PDA

View Full Version : Next AC game in Scotland???



gillingham22
12-06-2012, 12:11 AM
Apparently the Knights Templars were in Scotland at the time of the Scottish wars of independence after being on the run from the popes forces. Also that they trained Robert Bruce's army before the Battle of Bannockburn and were involved in the battle, just thought it would be a cool idea, especially for me who lives in Scotland. Love all the games and just think the Scottish wars of independence would be a great setting for a future AC title...

By the way when I say next game, I mean a future game

D.I.D.
12-06-2012, 12:30 AM
I'd love to see an AC set in Scotland, but on two conditions:

- 18th-19th century, to include a combination of all the period's trends in urban architecture (neoclassicism, gridiron plans, first tenements) and the survivors of the past
- nobody's going to attempt a Scottish accent unless they were born in the UK

TrueAssassin77
12-06-2012, 12:55 AM
hmm. cool. connor could go there

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
12-06-2012, 04:47 AM
hmm. cool. connor could go there

How about not? I say French Revolution should be the next game, continuing with Connor, but not focused on Connor but more so the Revolution. Contrary to what some think, it wouldn't be retreading the same ground because the Revolution (as in the overthrow itself) was relatively peaceful and without resistance. The majority of the French Revolution was a European WAR, a war that ushers in Napoleon. Connor's ONLY reason for going to France at the time of the French Revolution (right after the American Revolution)? La Fayette's invitation. Connor could even take Stephane with him. And, since we WON'T be following Desmond anymore, and the game most likely an Abstergo product anyway (hacked by Erudito so as to show the truth and not Abstergo's altered tale, like Liberation), we could have multiple protagonists. We could have Connor and we could have a French Assassin, someone who is actually connected to the story and not an outsider. Different environment, different enemy, stays fresh. And it's no longer tied to Connor's being a Native American (already had that in the first game), so the game can focus on the Revolution.

If a game were to occur in Scotland, or the UK period, that could come with the Victorian era (after Connor's long dead). And it'd work as an Assassin's Creed 6 (or an Assassin's Creed 4 if the next two games aren't numbered). But the next two games should both be French Revolution. The next game should be up to Robespierre's death, the third Connor game up to Napoleon's death. The second Connor game would be located only in France, the third Connor game located in several places in Europe and North Africa, including France, Spain, Russia, and Egypt (albeit briefly).

TrueAssassin77
12-06-2012, 04:55 AM
How about not? I say French Revolution should be the next game, continuing with Connor, but not focused on Connor but more so the Revolution. Contrary to what some think, it wouldn't be retreading the same ground because the Revolution (as in the overthrow itself) was relatively peaceful and without resistance. The majority of the French Revolution was a European WAR, a war that ushers in Napoleon. Connor's ONLY reason for going to France at the time of the French Revolution (right after the American Revolution)? La Fayette's invitation. Connor could even take Stephane with him. And, since we WON'T be following Desmond anymore, and the game most likely an Abstergo product anyway (hacked by Erudito so as to show the truth and not Abstergo's altered tale, like Liberation), we could have multiple protagonists. We could have Connor and we could have a French Assassin, someone who is actually connected to the story and not an outsider. Different environment, different enemy, stays fresh. And it's no longer tied to Connor's being a Native American (already had that in the first game), so the game can focus on the Revolution.

If a game were to occur in Scotland, or the UK period, that could come with the Victorian era (after Connor's long dead). And it'd work as an Assassin's Creed 6 (or an Assassin's Creed 4 if the next two games aren't numbered). But the next two games should both be French Revolution. The next game should be up to Robespierre's death, the third Connor game up to Napoleon's death. The second Connor game would be located only in France, the third Connor game located in several places in Europe and North Africa, including France, Spain, Russia, and Egypt (albeit briefly).

bro, i rather connor go to france too... im just trying to be positive towards the OP.

gillingham22
12-06-2012, 04:07 PM
I'm agreeing that the 2 games should be based on Connor, he's my favourite AC character, he's so different and unique. I just think that the Scottish wars of independence would be a good setting for a future AC game as the the knights Templar were in Scotland at the the time.

Goxxi
12-06-2012, 04:42 PM
Also we shouldn't forget about Scotish blue and red masonic lodge ; )

kuled2012
12-06-2012, 05:05 PM
Would be a shame to go to France and not climb the Eiffel Tower since it wasn't built at the time :(

Matknapers
12-06-2012, 05:51 PM
A French Revolution would be far to similar to The American Revolution and other AC games. Yes i realise that in real life they are completely different but in a Gaming case it would be more like a DLC. The same weapons would be used as AC3 and free roaming through the streets of France would be too similar to those in AC2.I can't see anything new being brought to the table. In in all i would just prefer it if Ubisoft scratched Connor all together. I just found him so irratating and tedious and cannot be compared to the likes of Ezio.

I think a WW1 game would be amazing. So many possiblites. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the tension between countries and the variety of places and istuations you can go and be in. It would be great.

