PDA

View Full Version : Ubisoft intends to rid Assassin's Creed of Desmond... eventually



im3jia
07-21-2012, 03:33 AM
From the article:
Hutchinson likened remembering what was going on in Desmond's story as recalling what happened in junior high during college.

"Things that go on too long lack resonance. We're asking people to remember seven years worth of story. Which is like saying you were in junior high and now you're finishing college. And you need to remember what you were doing in junior high," he explained in a report by Polygon.

"I think Desmond needs to end."

full article here http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/7/20/3172656/assassins-creed-star-trek-desmond-end

rileypoole1234
07-21-2012, 03:47 AM
Well I certainly agree with Hutchinson about the "Desmond needs to end" part, but I for one remember everything quite easily. It's almost like he doesn't like Desmond. That's the vibe I get while reading that.

Serrachio
07-21-2012, 04:06 AM
Well I certainly agree with Hutchinson about the "Desmond needs to end" part, but I for one remember everything quite easily. It's almost like he doesn't like Desmond. That's the vibe I get while reading that.

Well, think of it this way. He's been placed on the end of a trilogy to finish Desmond's story, after it's spanned on for so long. There might not be as much of an attachment to the character, knowing that after the game releases, it's pretty much the end the player will see of Desmond.

Legendz54
07-21-2012, 04:08 AM
Hutchingson doesn't hate Desmond ,he even said himself that their goal was to finally make Desmond Awesome.

BBALive
07-21-2012, 04:15 AM
Hutchingson doesn't hate Desmond ,he even said himself that their goal was to finally make Desmond Awesome.

Which implies that he didn't think Desmond was awesome prior to AC3.

kriegerdesgottes
07-21-2012, 04:51 AM
That's because he wasn't. But I don't think that even if Hutchinson hated Desmond he could just give the go ahead to kill off the character or do away with him. I think he would need to pitch that idea to the higher ups at Ubisoft who I think realize that the Desmond part of the story needs a change. They will probably just replace him with someone else to try and keep it fresh while finally bringing the Desmond aspect of the story to a close.

xXMrGR1NCHXx
07-21-2012, 05:25 AM
I thought AC3 was Desmond's last game?

Turul.
07-21-2012, 05:28 AM
I don't think theyve officially confirmed or denied it.....

Legendz54
07-21-2012, 05:31 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if Desmond stops the solar flare and then in AC4 his son finishes the Templars off.

xXMrGR1NCHXx
07-21-2012, 05:36 AM
I wouldn't be surprised of Desmond stops the solar flare and then in AC4 his son finishes the Templars off.
Possibly, but I don't think in AC4. Ubisoft wants to continue AC, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they go past whatever game is after AC3.

kosmoscreed
07-21-2012, 09:26 AM
To be honest I'm more attached to Ezio than Desmond, Desmond it's ok but so far it lacks that "something" that makes you love the character. I get his explanation about having to deal with Desmond backstory and new players and all, but the first game was released no so long ago and Desmond story can be explained fairly quick, so it's not like they need to include a 60 minute recap with every game, as long as the Desmond story it's good and doesn't feel like they are stretching it for the sake of having Demond again, I'm ok.

XxSYD3WINDERxX
07-21-2012, 12:00 PM
I think the trilogy should end with Desmond, it has gone on for a long time and there's so many things to remember - the AC series is really complex!

I also think AC should end with AC3 full stop. As much as I love the AC series, I think if they drag it out too long, it won't be... special? The game's will get tedious, lose their appeal.

Finish while it's awesome, Ubisoft.

dxsxhxcx
07-21-2012, 01:00 PM
I think the trilogy should end with Desmond, it has gone on for a long time and there's so many things to remember - the AC series is really complex!

I also think AC should end with AC3 full stop. As much as I love the AC series, I think if they drag it out too long, it won't be... special? The game's will get tedious, lose their appeal.

Finish while it's awesome, Ubisoft.

I agree in part with you, I still think AC has room for some spin offs without a modern day protagonist or even use S16, Daniel Cross, whoever will assume the role of "Eve" (if it's a new character from who we don't know much) or S15 as modern day protagonists showing us their lives during Desmond timeline just to make the universe more richer, but another arc with a new modern day protagonist to stop another end of the world, I don't want to do the same thing all over again just with a different skin, if they plan to go that route IMO they should just continue making spin offs after AC3, the same way Desmond needs to end, this whole end of the world, TWCB, choosen one thing needs to end...

