PDA

View Full Version : New interview with alex hutchinson



prince162010
08-04-2012, 01:02 AM
The scale of Assassin's Creed 3

"To make the game too long - it is dangerous," - said Alex Hutchinson, creative director of Assassin's Creed 3.In an interview with VG247 (http://www.vg247.com/2012/08/03/assassins-creed-3-making-games-too-long-is-disasterous-ubisoft/) Alex Hutchinson spoke about the enormous scale of Assassin's Creed 3 , and also shared his concerns about the risks that may arise in connection with the players and the developers.


" Assassin's Creed 3 huge in terms of physical size, playing time and the number of new gameplay, we have it included. We've removed a lot of systems and mechanics from previous games, but I think we still have achieved the maximum possible extent , "- said Alex Hutchinson.However, the creative director warns that there is always a danger that the huge amount of content gamers can prevent complete the game: " There is a limit to how many things you can perceive the same time in the head, and there are narrow limits of diversity, which can be added that there was no sense of fragmentation and disorder . "
" In addition, we have a very high percentage of complete games franchise, and if you make the game too long, then these figures will start to fall, which would be a disaster for the games, like ours, which we appreciate the consistency and integrity of the universe . "

TheFrontLine
08-04-2012, 01:06 AM
New interview, but not much new information.
But it worries me when he thinks people won't complete the game. It seems as if the team might have purposely made the game shorter than they would have liked so we can have a 'high completion rate'.
I agree with the first two comments on that page.

HaSoOoN-MHD
08-04-2012, 01:08 AM
That would be really, REALLY stupid.
If people bought the game, no matter how long, they will complete it eventually if it is good.

MangoCookies
08-04-2012, 01:17 AM
Wow, that's terrible. I still want a game that has many things in it. I do not want such a short game!! That would disappoint people rather than alleviating them

Assassin_M
08-04-2012, 01:24 AM
Wow, Alex is such a Pro. Just yesterday we were relieved to finally see a blue coat being killed by Connor and everyone was happy, but here he comes again to ignite another worry.

A real Pro.

HaSoOoN-MHD
08-04-2012, 01:25 AM
Wow, Alex is such a Pro. Just yesterday we were relieved to finally see a blue coat being killed by Connor and everyone was happy, but here he comes again to ignite another worry.

A real Pro.
To be fair, rather have him tell the truth than lie :nonchalance:
If it does turn out to be shortened, at least it wont be a big shock.

Assassin_M
08-04-2012, 01:27 AM
To be fair, rather have him tell the truth than lie :nonchalance:
If it does turn out to be shortened, at least it wont be a big shock.
Its not that, its that some people DO like to worry and may take his words the wrong way and in the end the game will turn out pretty long.

So this might just be another false "uprising" like the one regarding the British..

MT4K
08-04-2012, 01:34 AM
I think it is a fair thing to think about. Not everybody can dedicate a few hours to multiple games. If you add side content as well then really busy people who really have tough jobs and not much time for gaming can end up not finishing a really long game before the next one comes around (in a yearly release cycle). They could end up feeling left behind and losing interest in the franchise.

Granted it doesn't affect me personally really because i can fortunately dedicate time to games, but even with the time i myself can dedicate to gaming i still have a backlog i need to finish.

prince162010
08-04-2012, 01:35 AM
when the game is too long, it would be very boring (i like what he said) the shorter is always the best

HaSoOoN-MHD
08-04-2012, 01:37 AM
If that is the case, CoD has the best campaign.

MT4K
08-04-2012, 01:38 AM
If that is the case, CoD has the best campaign.

There's a difference between not being too long and being ridiculously short.

Assassin_M
08-04-2012, 01:42 AM
when the game is too long, it would be very boring (i like what he said) the shorter is always the best
Wow Wow Wow lets not get carried away here, I mean 20% longer than AC II is decent, but shorter is always the best ? Come on now....... HELL NO !!!

WolfTemplar94
08-04-2012, 01:44 AM
A game should never be too long though. He isn't necessarily saying it's going to be short. If anything, he's worried that it's too long.

