PDA

View Full Version : Why Revelations Failed



YoooDonny
04-07-2012, 12:01 PM
Assassins Creed Revelations was a good game, but me and many others thought that it just didn't have anywhere near the effect that the others had. I have never really been able do identify why, but it just came to me these 3 main reasons:

1) This is not such a crucial one because this happens in all 3 Assassins creeds, but just more in this one. The amount of switching and changing in the story line has increased so much. This whole sub-story about the assassins having trouble controlling the city, combined with the 5 Masayaf keys story, and the Desmond story (not that i don't like the desmond story) just really chops up and interrupts the game and it doesn't have a good flow.

2) This is the most crucial part, to do with the actual gameplay. In the other Assassins creed games, missions where you would have to search for something or Assassinate someone, you were often given a vast playing field where you had to work your own route out and could go about it however you want (eg. destroying ezios war machines and others), but occasionally, you were given a set path that you had to follow (eg. quest for the keys to find the armours in AC2 and Brotherhood) which was so unbelievably pointless because you had no option, therefore they may as well have made it a cut scene. In revelations, it is extremely rare, to find missions where you are free to go about it the way you want, there is not much freedom in missions, but instead a set path which just renders missions pointless, the whole idea of fun comes from use working our own routes and being great assassins ourselves

3) Objectives to achieve full syncronisation, i know have been in it since Brotherhood, but still that is something that needs to be taken out, because that also restricts freedom, although its not optional, im sure everyone would wish to achieve 100% sync, but its just further restriction of freedom.

4) the first 3 or 4 sequences were full of tutorials: throw a bomb like this, zipline like this... etc. which is almost half the game, jus wasted on tutorials. they should jus overload the first 1 or 2 chapters with tutorials, so we can jus play the game afterwards and get all that stuff out the way early, instead of splitting it up and spreading it out over several chapters

GeneralTrumbo
04-07-2012, 12:02 PM
I like the Desmond story....

YoooDonny
04-07-2012, 12:08 PM
I like the Desmond story....

i do to... but theres no need for the extra one as well

KJGPlay
04-07-2012, 12:34 PM
Lack of thief, mercenary and courtesan/romany side missions. Zero assassination, race and courier side missions. Flawed and boring Den defense game. Less identifiable antagonist to vanquish (compared to Borgias and de Sable templars). Juddery, bad loading cut scene at the end regarding 'those that came before'. Generally short main story. More care taken with multilayer and DLC than single player and DLC.

n00bfi_97
04-07-2012, 12:37 PM
Lack of thief, mercenary and courtesan/romany side missions. Zero assassination, race and courier side missions. Flawed and boring Den defense game. Less identifiable antagonist to vanquish (compared to Borgias and de Sable templars). Juddery, bad loading cut scene at the end regarding 'those that came before'. Generally short main story. More care taken with multilayer and DLC than single player and DLC.

Are you serious? More care taken with the multiplayer?

lolno.

evil9494
04-07-2012, 12:46 PM
Revelation is a very good game for less than a year development. But it can't be like Assassins Creed 2 witch changed a lot of things, and most of it the setting. Almost everyone like Ezio who is iconic character for the game that Ubisoft have made. Most of the people playing the game say that they didn't like the graphics or the gameplay... but they played it because Ezio is a great hero. So i liked all the games but the most epic was AC2 when we saw Ezio progressing from teenage to an adult. Brotherhood and Revelations were good but they just continued some story involving Ezio, there was missing the relationship, the connection that AC2 had to the player. Back in 2009 I thought that they will make the same thing like Hideo the creator of Metal Gear series. Because Desmond is like Snake, but in the last 3 games he had an actual gameplay of 9 hours may be. So Ezio was more like Snake progressing him from his beginning to his end. So I think that if Brotherhood and Revelations had more time for development they could be amazing games. But I like them all.

"Go with peace" :)

TheHumanTowel
04-07-2012, 01:39 PM
I didn't like it because the new mechanics fail and there is less to do than Brotherhood and AC 2. There is like 2 side-quests in the entire game and the design of the Assassin tombs was at it weakest ever. On top of that is a very dull story that adds nothing to the overarching plot.

rileypoole1234
04-07-2012, 03:06 PM
I don't think revelations failed. I loved it.

JCearlyyears
04-07-2012, 03:13 PM
The reason Revelations failed is that people expect extreme change. Revelations was great. There were so many improvements.

Dralight
04-07-2012, 03:19 PM
Are you serious? More care taken with the multiplayer?

lolno.




This. The multiplayer has ways more problems in ACR than ACB ever had.

To the OP, I personally don't think Revelations failed, but the relatively short story (although i enjoyed it) along with very little side missions to do made the game feel slightly underwhelming overall.