EscoBlades
07-21-2012, 01:04 PM
I don't think theyve officially confirmed or denied it.....

I'll hunt down the quotes, but Hutchinson had stated that AC3 was Desmond's final game. Pretty sure it was one of the first things he confirmed.

MT4K
07-21-2012, 01:12 PM
I'll hunt down the quotes, but Hutchinson had stated that AC3 was Desmond's final game. Pretty sure it was one of the first things he confirmed.

They did say that originally, but recently when asked about it they tend to say they cannot answer the question.

FrankieSatt
07-21-2012, 01:59 PM
I agree that this should be the final game with Desmond, it's gone on long enough.

However, I also think that when Desmond ends the series should end as well. Without Desmond there is no story, no reason to continue to play other ancestors. I don't want another person and then more ancestors. That is just a reason to milk the "Cash Cow" and that shouldn't be the sole reason for a video game. The reason for a game, or a series, like this is to tell a story. Once the story is told the series needs to end otherwise you just get crap afterwards.

ACIII needs to be the last AC game of the series, unless they create some DLC where you go back and played blocked memories in ACIII.

playassassins1
07-21-2012, 02:06 PM
I agree that this should be the final game with Desmond, it's gone on long enough.

However, I also think that when Desmond ends the series should end as well. Without Desmond there is no story, no reason to continue to play other ancestors. I don't want another person and then more ancestors. That is just a reason to milk the "Cash Cow" and that shouldn't be the sole reason for a video game. The reason for a game, or a series, like this is to tell a story. Once the story is told the series needs to end otherwise you just get crap afterwards.

ACIII needs to be the last AC game of the series, unless they create some DLC where you go back and played blocked memories in ACIII.

Well, unfortunately. Its not ending anytime soon....

FrankieSatt
07-21-2012, 02:08 PM
Well, unfortunately. Its not ending anytime soon....

Than the series will turn to crap because without Desmond and his story, if ACIII is the end of Desmond's Story, they will just be making crap up as they go and that is not how you create good games.

BBALive
07-21-2012, 03:26 PM
To all those wanting this to be the final game in the series, you're going to be disappointed.

The series could continue up to, and maybe even past Assassin's Creed 10.

FrankieSatt
07-21-2012, 03:38 PM
To all those wanting this to be the final game in the series, you're going to be disappointed.

The series could continue up to, and maybe even past Assassin's Creed 10.

It will NEVER hit AC 10. The ONLY series I know of that has lasted that long was one back in the the 80's and that was Kings Quest 1-8. They screwed up 8 so much that the series died off, as well as the company.

In any case, you might be lucky to see AC 5, maybe AC 6.

For me personally, I'm done when Desmond is done. Anything after that will be pure crap because they will just be making up the story as they go and without the story the game isn't the same.

Edit:

I have to make a correction. There have been other series to last that long, Ultima is another one that comes to mind and the Might and Magic Series I THINK last till 6 or 7.

In any case, I still stand by my statement that AC will NEVER hit AC 10. Think about it. How long did it take to get from AC II to AC III? To get to AC 10 will take another 20 years and UbiSoft might not even be around by then.

Assassin_M
07-21-2012, 03:40 PM
I love it how people automatically assume that if they end Desmond`s story and begin a new one then the series will become crap..

kudos17
07-21-2012, 04:04 PM
Desmond's story better end in AC3. Like Hutchinson said, I think he needs to be done.

Like Sam Fisher from Splinter Cell. He's been in far too many entries in that series now. He's become stale. Desmond is reaching that point, but it's a perfect time to bring everything together and finish it. If they don't do it this game, when everyone expects them to, people will be tired. I know I will be.

FrankieSatt
07-21-2012, 04:32 PM
I love it how people automatically assume that if they end Desmond`s story and begin a new one then the series will become crap..

It will become crap because Desmond IS Assassin's Creed. From the 1st game to now it's been about Desmond and his ancestors. You bring in another person and even more ancestors what time frame do you use, further forward or further in the past? What part of the world do you use and how does it fit in the AC story?

The story line past Desmond will become pure crap and made up and the game will suffer because of it. This isn't an FPS, it NEEDS a good story or it really isn't a good game.

