PDA

View Full Version : Yearly Releases



fyiByas
12-06-2013, 05:09 PM
Do you think (in your opinion) Assassin's Creed suffers from yearly releases?


Reason why I made this thread: Assassin's Creed is a series with it's ups and downs, to me I like seeing other peoples opinions on the matter.
Also note: This is not a hate / bash thread.

Sushiglutton
12-06-2013, 05:43 PM
It's complicated :).

I think some features and some games have clearly suffered from the yealy releas schedule and others not so much. AC3 is the most clear example imo. There were so many new features in that game (naval, treerunning, new combat system, rebuilt parkour, animals and so on). Yet as a game it didn't hold up imo. They would have needed another year (or at least six months) to make it great. In this case the pressure to release games at a yearly rate was a major problem.

Then ofc we have the problem with series fatigue and recycled content. Tearing down posters worked in AC2, not fun anymore in AC3. Renovating a city was ok ones, not to do the exact same thing the following year. Tailing missions are starting to feel pretty tired at this point. Climbing a tower and synchronize is still ok, but it's not magical like it was once.

On the other hand we have AC4, my favourite game in the franchise. Now if the fifth yearly game is the best in the franchise, then ofc the model has potential. There is nothing per se that is bad about having to present your results yearly. You get to see how it works when implemented and in combination with other features. You get feedback and can adjust, for example by ditching ideas that don't work early.

There is also no reason why you can't have longer projects in this model. I'm sure that while the Ezio freerunning was operational they were for a long time working on internal projects to make the next leap. So the new parkour in AC3 was in development for way over a year, even when Revelation came out. You can do similar longer projects with all gameplay pillars.

STDlyMcStudpants
12-06-2013, 06:41 PM
It isn't complicated at all.
Yearly releases have NO EFFECT ON THE GAME.
Development time is what effects a game and each is given 2 to 3 years.
Ubisoft cycles their teams to prevent burnout and you can take a 3 sec look on the message boards to see that coming up with ideas will NEVER be a problem.
As long as a game is given enough time to be developed and given a large enough budget it can come out every 6 months.
The gift and curse of an AC game is that a numbered title will always feel like an entirely new game with just the same mechanics. It's great because you don't get franchise fatigue that Ezio may have brought so many people but it can be a curse to some because they hate change and want more of a character.
AC is why I game...it's wat I look forward to every year.
I honestly only play other games to hold me over until fall.
If you dont want to play every year - don't. If AC V comes out in 2014 (Doubt, but theres a 90% chance it will) then buy it in 2015 instead....As a consumer you have a choice - vote with your wallet..
No one is holding a hidden blade to your throat telling you that you have to buy.

fyiByas
12-06-2013, 06:59 PM
It's complicated :).

I think some features and some games have clearly suffered from the yealy releas schedule and others not so much. AC3 is the most clear example imo. There were so many new features in that game (naval, treerunning, new combat system, rebuilt parkour, animals and so on). Yet as a game it didn't hold up imo. They would have needed another year (or at least six months) to make it great. In this case the pressure to release games at a yearly rate was a major problem.

Then ofc we have the problem with series fatigue and recycled content. Tearing down posters worked in AC2, not fun anymore in AC3. Renovating a city was ok ones, not to do the exact same thing the following year. Tailing missions are starting to feel pretty tired at this point. Climbing a tower and synchronize is still ok, but it's not magical like it was once.

On the other hand we have AC4, my favourite game in the franchise. Now if the fifth yearly game is the best in the franchise, then ofc the model has potential. There is nothing per se that is bad about having to present your results yearly. You get to see how it works when implemented and in combination with other features. You get feedback and can adjust, for example by ditching ideas that don't work early.

There is also no reason why you can't have longer projects in this model. I'm sure that while the Ezio freerunning was operational they were for a long time working on internal projects to make the next leap. So the new parkour in AC3 was in development for way over a year, even when Revelation came out. You can do similar longer projects with all gameplay pillars.

Great First Response! :D

Mind you I haven't played Assassin's Creed 3, but from hearing all the rumors like you stated I knew it was at fault like Revelations. However I really enjoyed the previous ones despite some flaws.