YoooDonny
04-07-2012, 03:27 PM
ok well, people must agreee with my second point... it definitely made the game pretty unexciting

pirate1802
04-07-2012, 03:45 PM
The reason Revelations failed is that people expect extreme change. Revelations was great. There were so many improvements.

This! People expecting too much of a one-year game are bound to be dissapointed. I went in with a clean slate and LOVED every bits of it. Ofcourse it has flaws, which game doesn't.. but I won't call it a fail. It did so many things right.

shobhit7777777
04-07-2012, 03:57 PM
I wouldn't say it failed....it was a pretty fantastic game. And TBH what more do you expect out of an annual title. It was a great game...certainly flawed but a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

SixKeys
04-07-2012, 04:00 PM
This! People expecting too much of a one-year game are bound to be dissapointed. I went in with a clean slate and LOVED every bits of it. Ofcourse it has flaws, which game doesn't.. but I won't call it a fail. It did so many things right.

Brotherhood had a one-year development schedule and it managed to have tons more content and character development than Revelations. I had high expectations of ACR because ACB was a positive surprise despite the limited time they had to develop it, yet with ACR the lack of development time clearly showed.

YoooDonny
04-07-2012, 04:04 PM
Brotherhood had a one-year development schedule and it managed to have tons more content and character development than Revelations. I had high expectations of ACR because ACB was a positive surprise despite the limited time they had to develop it, yet with ACR the lack of development time clearly showed.

thank you, took the words right out of my mouth

DylanJosh9
04-07-2012, 04:50 PM
It didn't fail as a game, but it was definitely the worse AC game so far.

RzaRecta357
04-07-2012, 05:05 PM
Revelations was great. I enjoyed it more than brotherhood. The area...the bad guys. Everything. The Templars weren't so cut and dry evil. Gah. I get a headache thinking of Cesare. Give me the apple! Its mine! Not yours! Give me the apple!

There were like 3 assassinations the entire game. What was new? Full sync and a crossbow which made the game easy as pie. With a brotherhood mechanic. It as good. But I enjoyed revelations more.

KJGPlay
04-07-2012, 05:17 PM
Revelations looked great, played great, had the best sound track of the series so far, the story was good, and the main story mission flowed really well without it being disjointed by including the assassin tombs as key parts of the main story to progress.

I never played the multiplayer, so I only assumed more care was taken with it since that's what is making Ubisoft more money by selling the online passes and junk. Revelations needs a Copernicus and Da Vinci style DLC, giving us more templar layers and more stories. I got the Vlad the Impaler prison map from the get go, so the overpriced Desmond DLC doesn't interest me. Drop it to a 5 and I'll consider it.

tarrero
04-07-2012, 06:29 PM
I really liked Constantinople and the key missions, but, even though it was not a superb game, I did find it that bad, in fact I liked it better that Brotherhood.

phoenix-force411
04-07-2012, 06:37 PM
Assassin's Creed Revelations was not a failed game! It might be based on what Ezio said to Sofia that made me think otherwise "But my time is running short." This could mean that Ezio just doesn't have time for other things as he did back then. In ACB, they concentrated more on content for the Single Player, because it matched the story. He's trying to liberate Rome from the Borgias. In that particular scenario, you can throw a lot of stuff in it such as other content. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood was concentrated a bit less on the narrative and was more based on Assassins versus Borgias. In Assassin's Creed Revelations, he was on quest to seek wisdom and to find truth on his purpose for living and why he can't escape his Assassin life. But since he's a lot older, he's rushing and skipping out on anything that doesn't concern him. Remember, his time is running short. He's seeking wisdom and everything about the creed--all the way back to Altair. In Assassin's Creed Revelations, everything Ezio and Altair did was related back to a plot that took place in Altair's time, but everything that did happen was for a reason. Therefore, much was revealed on why he's searching for this and that! And they even revealed Clay's past and Lucy's real agenda. I think that's enough to make a great game!

POP1Fan
04-07-2012, 07:30 PM
It didin't.

Animuses
04-07-2012, 08:52 PM
Revelations not only failed as an AC game, but failed as a game in general. I actually do not own the game anymore, it is that bad.


It might be based on what Ezio said to Sofia that made me think otherwise "But my time is running short." This could mean that Ezio just doesn't have time for other things as he did back then. In Assassin's Creed Revelations, he was on quest to seek wisdom and to find truth on his purpose for living and why he can't escape his Assassin life. But since he's a lot older, he's rushing and skipping out on anything that doesn't concern him. Remember, his time is running short. He's seeking wisdom and everything about the creedDo you work for Ubisoft? Are they paying you to say this?

kriegerdesgottes
04-07-2012, 09:21 PM
Brotherhood had a one-year development schedule and it managed to have tons more content and character development than Revelations. I had high expectations of ACR because ACB was a positive surprise despite the limited time they had to develop it, yet with ACR the lack of development time clearly showed.

