybe release some spin off for the protables next year, let the main games some time to "cold down".

an-assassin
06-28-2011, 05:13 AM
Guys, what if someone had not played rdr. Then you just spoiled everything.

Assassin_M
06-28-2011, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by an-assassin:
Guys, what if someone had not played rdr. Then you just spoiled everything.
What is the meaning of "Unlucky" ?
it means that you enter The Assassins creed forums and have the ending of Red dead Redemption spoiled for you in there

Conniving_Eagle
06-28-2011, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
Peoples opinions of what is good and bad in titles is something very personal - since many do consider ACB a better single player game than AC2..

And how much of them like other action titles where the main char is overpowered?

______________________________________________

If ubisoft have the right decisions of what they should do for Ac3, 1 years is more than enough... if they don't i would say 2 years... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No idea - maybe you should ask them next time you see? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The devs do look at the forums and other places for feedback from the games - so if people made it clear what they did not like when AC2 was released - hopefuly some of those ideas /changes will surface.

Posting ideas or suggestions - late into the Development of a game, is not how things get changed, since they don't have time- if the feedback was posted after the last title, it stands a better chance.

Also the games designers do have their own ideas on what they want, however they do have room for suggestions - however suggestions are just that - and should not be 'demands' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Late into development? If there's +500 people working on AC, and they can dish out titles so fast, surely they can implement new ideas in a smaller time span than other companies. A posted two of my threads almost a month ago, a month ago, it was 5 months until the release of ACR(now it's 4 1/2), you're saying those likely won't be implemented if Ubisoft liked them?

Mr_Shade
06-28-2011, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by ConnivingEagle:

Late into development? If there's +500 people working on AC, and they can dish out titles so fast, surely they can implement new ideas in a smaller time span than other companies. A posted two of my threads almost a month ago, a month ago, it was 5 months until the release of ACR(now it's 4 1/2), you're saying those likely won't be implemented if Ubisoft liked them?

There's no guarantee that they will, no.. but there's no guarantee they won't be either..

However the team do read the forums and can pick up and add things quickly - however there's been many people who have posted major changes they want, and for those it may be too late.

it may not..

I'm just making sure that people are not screaming come release that all of the ideas posted are not in the game.. such as light sabers and killer ninja's


I do hope that many ideas posted and the gameplay changes fed back to the forums do make it into the game, however some people may get VERY upset if they don't get picked.

Conniving_Eagle
06-28-2011, 11:53 AM
Here's my 2 cents(lol, see that's an archaic saying that originated back in the 1920s, because of inflation 2 cents isn't worth that much anymore), I think that AC3 should have atleast two years of development post ACR because I want to see a new engine. AC has been using the same(or a very similar) engine, and the graphics have also been the same. I want AC3 to be phenominal, with next generation graphics and gameplay, remember how good the graphics for AC1 were? Well it's time to do that again. I want AC3 to be a GotY contender. I also am going to stress quality over quantity. ACB was a good game, but it was disappointing and it was not a true sequel. Before I knew about revelations, ACB seemed like they were just rushing to close up Ezio's story. The Singleplayer was extremely short, I beat it in a day and I even did I'm going to say about 80% of the side missions. It was more like AC 2.5. It add alot of cool things though, like the crossbow, the ability to execute/assassinate guards with other weapons besides your hidden blade(your fists), etc. But it also added some things that I think hindered gameplay(made it VERY EASY), like killchains(very OP), Recruit Assassins(they made courtesans, theives, and mercenaries useless, I think you should atleast be caught if a guard see's you calling them in, since they look like you), etc. I don't know about you guys, but I play alot of games other than AC. Even now I'm disappointed with it's release date because so many other games are coming out at around the same time. We're not going to die if we go a year without a new AC title. I would rather wait 2 years for an AC with 36 hours of gameplay than 1 year for one with 12. Lastly, can someone please explain to me how brotherhood is better than AC2, and what AC1 did a better job of than AC2(for is gameplay, not story).

One more thing. I'm a bit confused about the AC storlyine. Desmond Miles is from North Dakota, where is Abstergo? And how did he get to Italy by van?

kriegerdesgottes
06-28-2011, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ConnivingEagle:

Late into development? If there's +500 people working on AC, and they can dish out titles so fast, surely they can implement new ideas in a smaller time span than other companies. A posted two of my threads almost a month ago, a month ago, it was 5 months until the release of ACR(now it's 4 1/2), you're saying those likely won't be implemented if Ubisoft liked them?

There's no guarantee that they will, no.. but there's no guarantee they won't be either..

However the team do read the forums and can pick up and add things quickly - however there's been many people who have posted major changes they want, and for those it may be too late.

it may not..