Lightpex
12-06-2012, 06:06 PM
Connor isn't going anywhere. He was a one-time character. He isn't needed beyond AC3.
The UK or Scotland would be great places for an AC title though!

SaintPerkele
12-06-2012, 06:13 PM
Would be a shame to go to France and not climb the Eiffel Tower since it wasn't built at the time :(
Past storyline French Revolution, present story line climbing the Eiffel Tower in 2013 and having an epic boss battle at its top, why not :rolleyes:
Sure we'd miss all the Haussmann architecture in past Paris, but we would get some medieval architecture instead (which, due to its narrow streets, is more fitting for an AC game anyway) and the city would still be recognizable.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
12-06-2012, 09:03 PM
A French Revolution would be far to similar to The American Revolution and other AC games. Yes i realise that in real life they are completely different but in a Gaming case it would be more like a DLC. The same weapons would be used as AC3 and free roaming through the streets of France would be too similar to those in AC2.I can't see anything new being brought to the table. In in all i would just prefer it if Ubisoft scratched Connor all together. I just found him so irratating and tedious and cannot be compared to the likes of Ezio.

I think a WW1 game would be amazing. So many possiblites. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the tension between countries and the variety of places and istuations you can go and be in. It would be great.

No, it wouldn't be like the American Revolution. Not at all. If in real life they are completely different, then why would you think they would be anything other than different in a game? WW1 wouldn't work. Too modern IMO. By the way, the STORY and LOCATION would be new, as well as the characters. How much do you actually know about the French Revolution? Because there's no way you can say that it'd be similar to the American Revolution if you knew what all happened during the French Revolution.

gillingham22
12-06-2012, 10:10 PM
In case you didn't realise, Connor is not ezio, Connor is completely different and he suited the theme of the game, the revolution was a more grittier time that ezio a time period, so he should be more like ezio as each assassin is different!

Kyphosian
12-06-2012, 10:17 PM
Let's not forgot the possibility of playing as/with a William Wallace character! Great idea for a future AC title! :D

DeanOMiite
12-06-2012, 11:07 PM
Not to be a Debbie Downer but do we even know if there's going to BE another AC game?

Matknapers
12-06-2012, 11:42 PM
No, it wouldn't be like the American Revolution. Not at all. If in real life they are completely different, then why would you think they would be anything other than different in a game? WW1 wouldn't work. Too modern IMO. By the way, the STORY and LOCATION would be new, as well as the characters. How much do you actually know about the French Revolution? Because there's no way you can say that it'd be similar to the American Revolution if you knew what all happened during the French Revolution.
I know in real life they are completely different and i realise that. But the point im trying to make is, yeh great, we have a whole new storyline, brand new location but the GAMEPLAY is going to be to similar. What new weapons are we going to have? Muskets?..already done..Cannons?..Already done, I just wouldnt enjoy that, we need more variety on these games.And how can you say WW1 is too modern when it happened 100 years ago? Bombing, Air battles, War scenes, Naval Battle ship conflict, Sniper Assassinations the list goes on and on

CalgaryJay
12-07-2012, 01:19 AM
I would be 100% on board with a game set in the times of the Scottish wars of independence. FREEEEDOMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually on a side note, I read a book about the real William Wallce. If you love Braveheart, do yourself a solid and don't read the book. Was so disappointing how much of that movie is incorrect, right down to them not even actually wearing kilts. It was to the point where I would've rather remained blissfully ignorant on the subject. Maybe I'm just a Templar at heart..

Elite_scam
12-07-2012, 01:22 AM
Meh they won't do it, doesn't appeal to the masses. ;)

Lol.

raytrek79
12-07-2012, 05:45 AM
I'd love to have a Robert the Bruce game. Another idea that I have suggested, as I have suggested Bob the Bruce before, is King Canute. But as AC started back in 1190, then to Renaisance, then to 1770s it seems they are pushing for more tech rather than going back to where they cant train us in using and defending against guns and moderner weapons. They have done a comic on Russia, Tsar Nocolas, Rasputin, Anastasia, Lenin, Stalin. I would like for them to gamify that comic.

CalgaryJay
12-07-2012, 07:32 AM
One of my concerns (aside from more guns) with staying this recent, especially around major events like the US/French/Russian Revolution/World Wars etc, where so much day-to-day details is documented by this period, is Ubi getting stuck around telling all the incidents too much. For example, like the tea party mission, and those directing cannonfire missions during battles, etc. Don't get me wrong, I loved all that stuff in the game (well maybe not tea party), it was an interesting direction. It's just that I wouldn't want it to be in every AC game.

I didn't notice it at first, but I now kinda see what some were complaining about when they say at times the story didn't feel as "assassin-y" as previous ones, and I think its because they had to tell the stories of all the events like that. It was really cool, but its not the way the AC brand's been, and seemed more action movie'ish. IMO as long as they stay this recent, they'll keep having to go this route, pulling it away from its stealthy, assassins' roots.