Totally agree

souNdwAve89
04-07-2012, 09:26 PM
I wouldn't say Revelations was a total fail. I liked the game overall, but it was disappointing in some areas. I do consider it to be the weakest game when you compare it to others.

MoneyForBoobs
04-07-2012, 09:45 PM
revelations was short and that is only downside for me

Calvarok
04-07-2012, 09:48 PM
I think Brotherhood was weaker, honestly. I played through most of Brotherhood's story in a daze. IT was kinda uninteresting to me. Revelations was a lot more involving.

Also, as I'm sure many people have pointed out before, it didn't fail. It sold more than any AC game before it.

LightRey
04-07-2012, 09:55 PM
The OP is arguing under the presumption that the general consensus is that ACR failed, which is preposterous. Even if the game was generally not well received (which I sincerely doubt) it sold very well which automatically makes it a success for the company.

UrDeviant1
04-07-2012, 09:58 PM
Constantinople Is my favorite setting to date.

It's one of the reasons I finished the game 3 times. It will be 4 when I play through them ALL before ACIII comes out.

D.I.D.
04-07-2012, 10:34 PM
Assassin's Creed Revelations was not a failed game! It might be based on what Ezio said to Sofia that made me think otherwise "But my time is running short." This could mean that Ezio just doesn't have time for other things as he did back then. In ACB, they concentrated more on content for the Single Player, because it matched the story. He's trying to liberate Rome from the Borgias. In that particular scenario, you can throw a lot of stuff in it such as other content. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood was concentrated a bit less on the narrative and was more based on Assassins versus Borgias. In Assassin's Creed Revelations, he was on quest to seek wisdom and to find truth on his purpose for living and why he can't escape his Assassin life. But since he's a lot older, he's rushing and skipping out on anything that doesn't concern him. Remember, his time is running short. He's seeking wisdom and everything about the creed--all the way back to Altair. In Assassin's Creed Revelations, everything Ezio and Altair did was related back to a plot that took place in Altair's time, but everything that did happen was for a reason. Therefore, much was revealed on why he's searching for this and that! And they even revealed Clay's past and Lucy's real agenda. I think that's enough to make a great game!

These are your qualifications for a great game, yet you wrote all of that without mentioning a single thing other than plot.

I enjoyed every other game in the series, but this one wasn't designed with the game itself as a primary concern, and it really showed. Hopefully they will never make the same mistake when creating a title which ties up story. It's a common problem in cinema too: the third part of a trilogy is almost never the strongest and since the delivery of story is particularly weak in games, the designers absolutely must have the gameplay taking centre stage.

D.I.D.
04-07-2012, 10:37 PM
I think Brotherhood was weaker, honestly. I played through most of Brotherhood's story in a daze. IT was kinda uninteresting to me. Revelations was a lot more involving.

Also, as I'm sure many people have pointed out before, it didn't fail. It sold more than any AC game before it.

Yeah, that makes it a success on a par with Duke Nukem Forever. Ubisoft must be proud.

Razrback16
04-07-2012, 11:24 PM
I didn't think ACR was a failure, but it was the weakest game with the exception of AC1 (and AC1 was just an earlier rendition with less thought put it into story development). ACR was fine from a combat perspective, and even a story view, but it was more of a "bridge game" than anything else. I felt like it just tied up loose ends for the Ezio storyline and set things up for the next game. In long book series' you occasionally have a "bridge book" which does the exact same thing.

One thing I loved that ACR added was the additional recruit development with the Master Assassin Missions. Those were a lot of fun -- I think it would be cool to have even more parts to the story with some of your master assassin recruits instead of just two. This was a good idea they had.

One thing I really missed in ACR was horses. I thought using horses in ACB was just awesome, especially how the world was so open and Ezio could jump from his horse onto beams (the animations were awesome).

But yes as others said, the story in ACR was relatively short. ACB had more development and flow along with AC2. I'm sure AC3 will be more like those games in terms of storyline flow.

mustash
04-08-2012, 12:09 AM
I don't think Revelations failed as game, but failed as an AC title.The plot was all over the show, I don't feel like finding 5 keys to a library is a particularly gripping narrative device. Them being tied into Altair segments was nice but they were incredibly short. Not only that but because of the fashion in which they were presented (usually as a "reward" near the end of a sequence), it felt disjointed. Same goes for Desmonds sections (not the platforming, the plot). He pops up at the beginning, is mostly forgotten about except for a few interruptions and then is brought in the end for his mandatory 5 minutes of exposition and BAM, gone again. It's not even like a multi layered story can't work, it's just the way it's presented in the story always feels off to me.