I'm just making sure that people are not screaming come release that all of the ideas posted are not in the game.. such as light sabers and killer ninja's


I do hope that many ideas posted and the gameplay changes fed back to the forums do make it into the game, however some people may get VERY upset if they don't get picked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL I'm so glad someone is on my side about the stupid killer ninja idea. I haven't heard the lightsaber one yet but it doesn't surprise me either lol.

Mr_Shade
06-28-2011, 12:37 PM
I just mad those both up.. honest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ajl992008
06-28-2011, 01:19 PM
i think that ac3 has started straight after acb, reason i think this is bcoz on twitter gabe said that the acr team consisted of half of the acb team and half of new people so think about it where did all those people we saw last year doin interviews for acb go, they are working on ac3 to be rfeleased in 2012, they must have say 80-100 ppl working on it and then when acr is released they al work on ac3. i liked acb,i thought it was a worthy installment but i felt that there needed to be more assassinations and that the exotic missions should have been longer and main missions by being full sequences. i had other small issues but from what i have read f acr they r solved.

iN3krO
06-28-2011, 02:04 PM
Mr_Shade, i'm not sure if the upset thing is for me :P

As long as they don't **** up altair gameplay (they could add somethings from ac2 and a better worked killstreaks or combat streaks, that require more skill, but not add things that made ezio too overpowered) i would be ok with it.

If they do **** it up, i will be really upset cuz it would mean they won't look for what i really liked in ac1 when they are making ac3 :S

crash3
06-28-2011, 03:13 PM
I just hope the AC series continues after 2012, it has so much potential that it can continue to improve for many more games yet

Elatreus
06-28-2011, 04:56 PM
Perhaps 1 year wont be enough. But Ubisoft have a large number of people working on the Assassins Creed games. 500+? people working on this one game, it's a huge amount of people.

Let's compare it to a similar sandbox game from this generation "inFamous" It had a development time of 3 years, but only had a team of 60 people working on it.

I'd still like to see a 2 year gap between Assassin Creed games. But as long as Ubisoft can keep the quality high, I'll keep buying them.

Conniving_Eagle
06-28-2011, 05:47 PM
@Mr_Shade I don't think some of the really good ideas would take that long to implement. I don't think it would take that long change ACR to match the suggestion of my combat thread, but then some other ideas like adding a black market or bring alot of depth to every assassination might. So I see your point.

dchil279
06-29-2011, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
No it really isn't. Alex did say that the games overlap, meaning that they will be started on ACIII before Revelations even gets released but that doesn't make me feel better at all. ACII was missing two sequences and the ability to replay missions after 2 years of work because of having "not enough time" according to Patrice Desilets. Plus Brotherhood overlapped ACII and Brotherhood is nowhere near as good of quality as the second game and it becomes incredibly clear when you play the second game, how much work and time and change went into ACII and now we are getting slight upgrades to the same product over and over. I am legitimately worried for ACIII but who knows. Ubisoft really is good at making great quality games. But then again this is the first time they have really milked a franchise to death. I am sure that they know exactly where the next setting will be and who the next character will be and I am positive they have everything planned because Alex Amancio pretty much has already confirmed that, so I am hoping they have started early development on ACIII now with the extra two studios they have brought in and they are making both at the same time.
What you said in bold is because they had to create an entirely new skeleton for the game. I'm assuming that ACIII will use the same skeleton as ACII ACB and ACR.

dchil279
06-29-2011, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by ConnivingEagle:
Here's my 2 cents(lol, see that's an archaic saying that originated back in the 1920s, because of inflation 2 cents isn't worth that much anymore), I think that AC3 should have atleast two years of development post ACR because I want to see a new engine. AC has been using the same(or a very similar) engine, and the graphics have also been the same. I want AC3 to be phenominal, with next generation graphics and gameplay, remember how good the graphics for AC1 were? Well it's time to do that again. I want AC3 to be a GotY contender. I also am going to stress quality over quantity. ACB was a good game, but it was disappointing and it was not a true sequel. Before I knew about revelations, ACB seemed like they were just rushing to close up Ezio's story. The Singleplayer was extremely short, I beat it in a day and I even did I'm going to say about 80% of the side missions. It was more like AC 2.5. It add alot of cool things though, like the crossbow, the ability to execute/assassinate guards with other weapons besides your hidden blade(your fists), etc. But it also added some things that I think hindered gameplay(made it VERY EASY), like killchains(very OP), Recruit Assassins(they made courtesans, theives, and mercenaries useless, I think you should atleast be caught if a guard see's you calling them in, since they look like you), etc. I don't know about you guys, but I play alot of games other than AC. Even now I'm disappointed with it's release date because so many other games are coming out at around the same time. We're not going to die if we go a year without a new AC title. I would rather wait 2 years for an AC with 36 hours of gameplay than 1 year for one with 12. Lastly, can someone please explain to me how brotherhood is better than AC2, and what AC1 did a better job of than AC2(for is gameplay, not story).
Ubi kind of screwed themselves with the 2012 storyline because they need to finish ACIII before then. Otherwise, I think they probably would do everything that you said.

luckyto
06-29-2011, 10:35 AM
I think 12 months is too short, and I think Brotherhood shows it. In many ways, they had a lot of development work from AC2 already built for them PLUS scores of developers from many different Ubisoft studios and the result still shows.

