PDA

View Full Version : There was no Assassin's Creed planned for 2011?



ACfan443
08-15-2012, 03:03 AM
I was on twitter looking through tweets with the 'Assassin's Creed' keyword (as you do) and came across a guy (or girl) who tweeted escoblades an article from 2010.

I read the article and it's basically an Assassin's Creed producer saying that there "won't be an Asssassin's Creed in 2011" and that Brotherhood is the "end of Ezio's story." He also goes onto say that they have the whole story planned and know exactly where they're going next.

This confused me because if they weren't going make Revelations, how were they going to continue the story of Desmond ending up in a coma after killing Lucy? They couldn't have done that in AC3 because Alex Hutchinson said in an interview that "AC3 picks up exactly where revelations ended, with Desmond waking up from the coma and arriving in the present day location."

This also suggests to me that they might have drastically altered the storyline midway through brotherhood's production, and only then decided that Lucy was a templar. These are just my assumptions though.

You might have already seen it, but here's the article*http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/no-assassins-creed-in-2011

Assassin_M
08-15-2012, 03:14 AM
Plans Changed...

Revelaitions started as a 3DS game but got too huge and was turned into a main game..

The main plot was in stone, but the way they went about it probably wasnt..

RatonhnhakeFan
08-15-2012, 03:48 AM
Just like the series was suppoused to be a trilogy, not quadriology or pentalogy. The answer is simple - Ubisoft wanted more annual cash. The article you posted explains it perfectly:
We have some business people that will eventually put a date and say, 'This needs to come out'.

ACfan443
08-15-2012, 04:21 AM
Just like the series was suppoused to be a trilogy, not quadriology or pentalogy. The answer is simple - Ubisoft wanted more annual cash. The article you posted explains it perfectly:

I guess that's one reason, but I'm talking about a story perspective, they said they had everything planned and that ezio's story was going to end in brotherhood, but it couldn't have been planned since they decided to shove in a whole new game, which is something the producer wasn't even aware of. It seems like there was a lot of 'make it up as you go along' with brotherhood and revelations

Assassin_M
08-15-2012, 04:58 AM
It has nothing to do with the story. Revelations` story was planned, maybe not since the beginning, but the base was there. This whole thing is just a Business decision.

LoyalACFan
08-15-2012, 05:53 AM
I guess that's one reason, but I'm talking about a story perspective, they said they had everything planned and that ezio's story was going to end in brotherhood, but it couldn't have been planned since they decided to shove in a whole new game, which is something the producer wasn't even aware of. It seems like there was a lot of 'make it up as you go along' with brotherhood and revelations

They could have easily left out Revelations and the overall story would have been fine. Finishing Ezio's story was kind of inconsequential to Desmond's mission. I mean really, what do we know now after Revelations that we didn't know after Brotherhood? In Brotherhood, he was en route to the Grand Temple. At the end of Revelations... he got there? They could have had Desmond wake up in the first cutscene of AC3, and it would have been fine. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a Revelations hater, since I love Ezio. But still, it wasn't needed for Desmond.

kriegerdesgottes
08-15-2012, 06:58 AM
Phillipe Bergeron said in an Australian interview after Brotherhood that they were planning on making a giant piece of dlc for Brotherhood to be the Assassin's product for 2011 but I guess they just decided instead to make the 3DS game into a full game instead so they could make more money off of it and that's how we got the abomination that is now Revelations.

twenty_glyphs
08-15-2012, 07:14 AM
I think Alex Amancio's LinkedIn profile said he started as Creative Director at Ubisoft in July of 2010, so it wouldn't surprise me if that's when Revelations started ramping up, just as Brotherhood was being finished. It's pretty obvious that they didn't plan on Revelations beforehand because the present day story accomplishes almost nothing. It's also why Ezio's story feels sort of contrived and tacked on (though I still enjoyed it), since they didn't lay any groundwork for it ahead of time. It wouldn't surprise me if the DLC they said they had planned for fall of 2011 was going to involve Desmond ending up at the Grand Temple, pretty much just encompassing all of the story that took place in the modern day. Even if that wasn't the case, the only changes AC3 would have likely required were the opening 2012 segments.

deskp
08-15-2012, 07:22 AM
revelations was 100% better than no ac game in 2011.

kriegerdesgottes
08-15-2012, 08:17 AM
revelations was 100% better than no ac game in 2011.