Assassin_M
07-21-2012, 04:33 PM
It will become crap because Desmond IS Assassin's Creed. From the 1st game to now it's been about Desmond and his ancestors. You bring in another person and even more ancestors what time frame do you use, further forward or further in the past? What part of the world do you use and how does it fit in the AC story?

The story line past Desmond will become pure crap and made up and the game will suffer because of it. This isn't an FPS, it NEEDS a good story or it really isn't a good game.
So you assumed that after Desmond, they cant make up a good story line ? Why exactly ?

godsmack_darius
07-21-2012, 04:37 PM
The thing is...Is that I feel that Desmond has not been part of this very long... Would you say in the AC universe he has only been involved for a few days? Maybe over a week?

FrankieSatt
07-21-2012, 04:45 PM
So you assumed that after Desmond, they cant make up a good story line ? Why exactly ?

I just listed some reasons. What's the time frame now? Further forward or in the past? Why is there another person and more ancestors? How does this new time frame your ancestor is in fit in the story of AC?

My biggest problem is that the time frame of AC's acenstors have continuously been going forward. We are already up to the 1700's. Do we go further into the 1800's, 1900's? We are already in the 2000's with Desmond and some don't like that. So given that do we go back into the past and if so why would we need to?

The story as it is written is perfect. By adding another person and more anscestors just to try to milk the "Cash Cow" will do nothing but dilute the series with games that aren't very good and don't fit in the AC story line.

Assassin_M
07-21-2012, 04:50 PM
I just listed some reasons. What's the time frame now? Further forward or in the past? Why is there another person and more ancestors? How does this new time frame your ancestor is in fit in the story of AC?

My biggest problem is that the time frame of AC's acenstors have continuously been going forward. We are already up to the 1700's. Do we go further into the 1800's, 1900's? We are already in the 2000's with Desmond and some don't like that. So given that do we go back into the past and if so why would we need to?

The story as it is written is perfect. By adding another person and more anscestors just to try to milk the "Cash Cow" will do nothing but dilute the series with games that aren't very good and don't fit in the AC story line.
Lovely..

You are going in circles, you are asking questions that don't make sense, and simply because they are currently Unanswered, you decided that ANYTHING afterwards wont fit in the AC story line.
The series, as confirmed, can go forward or backwards in time without any dilution to the series, and as shown by the Comics, The Devs can indeed come up with a good Modern day story without Desmond..

But I can understand where you come from; the Unknown can sometimes be scary..

Razrback16
07-21-2012, 11:46 PM
* I like Desmond
* I am fine with them doing whatever they like with Desmond because, while I like him, I'm not attached to him so much that I can't handle the series without him, BUT if they get rid of him, they need to find a REALLY REALLY REALLY good way to continue the storyline appropriately because the entire AC series is built on Desmond's family line and being able to re-live his family line memories...if they get rid of Desmond, it's going to be really hard to make it so fans of the series stay tied in for future games, and will even depreciate the replay value of Desmond-based AC games.
* Basically in short I implore Ubisoft not to screw up AC the way Crytek screwed up the Crysis series as far as basically scrapping the Crysis 1 / Warhead stories and doing a "reboot" in Crysis 2 which essentially nullified a lot of the core story in Crysis 1 / Warhead.

notafanboy
07-21-2012, 11:50 PM
a prequal with S16 would be awesome, i bet he has some interesting ancestors

RatonhnhakeFan
07-22-2012, 12:15 AM
As it should be. They may continue the base, ever-actual Assassins vs Templars theme, but Desmond + 2012 solar flare + satellite launch plot needs to end already. 5 installments covering one story over 5 years is much

Kaschra
07-22-2012, 01:59 AM
Well, it was obvious that Desmond's story would end someday. I like Desmond, but I'm okay with that. I just hope they keep the modern day storyline in the games after AC3, with a new protagonist.

SolidSage
07-22-2012, 04:17 AM
I like to see a story reach it's conclusion, otherwise you get a debacle like LOST, where so many things go unanswered or get really ridiculous rationalizations. I didn't like Desmond at the start but he has grown on me with each new entry. I'll enjoy his closure.