Requiscent
08-04-2012, 01:45 AM
Judging by the content the game has, I wouldn't worry about it.

HaSoOoN-MHD
08-04-2012, 01:48 AM
With a long story, it allows for more development of the characters, the plot and universe can be expanded more, you get more bang for your $$$ are a few reasons why longer >>>>>>>>>>>> shorter.

RatonhnhakeFan
08-04-2012, 01:49 AM
High completition rate? Didn't they say it was 50%?

Assassin_M
08-04-2012, 01:50 AM
With a long story, it allows for more development of the characters, the plot and universe can be expanded more, you get more bang for your $$$ are a few reasons why longer >>>>>>>>>>>> shorter.
As long as it doesnt drag and is logically long, then definitely long > short

BBALive
08-04-2012, 02:50 AM
It depends on the game, really. If you have the content and the variety, and a strong story and solid gameplay, then people will keep coming back. In that situation, it's fine to create games that are 100+ hours in length (Xenoblade Chronicles is a good example). However, games CAN overstay their welcome and drag on. So if you don't have a large amount of content, and you don't have a large amount of variety, then it's better to keep the game shorter, yet not too short so that it feels like a waste of money. If a game has an extremely long and complex story, but sub-par, or flat-out bad gameplay, then it's going to drag on and become boring. In short, don't make long games if you don't have the variety to keep it fresh, keep people playing and keep having fun.

So, he's right, in a way. Still, don't read into it too much, he didn't seem to be relating it to AC3, so I wouldn't worry.

GunnarGunderson
08-04-2012, 03:32 AM
Why do they care how many people finish their game? They still get the same amount of money. The people who care about the series will see the ending.

Assassin_M
08-04-2012, 03:42 AM
Why do they care how many people finish their game? They still get the same amount of money. The people who care about the series will see the ending.
Its a reputation, mate..

It also shows how passionate Alex is with his Game..

SteelCity999
08-04-2012, 04:11 AM
They shortened it because they wanted to sell it to us as DLC. Ubi has to keep up that 20+% increase in revenue somehow...

Assassin_M
08-04-2012, 04:15 AM
They shortened it because they wanted to sell it to us as DLC. Ubi has to keep up that 20+% increase in revenue somehow...
Mate, No one shortened anything xD

HaSoOoN-MHD
08-04-2012, 04:17 AM
I wont be surprised, actually.
Anybody remember how they took 2 sequences off of ACII?
They may cut a sequence or 3 for some extra $$$.

Assassin_M
08-04-2012, 04:19 AM
I wont be surprised, actually.
Anybody remember how they took 2 sequences off of ACII?
They may cut a sequence or 3 for some extra $$$.
They said that time eroded them. Maybe they wanted more Money, but Im going with what they`v said and i`v no evidence to doubt..

HaSoOoN-MHD
08-04-2012, 04:22 AM
They also said for BH, the recruits would have deep customization, and there will be 250 bomb types in Rev.
I think it was for extra money, but to each his own.

Assassin_M
08-04-2012, 04:24 AM
They also said for BH, the recruits would have deep customization, and there will be 250 bomb types in Rev.
I think it was for extra money, but to each his own.
They also said that AC II would end in 1503, ACR would have many random quests. Your point ?

SteelCity999
08-04-2012, 04:35 AM
They said that time eroded them. Maybe they wanted more Money, but Im going with what they`v said and i`v no evidence to doubt..

It was for time and judging by the end product for those DLC they needed a bit more time on top of what they took. The level of quality was far short of the DaVinci DLC and didn't fit well quality wise with the rest of the game. Definitely the most disappointing parts of AC2.

I'm sure they didn't shorten AC3, however, they have made my wallet much lighter over the years.

HaSoOoN-MHD
08-04-2012, 04:53 AM
They also said that AC II would end in 1503, ACR would have many random quests. Your point ?

That not everything they say is true :nonchalance:
I wont Bonfire to be pretty cool, actually. The other one? not so much.

Aphex_Tim
08-04-2012, 07:58 AM
Everyone please just calm the f*** down. Nowhere does the interview say that they purposely made the game short.
The only thing i read is that Alex is worried that the game is too long which suggests that AC3 will be a pretty d*mn long game.