I disagree

ACfan443
08-15-2012, 09:30 AM
I never would have thought that revlations was once a 3ds game, So it seems Desmond really wasn't destined to go into a coma, but then they just decided to change that after July to fit in with revelations? Two questions then: how would have brotherhood really ended, would Lucy still have been killed (they could've come to get the apple and then quickly made a getaway like they did in AC2, then arrived at the scene of AC3)? And how would the transition work from brotherhood to AC3 (other than the one I described)?

EDIT: found an article http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/14/assassins-creed-lost-legacys-concept-found-in-revelations/?p=3&icid=art_next it explains it a bit

pacmanate
08-15-2012, 09:35 AM
Okay well Revelations sucked because it was supposed to be a 3DS game, and then got to big for that so it went on consoles. Only problem is that it was too SMALL for consoles.
Brotherhood included Rome and it was speculated that Rome was actually supposed to be a playable city in AC2 but the developers ran out of time.

GLHS
08-15-2012, 10:10 AM
No, they didn't run out of time. Or they didn't ONLY run out of time, anyway. With making Rome the end setting for AC2, they realized it's potential to be a full playable city and instead of creating DLC for AC2 with it, they decided to make a whole game out of it, with new and expanding features off of AC2 (city rebuilding, fast travel tunnels, etc.)Brotherhood's and Revelation's story was supposed to be composed together in one whole DLC expansion for AC2, but they realized there was more potential and profit to be had from spitting them up and making them stand alone games. Then, there was also the introduction of multiplayer, which wouldn't have fit with a simple expansion. Plus, they still had to do sequences 12 and 13 for DLC. And thus, Brotherhood was born. And Revelations story was then moved to a DLC for Brotherhood, then it became to big so it was moved to a 3DS game. Then it became too big again, and they felt they could do more with it on console, and so they created Revelations and added new Multiplayer as well. B!tch all you guys want, but if we hadn't had annual releases and something new to do within those two years, everybody would be pissed. And the in game dates wouldn't correlate with real world dates like we're having now. The way things were done was how they were meant to be done, and the best for everybody. No matter your stance on AC:R, what ended up happening with the franchises' release schedule was the best way and the way it was meant to be.

ACfan443
08-15-2012, 10:21 AM
Bunch of DLC turned video games? Not sure I like that...if they had kept to the PROPER trilogy they planned, the AC franchise would have a lot more buzz and excitement, and the story wouldn't feel so rushed, but I'm glad they're spending time on AC3

Locopells
08-15-2012, 10:44 AM
Only Ezio visiting Masyaf was supposed to be the 3DS game (Assassin's Creed: Lost Legacy). The rest was new.

Personally, I'm glad they made ACR, since I don't own a 3DS.

I'm guessing that if ACB was supposed to be then end, then they would have had Desmond setting off to the US after the DaVD. But since they had ACR on the cards by then, they put him into the coma to put the 2012 storyline on hold.

ACfan443
08-15-2012, 12:04 PM
I'm gonna stick by this (until someone proves me wrong) Lucy wasn't *planned to be a templar or to be killed, I think they only did that to make the whole coma story work and to make brotherhood flow easily into revelations. It probably explains why she didn't know the passcode to break out of Abstergo in AC2 - she wasn't planned to be a traitor back then.

itsamea-mario
08-15-2012, 01:10 PM
Well, Revelations didn't really progress Desmond's story much, he spent the vast majority of it asleep and nothing of any real consequence happened during that time.

Krayus Korianis
08-15-2012, 01:42 PM
I'm gonna stick by this (until someone proves me wrong) Lucy wasn't *planned to be a templar or to be killed, I think they only did that to make the whole coma story work and to make brotherhood flow easily into revelations. It probably explains why she didn't know the passcode to break out of Abstergo in AC2 - she wasn't planned to be a traitor back then.