I think that removing Desmond from the series may actually be a good thing for the game too. I love the Animus and the whole story arc tied to it, but how difficult is it for Developers to continually try to intertwine the future and past story lines, creating good reasoning and connection and chronology. If the 'future protagonist' is removed and not replaced, they can then just have the menuing or whatever, the interface, represent the Animus, and we, the Player would be the Subject. Then all assets can go into creating a robust and engaging experience revolving around whichever historical era and location they choose.
I appreciate the relation between Desmond and the ancestors, but we all get it now and don't really need that part of the game any more. And we will lose some of the inherent glitches that tie to exiting and re-entering the Animus, reading emails etc.

@ Frankie
I'll go on the record right now and say that there WILL be 10 Assassin's Creed games. Maybe not AC10, due to how they like to name them but as far as I am concerned, AC3 is the 5th major console Creed title in what, six, seven years. That's only 5 more to go player. Splinter Cell is on 5 over 15 years or so.....I think you're going to lose this one buddy :)

Serrachio
07-22-2012, 04:27 AM
I like to see a story reach it's conclusion, otherwise you get a debacle like LOST, where so many things go unanswered or get really ridiculous rationalizations. I didn't like Desmond at the start but he has grown on me with each new entry. I'll enjoy his closure.

I think that removing Desmond from the series may actually be a good thing for the game too. I love the Animus and the whole story arc tied to it, but how difficult is it for Developers to continually try to intertwine the future and past story lines, creating good reasoning and connection and chronology. If the 'future protagonist' is removed and not replaced, they can then just have the menuing or whatever, the interface, represent the Animus, and we, the Player would be the Subject. Then all assets can go into creating a robust and engaging experience revolving around whichever historical era and location they choose.
I appreciate the relation between Desmond and the ancestors, but we all get it now and don't really need that part of the game any more. And we will lose some of the inherent glitches that tie to exiting and re-entering the Animus, reading emails etc.

@ Frankie
I'll go on the record right now and say that there WILL be 10 Assassin's Creed games. Maybe not AC10, due to how they like to name them but as far as I am concerned, AC3 is the 5th major console Creed title in what, six, seven years. That's only 5 more to go player. Splinter Cell is on 5 over 15 years or so.....I think you're going to lose this one buddy :)

I agree with you that there is much more life in the series, but I wouldn't really limit it to 10 games.

After all, Splinter Cell is held back because it is set around the modern era, whereas the majority of Assassin's Creed games are set in the past, and there are many conflicts in history which can possibly be visited, spanning all of recorded history.

Given the theme of Watch Dogs, there would always be a chance at a "cross-over" of the two series as well.

imonthenet
07-22-2012, 05:03 AM
I thought that in the beginning the devs intended for Desmond to be a kind of 'fill in the blanks yourself' character, where your given a face and such but his story is left open for interpretation. Then with ACII when addressing AC's problems they found the modern story needed more substance thus trying to make him a more likeable character.

I've always enjoyed the Desmond portions of the game (even in ACR) although I'm looking forward to the conclusion of his story in ACII. I think his story needs to (and will) end, although the Universe as a whole will be left open. I can't wait to see where they will take this series, and by ditching Desmond they'll find the freedom they did by ditching Altaīr in regards to ACII​.

im3jia
07-23-2012, 12:17 AM
"In the Assassin's Creed games, the player takes on the role of Assassins from different historical periods. The Assassins are waging a secret war against the Templars, a mysterious order that wants to rule the world. Desmond is the descendant of these Assassins and is reliving their memories through a device known as an Animus.


"Ever since the first game came out, I've expected Ubisoft to release a sequel starring Desmond in some present-day city. However, that was when I assumed he was the center of the storyline. The truth is, though, the centuries-old conflict between the Assassins and Templars is the primary focus. The war has outlasted so many Assassins throughout history, so why not Desmond too? It never seemed like he was close to stopping the Templars for good. The series really doesn't need him.

"Ubisoft has already made stories without Desmond. The AC comic book series focuses on Daniel Cross (http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Assassin-Creed-Chain-Prepare-You-Assassin-Creed-3-42915.html), a man living in 1998 with Assassin ancestors of his own. Furthermore, the Assassin for the upcoming Vita game AC3 Liberation (http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Assassin-Creed-3-Liberation-Extended-Trailer-Toots-Its-Own-Horn-44500.html) isn't related to Desmond.

"Will the storyline of Desmond end within AC3? This could end up being the last game in the series on current-gen systems. It's the end of an era so why not take the opportunity to move on to a new protagonist?"

