PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed turning in to Call of Duty?



IceHot100
02-27-2013, 07:55 PM
So the news about the new AC, pretty much spread everywhere. As we all know, it's coming in late 2013. When did AC3 come out again? Oct 2012...That's exactly one year! and they are releasing another one now? What is is this Ubisoft? I bet, they'll come up with something along these lines: We're developing AC4 since AC2 so it's not just one year development time. I'm not saying they should make the best AC in the world for, no matter how big the budget. What I'm saying is that they should atleast take a freaking break from making annual releases. I just noticed this is happening since Assassin's Creed 2.

I'm afraid this franchise is slowly turning into a cash cow. Considering how AC3 was, I'll need to rethink about buying the next title.

pirate1802
02-27-2013, 07:59 PM
Assassins Creed turning into Call of Duty.. you're noticing this just now?

pacmanate
02-27-2013, 08:01 PM
Of course it is becoming CoD. Because there is money in it. Tbh I would like a break from annual release to give them more time and to allow myself to get more hyped.

TheArcaneEagle
02-27-2013, 08:06 PM
Seriously Ubisoft need to slow down and put as much effort into their games instead of rushing them. AC3 felt a bit rushed hence all the glitches and stuff, I was massively disappointed and I expected more from my favourite franchise but AC3 felt unfinished and I wager they just wanted to release it on time.

On the topic of the franchise turning into a cash cow, I completely agree with you in some sense. The Multiplayer includes Erudito tickets (microtranscations like most games do currently) and was I the only one who felt that the ToKW: The Infamy was a bit too overpriced? I mean 8 or $9.99 for 5 missions + 1 New Ability + 2 New Weapons? It should have been at least 5 or $7.50 then it would have made more sense. But now another 2 episodes are coming our way. Don't get me wrong I loved the ToWK but to me, it felt too expensive for something that didn't include enough content.

Sad to say, I agree with you completely and I too with have to look into this new AC before I start placing some orders. :nonchalance:

NAVID4ASSASSIN
02-27-2013, 10:37 PM
ur answer is so simple. if u dont like it then dont buy it. why should ubisoft take a break in development? u guys take a break and dont buy ac.

Turul.
02-27-2013, 10:54 PM
it's like call of duty,

except every game has been good. has a long single player campaign, has a great story and characters, and actually tries to do new things and
evolve the franchise.

and no these games were not made in a year. that would be completely stupid. you know what was made in a year? alien colonial marines, the devs said it themselves.

if you don't want to buy the games every year then don't.

I've been a hardcore fan since launch and I'd be majorly disappointed if there wasn't a AC game every year. it's something i look forward to.

Will_Lucky
02-27-2013, 10:57 PM
Hey we've known about this since Revelations. Honestly as long as great experiences are delivered year on year I'll keep on buying alongside the Call of Duty title as I have done every year since 2009.

twenty_glyphs
02-27-2013, 11:06 PM
ur answer is so simple. if u dont like it then dont buy it. why should ubisoft take a break in development? u guys take a break and dont buy ac.

Will do. The Tyranny of King Washington is the first AC singleplayer DLC I won't be getting. This year's game will likely be the first game in the series I don't purchase unless the reviews and fan feedback blow me away, which I'm not expecting. I'm also done buying any accessories like comic books and novels, and caring about any side projects like Project Legacy (which had so much promise) and that stupid-looking Utopia game that's mysteriously behind schedule.

You're right that the best way to affect change is to stop buying Ubisoft's products. At the same time, many of us want to like the series and want to like the games enough to buy them, but we don't. So the best way to affect the change we want is to not buy and let Ubisoft know why we're not buying. Sorry if that annoys you, but we're upset that a franchise that used to be our favorite is declining in quality -- in our opinion.

The reason we're complaining about yearly releases is not because we don't want anyone to have an AC game this year. It's because it's becoming pretty apparent that the production cycle they're using for these games is not encouraging good, solid iterative development that allows the team to build a quality product and implement fan feedback in a meaningful way. It's simply encouraging more and more AC games that are assembled by huge teams working all over the world. That's not exactly a recipe for the best product possible. It's great for building physical products, but not so good for crafting creative experiences.

For example, there's currently 174 pages of feedback on AC3 at the top of this forum, but how much of that do you think can realistically impact this year's AC game? If this year's game has been in development since before AC3 released and was done by a team working in parallel, many decisions were likely already made and it may be too late to incorporate that fan feedback into this year's game. I certainly know there was a ton of Revelations feedback that obviously didn't make its way into AC3. While not all feedback can or should make its way into the next game, if they took some time to stop, breathe, and reassess the franchise between releases they would likely be able to respond to feedback in a better way. I don't think AC2 would have improved so much from AC1 if it had been developed in parallel with the first game and didn't have the time to assess people's feedback on the first game and design a better experience from day one.

Gi1t
02-27-2013, 11:31 PM
Yeah, it's been that way ever since they decided to make Brotherhood. That was when they first said they wanted to start the annual release thing. XD


I've been a hardcore fan since launch and I'd be majorly disappointed if there wasn't a AC game every year. it's something i look forward to.

Oh, yeah, what a heart-rending story that would be. -__- Having to wait more than a year for the next game.

Not every series is lucky enough to have multiple departments using all their resources to make sure a new game is ready every single year. They could be putting that effort into a more diverse selection of games, but they don't. (There are a lot of games out there that deserved sequels that may NEVER get them. Getting annual relseases is exceptional to say the least.)


ur answer is so simple. if u dont like it then dont buy it. why should ubisoft take a break in development? u guys take a break and dont buy ac.

Been doing that ever since I played Brotherhood. -__- It's still sucking up a lot of their resources to make other games with and hurting the quality of their finished products. A lot of people aren't happy with the quality of the games and would prefer to wait a little longer for something more thought-out and polished.