Ezio didn't feel very much like Ezio, he was more or less completely disinterested in any goings on and whilst it's interesting from a narrative point of view, that he is an older man tired of fighting, for a game, the lack of motivation colours the entire mood whilst you play. There was plenty of ways to make the fiction they were working with engaging, for instance you had political strife within the royal family but it was lightly touched upon but never got any deeper then that. Political motivation has always been a key pillar of the narrative and yet, Ezio merely uses them for his own ends. Again, he's disinterested and so are we. The enemy Ezio is up against being illusive sounds fun but in reality, without a clear leader or set of puppet leaders, no-one is really a "bad guy". And for a narrative to be compelling, someone has to be. Moral grey areas are always fun but again without a clear antagonist it's already grey to begin with. By the time the game finally does introduce a clear antagonist, the game is so close to finishing that it ends up feeling more akin to a chore taking this guy down then a compelling need to make him come to justice.

There were amply places the story could have introduce more conflict but chose not to. The guilds were more or less okay. The Istanbul Assassins were doing just fine. The city itself, outside of the tired rebuilding the city mechanics was doing okay too (why were we rebuilding the city again? They weren't forced to close like Rome was under the Borgias). Any one of these or a number of these tied into a conflicted political angle, overlayed with the Masyaf key narrative would have worked just fine. Hell, it could have been that the keys were spreading knowledge the templars weren't supposed to have (Altairs life, some knowledge he discovered, whatever) but instead, we have Ezio waving ancient technology around like it's a piece of paper.

As for gameplay, well, you could definately tell it was a one year cycle. Not much else to be said, other then the only reason AC:B managed to pull of a one year cycle so well, is because most of that content was intended for AC2, was cut and then expanded upon.

To sum up, whilst AC as a game didn't fail as it was after all, entertaining, it failed to match the prescedant set by it's ancestors. Funny that, for a game about ancestory.

SixKeys
04-08-2012, 12:26 AM
I agree with mustahs2003. One of my biggest problems with ACR was that it had a lot of potential which was mostly missed. They wanted Ezio to be a stranger in a strange land, a fish out of water, an old man amongst all these young assassins who had been doing their thing for decades. That idea had so much potential from the narrative point of view but failed to be realized. Ezio was still jut as badass and in his element as he was in Italy. There was no rivalry between him and the younger assassins, no feeling that his time was beginning to pass and maybe it was time for a new generation with better strength and weapons. He adapted to everything very quickly and all the assassins instantly revered him as their mentor. It just begs the question why did they go with the stranger-in-a-strange-land angle if they were just going to make Ezio feel right at home from the start?

Like mustash, I also didn't feel like Ezio was in any way necessary to the story. Yusuf was doing a fine job training his assassins, they didn't really need Ezio's help. The city was prospering, the conflicts within the city were more political than Templar-driven so in the end it was out of Ezio's hands to bring any sort of real resolve (which was reflected in the end as he's unceremoniously banned from the city). In AC1, AC2 and ACB, you had the feeling that you were making a real difference. That you were the only one capable of bringing justice to the people and bringing about real change. In ACR, things may not have been perfect when Ezio arrived but they were hardly desperate, either. The whole thing just made you feel like you weren't making much of a difference. In the end, even Ezio seems to realize this as he accepts his part as being little more than a messenger between TWCB and Desmond. A noble cause, no doubt, but as a player it feels kind of flat when everything you do seems to not have huge consequences either way.

mustash
04-08-2012, 12:35 AM
The whole thing just made you feel like you weren't making much of a difference. In the end, even Ezio seems to realize this as he accepts his part as being little more than a messenger between TWCB and Desmond. A noble cause, no doubt, but as a player it feels kind of flat when everything you do seems to not have huge consequences either way.

That of course is the reason the internet recently kicked off in regards to ME3. Not to spoil anything but your decisions/actions made little difference in the end. The same applies here. Ezio more or less just passes over the surface of a potentially awesome storyline that could have made players question lifes purpose, how a talented man comes to deal with age and a younger generation, what it would mean to settle down after all the strife he witnessed/inflicted, the consequences of his life as an assassin, being a true mentor to potentially better assassins then him, etc. Instead, we get a little political intrigue, hardly any templars (actual templars, not just "this guard is a templar....because....") and to top it all off, Ezios quest for knowledge is pretty much fruitless, so he packs it in and quits. Woo.