From here http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Assassin-Creed-3-Desmond-Die-44906.html

dxsxhxcx
07-23-2012, 12:26 AM
I hope they don't kill him, it would be too easy...

SolidSage
07-24-2012, 11:06 PM
I agree with you that there is much more life in the series, but I wouldn't really limit it to 10 games.

I agree too. I'm not limiting AC to 10, just saying that I do think it will hit 10 titles. I don't want it to ever end. What for? It's too good.
Also, quite surprised on us agreeing on something :)



Given the theme of Watch Dogs, there would always be a chance at a "cross-over" of the two series as well.

I did have that thought myself at E3.


@All
I expected a full Desmond title at one point, and after ACB I thought it might actually be pretty good. I certainly think there is space in the AC'iverse to do a present day or future title. I don't think it necessary though, there are so many modern entities in gaming already and AC's historical accuracy approach is so rewarding (and I can't do without impaling AI with a variety of sharp pointy things).
I do want to see it unleashed from the Desmond tether though, and set free to maraud through tons of era's. Stone Age Creed anyone? Air assassinating a T-Rex? ;)

kriegerdesgottes
07-25-2012, 01:51 AM
I hope they don't kill him, it would be too easy...

I agree. I really hope it doesn't end that way. I don't particularly care for Desmond but I feel like death would be such an obvious disappointing end for him. I just hope he becomes this ultimate amazing assassin and he rides off into the sunset and sets the stage for a new decedent who undoubtedly will be multiracial.

dxsxhxcx
07-25-2012, 02:28 AM
I agree. I really hope it doesn't end that way. I don't particularly care for Desmond but I feel like death would be such an obvious disappointing end for him. I just hope he becomes this ultimate amazing assassin and he rides off into the sunset and sets the stage for a new decedent who undoubtedly will be multiracial.

IMO it would be interesting if (assuming a new modern day protagonist will be introduced to continue the story from where Desmond will stop) the modern days in the next game were set around 30 or 40 years in the future and then in this new game (arc) Desmond would be the Mentor of the Order , sometimes being in contact with the team of the new protagonist, sending them missions, etc, I also hope if they plan to add a new modern day protagonist, they spend more time during the modern days and give them more meaning other than just talk and go after the PoEs, while I understand the strong point of the franchise is the ancestor's life, I believe a lot could still be done to make the modern days in the game much more enjoyable and meaningful and not only be used as the "vehicle" to experience the ancestor life...

FrankieSatt
07-25-2012, 01:48 PM
"In the Assassin's Creed games, the player takes on the role of Assassins from different historical periods. The Assassins are waging a secret war against the Templars, a mysterious order that wants to rule the world. Desmond is the descendant of these Assassins and is reliving their memories through a device known as an Animus.


"Ever since the first game came out, I've expected Ubisoft to release a sequel starring Desmond in some present-day city. However, that was when I assumed he was the center of the storyline. The truth is, though, the centuries-old conflict between the Assassins and Templars is the primary focus. The war has outlasted so many Assassins throughout history, so why not Desmond too? It never seemed like he was close to stopping the Templars for good. The series really doesn't need him.

"Ubisoft has already made stories without Desmond. The AC comic book series focuses on Daniel Cross (http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Assassin-Creed-Chain-Prepare-You-Assassin-Creed-3-42915.html), a man living in 1998 with Assassin ancestors of his own. Furthermore, the Assassin for the upcoming Vita game AC3 Liberation (http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Assassin-Creed-3-Liberation-Extended-Trailer-Toots-Its-Own-Horn-44500.html) isn't related to Desmond.

"Will the storyline of Desmond end within AC3? This could end up being the last game in the series on current-gen systems. It's the end of an era so why not take the opportunity to move on to a new protagonist?"

From here http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Assassin-Creed-3-Desmond-Die-44906.html




One mans opinion, that I happen to disagree with fully.

I could care less about the comic books, in my opinion they have nothing to do with the games. I could care less about the Vita games, they are also in my opinion not part of the series and doesn't matter to me.

What matters to me is what comes out on the major consoles and so far Desmond has been the focus in each and every one of those games. Desmond IS the story and without Desmond there is no story.

It's my opinion of the series so far and will continue to be. ACIII needs to be the last game in the series, except for DLC to go back and play previous locked memories. Desmond's story needs to end as it's been dragged out way too long. There series needs to end on a high note, not dragged out and watered down just because they can squeeze more money out of it.

freddie_1897
07-25-2012, 02:28 PM
its not what they do its how they do it.