Wolf-kitten
02-27-2013, 11:32 PM
The reason we're complaining about yearly releases is not because we don't want anyone to have an AC game this year. It's because it's becoming pretty apparent that the production cycle they're using for these games is not encouraging good, solid iterative development that allows the team to build a quality product and implement fan feedback in a meaningful way. It's simply encouraging more and more AC games that are assembled by huge teams working all over the world. That's not exactly a recipe for the best product possible. It's great for building physical products, but not so good for crafting creative experiences.

For example, there's currently 174 pages of feedback on AC3 at the top of this forum, but how much of that do you think can realistically impact this year's AC game? If this year's game has been in development since before AC3 released and was done by a team working in parallel, many decisions were likely already made and it may be too late to incorporate that fan feedback into this year's game. I certainly know there was a ton of Revelations feedback that obviously didn't make its way into AC3. While not all feedback can or should make its way into the next game, if they took some time to stop, breathe, and reassess the franchise between releases they would likely be able to respond to feedback in a better way. I don't think AC2 would have improved so much from AC1 if it had been developed in parallel with the first game and didn't have the time to assess people's feedback on the first game and design a better experience from day one.

Agreed 100% !
This is why I believe all the "Give Connor another game" topics won't have any if little impact. I'm a Connor fan, don't get me wrong. But thsi "new game"(if it even is a game, I still have my doubts. It could be a comicbook too) can obviously NOT have been produced by fan feedback and the speculation that it's Hayhtam's father because Haytham was well received makes little sense too. No wa Ubisoft could've made a decision to support a big budget project on the feedback from a period of less than 3 months or so.

the_atm
02-28-2013, 12:05 AM
lol I love how people look at yearly releases and say atomaticly "COD!!!!" I'm pretty sure there are way more games that are yearly released... err that didn't make sense but you understand than COD. and If you look at the quality of AC3 compared to Revelations, and revelations to Brotherhood to II it's not that bad, I'm sure they've been working on 4 since Revelations.

As long as the quality doesn't drop it's all good. and hey, you guys keep buying the games yearly so you're kinda to blaim :D

Ryd3rUnleashed
02-28-2013, 12:09 AM
To be honest I am not going to buy AC4! I think it should've ended after Ac3

dxsxhxcx
02-28-2013, 12:29 AM
lol I love how people look at yearly releases and say atomaticly "COD!!!!" I'm pretty sure there are way more games that are yearly released... err that didn't make sense but you understand than COD. and If you look at the quality of AC3 compared to Revelations, and revelations to Brotherhood to II it's not that bad, I'm sure they've been working on 4 since Revelations.

As long as the quality doesn't drop it's all good. and hey, you guys keep buying the games yearly so you're kinda to blaim :D

IMO when someone say something "is not that bad" that means this something "is not that good" either, which IMO means that there was a drop in quality...

Legendz54
02-28-2013, 12:31 AM
Ac is a great franchise...stop trying to give it a COD reputation.

MadJC1986
02-28-2013, 12:39 AM
It is just like Alex Hutchinson said. Why on earth shouldn't I buy the Assassins Creed Games, aslong they keep delivering a great experience.
If the quality doesn't suffer, I don't see any problem.
Apart from that, AC Games have huge developping teams. AC3 for example had 3 teams for Naval, Singleplayer and Multiplayer.
And the developping time is longer than a year. Developpment of AC3 startet after AC2 and not after ACR.

shobhit7777777
02-28-2013, 12:42 AM
Will do. The Tyranny of King Washington is the first AC singleplayer DLC I won't be getting. This year's game will likely be the first game in the series I don't purchase unless the reviews and fan feedback blow me away, which I'm not expecting. I'm also done buying any accessories like comic books and novels, and caring about any side projects like Project Legacy (which had so much promise) and that stupid-looking Utopia game that's mysteriously behind schedule.

You're right that the best way to affect change is to stop buying Ubisoft's product.


This

I'll be extremely wary of AC this time around.

TheHumanTowel
02-28-2013, 12:44 AM
People keep saying it's alright if the quality doesn't suffer. But imo the quality is suffering, especially in regards to the story. Annualising the franchise was the worst thing that could've happened to the overarching story.

ProletariatPleb
02-28-2013, 12:46 AM
After AC3 I think it is turning into CoD. AC was about having a great story for me. AC:B had a horrible story, no moral ambiguity, altho some nice gameplay additions/changes. Revelations had a solid story(except the parachute ending) but by that time the game felt stale because AC2/ACB had the exact same. I thought alright they were just timepass titles, AC3 should be good but that didn't happen, I didn't like the story in AC3 one bit and it's even further away from what Assassin's Creed is, or rather was about.

Gi1t
02-28-2013, 01:35 AM
People keep saying it's alright if the quality doesn't suffer. But imo the quality is suffering, especially in regards to the story. Annualising the franchise was the worst thing that could've happened to the overarching story.

Exactly, but people just keep ignoring all the posts saying the quality ISN'T being maintained. That's the whole point.

But as usual, people just read what they want to see, not what's actually being said. -__-

AllThatJuice
02-28-2013, 01:38 AM
Every new AC introduces new gameplay mechanics, characters and settings. So no. Its not like COD.

Assassin_M
02-28-2013, 02:48 AM
You just noticed that now ?

Will_Lucky
02-28-2013, 03:04 AM
Every new AC introduces new gameplay mechanics, characters and settings. So no. Its not like COD.

Nice insult, shame is so does COD.

Black Ops 1 introduced the Vietnam Era, a new set of main characters still tied into the original universe and the multiplayer had new additions such as COD Bucks and expanded Zombie Content.
Black Ops 2 introduced the 2025 era, introduced a new generation of main characters, tied back into the original universe, expanded Multiplayer with new league options, streaming, Pick 10 Class and introduced a Zombie campaign.