Calvarok
04-08-2012, 01:15 AM
Umm, no. He gets what he needed to. He's the prophet. His job is to show Desmond things. He fulfills his purpose. And he's taught that he needs to leave the adventures to younger men through Altair's seals.
If anything the storyline he basically passes over is Brotherhood. He's barely involved in any real decision-making. It's a very reactive story. Revelations, he has a mission, and he helps people out along the way. I don't think the purpose was to make him TOO out of place. And at the beginning he was pretty out of place. He's a Mentor. He's been through a lot, and can adapt to situations. Yusuf is a nice guy, and there is a FRIENDLY rivalry. He helps him get settled in and learn his way around. I see nothing wrong with that.

mustash
04-08-2012, 01:54 AM
Umm, no. He gets what he needed to. He's the prophet. His job is to show Desmond things. He fulfills his purpose. And he's taught that he needs to leave the adventures to younger men through Altair's seals.
If anything the storyline he basically passes over is Brotherhood. He's barely involved in any real decision-making. It's a very reactive story. Revelations, he has a mission, and he helps people out along the way. I don't think the purpose was to make him TOO out of place. And at the beginning he was pretty out of place. He's a Mentor. He's been through a lot, and can adapt to situations. Yusuf is a nice guy, and there is a FRIENDLY rivalry. He helps him get settled in and learn his way around. I see nothing wrong with that.

I was exagerrating, but yeah, he essentially packs it in. The entire game, his motivation is to get into that library for wisdom and knowledge that Altair alledgedly left behind. Upon finding no books, just Altairs corpse and another artifact, he gives up being an assassin. Ezio really, should have known he was a conduit for Desmond anyway, Minerva explains it quite explicitly in AC2. He already knew he was fullfilling his purpose, in fact, in the AC:B DLC, The Da Vinci Disappearance, Ezio alludes that the co-ordinates weren't for him. As for the seals, that's an interpretation. Another interpretation could be that Ezio realises he doesn't want to be an Assassin until his death.

By passing over a story, I meant the potential intrigue there was to be had in Constantinople and with Ezio reflecting over his life and the Assassin order as a whole. He does it briefly but it's mostly, a missed opportunity like so much of the game.

Ezio was in fact involved in a lot of decision making in Brotherhood, he sets out to liberate Rome from the Borgias tyranny after the villa attack, he made most of the decisions about the targets along the way (The Banker, The French, etc), recruiting Assassins, unifying the disparate guilds, etc. It is a more reactionary story but then by that measure, so was AC2. I wouldn't say AC2 passes over any story really, it gets right involved in the rivalries/conflicts. Same goes for AC:B. AC:R skips almost every opportunity for depth in favour of another key.

And oh, the beginning of AC:R, he really wasn't out of place at all. He arrives in Constantinople being chatted to by a Prince, gets welcomed into the Instanbul Assassin's as Mentor, is shown the ropes of several foreign technologies to him which he masters in about 5 minutes and before you know it, he runs into Sofia, his future partner. That's the smoothest arrival for a stranger to a strange land I can possibly think of. Actually no, I can think of one better. Perhaps Ezio is given a hookblade before he even leaves the boat into Instabul, ziplines to the palace, drops a bomb ontop of the roof, comes crashing down into a room where Sofia and the Prince are discussing the location of the Masyaf keys and Prince Ahmet slips on a banana peel, killing himself. I digress.

It didn't have to work out that way, what if it the Assassin's hadn't been so embrasive? He's mentor of the Italian Assassins, not the Turkish ones. What if they thought he was a little behind the times and Ezio had to prove his worth to them? What if the new technologies and techniques took a while to learn with him progressively getting better? There's a lot they could have done to make it seem like this quest for knowledge was going to be a final lesson about humanity to him. Instead, it played out like a soap opera.

SixKeys
04-08-2012, 01:55 AM
If anything the storyline he basically passes over is Brotherhood. He's barely involved in any real decision-making. It's a very reactive story.

Barely involved? Ezio is the one who decides not to immediately go after Cesare and Rodrigo but to help the people of Rome stand against their oppressors first. He's the one who figures out how to get Machiavelli and La Volpe worknig together again. He's the one who thinks up the idea of taking over Borgia towers to signal change in the area. He's the one who recruits citizens to join his cause (the first to even consider the idea apparently, considering Machiavelli's initial shock at this). He single-handedly restores certain landmarks and opens up businesses to build up the economy. Machiavelli was against almost all of these ideas yet in the end Ezio's methods turn out to be right. How does that make him not involved?

kosmoscreed
04-08-2012, 03:15 AM
It's a great game but my main problem is that the game didn't delivered because they hyped many aspects too much. Story wasn't that awesome of revealing, the hookblade was useless (in my opinion), the only thing worth about it is the fast climbing, the bombs are boring and unbalanced and in top of that the game is short and doesn't flow like the other games. The only thing that matched my expectations was the city.

deadly_thought
04-08-2012, 05:37 AM
I think Brotherhood was weaker, honestly. I played through most of Brotherhood's story in a daze. IT was kinda uninteresting to me. Revelations was a lot more involving.