1. AC:R was planned as a 3DS game, but ended up more than a 3DS game.
2. Her story was made from the very start. There isn't anything in your "theory" that supports she wasn't.
3. She knew the passcode, but Vidic changed it to make it more believable to Desmond that Lucy was trying to help him.
4. WHY THE HELL do you think she spent a lot of time outside of the Sanctuary? If she didn't want them found, she would have stayed inside.

GLHS
08-15-2012, 01:54 PM
Yeah, it's been discussed before that her story was planned from early on. It's been confirmed, so the theory doesn't do much. It's stupid anyway. They aren't a bunch of amateurs throwing things together as they go along. The modern day story has been mapped out from the beginning.

SteelCity999
08-15-2012, 02:11 PM
No, they didn't run out of time. Or they didn't ONLY run out of time, anyway. With making Rome the end setting for AC2, they realized it's potential to be a full playable city and instead of creating DLC for AC2 with it, they decided to make a whole game out of it, with new and expanding features off of AC2 (city rebuilding, fast travel tunnels, etc.)Brotherhood's and Revelation's story was supposed to be composed together in one whole DLC expansion for AC2, but they realized there was more potential and profit to be had from spitting them up and making them stand alone games. Then, there was also the introduction of multiplayer, which wouldn't have fit with a simple expansion. Plus, they still had to do sequences 12 and 13 for DLC. And thus, Brotherhood was born. And Revelations story was then moved to a DLC for Brotherhood, then it became to big so it was moved to a 3DS game. Then it became too big again, and they felt they could do more with it on console, and so they created Revelations and added new Multiplayer as well. B!tch all you guys want, but if we hadn't had annual releases and something new to do within those two years, everybody would be pissed. And the in game dates wouldn't correlate with real world dates like we're having now. The way things were done was how they were meant to be done, and the best for everybody. No matter your stance on AC:R, what ended up happening with the franchises' release schedule was the best way and the way it was meant to be.

Brotherhood was started well before AC2 was released. I think MP was being worked on during AC2 as well but it wasn't "the right time" for it to be introduced according to an interview I saw. It's pretty obvious that Brotherhood was planned far ahead and Revelations was not. Brotherhood had more depth to it by far, although they could've fleshed out Cesare better and made him a better villan. I think Patrice said that they had originally planned to put Rome in AC2 as a full city but the game go too big for its own good.

LoyalACFan
08-15-2012, 02:24 PM
Yeah, it's been discussed before that her story was planned from early on. It's been confirmed, so the theory doesn't do much. It's stupid anyway. They aren't a bunch of amateurs throwing things together as they go along. The modern day story has been mapped out from the beginning.

I think you're mostly right, but you can't deny there have been unplanned twists and turns since AC1. Assassin's Creed was intended as a trilogy: Desmond's entire story was supposed to fit into AC1, 2, and 3. Whether they planned to just put a LOT of Desmond content in AC3 (including the return to the Sanctuary, finding the Apple, etc), or if they just wrote in the Lucy-traitor plot while making Brotherhood, I think it's safe to say the present state of the franchise is not quite what they intended while first planning it.

Steww-
08-15-2012, 03:16 PM
And this is probably the reason why Revelations lacked many revelations.
They have them planned for AC3.

(That and them reducing TLA to DLC.)

RatonhnhakeFan
08-15-2012, 03:29 PM
Yeah, it's been discussed before that her story was planned from early on. It's been confirmed, so the theory doesn't do much. It's stupid anyway. They aren't a bunch of amateurs throwing things together as they go along. The modern day story has been mapped out from the beginning.But it was mapped on 3 games, not 5 so yes, they were throwing things together as they were going to stretch the story

ACfan443
08-15-2012, 03:52 PM
But it was mapped on 3 games, not 5 so yes, they were throwing things together as they were going to stretch the story

Exactly! I really don't think she was originally planned to be a templar, and there's no evidence to say that vidic changed the passcode to make it more 'believable'. Besides that, yes, it was planned to be a trilogy, so they did add stuff as they went along with brotherhood and revelations, though I do agree there was some structure involved