Face it, both games go through a similar Dev Cycle, both have new additions, timeframes, mechanics ect.

Legendz54
02-28-2013, 04:07 AM
Nice insult, shame is so does COD.

Black Ops 1 introduced the Vietnam Era, a new set of main characters still tied into the original universe and the multiplayer had new additions such as COD Bucks and expanded Zombie Content.
Black Ops 2 introduced the 2025 era, introduced a new generation of main characters, tied back into the original universe, expanded Multiplayer with new league options, streaming, Pick 10 Class and introduced a Zombie campaign.

Face it, both games go through a similar Dev Cycle, both have new additions, timeframes, mechanics ect.

Ah but the difference is

COD= Childrens Online Daycare moneymaker.

Assassins creed = Is a game that asks and challenges you if what you believe is really true... It has appealing story and caters to its fans with unique and fun gameplay.

Gi1t
02-28-2013, 04:28 AM
Ah but the difference is

COD= Childrens Online Daycare moneymaker.

Assassins creed = Is a game that asks and challenges you if what you believe is really true... It has appealing story and caters to its fans with unique and fun gameplay.

That's really more about the THEME of the game though. More about what it IS.

I don't think many people here would disagree that Assassin's Creed is more interesting than Call of Duty (it IS the AC forums after all. :D) And I think it's reasonable ot say that AC has probably done more to advance their project from game to game.

The concern is really more about where the series is GOING than what it IS. It's not as bad as COD now, but people are concerned that that's what it's headed for. I think there will always be some very good people working on making it a masterpiece, but the corporate decisions the company has been making at the executive level are making them increasingly unpopular and are likely to hold the game back more and more if they don't start allowing it a little room for self-definition every now and then.

dxsxhxcx
02-28-2013, 04:34 AM
Ah but the difference is

COD= Childrens Online Daycare moneymaker.

Assassins creed = Is a game that asks and challenges you if what you believe is really true... It has appealing story and caters to its fans with unique and fun gameplay.

I'm sorry but the only doubts AC raised were the unanswered questions they left open at the end of AC3, story and gameplay are questionable reasons because some people might have different opinions than others in this matter..

Assassin_M
02-28-2013, 04:37 AM
That's really more about the THEME of the game though. More about what it IS.

I don't think many people here would disagree that Assassin's Creed is more interesting than Call of Duty (it IS the AC forums after all. :D) And I think it's reasonable ot say that AC has probably done more to advance their project from game to game.

The concern is really more about where the series is GOING than what it IS. It's not as bad as COD now, but people are concerned that that's what it's headed for. I think there will always be some very good people working on making it a masterpiece, but the corporate decisions the company has been making at the executive level are making them increasingly unpopular and are likely to hold the game back more and more if they don't start allowing it a little room for self-definition every now and then.
What they`re doing now will only bring them short-term profit...

I mean, they have Watch Dogs coming and Farcry 3 sold great....Why are they insisting on releasing more AC games yearly ? Like, Hell...I want to buy YOUR OTHER GAMES TOO DAMM IT !! I`m not a bloody millionaire...

Legendz54
02-28-2013, 04:58 AM
That's really more about the THEME of the game though. More about what it IS.

I don't think many people here would disagree that Assassin's Creed is more interesting than Call of Duty (it IS the AC forums after all. :D) And I think it's reasonable ot say that AC has probably done more to advance their project from game to game.

The concern is really more about where the series is GOING than what it IS. It's not as bad as COD now, but people are concerned that that's what it's headed for. I think there will always be some very good people working on making it a masterpiece, but the corporate decisions the company has been making at the executive level are making them increasingly unpopular and are likely to hold the game back more and more if they don't start allowing it a little room for self-definition every now and then.


My opinion is that yearly releases dont concern me as long as time, effort and thought have been put into the game. I can see where all the concern is coming from, but CODS unpopularity with yearly releases is now affecting other innocent games.

rileypoole1234
02-28-2013, 05:06 AM
I didn't know AC is an FPS now

ProletariatPleb
02-28-2013, 05:08 AM
I didn't know AC is an FPS now
Desmond's memories/TLA >_>

Jokes aside, I'm sure you understand what is meant here.

pirate1802
02-28-2013, 06:11 AM
Nice insult, shame is so does COD.

Black Ops 1 introduced the Vietnam Era, a new set of main characters still tied into the original universe and the multiplayer had new additions such as COD Bucks and expanded Zombie Content.
Black Ops 2 introduced the 2025 era, introduced a new generation of main characters, tied back into the original universe, expanded Multiplayer with new league options, streaming, Pick 10 Class and introduced a Zombie campaign.

Face it, both games go through a similar Dev Cycle, both have new additions, timeframes, mechanics ect.

Not that I disagree with what is being said in this thread but the critical difference between what you said about CoD and AC is, CoD is primarily an MP game. All the changes in era, story and settings mean jack squat to the majority of the CoD playerbase. They only care about the MP improvements. Exactly the opposite is the case with AC. I assume its majority playerbase is here for the SP. So a fairer comparison would be comparing MP improvements of CoD to SP improvements of AC.

Regarding AC3, I find the problem actually isn't a lack of dev time but rather a lack of planning. They tried to do too much, tried too hard to make AC3 the best AC and as a result, misstepped at some places. Compared to this, ACB and ACR felt much compact and coherent experiences, because they had lower goals but as a result felt CoD-ish, that is not enough improvements, especially Revs. I hope the next AC strikes a balance between the two.

Will_Lucky
02-28-2013, 06:24 AM
Ah but the difference is

COD= Childrens Online Daycare moneymaker.


Going off the general age thread we had a couple of weeks back a lot of kids actually buy Assassins Creed as well :D.