SolidSage
07-26-2012, 03:27 AM
ACIII needs to be the last game in the series, except for DLC to go back and play previous locked memories. Desmond's story needs to end as it's been dragged out way too long. There series needs to end on a high note, not dragged out and watered down just because they can squeeze more money out of it.

Can't you just stop playing it yourself when you get tired of it, and be happy to let everyone else continue on playing a wonderful game engine?

AC is a fantastic franchise, some of the most refreshing game play has been innovated over the course of it, why end it, that just seems wasteful. And what will we play instead, the 11th GTA, more Hitman's, more Super Hero game reboots? (Yes, we will play those also).
I guess what I am saying is that AC is the perfect set up. The story can continually change, along with the setting and era, it's almost like playing different games with each major entry anyway, while maintaining the same mechanics. And the MECHANICS are what should not be lost. So yeah, re-skin them, add a new story if you like, try to make it SEEM different, but what's the point when the concept of the Animus already allows for the difference WITHIN the AC World?

I'm not trying to bust your chops Frankie (although I do enjoy it ;)), you just make some of the oddest comments some times.

xXMrGR1NCHXx
07-26-2012, 03:33 AM
Can't you just stop playing it yourself when you get tired of it, and be happy to let everyone else continue on playing a wonderful game engine?

AC is a fantastic franchise, some of the most refreshing game play has been innovated over the course of it, why end it, that just seems wasteful. And what will we play instead, the 11th GTA, more Hitman's, more Super Hero game reboots? (Yes, we will play those also).
I guess what I am saying is that AC is the perfect set up. The story can continually change, along with the setting and era, it's almost like playing different games with each major entry anyway, while maintaining the same mechanics. And the MECHANICS are what should not be lost. So yeah, re-skin them, add a new story if you like, try to make it SEEM different, but what's the point when the concept of the Animus already allows for the difference WITHIN the AC World?

This paragraph describes my thoughts to SO many topics+replies.

Assassin_M
07-26-2012, 03:36 AM
AC III "needs" to be the last game ? im sorry, but what base are you speaking on ? The series has so much potential for more success. Maybe a break, but not end it, I mean why ? just why ? GTA worked..
Same mechanics, same idea so what ? WHAT ??

Locopells
07-26-2012, 11:33 AM
As long as they keep the story fresh, they can keep on forever.

De Filosoof
07-26-2012, 11:36 AM
AC III "needs" to be the last game ? im sorry, but what base are you speaking on ? The series has so much potential for more success. Maybe a break, but not end it, I mean why ? just why ? GTA worked..
Same mechanics, same idea so what ? WHAT ??

I don't think you can compare the AC storyline (modern-day part) with the GTA storyline.
What would the modern-day AC storyline mean without mystery? It wouldn't be as interesting, at all, so that means that if they want to push more and more AC games out, they have to keep some mystery going like the TWCB storyline for example, I think that would eventually feel really boring if they keep dragging that storyline along.
My point is they can make 100 GTA games without any storyline problems and that isn't the case with AC. It would be really, really hard.

De Filosoof
07-26-2012, 11:40 AM
New quote from Alex about Desmond in AC3:


“The big beats were always sort of known,” he explained. “I think one of the challenges of popularity for the franchise has been a request for more continuity. There was a bit of a scramble, I think, during
AC: Brotherhood
and into
AC: Revelations
for the franchise itself to get to the point that we can plan better for future games. I think we’re in a good spot now and that we have what we hope is a good plan for moving forward. We had an ending in mind for Desmond [from the start] that we’re going to stay pretty true to.”

Good news :).

FrankieSatt
07-26-2012, 01:59 PM
Can't you just stop playing it yourself when you get tired of it, and be happy to let everyone else continue on playing a wonderful game engine?

AC is a fantastic franchise, some of the most refreshing game play has been innovated over the course of it, why end it, that just seems wasteful. And what will we play instead, the 11th GTA, more Hitman's, more Super Hero game reboots? (Yes, we will play those also).
I guess what I am saying is that AC is the perfect set up. The story can continually change, along with the setting and era, it's almost like playing different games with each major entry anyway, while maintaining the same mechanics. And the MECHANICS are what should not be lost. So yeah, re-skin them, add a new story if you like, try to make it SEEM different, but what's the point when the concept of the Animus already allows for the difference WITHIN the AC World?