GLHS
08-04-2012, 08:45 AM
The completion rate for the AC series is around 75% (I saw it in an interview once, but don't remember which one. I think it was for E3), while most other games sit below or around 40-50%. That's why they were congratulated on it, cuz honestly that's quite high. I, myself, like decently long games. Short games leave to much to be desired after the fact. The game will be on the long side, so idk what anybody's worried about. Plus, if the rumors are true, there will be a ton of DLC, so i don't see what the problem is even if they did shorten it a little. By the time you add all the DLC, you'll have a longer game either way. All AC games can be long if you screw around enough :) But everybody has their own opinion what what "long" or "short" actually is. For me, AC2's not bad, but if you just go straight through, and especially on subsequent playthroughs, it feels shorter than the first time or 2. So if it's 20% longer like their saying, plus with the DLC added on, there shouldn't be anything to complain about.

lothario-da-be
08-04-2012, 12:31 PM
I hope he is just saying that a story that is 50 houers long isen't good.

Slayer_WTF
08-04-2012, 12:35 PM
Where did you say that the game will be short? His was a simple observation. He just said that they have entered all possible. Why people must come to false conclusions and invented on purpose to complain?

FirestarLuva
08-04-2012, 01:11 PM
" Assassin's Creed 3 huge in terms of physical size, playing time and the number of new gameplay, we have it included. We've removed a lot of systems and mechanics from previous games, but I think we still have achieved the maximum possible extent , "

See, he never said that the game will be short, if it was, they wouldn't dub it 'the biggest AC game ever'. He's just stating his opinion about long games and how he's worried that players won't be able to finish AC3. If Alex regrets and changes his mind about the length of the game, then he's a bit late. AC3 is almost done, 3 months away, and I doubt Ubisoft would take the risk and delay the game, which I doubt. I mean, just half a month ago, at E3, Alex was constantly saying how big AC3 is, bla, bla. So don't panic, AC3 will be very huge without the DLC that's supposed to be released later.

D.I.D.
08-04-2012, 01:37 PM
He's absolutely right.

It's been the big surprise of the current gen, with achievements and online statistics, to find that so few players play their games to the end. It boggles my mind that people pay 30 for something they won't play in full, but there it is.

I'd rather have a satisfying 10 hour game that I want to play three or more times than a 30 hour game that trades too much on repetition.

Dralight
08-04-2012, 01:39 PM
All I can say is.. It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it. ;) Regardless, I think ACIII will be a huge game with just the main story alone. Then when you add in all the side content, and the scale of the game world itself, it will make for a pretty massive game.

HaSoOoN-MHD
08-04-2012, 01:43 PM
He's absolutely right.

It's been the big surprise of the current gen, with achievements and online statistics, to find that so few players play their games to the end. It boggles my mind that people pay 30 for something they won't play in full, but there it is.

I'd rather have a satisfying 10 hour game that I want to play three or more times than a 30 hour game that trades too much on repetition.

Except alot of the time those 10 hour games generally lack any redeeming quality in terms of story. Sometimes long games do aswell, Skyrim.

Johsi32
08-05-2012, 09:12 AM
just wondering, in the interview page it said
Hutchison also explained that the game world of Assassin’s Creed 3 is "1.5 times the size of Rome" in Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood.

But I thought from the previous info, we have the Frontier as 1.5x the Rome,
Both NY and Boston is 80 (75?)% of the Rome,

that doesn't add up quite right,
it they shrink down the size of the map, that will be quite disappointing, not to mention we have Caribbean sea

FirestarLuva
08-05-2012, 12:33 PM
just wondering, in the interview page it said
Hutchison also explained that the game world of Assassin’s Creed 3 is "1.5 times the size of Rome" in Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood.

But I thought from the previous info, we have the Frontier as 1.5x the Rome,
Both NY and Boston is 80 (75?)% of the Rome,

that doesn't add up quite right,
it they shrink down the size of the map, that will be quite disappointing, not to mention we have Caribbean sea

I'm pretty sure it's a mistake. :)