Not that I disagree with what is being said in this thread but the critical difference between what you said about CoD and AC is, CoD is primarily an MP game. All the changes in era, story and settings mean jack squat to the majority of the CoD playerbase. They only care about the MP improvements. Exactly the opposite is the case with AC. I assume its majority playerbase is here for the SP. So a fairer comparison would be comparing MP improvements of CoD to SP improvements of AC.


No doubt agreed. But the situation is the SP side and MP side of the two are increasingly becoming similar. They are yearly releases, they do tweak both with these releases. Hell being a member of both player bases I've come to see COD as more a sports game just hoping for a refined experience. But at the same time I expect the same of the AC formula, I expect a good story but no grand overhaul just general tweaks in the right direction.

pirate1802
02-28-2013, 06:31 AM
No doubt agreed. But the situation is the SP side and MP side of the two are increasingly becoming similar. They are yearly releases, they do tweak both with these releases. Hell being a member of both player bases I've come to see COD as more a sports game just hoping for a refined experience. But at the same time I expect the same of the AC formula, I expect a good story but no grand overhaul just general tweaks in the right direction.

Its sad isn't it? I've made peace with that fact. It also unfortunately mean we might rarely see an AC from the new breed that would be remembered as the best, kinda like AC2..

Will_Lucky
02-28-2013, 06:54 AM
Its sad isn't it? I've made peace with that fact. It also unfortunately mean we might rarely see an AC from the new breed that would be remembered as the best, kinda like AC2..

Depends, Uncharted 2 is seen as one of the greatest games of this generation and actually refined what had been originally present in Uncharted 1. Same could be said for Arkham City, Mario Galaxy 2 ect.

Assassin_M
02-28-2013, 06:56 AM
Depends, Uncharted 2 is seen as one of the greatest games of this generation and actually refined what had been originally present in Uncharted 1. Same could be said for Arkham City, Mario Galaxy 2 ect.
but those don't come every bloody year...

The Gap in time makes people miss the game....the style and all that. When they release a new game after 3 years or so, with just some tweaks, they`re in love again...

pirate1802
02-28-2013, 07:31 AM
but those don't come every bloody year...

The Gap in time makes people miss the game....the style and all that. When they release a new game after 3 years or so, with just some tweaks, they`re in love again...

Correct. That is why you see people saying AC is the same everytime even with the changes it incorporates. Because with so many games coming back-to-back it becomes hard to appreciate the changes.

RinoTheBouncer
02-28-2013, 07:39 AM
I don't understand why fans try to get into matters that doesn't concern them. I company has money, and got more money from ACIII that many of us call "disappointing" despite selling 12 million copies and winning the Gamer's Choice Award for best PS3 game. I think that company is free to continue the franchise anytime they want because this is the perfect time for AC to flourish. The game is probably the most demanded game of today's franchises so let it gross as much success before new games come and AC becomes irrelevant.

I'm not saying they should release crap games to sell, all I'm saying is that they succeeded with every single AC game including the final one which many fans hated so why not go on? let's wait and see what they've got in store for us. They said Fiscal Year 2014 which lies between March 2013 to April 2014. That makes 99.9% a PS4 game since PS4 is coming during the holidays season of 2013. That means new engine, new graphics and probably new heroes and even more breathtaking scenery, cutscenes and story.

So why worry? since when an AC game turned out bad? AC2 improved AC1. AC:B added more to AC2. AC:R was epic story-wise and ACIII had a vast environment and so much ambitions so why fear the next one? just relax and enjoy what UBIawesome have in store for us.

RinoTheBouncer
02-28-2013, 07:41 AM
I don't understand why fans try to get into matters that don't concern them. Ubi has enough money and got more money from ACIII that many of us call "disappointing" despite selling 12 million copies and winning the Gamer's Choice Award for best PS3 game. I think that company is free to continue the franchise anytime they want because this is the perfect time for AC to flourish. The game is probably the most demanded game of today's franchises so let it gross as much success before new games come and AC becomes irrelevant.

I'm not saying they should release crap games to sell, all I'm saying is that they succeeded with every single AC game including the final one which many fans hated so why not go on? let's wait and see what they've got in store for us. They said Fiscal Year 2014 which lies between March 2013 to April 2014. That makes 99.9% a PS4 game since PS4 is coming during the holidays season of 2013. That means new engine, new graphics and probably new heroes and even more breathtaking scenery, cutscenes and story.

I personally wouldn't wanna wait till 2015 for a new AC game then the next one in 2018. The game will totally lose it's relevancy, especially with the appearance of new games for the PS4 (just like how AC appeared on PS3 and rose higher than many PS2 and PSone classic franchises.

So why worry? since when an AC game turned out bad? AC2 improved AC1. AC:B added more to AC2. AC:R was epic story-wise and ACIII had a vast environment and so much ambitions so why fear the next one? just relax and enjoy what UBIawesome have in store for us.

Assassin_M
02-28-2013, 07:42 AM
I don't understand why fans try to get into matters that doesn't concern them. I company has money, and got more money from ACIII that many of us call "disappointing" despite selling 12 million copies and winning the Gamer's Choice Award for best PS3 game. I think that company is free to continue the franchise anytime they want because this is the perfect time for AC to flourish. The game is probably the most demanded game of today's franchises so let it gross as much success before new games come and AC becomes irrelevant.

I'm not saying they should release crap games to sell, all I'm saying is that they succeeded with every single AC game including the final one which many fans hated so why not go on? let's wait and see what they've got in store for us. They said Fiscal Year 2014 which lies between March 2013 to April 2014. That makes 99.9% a PS4 game since PS4 is coming during the holidays season of 2013. That means new engine, new graphics and probably new heroes and even more breathtaking scenery, cutscenes and story.