I'm not trying to bust your chops Frankie (although I do enjoy it ;)), you just make some of the oddest comments some times.

My problem is that when you just continue to create games to milk the "Cash Cow" you end up with crap and the series will end up being known for that and not for the games that made the series so great to start with.

I view AC different than I view other games. I view AC as a movie, or a story in a book, that you can play and interact with. The story line is that good. Without that story line, and if they try to made crap up to create more games than the game is nothing more than an action game where you kill people. I can play an FPS and get that. While the game mechanics are unique the story, Desmond's story, is what makes the game. Without it I might as well go play COD where the story really doesn't matter.

I want ACIII to be the last game for the good of the series, because like any good movie and any good book the story needs to end not continue and be watered down by dragging it out longer than it needs to be.

By the way, I don't mind pepole disagrreeing with me. I don't mind the debate. If we all agreed on everything there would be no need for a message board.

infamous_ezio
07-26-2012, 05:49 PM
New quote from Alex about Desmond in AC3:


“The big beats were always sort of known,” he explained. “I think one of the challenges of popularity for the franchise has been a request for more continuity. There was a bit of a scramble, I think, during
AC: Brotherhood
and into
AC: Revelations
for the franchise itself to get to the point that we can plan better for future games. I think we’re in a good spot now and that we have what we hope is a good plan for moving forward. We had an ending in mind for Desmond [from the start] that we’re going to stay pretty true to.”

Good news :).



This is good news. I'm really starting to like Alex, he seems to know what he's doing. I think Desmond's story is well on time to end, the series should continue but Desmond's story to save the world should end, it's the perfect time, setting, everything's right.

It's funny to know that they realized their were a few mistakes with revelations.

Steww-
07-26-2012, 06:17 PM
I want ACIII to be the last game for the good of the series, because like any good movie and any good book the story needs to end not continue and be watered down by dragging it out longer than it needs to be.


(I cut out most of your post to save space, but I'm not just addressing this specific part.)
The story of Assassin's creed will not end. Everything will not be wrapped up.
For example, while I expect Desmond's story will be finished, and we will find out "the Truth", many of the plot threads that they have created will be left unsolved. For example, see Project Legacy and Consus.


Desmond's story, is what makes the game.
For you perhaps. I think I can safely say many of us are also hugely interested in the overall story that Desmond plays a key role in.

They will have plenty more plot lines to explore, and plenty more time periods to explore.
While I appreciate your reasoning that you want this series to be remembered at what you think must be it's prime, I don't agree. Ubisoft will continue to refine the game, particularly when we get next-gen consoles, and I don't doubt their ability to be successful in this.

Calvarok
07-26-2012, 06:37 PM
Desmond's story is quite complex, and after it's wrapped up, having him as the main character for some new exploits would mean that his baggage of five games would come along with him. They need to be able to start fresh after the trilogy, and it's easier and more interesting with a new character, who is less defined, and whom they can craft a new story for. If you have a massive universe and only see it through one man's eyes, things can start to seem a little insular and weird. The game is about the Assassin order more than it is about Desmond.

SolidSage
07-26-2012, 08:42 PM
My problem is that when you just continue to create games to milk the "Cash Cow" you end up with crap and the series will end up being known for that and not for the games that made the series so great to start with.

I view AC different than I view other games. I view AC as a movie, or a story in a book, that you can play and interact with. The story line is that good. Without that story line, and if they try to made crap up to create more games than the game is nothing more than an action game where you kill people. I can play an FPS and get that. While the game mechanics are unique the story, Desmond's story, is what makes the game. Without it I might as well go play COD where the story really doesn't matter.

I want ACIII to be the last game for the good of the series, because like any good movie and any good book the story needs to end not continue and be watered down by dragging it out longer than it needs to be.

By the way, I don't mind pepole disagrreeing with me. I don't mind the debate. If we all agreed on everything there would be no need for a message board.

I do think you have some valid points here. But I think it actually relates more to Desmond's story than the rest of AC the game. Desmond's story IS dragging on a bit, there are more and more plot holes, more conspiracy, more questions etc. I think that can be a problem and result in the 'watering down' that you talk about. So I agree that Desmond's story should end, in regard to your points. Stringing out Desmond any longer would just get boring as you say, it would become apparent (like the TV series LOST) that they were just adding new questions in order to keep the ball rolling rather than delivering an epic tale.