Also, as I'm sure many people have pointed out before, it didn't fail. It sold more than any AC game before it.

AC has sold over 10 million copies ACR just under 7 the online multiplayer is dead nobody bought DLC for it and the main story got moderate reviews from most review sites alot of people would agree revelations was probably the worst of the series despite having so much to work with

pirate1802
04-08-2012, 06:16 AM
The OP is arguing under the presumption that the general consensus is that ACR failed, which is preposterous. Even if the game was generally not well received (which I sincerely doubt) it sold very well which automatically makes it a success for the company.

LightRey comes to teh rescue!

BeCk41
04-08-2012, 12:42 PM
I was always confused on why the didn't just make AC3, they made 2 add-ons to keep the fans busy... I really liked them, but it still confuses people as they think that Brotherhood and Revelations are AC 3 and 4 xD

DylanJosh9
04-08-2012, 03:24 PM
I was always confused on why the didn't just make AC3,

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Vzd6PXcgOdU/TryQTz7UJEI/AAAAAAAAALY/NRQeXoVc5u0/s1600/money-eyes.jpg

Sukramo
04-08-2012, 10:53 PM
Story and not enogh time. With 6 more months of time to implent stuff we already had in ACB +some new stuff the game could have been great.

The Byzantines completly fail as an enemy, its completly ludicrious that they can have such a HUGE presence in Constantinopel and no one cares. Immersion breaker big time.

GeneralTrumbo
04-08-2012, 10:55 PM
Story and not enogh time. With 6 more months of time to implent stuff we already had in ACB +some new stuff the game could have been great.

The Byzantines completly fail as an enemy, its completly ludicrious that they can have such a HUGE presence in Constantinopel and no one cares. Immersion breaker big time.
And money.

Sukramo
04-08-2012, 11:06 PM
And money.

Well brotherhhood ended up being my favorite in the series with the same budget.

Its just that the Byzantines are stupid as they are shoehorned into this game to fit with Ezios timeline.

AC1 enemies= Templars and Muslims on both sides. Makes perfect sence.

AC2 enemies= Italian nobles and their guards. Makes sence.

ACB enemies= Poweful noble and his corrupt guards trying to conquer Italy. Makes sence.

ACR enemies= Wierd out of time characters who should get ROFL stomped the instant they try to enter Constantinopel.

ajl992008
04-08-2012, 11:17 PM
i thought they didnt do as good of a job on the image of the templars in acr, in the e3 trailer they had their faces covered with dno what its called (to protect your face from attacks) and they looks so badass i thought YES we are going to get cool enemies to fight like in ac1, sadly no they ended up worse than ac2/acb whos enemeis where so annoying, the only enemeis to live up to what i said earlier where the janissaries.

Sukramo
04-08-2012, 11:37 PM
the only enemeis to live up to what i said earlier where the janissaries.

And the only reason they are actualy your enemies is due to a misunderstanding.

Call me silly, but I think Cesare was the best villain in the franchise. Yes he was a dumb action movie villian, but he worked.

With Ahmet its just..............meh on my part. I see him twice and now I am supposed to care that he was a Templar? How about you build up the plot and create tension, like Machiavelli.

LightRey
04-08-2012, 11:55 PM
And the only reason they are actualy your enemies is due to a misunderstanding.

Call me silly, but I think Cesare was the best villain in the franchise. Yes he was a dumb action movie villian, but he worked.

With Ahmet its just..............meh on my part. I see him twice and now I am supposed to care that he was a Templar? How about you build up the plot and create tension, like Machiavelli.
I don't think it was ever the point that you should care about him being a Templar, just be surprised really.

playassassins1
04-09-2012, 12:01 AM
In my opinion, ACR didn't fail. I just didn't like it because its lack of content.

JCearlyyears
04-09-2012, 12:14 AM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/18114165.jpg
It wasn't my favorite, but I thought it was really good and is my favorite game from last year, next to gow3.

Sarari
04-09-2012, 04:04 AM
It failed because
1. Didn't have the writers of AC1 and AC2
2. The game was to short
3. Adding unnecessary new equipment to keep us into the game (which it hardly did) . Example is the hookblade and the bombs.
4. They over did the killing
5. Alot of things promised were given to us. Ex: Free roaming in Masyaf
6. Not many revelations were revealed to us that we didn't already know

Overall, the game was fine, but it lacked so much that we were expecting

LightRey
04-09-2012, 10:59 AM
It failed because
1. Didn't have the writers of AC1 and AC2
2. The game was to short
3. Adding unnecessary new equipment to keep us into the game (which it hardly did) . Example is the hookblade and the bombs.
4. They over did the killing
5. Alot of things promised were given to us. Ex: Free roaming in Masyaf
6. Not many revelations were revealed to us that we didn't already know

Overall, the game was fine, but it lacked so much that we were expecting
1. it did, actually.
2. I disagree, but wth
3. I enjoyed both immensely, especially the hookblade
4. Meh, maybe a little. Some of the animations were a bit long. Not sure how that could be considered significant enough to find the game a "failure" though.
5. We misunderstood what the devs meant when they said "free roam". Give these people a break, will you?
6. We've been over this. It's subjective.