I completely agree with you on it being complicated because everyone has their own bias opinion on whether it's fun or not. Thats whats makes these forums so interesting because they offer insight to others.

MnemonicSyntax
12-06-2013, 07:04 PM
Can I ask what the faults of Revs was?

While I enjoyed both games and didn't experience many of the "issues" that 3 had, especially with glitches, I thought Revs was pretty polished on all points.

phoenix-force411
12-06-2013, 07:11 PM
ACR is heavily underrated. Love that game more than ACB.

I personally don't mind the yearly releases, but the Multiplayer is suffering from it more than the Single Player.

SleezeRocker
12-06-2013, 07:23 PM
As long it's fun to play and do something new with the story i'm cool with it.

Sushiglutton
12-06-2013, 07:30 PM
It isn't complicated at all.
Yearly releases have NO EFFECT ON THE GAME.
Development time is what effects a game and each is given 2 to 3 years.
Ubisoft cycles their teams to prevent burnout and you can take a 3 sec look on the message boards to see that coming up with ideas will NEVER be a problem.
As long as a game is given enough time to be developed and given a large enough budget it can come out every 6 months.
The gift and curse of an AC game is that a numbered title will always feel like an entirely new game with just the same mechanics. It's great because you don't get franchise fatigue that Ezio may have brought so many people but it can be a curse to some because they hate change and want more of a character.
AC is why I game...it's wat I look forward to every year.
I honestly only play other games to hold me over until fall.
If you dont want to play every year - don't. If AC V comes out in 2014 (Doubt, but theres a 90% chance it will) then buy it in 2015 instead....As a consumer you have a choice - vote with your wallet..
No one is holding a hidden blade to your throat telling you that you have to buy.

The yearly release schedule dictates that a game can never be delayed. GTAV, TLOU, Bioshock Infinite, WatchDogs, FarCry 3 they were all delayed. AC3 could not, even though it desperately needed it. I don't see how you can deny that.

The 2-3 years development time is not as straightforward as you seem to believe. Someone has worked on AC4 for over two years, this is correct. But not the full team. We know 100% that the MP team starts with a new game ones the old is finished (aka 1 year development time) and I bet this is true for many other of the teams as well. For example there is simply no chance that the difference between AC3's combat and AC4's combat represents a 2-3 years effort.

The strategy you suggest of buying every other year of course won't solve all the issues, don't be silly. There's nothing wrong with buying the game every year and still wanting them to slow down on the pace a little. It just means you think the game is worth what they charge, but would rather have it be even better and released less frequently.


Can I ask what the faults of Revs was?

While I enjoyed both games and didn't experience many of the "issues" that 3 had, especially with glitches, I thought Revs was pretty polished on all points.

In short: Recycled a lot of content that started to feel awfully tired. Introduced new content that didn't fit the franchise at all. Messed up the modern day story beyond repair.

MIA SILENT
12-06-2013, 07:32 PM
Yearly releases have an affect on my anticipation and excitement. When one comes around every year it sort of becomes less special. The Assassins Creed way of things is still fresh in my mind and because the core gameplay never changes, I never feel fully satisfied like I did with AC 1 and 2. AC4 is an amazing game no doubt, but I couldn't shake the feeling of "oh yeah, this again". They're always fundamentally the same game. My main issue is that they never present a challenge - and Ubisoft are too afraid to change things up in that regard. So basically if there were fundamental changes to the core pillars of the franchise, I wouldn't mind the yearly releases.

Mix things up with stealth a bit. Ubisoft could bring some features from a game like Splinter Cell and introduce them to AC. Lets use shadows to stay out of sight. Let me crouch behind cover and press against walls while I move closer the enemy. Little changes to the core gameplay of AC could really make it feel fresh again.

As for yearly releases having an impact on the quality of the games; not so much.

STDlyMcStudpants
12-06-2013, 07:32 PM
Can I ask what the faults of Revs was?

While I enjoyed both games and didn't experience many of the "issues" that 3 had, especially with glitches, I thought Revs was pretty polished on all points.

ACR is extremely under rated...its storyline was nothing to write home to claudia about.....but the world was my favorite yet...it felt SO ALIVE!!!
But ACR had tons of game breakers... I would always fall out of the map down by the docks just by simply walking up a set of stairs.... i never fell out of the map in ac3....