That's whats nice about being so much further back in time. You can still place it in a setting around historic events, but you have more freedom to kind of do your own thing with it, as long as you use the proper historical people involved and the basic flow of where things went. Plus, this helps devs get away from those "single path" feeling missions that some complained about.

Personally I'd love to see them go back to medieval times, potentially even revisit the Holy Land, now that the gameplay has vastly improved since AC1. IMO, that time period is the coolest, and most natural setting for an assassin.

Legendz54
12-07-2012, 07:53 AM
Not to be a Debbie Downer but do we even know if there's going to BE another AC game?


110% yes, the developers even said it themselves.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
12-07-2012, 06:33 PM
I know in real life they are completely different and i realise that. But the point im trying to make is, yeh great, we have a whole new storyline, brand new location but the GAMEPLAY is going to be to similar. What new weapons are we going to have? Muskets?..already done..Cannons?..Already done, I just wouldnt enjoy that, we need more variety on these games.And how can you say WW1 is too modern when it happened 100 years ago? Bombing, Air battles, War scenes, Naval Battle ship conflict, Sniper Assassinations the list goes on and on

Why do you always need new weapons? WW1 is too modern for Assassin's Creed. The Assassin needs freedom. There's no freedom of movement for the Assassin in modern warfare (which really does include both World Wars up to now). An AC Assassin as a sniper? It's just not like the Assassins that have been portrayed in AC, and basically would just be a Medal of Honor with an Assassin's Creed backstory (and by Medal of Honor I mean the original WW2 games with Jimmy Patterson being behind-the-lines OSS officer). It'd be cool, but to do so would require a major retcon of the modern story (which I'm all for).

Basically, here's what I think Ubisoft should do. Get a new writer, one who can creatively retcon the modern story (sorry, it's lame, and full of pansies), or I guess the current writer could be okay with retconning his own stuff. For the historical stuff, I think Ubisoft should work up to the modern period. It would take like a couple of games (ok, four games): 2 French Revolution games (to develop Connor's character and to dive into an ideal time frame for the Assassin-Templar conflict), 1 Victorian Era game, and then your WW1 game. These games would also give Ubisoft time to actually better their shooting mechanics; honestly the shooting gameplay NEEDS to be more like a cover shooter. An Assassin, when facing many rounds, WOULD use cover, and definitely once automatic rifles are developed. They already have a basic cover mechanic - hiding at the corners of walls and whistling for guards to come.

Historically we need to see the development of the Assassins and Templars. One thing I hated about Ezio's games is that they went ahead and talked about the modern times and the Templars in modern times. We should have never known anything about the modern Templars outside of Abstergo. We also need to see the decline of the American Assassins (and Templars, really. Kinda see it already with Achilles lol). We already see a sort of fracturing in the Templar Order. You see this in the 2 traitors to the Templar Order in AC3, and based off the book Forsaken, we see Templars killing Templars. We also see that the Templar Order is separated by regional Rites that are somewhat autonomous and don't always agree. You could start to see this in the French Revolution games as we did in AC3.

Instead of focusing heavily on TWCB, we should go back to AC1's approach: Focusing heavily on the Assassin-Templar conflict, with the TWCB storyline in the background. As far as variety goes, the majority of the variety should come with the story. As far as the guns, they should just make that part more third person shooter like (they'd especially need to do that if they were to ever include sniper missions). By working our way up to WW1, we could show the progression of military technology and how the Assassin don't have and the Templars have access to this technology. We could see and experience the change in Templar and Assassin tactics, not merely be TOLD how they changed.

For the modern retcon I propose, it's really not that drastic. Simply, have Abstergo be the American Rite of the Templar Order, William Miles and his enclave one branch of Assassins. That way, you have Assassins and Templars still being what they are, focused on their conflict, and not on pharmaceuticals and scifi technology. Both would still primarily be engaged in a very military conflict, with the Templars still having their military and financial (banking) arms, the Assassins still doing what they do best - Assassinations. In this way you don't have Abstergo and William Miles' clan, both pitiful excuses for Templars and Assassins, being the ONLY Templars and Assassins in the world.

Oh, and one major thing that would make ANY new game different and a variety would be to scrap the stupid game that is Assassin's Creed Multiplayer, and make a real multiplayer mode that is both made ON the AnvilNext engine AND that plays JUST LIKE SP. As in, the free-roaming, the sword-fighting, the assassinating, the horseback riding, different outfits, Assassins vs Templars, etc. This current multiplayer that they have, that can be the basis of an Assassin's Creed Free to Play game, kinda like Ghost Recon Online. Let's actually have a multiplayer that reflects the single player.

lothario-da-be
12-07-2012, 06:50 PM
I hope next game is 3 sequences with Connor meeting a wife having kids,and then 10 sequences with his son, his training and then he goes to Scotland,England, France,South America...