Lass4r
04-09-2012, 11:16 AM
I'm gonna go ahead and agree with Sarari. The game was too short, and none of the new features were implemented very well. I especially took issue with ther over the top kills with several litres of blood sprouting out in every direction each time. It just looked gruesome and unneccessary.

The story was cool, I loved the idea of Altair flashback, although there could be a few more. And the fact that Desmond was in a coma the entire game seemed to just be an excuse to not move his story forward at all before AC3.

Jamison_J_B
04-09-2012, 11:23 AM
I must be of the minority, I had no real issue with revelations at all (beside the stupid first-person VR desmond sequences). I would have liked more altair gameplay, but o' well.

Has for the killing, I thought the reverse sword through the neck was alittle over the top, but never had a problem with too much gruesome animations, nor blood for that matter.

Ninjahed
04-09-2012, 11:39 AM
Are you serious? More care taken with the multiplayer?

lolno.




If you actuallly played the game which didn't sound like you did, you would check the store often for dlc, and guess what, for months there were no campaign dlc, only multiplayer. They DID focus on multiplayer too much and thats what killed the storyline for those who enjoy it. Personally I could care less for multiplayer because this game wasn't orginially known for it. The story and in depth story line is what sold its title everywhere and kept it alive but Revelations was just too short. They could have added soo many more sequences or just lenghtened the ones they had but for what it was, the campaign still was strong even if it was rather short. Atleast the ones who made the best Assassin's Creed title are making the third one, we know they will deliver.

LightRey
04-09-2012, 12:01 PM
If you actuallly played the game which didn't sound like you did, you would check the store often for dlc, and guess what, for months there were no campaign dlc, only multiplayer. They DID focus on multiplayer too much and thats what killed the storyline for those who enjoy it. Personally I could care less for multiplayer because this game wasn't orginially known for it. The story and in depth story line is what sold its title everywhere and kept it alive but Revelations was just too short. They could have added soo many more sequences or just lenghtened the ones they had but for what it was, the campaign still was strong even if it was rather short. Atleast the ones who made the best Assassin's Creed title are making the third one, we know they will deliver.
This is untrue. All DLC is planned and all MP stuff is handled by a separate studio, including the DLC. It has nothing to do with focus, but with planning.

POP1Fan
04-09-2012, 12:03 PM
The only REAL issue with Revelations is that the Altair segments were very short, and you pretty much didin't do anything in them.
Otherwise my statment is solid as hell.Revelations didin't fail and it was equal to, if not even better than Brotherhood.

ajl992008
04-09-2012, 01:19 PM
In my opinion acr is the best ac, my issue was that the Altair missions should have been longer, the Desmond sections should have been 3rd person, jmagine as Desmond went thru the environment and his memories where physically happening such as Desmond and his dad going hunting and his dad when his dad saves him from a bear, rather than being shown by Desmond narrating it it would have had more effect to live it. Other than that this has been an amazing game, all the additions are good, the length was good, took me 14 hours. The game world was the best, people keep forgetting that although there was some screw ups they were far outweighed by the pros, people should remember that.

n00bfi_97
04-09-2012, 04:04 PM
If you actuallly played the game which didn't sound like you did, you would check the store often for dlc, and guess what, for months there were no campaign dlc, only multiplayer. They DID focus on multiplayer too much and thats what killed the storyline for those who enjoy it. Personally I could care less for multiplayer because this game wasn't orginially known for it. The story and in depth story line is what sold its title everywhere and kept it alive but Revelations was just too short. They could have added soo many more sequences or just lenghtened the ones they had but for what it was, the campaign still was strong even if it was rather short. Atleast the ones who made the best Assassin's Creed title are making the third one, we know they will deliver.

Refer to LightRey for details.

And I did play through the campaign. All of it. Burned through it. In one day.

Since you're the one who seems to know nothing, the MP is chock-full bugs that show it was not the focused upon moreso than the SP. I buy this game for the SP, and MP is a nice bonus. And all I have to say was that they did not focus on multiplayer. As for DLC, there isn't much opportunity for DLC for SP in any game. DLC is much easier to produce for MP, and thus businesses simply take the route that will be easier and make them more money. I'm not saying this a good thing but that's reality.