So why worry? since when an AC game turned out bad? AC2 improved AC1. AC:B added more to AC2. AC:R was epic story-wise and ACIII had a vast environment and so much ambitions so why fear the next one? just relax and enjoy what UBIawesome have in store for us.
That`s the thing. None of them are bad games at all. They`re all AAA quality, but here`s the thing....Fatigue is showing...bugs and lack of polish...Hell, I`m not the one saying this...It`s the creative director..

RinoTheBouncer
02-28-2013, 07:47 AM
That`s the thing. None of them are bad games at all. They`re all AAA quality, but here`s the thing....Fatigue is showing...bugs and lack of polish...Hell, I`m not the one saying this...It`s the creative director..

I think if the new AC is on PS4 (which is highly likely and a smart move for them to use it as one of the launch titles of PS4) it means that the game's been in development much earlier than this and it will definitely look more polished. ACIII was good but it had way too much bugs, I agree and I don't think they've been working on it full time for 3 years. I think the real work only begun after AC:R got released. Just like FFversusXIII which has been in development for 7 years and now rumor has it that they're making it for PS4.

I agree with what you said, I'm just being optimistic here since PS4 promises an easier game development (as they claimed) which might decrease the glitches and the time of development.

Gi1t
02-28-2013, 08:26 AM
I agree with what you said, I'm just being optimistic here since PS4 promises an easier game development (as they claimed) which might decrease the glitches and the time of development.

That's what it comes down to in the end. It's a question of whether or not you're optimistic about the series' current direction. I imagine most of the people who would agree with the premise of this thread are less than pleased with the current state of the series.

Personally, I can't help but feel like the constant developent is preventing them from stepping back and taking a look at the direction of the series as a whole. Indeed, it's been pointed out already that if you've started developing a game well before the release of its predecessor, by the time you get the feedback, it's too late to incorporate anything more than superficial changes and I agree with that. I think the game is suffering from a profusion of content while the core mechanics aren't being re-examined for ways to make them better. With the technology now, entirely new possibilities could be explored, and systems could be rebuilt to include a lot more options that simply couldn't be processed effectively before. It could increase the whole scale of the game. But if they never step back, the changes will continue to be incremental. I'd like to see it become something more than just a commercial fad. -__-

leCarrot
02-28-2013, 10:10 AM
Let's not forget that they created a whole new game engine for AC3, and that COD has used the same engine, tweaked of course, since 2003.
That alone shows that Ubi is willing to work for the title instead of making it a pure cash cow, though I agree that story-wise the franchise has been slipping.

ProletariatPleb
02-28-2013, 10:14 AM
Let's not forget that they created a whole new game engine for AC3
No they didn't, they modified the same engine and it still suffers from the problems of the old Anvil/Scimitar engine. Might I remind you even Call of Duty does the same, using the Q3 engine.

pacmanate
02-28-2013, 12:10 PM
So many AC fanboys. I hate fanboys. Whenever someone criticises the game, there is always someone who will defend it.

Face it, AC has become CoD.

Yearly installments, little change. Both provide a new SP experience, both have new multiplayer tweaks, both have graphical enhancements. You can not say they aren't similar, and bring up the FPS VS 3rd Person is stupid, that's genre, has nothing to do with it being churned out every year.

Locopells
02-28-2013, 12:38 PM
And whenever defends someone the game, there is always someone who will criticise it...

Seriously though, I think the difference lies in people's tastes, as to what they think makes a good/different/unique/whatever SP experience.

pirate1802
02-28-2013, 12:52 PM
"Yearly installments, little change. Both provide a new SP experience, both have new multiplayer tweaks,"

I think the critical difference is that AC is primarily an SP game while CoD is an MP one. SO AC receives a "new experience" in its area of interest while CoD receives mere tweaks. I mean don't get me wrong I totally dislike these yearly installments but it is clear by now that it is here to stay. Atleast the best we can hope for is a new SP experience everytime which is radically different from the last one, which AC does seem to be doing. Can't say for sure how long this will continue though..

burtie80
02-28-2013, 03:19 PM
I had no problem with yearly releases, because up to AC3 they were pretty good. But as much as I love the franchise AC3 was a bore to get through, the mission restrictions have become ridiculously linier, the main story, although it had some good points was mind numbing dull. I liked Conner and the whole native viewpoint but many of the main missions were just boring and the side missions were horrendously dull.

I also didnt mind the whole Desmond story, I know a lot of people hated it but the way they handled the ending was just disgraceful. It was like they brushed the last five years of story under the carpet. There was such a big build up and mystery of opening that door in the temple, only to touch a glowing ball and for it to be over!


The series has taken a turn for the worst, even the latest DLC bored me with the "follow the dot" missions. I cant bring myself to get exited about another AC game, and I certainly wont be rushing out on day one to buy AC4. I also no longer care about any merchandise either, Ubi has had enough money from me. If I want a true AC experience ill go back to playing the first few games.


I think its time I moved on from this franchise.

Xizzorz84
02-28-2013, 07:12 PM
Im afraid people are freaking out too much simply because theres such a misconception with game development. Developmental cycles needed to produce games as big as AC and CoD require separate teams in the same company. So in terms of AC4 being rushed because they just finished AC3 is an ignorant statement, its the same system used in many forms of artistic endeavors, especially in design companies. Its not the same team that just finished a project working on a next project afterwards. Senior members such as writers and art directors will most definitely be exceptions.

I never understood the complaint of "too soon". The AC games have been on a roll in terms of maintaining quality since the first game. Everyone is bound to have complaints regardless. But complaining about a game coming out too soon after it's predecessor is a perception that isnt found with a game such as AC. CoD has also been doing well with quality despite the criticism. People just hate and complain for the sake of hating and complaining.