Yes, they may have 500 guys from all over the world working on it; but it still takes time to coordinate those different teams and deliver a unified package. I see spots in Brotherhood that look and play like they came from different teams. It doesn't feel as uniform, as consistent and as well thought out as AC2.

Brotherhood isn't a bad game - it's good, but it is clearly not AC2. You can race through that game in under 16 hours - easy. Rome is large, but it feels not much bigger than Venice. In no way do the environments stack up against AC2 or AC1. AC1 had a LOT of places to roam around. Each city was fairly large and then you had the kingdom on top of that. Brotherhood's sandbox is tiny by comparison.

In AC2, almost every single aspect of gameplay - even feathers - was nicely tied back to story. In Brotherhood, many things feel tacked on simply to give an artificial sense of depth to the game. Leonardo's war machines being the only notable exception.

I do like Brotherhood. But I like it because I LOVE Assassin's Creed 2. And Brotherhood is like the ultimate expansion pack. But when I play it, I do wonder how much better it would be with six more months of development.

kriegerdesgottes
06-30-2011, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by luckyto:
I think 12 months is too short, and I think Brotherhood shows it. In many ways, they had a lot of development work from AC2 already built for them PLUS scores of developers from many different Ubisoft studios and the result still shows.

Yes, they may have 500 guys from all over the world working on it; but it still takes time to coordinate those different teams and deliver a unified package. I see spots in Brotherhood that look and play like they came from different teams. It doesn't feel as uniform, as consistent and as well thought out as AC2.

Brotherhood isn't a bad game - it's good, but it is clearly not AC2. You can race through that game in under 16 hours - easy. Rome is large, but it feels not much bigger than Venice. In no way do the environments stack up against AC2 or AC1. AC1 had a LOT of places to roam around. Each city was fairly large and then you had the kingdom on top of that. Brotherhood's sandbox is tiny by comparison.

In AC2, almost every single aspect of gameplay - even feathers - was nicely tied back to story. In Brotherhood, many things feel tacked on simply to give an artificial sense of depth to the game. Leonardo's war machines being the only notable exception.

I do like Brotherhood. But I like it because I LOVE Assassin's Creed 2. And Brotherhood is like the ultimate expansion pack. But when I play it, I do wonder how much better it would be with six more months of development.

This^!, Imagine how much better the games would be with all those people and an extra year to make the game into what ACII was. They can clearly make a totally new incredible game in two years and make a good/decent game in one year. I remember being totally blown away and soo excited about ACII when I saw the teaser trailers for it. I never got anywhere near that excited for Brotherhood and although I am very excited for Revelations, it's not anywhere near the way it was for the second game. And just because you have tons of people doing something, doesn't mean that is a good idea or that it's going to be better. In fact it's not always the best way to go to have 500 people all over the world trying to do one thing instead of a hundred or so dedicated passionate people in a studio making something great like Little Big Planet for example. Ubisoft did a good job with ACB there is no doubt but it was not on par with ACII's quality.

SteelCity999
06-30-2011, 10:39 AM
The problem with a 1 year cycle is that your feedback is going to be delayed by a year to actually make it into the game. Production actually ceases a month or so before the release date which gives the devs about 5 months of feedback to take in and then only a month or two to be able to make a change and execute it properly. Assuming they actually take time to polish it up before going gold. We are basically going to see all of the player suggestions from AC2 and a few from Brotherhood in AC:R. No matter what they say alot is dev created from Brotherhood.

Drakonous505
06-30-2011, 10:42 AM
Who's to say they havn't been working on it for a year already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SteelCity999
06-30-2011, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Drakonous505:
Who's to say they havn't been working on it for a year already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In terms of story, I'm sure that is true. I wouldn't be surprised if by August or September they start fleshing out AC3 both in terms of story and art. Pre-production of the actual game is basically the overlap they talk about. Just look at when they went to Istanbul for pictures and video - it was earlier this year.

Drakonous505
06-30-2011, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by SteelCity999:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Drakonous505:
Who's to say they havn't been working on it for a year already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In terms of story, I'm sure that is true. I wouldn't be surprised if by August or September they start fleshing out AC3 both in terms of story and art. Pre-production of the actual game is basically the overlap they talk about. Just look at when they went to Istanbul for pictures and video - it was earlier this year. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You also have to take into account they had a good portion of the in game models finished and when they went it was to get better details. Again this is from a video I saw a while ago.

Moultonborough
06-30-2011, 11:43 AM
It's not necessarily only a 1 year development. All they really need to start on ACIII is for the writers to finish the script for Revelations. Which I am sure is well over with.