Animuses
04-09-2012, 04:10 PM
The OP is arguing under the presumption that the general consensus is that ACR failed, which is preposterous. Even if the game was generally not well received (which I sincerely doubt) it sold very well which automatically makes it a success for the company.

It sold well because it has "Assassin's Creed" in the title.

pirate1802
04-09-2012, 04:11 PM
The only REAL issue with Revelations is that the Altair segments were very short, and you pretty much didin't do anything in them.
Otherwise my statment is solid as hell.Revelations didin't fail and it was equal to, if not even better than Brotherhood.

I agree with you, personally I find Revelations better than Brotherhood.

And while it was shorter than the previous ACs, I won't call it that short, I took nearly 20 hours to finish it. If you burn through it doing just the main missions, you can pretty much finish any AC under 10 hours.

POP1Fan
04-09-2012, 04:21 PM
I agree with you, personally I find Revelations better than Brotherhood.

And while it was shorter than the previous ACs, I won't call it that short, I took nearly 20 hours to finish it. If you burn through it doing just the main missions, you can pretty much finish any AC under 10 hours.

Exactly.

LightRey
04-09-2012, 04:26 PM
It sold well because it has "Assassin's Creed" in the title.
speculation.

ajl992008
04-09-2012, 04:37 PM
i guess thats why i hated acb so much because i raced through all the miain missions taking me 10 hours, i did acr in combination but even so it took me 14 hours for the main story so its to me alot longer than acb.

TreFacTor
04-09-2012, 09:26 PM
I got the game late (new of course gotta support my fav IPs) but what is REALLY killing it for me is the animus Island and den defense missions. I am really hating these. I don't even care to finish the animus island missions (hate them with a passion!!!!!!!) For the den defense I can't stop the flaming vehicle that comes through no matter how many times I hit it or how many barricades I place. These are sure 2 areas of the game I PRAY don't make it into AC3... This will be the first of the series that I won't 100% complete because of these annoying, time filler, tacked on diversions. Ugh they are an utter waste of disc space. I apologize for the rant but none of the other areas of the game bother me as much as everyone else.

ajl992008
04-09-2012, 10:00 PM
I got the game late (new of course gotta support my fav IPs) but what is REALLY killing it for me is the animus Island and den defense missions. I am really hating these. I don't even care to finish the animus island missions (hate them with a passion!!!!!!!) For the den defense I can't stop the flaming vehicle that comes through no matter how many times I hit it or how many barricades I place. These are sure 2 areas of the game I PRAY don't make it into AC3... This will be the first of the series that I won't 100% complete because of these annoying, time filler, tacked on diversions. Ugh they are an utter waste of disc space. I apologize for the rant but none of the other areas of the game bother me as much as everyone else.

den defence is not returning but i think the first person missions are but just not asa important, i cant remember where i read that but the desmond missions are optional and so you dont have to do them, they are not important to the main game, den defence only has to be done once and as long as you dont reach 100% templar influence your fine.

these are the 2 main things people complain about, they are fair accusations i guess but what annoys me is that THEY ARE OPTIONAL. you dont have to do them and so the game shouldnt be labeled as a bad game becuase some OPTIONAL missions are terrible. the game as a whole was good

Animuses
04-09-2012, 11:00 PM
speculation.It didn't sell well because it was a good game because anyone in their right mind would think it was a failure of game.

LightRey
04-09-2012, 11:08 PM
It didn't sell well because it was a good game because anyone in their right mind would think it was a failure of game.
So you're saying the people that actually liked it (this includes me, btw) aren't "in their right mind". That's good to know.
Stop stating your opinions as if they were fact. It's annoying.

JCearlyyears
04-09-2012, 11:18 PM
at 0:07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA8OOJjjvjU&feature=player_detailpage
Try to keep opinions opinions and facts factual.

ashyshin
04-09-2012, 11:23 PM
I hated creating those bombs...i mean really this should't have gone further than just purchasing them like knife's etc.
.

LightRey
04-09-2012, 11:24 PM
I hated creating those bombs...i mean really this should't have gone further than just purchasing them like knife's etc.
.
Really? I thought they were fun.

JCearlyyears
04-09-2012, 11:27 PM
I liked the bombs to an extent, but it felt too high profile to me.

yoinkster
04-09-2012, 11:28 PM
I enjoyed the bombs only when I discovered you could recraft your current bombs from the weapon selection menu without having to visit a table if you had enough ingredients.

TheHumanTowel
04-09-2012, 11:30 PM
I liked the bombs to an extent, but it felt too high profile to me.
Yeah I didn't feel very Assassin-like chucking grenades at people.

ashyshin
04-09-2012, 11:34 PM
Really? I thought they were fun.

To me they were't, I only play AC cause i love the stuff about the period its set in and hand to hand fighting. Thats also the reason i am not much really impressed with AC3 setting.
.