I just think of the next game in the AC series as a new season of my favorite tv show. Ubisoft; stick to your guns, recreate the essence of what made your older games special; the atmosphere of AC1, the pace of AC2, the elements of Brotherhood and Revelations, and the mechanics in AC3. You got a winner.

del180824051615
02-28-2013, 07:14 PM
@OP. LOL what takes you so long to find out?

hmkamal
02-28-2013, 07:52 PM
In terms of the multiplayer or the annual release?
The MP of the AC games as you all will know are nothing like C.O.D. My brother (Arcane1122) and I have been on the MP from the AC:B days and I think after AC:R's MPAC3 was sorely needed! I don't understand why they need to release another AC game after AC3 though. The multiplayer was fine apart from the few glitches here and there but it feels too soon to being another out. The story mode really seemed damp in AC3. Maybe they want to restore the respect for the AC story mode after AC3???
All I know is the MP on AC3 is still going strong. If any of you have time check out http://www.youtube.com/user/hkam1122 a serious MP gamer who I've learnt loads off. MP for the win. as for the story mode...I loved AC2 the ones following it I felt lacked something. Hopefully this will be rectified in AC4. As for now I guess we need to wait for some more info on this thing. Either way I'm HYPED!

Em-Man
02-28-2013, 08:00 PM
As much as you guys say that you hate the fact that they're milking the series, I'm sure plenty of you will buy these rushed products anyway.
So remember guys, vote with your wallet.

Gi1t
02-28-2013, 08:29 PM
Im afraid people are freaking out too much simply because theres such a misconception with game development. Developmental cycles needed to produce games as big as AC and CoD require separate teams in the same company. So in terms of AC4 being rushed because they just finished AC3 is an ignorant statement, its the same system used in many forms of artistic endeavors, especially in design companies. Its not the same team that just finished a project working on a next project afterwards. Senior members such as writers and art directors will most definitely be exceptions.

I never understood the complaint of "too soon". The AC games have been on a roll in terms of maintaining quality since the first game. Everyone is bound to have complaints regardless. But complaining about a game coming out too soon after it's predecessor is a perception that isnt found with a game such as AC. CoD has also been doing well with quality despite the criticism. People just hate and complain for the sake of hating and complaining.

I just think of the next game in the AC series as a new season of my favorite tv show. Ubisoft; stick to your guns, recreate the essence of what made your older games special; the atmosphere of AC1, the pace of AC2, the elements of Brotherhood and Revelations, and the mechanics in AC3. You got a winner.

Well, that's the thing. Some people really do think the series is declining. Even if it's not noticeable to everyone yet, if it's really declining, it'll become more noticeable as time goes on. A lot of the people here have clearly thought it through.

I do agree that people love to complain for the sake of complaining though and I'm sure there are some people doing that here, but it's been stated before that even if the production quality can be maintained, that schedule still prevents them from really making use of useful comments and criticism in the next game, except for superficial changes and add-ins. I wish they'd pick and choose the best elements of their past games too, but with this schedule, it doesn't seem likely.

Soulid_Snake
02-28-2013, 10:25 PM
They should have given it a few years, think things through a little, changing the setting and main character isn't gonna keep things fresh.

yiddo93
02-28-2013, 10:53 PM
They've hardly changed the setting in Black Flag either. Your still a similar looking assassin, using the same boat system from ACIII and instead exploring the carribean. It feels more like Revelations to me (even though the main character has changed) and it isn't worthy of being called AC IV. I was really hoping for a COMPLETE change of setting for AC IV, but yet again this franchise dissapoints me. The guy that mentioned game development cycles is correct, however, their cycles are actually worse than CoD. CoD has two dedicated teams, with a full 2 years working on each CoD game. AC doesn't have this as far as i'm aware. Yes, they spend more than a year on them, but not 2 full years.

souNdwAve89
02-28-2013, 11:38 PM
Even if Assassin's Creed is annualized, I would still pick it over Call of Duty. Don't get me wrong because I am a big fps genre fan. The current generation had way too many fps games and I am burned out from it. The only fps game I frequently play is Battlefield 3, but even I am getting tired and bored it. If people are still playing fps, then that's cool. I don't get burned out from Assassin's Creed because it is still enjoyable with each release.

yiddo93
03-01-2013, 12:05 AM
Even if Assassin's Creed is annualized, I would still pick it over Call of Duty. Don't get me wrong because I am a big fps genre fan. The current generation had way too many fps games and I am burned out from it. The only fps game I frequently play is Battlefield 3, but even I am getting tired and bored it. If people are still playing fps, then that's cool. I don't get burned out from Assassin's Creed because it is still enjoyable with each release.

I still enjoy CoD games, but i'm under no illusion - I know they aren't the best games out there on the market, but their still enjoyable to me in some respects.I found AC enjoyable until ACIII, after which I felt very dissapointed and just empty after playing it. ACIV doesn't look set to change this unfortunately, but ahh well, there's a new console generation coming this year as well as games like Watch Dogs. The void will be filled.

True_Assassin92
03-01-2013, 12:46 AM
I'm glad that a lot of veterans, who have been here a very long time, are starting to think in the same way. The direction UBI is taking is just wrong. They're ruining it and yes it has become like COD.

twenty_glyphs
03-01-2013, 01:27 AM
I still enjoy CoD games, but i'm under no illusion - I know they aren't the best games out there on the market, but their still enjoyable to me in some respects.I found AC enjoyable until ACIII, after which I felt very dissapointed and just empty after playing it. ACIV doesn't look set to change this unfortunately, but ahh well, there's a new console generation coming this year as well as games like Watch Dogs. The void will be filled.

Empty is the best word to describe how AC3 made me feel. So much effort clearly went into that game, and there was so much buildup to it. Yet after playing it, I really felt empty and unfulfilled.

burtie80
03-01-2013, 02:07 AM
Empty is the best word to describe how AC3 made me feel. So much effort clearly went into that game, and there was so much buildup to it. Yet after playing it, I really felt empty and unfulfilled.