But I don't feel that it relates to AC as a game. I honestly would have no problem with a simpler and more direct story each time, perhaps a story about a different Assassin every time, and his or her set of missions and how their tale unfolds, all wrapped up in one neatly packaged high quality game. It's the environment and the roaming, the free running and the combat that I am in love with. AC has provided one of the best character control experiences yet. It can get too much, and a break is certainly beneficial from time to time, but losing the engine altogether would be worse than the need to take a break.
GTA for example, while not the same type of story, consistently pulls me back in. I get bored, I take a couple of years away and then I start to long for it again, and dive back in. And I get as much satisfaction each time. It's game play is just FUN, and it is one of the most rewarding experiences out there. The depth of it, you can immerse yourself in the environment and play for months before becoming tired. AC is the same. I DID get a little tired during Revelations but that was after playing a new entry for three years in a row and having already played AC1 like five times, twice on PS3, 3 times 360.
I think there should ALWAYS be an AC game around, even if there is a two year break between major entries or whatever. I don't know that we need another huge conspiracy story like Desmond's though, there's absolutely nothing wrong with 'simple' when it's done at the highest quality. And AC as a franchise is simply setting the standard for high quality. The only negativity attached to it is when you compare one of the games to another one of the games in the franchise. AC games have that problem of being compared to their siblings, and their siblings are like Olympic Gold medalists. :)

AC is a great action game, and I never get tired of good action. I DID get tired of COD though, in like the first five minutes, so I completely agree with you about that franchise.

AssassinGame1
07-26-2012, 10:55 PM
This is old news, man; somebody already has posted about this and had the same site you shared.

AssassinGame1
07-26-2012, 10:56 PM
I do think you have some valid points here. But I think it actually relates more to Desmond's story than the rest of AC the game. Desmond's story IS dragging on a bit, there are more and more plot holes, more conspiracy, more questions etc. I think that can be a problem and result in the 'watering down' that you talk about. So I agree that Desmond's story should end, in regard to your points. Stringing out Desmond any longer would just get boring as you say, it would become apparent (like the TV series LOST) that they were just adding new questions in order to keep the ball rolling rather than delivering an epic tale.

But I don't feel that it relates to AC as a game. I honestly would have no problem with a simpler and more direct story each time, perhaps a story about a different Assassin every time, and his or her set of missions and how their tale unfolds, all wrapped up in one neatly packaged high quality game. It's the environment and the roaming, the free running and the combat that I am in love with. AC has provided one of the best character control experiences yet. It can get too much, and a break is certainly beneficial from time to time, but losing the engine altogether would be worse than the need to take a break.
GTA for example, while not the same type of story, consistently pulls me back in. I get bored, I take a couple of years away and then I start to long for it again, and dive back in. And I get as much satisfaction each time. It's game play is just FUN, and it is one of the most rewarding experiences out there. The depth of it, you can immerse yourself in the environment and play for months before becoming tired. AC is the same. I DID get a little tired during Revelations but that was after playing a new entry for three years in a row and having already played AC1 like five times, twice on PS3, 3 times 360.
I think there should ALWAYS be an AC game around, even if there is a two year break between major entries or whatever. I don't know that we need another huge conspiracy story like Desmond's though, there's absolutely nothing wrong with 'simple' when it's done at the highest quality. And AC as a franchise is simply setting the standard for high quality. The only negativity attached to it is when you compare one of the games to another one of the games in the franchise. AC games have that problem of being compared to their siblings, and their siblings are like Olympic Gold medalists. :)

AC is a great action game, and I never get tired of good action. I DID get tired of COD though, in like the first five minutes, so I completely agree with you about that franchise.

EVERYONE got tired of COD

SolidSage
07-27-2012, 02:08 AM
^ What, in the first 5 minutes like me?
Seriously, I skipped the first few games after a quick look then FORCED myself to play MW3 with friends and HATED every minute of it. The story was okay and I did like some of the settings but it amazes me how everyone went ape shiz over a game that has tech and a MP that was surpassed by Rainbow 6 eight years before COD ever came out!

BeCk41
07-27-2012, 01:24 PM
Yep I agree, the Desmond story is trailing too long, and its really kind of un-interesting. Whatever way they intend to finish his story better give us closure tho.