That's exactly how I felt, with the added feeling that I had just been slapped across the face with a big wet kipper while Ubisoft laughed at me.

Rugterwyper32
03-01-2013, 02:13 AM
Empty is the best word to describe how AC3 made me feel. So much effort clearly went into that game, and there was so much buildup to it. Yet after playing it, I really felt empty and unfulfilled.

I feel that a lot of the problem in this case is a mix of lack of focus and the overt ambitions that the devs had for the game. Rather than having a focus point for the game and expanding it as much as they could, they had all these things they wanted to do and they wanted to make them all work perfectly, which ended up just not matching up with what they aimed for. The huge amount of hype didn't help.
I feel that they should focus on the core points of the game and once those are set and they have a great base, then they should start adding more stuff. I feel that was the downfall of AC3. As much as I love that game, it has some glaring flaws in stuff like mission design and the such.

Gi1t
03-01-2013, 05:07 AM
I'm glad that a lot of veterans, who have been here a very long time, are starting to think in the same way. The direction UBI is taking is just wrong. They're ruining it and yes it has become like COD.

Yeah, and I think now is a good time to bring it up, since there are still fans coming in saying they haven't been disappointed by the quality so far, that may be a sign that there's time to start to turn things around. The title hasn't yet become synonymous with this process of cranking out half-baked games.

nukelukespuke34
03-01-2013, 08:49 AM
They've hardly changed the setting in Black Flag either. Your still a similar looking assassin, using the same boat system from ACIII and instead exploring the carribean. It feels more like Revelations to me (even though the main character has changed) and it isn't worthy of being called AC IV. I was really hoping for a COMPLETE change of setting for AC IV, but yet again this franchise dissapoints me.

This. ACIV needs to be a complete change from what came before, as different from ACIII as ACII was from the first game. Black Flag is basically the "Revelations" of ACIII. Now I would have no problem playing a pirate-focused AC, as long as its a spin off and not one of the numbered entries. So really, I just wish Ubisoft would drop the IV from the title. The IV deserves to go to a game set in say, China or Japan.

montagemik
03-01-2013, 09:31 AM
ur answer is so simple. if u dont like it then dont buy it. why should ubisoft take a break in development? u guys take a break and dont buy ac.

You also ask a simple question :rolleyes:........................Maybe UBI should take a break & actually have their game work properly upon release .

As they seem to have sold us a barely tested Game & slowly patch the faults over the last 4 months in installments while they focus on the next cash grab instead -

SO , is there any chance WE the customers can buy the next game using that same method ??
= "Hi UBI ,i'll buy AC-4 & pay for it slowly bit by bit over a 6 month period, if that's the acceptable way of releasing & finishing your games, should be acceptable to buy them the same way - Is that OK with you UBI ? ". :p

True_Assassin92
03-01-2013, 09:55 AM
Yeah, and I think now is a good time to bring it up, since there are still fans coming in saying they haven't been disappointed by the quality so far, that may be a sign that there's time to start to turn things around. The title hasn't yet become synonymous with this process of cranking out half-baked games.

Yeah, also there are a lot of new fans since AC3 sort of brought them in. There are quite a lot of people who have played AC3 as the first in the franchise, ofcourse they don't notice the drop in quality. It's quite obvious they want a new game fast, if they liked AC3.

dovevoice
03-01-2013, 12:23 PM
Empty is the best word to describe how AC3 made me feel. So much effort clearly went into that game, and there was so much buildup to it. Yet after playing it, I really felt empty and unfulfilled.
Exactly my feeling. I thought there was something wrong with me when I didn't enjoy AC3 like I enjoyed the earlier titles. I will not make the same mistake and buy AC4 on the release day, I will wait and I might as well not buy the game if it was anything like AC3

bveUSbve
03-01-2013, 12:26 PM
Will do. The Tyranny of King Washington is the first AC singleplayer DLC I won't be getting. This year's game will likely be the first game in the series I don't purchase unless the reviews and fan feedback blow me away, which I'm not expecting. I'm also done buying any accessories like comic books and novels, and caring about any side projects like Project Legacy (which had so much promise) and that stupid-looking Utopia game that's mysteriously behind schedule.

You're right that the best way to affect change is to stop buying Ubisoft's products. At the same time, many of us want to like the series and want to like the games enough to buy them, but we don't. So the best way to affect the change we want is to not buy and let Ubisoft know why we're not buying. Sorry if that annoys you, but we're upset that a franchise that used to be our favorite is declining in quality -- in our opinion.

The reason we're complaining about yearly releases is not because we don't want anyone to have an AC game this year. It's because it's becoming pretty apparent that the production cycle they're using for these games is not encouraging good, solid iterative development that allows the team to build a quality product and implement fan feedback in a meaningful way. It's simply encouraging more and more AC games that are assembled by huge teams working all over the world. That's not exactly a recipe for the best product possible. It's great for building physical products, but not so good for crafting creative experiences.

For example, there's currently 174 pages of feedback on AC3 at the top of this forum, but how much of that do you think can realistically impact this year's AC game? If this year's game has been in development since before AC3 released and was done by a team working in parallel, many decisions were likely already made and it may be too late to incorporate that fan feedback into this year's game. I certainly know there was a ton of Revelations feedback that obviously didn't make its way into AC3. While not all feedback can or should make its way into the next game, if they took some time to stop, breathe, and reassess the franchise between releases they would likely be able to respond to feedback in a better way. I don't think AC2 would have improved so much from AC1 if it had been developed in parallel with the first game and didn't have the time to assess people's feedback on the first game and design a better experience from day one.
Many excellent points I agree with.

Regarding "voting with your wallet", don't buy - here is an alternative proposition for those of us who have a difficult time to completely skip an AC-"episode" (because there isn't anything out there that has an similar enough type of appeal):

Don't skip completely but refrain from a purchase for at least 6 months or, better, a whole year. That way you get the game at a more adequate price (assuming it's one of those half-baked "good enough" releases). And if enough people, or rather: FANS would act like that Ubisoft might "get" the message from the sales numbers over time.

yiddo93
03-01-2013, 02:58 PM
Many excellent points I agree with.

Regarding "voting with your wallet", don't buy - here is an alternative proposition for those of us who have a difficult time to completely skip an AC-"episode" (because there isn't anything out there that has an similar enough type of appeal):

Don't skip completely but refrain from a purchase for at least 6 months or, better, a whole year. That way you get the game at a more adequate price (assuming it's one of those half-baked "good enough" releases). And if enough people, or rather: FANS would act like that Ubisoft might "get" the message from the sales numbers over time.

Or if you do not like the multiplayer, just get it pre owned 6 months down the line.

bveUSbve
03-01-2013, 04:40 PM
Or if you do not like the multiplayer, just get it pre owned 6 months down the line.
Pre owned of course would be ideal ... ;) If not Ubisoft's obligatory Uplay-activation would make that problematic.

But it may well be that instead of waiting 6 months for the next "episode" I will buy it on day 1, play it once and then sell it used - together with its newly created Uplay account.

Sushiglutton
03-01-2013, 04:49 PM
I have been very critical of AC3, especially when it comes to gameplay and mission design. However I think it's a bit unfair to call AC3 milking. The frontier was a risky and very ambitious addition to the franchise and would have justifed a sequel on its own. On top of that there were a ton of other additions, like naval and a new combat system. I can't come up with a single franchise that has made such big leap between two games as AC did from AC:R to AC3 this generation.

lothario-da-be
03-01-2013, 04:58 PM
I have been very critical of AC3, especially when it comes to gameplay and mission design. However I think it's a bit unfair to call AC3 milking. The frontier was a risky and very ambitious addition to the franchise and would have justifed a sequel on its own. On top of that there were a ton of other additions, like naval and a new combat system. I can't come up with a single franchise that has made such big leap between two games as AC did from AC:R to AC3 this generation.
AC1 to ac2? :p

Sushiglutton
03-01-2013, 05:08 PM
AC1 to ac2? :p

Hmm good one :p. Seriously I think AC3 was a bigger leap. A completely new type of setting, like the frontier, is a huge deal imo. It opens up all kinds of new eras and settings for future games. The best wildife space ever created in videogames imo, since it was all climbable. Then the best side gameplay ever in AC in form of the naval battles which again opens up many possibilities (like AC4:BF for example). Animals is a third one. AC2 polished many of the systems and added a few well made side missions to offer variety and flesh out the world. But I don't think they can match up to the additions in AC3.

lothario-da-be
03-01-2013, 05:11 PM
Hmm good one :p. Seriously I think AC3 was a bigger leap. A completely new type of setting, like the frontier, is a huge deal imo. It opens up all kinds of new eras and settings for future games. The best wildife space ever created in videogames imo, since it was all climbable. Then the best side gameplay ever in AC in form of the naval battles which again opens up many possibilities (like AC4:BF for example). Animals is a third one. AC2 polished many of the systems and added a few well made side missions to offer variety and flesh out the world. But I don't think they can match up to the additions in AC3.
They are differint kinds of leaps so you can't realy compare.

Sushiglutton
03-01-2013, 05:14 PM
They are differint kinds of leaps so you can't realy compare.

True I suppose. I still think AC3 took way, way more risks than any COD game has. Not everything paid off, but if anything AC3 was too ambitious.

lothario-da-be
03-01-2013, 05:22 PM
True I suppose. I still think AC3 took way, way more risks than any COD game has. Not everything paid off, but if anything AC3 was too ambitious.
I was meant the ac1-ac2 leap.:p

AjinkyaParuleka
03-01-2013, 05:26 PM
Idk,I just declined my big bro's friend to give me COD BO2,which I could have and completed it but.....it didn't feel any special,no hype,no such thing it was like"go around,head shot everyone,button prompt boss fight,game over"I was much interested in AC series,I would hate if they stopped yearly release of a game which has a story so complex,so unique.Its surely better than COD,x10 times.

lothario-da-be
03-01-2013, 05:27 PM
Idk,I just declined my big bro's friend to give me COD BO2,which I could have and completed it but.....it didn't feel any special,no hype,no such thing it was like"go around,head shot everyone,button prompt boss fight,game over"I was much interested in AC series,I would hate if they stopped yearly release of a game which has a story so complex,so unique.Its surely better than COD,x10 times.
10? 100 times!

pirate1802
03-01-2013, 05:28 PM
True I suppose. I still think AC3 took way, way more risks than any COD game has. Not everything paid off, but if anything AC3 was too ambitious.

Thats true, and they are risking it again in AC BF. Guess that's one difference between AC and CoD :p

Locopells
03-01-2013, 05:39 PM
Glad to see someone gets it.

At the end of the day though, some marketing strategies might be similar, but the games themselves are so different, you can't really compare.

IceHot100
03-01-2013, 09:57 PM
What I want to say is, that doesn't bother me as much as starting a new "pack" of sequels right after (not even) one year. They themselves said that AC3 was the end of the story of Desmond and that they will start afresh with the next upcoming sequels. And what they do is, make another game, where probably nothing particular in the current story will be continued, just like Revelations. As I've heard, the game will also be on the next-gen consoles. Obviously it'll be one of the "starter" games of the next gen consoles. Eventually better games will be coming up. Couldn't they wait and see how the reaction on the next gen consoles will be?

I read somewhere that people will start complaining about the games being too late, if they don't make annual releases. I view this as a good point, because the more we have to wait, the more we will be excited to see the game.

I'm not even sure, if all the AC fans have even bought or finished the game....