The only "issues" ac had were animals getting stuck in rocks..no big deal....

STDlyMcStudpants
12-06-2013, 07:37 PM
The yearly release schedule dictates that a game can never be delayed. GTAV, TLOU, Bioshock Infinite, WatchDogs, FarCry 3 they were all delayed. AC3 could not, even though it desperately needed it. I don't see how you can deny that.
How can I deny that? EASILY
At the time of AC3 release I had absolutely no online hook up meaning - I played the game 100% patch free.
And I experienced absolutely NOTHING that made me think "This game needed another year"
Sure it couldve used a little polish but Idk where you get the word "desperately" from
Because it didn't - give an animal a random run pattern and an organic world and its going to get stuck in the map..it isnt a game breaker...idk why people still cry about this.
Ac4 learned by making its world less "real" and more video game style - no rocks or animals running freely - just a set location with set spawning (boring)

MnemonicSyntax
12-06-2013, 07:38 PM
In short: Recycled a lot of content that started to feel awfully tired. Introduced new content that didn't fit the franchise at all. Messed up the modern day story beyond repair.

Which new content?

And I thought the modern day was great. Having Desmond's memory being fragmented across both Ezio and Altair gave an opportunity to provide closure for both characters, which it did nicely. But not only that, it gave closure to 16 and Lucy too, if you got the Lost Archive DLC.

AC2_alex
12-06-2013, 07:42 PM
I prefer the Zelda model: one new major installment every console generation. It gives a franchise longevity, and each game is bound to be SPECTACULAR, timeless. They're doing a solid job at keeping it fresh every year, but at a certain point, fatigue will set in-- it's inevitable.

Plus, with this model, they can actually take the time to make a fantastic story. I've yet to play AC4, but from what I've heard, the story is just meh. But that's okay, because the gameplay and the open world are both great. Well, if they could have had more time to develop a great story, this game wouldn't just be great, but a generation defining game. Just my thoughts.

Sushiglutton
12-06-2013, 07:47 PM
Which new content?

And I thought the modern day was great. Having Desmond's memory being fragmented across both Ezio and Altair gave an opportunity to provide closure for both characters, which it did nicely. But not only that, it gave closure to 16 and Lucy too, if you got the Lost Archive DLC.

I'm frankly sick of discussing that game as I have done it so many times and I don't enjoy it, so sorry if I'm short. New content that fitted poorly: Den defense, bombs, Desmond sections. Charging extra for info on the biggest twist in the franchise is shameful. The animus island concept made the lore silly.

There's a reason why the guy who directed AC:R left the industry...

AC2_alex
12-06-2013, 07:51 PM
ACR only had 9 months of development and a much smaller budget than the other games. It wasn't that bad. (still my least fav)

Landruner
12-06-2013, 07:56 PM
It does suffer mainly for parts such as story and Assassin gameplay and some features that obviously have no time to be totally and deeply worked. AC3 and AC3 main mission are made on the same tailing mission design s that were already present in AC2/B/R. However; it is were I feel the fatigue happen.

Also when they say they have 2 years to develop a game it is true and not true, they really have less than that.

It take minimum 2 years and half for a video game to develop and this include the few month between the Beta version up to the final product, obviously devs do not have those extra months ahead and have to pack the product from the different studios together before distribution, no real testing is done for most of the past installation and it is just a question to conbine the different part made by different studios and hoping that the all thing work together.

You have to consider that since ACR the games look like an all on mini - games grouped together as a Puzzle and actually it work as a Puzzle for Kids.

(Imagine making a 15 pieces puzzles for kids - You come with the picture and the shape for the puzzle, and then, you ask each studio across the world to work in 1 or 2 pieces each, and you give them a tied timeline for this (In the studio they make the form stick the image on it, and if they have a difficulty, well they either drop it or sent it as it is), and then when you get all the pieces together you tried to match them, if they don't fit you drop them since you have no time to ask the generator studio to re-work on the piece, and then, you send the product for distribution process because you have already an imperative date of release fixed by the executives of the company (Usually Oct/Nov of each year) and if the pieces do not match among them, well you get an AC3 puzzle for the initial release) - AC4 was okay because the studio UBI Singapore already pre texted the naval and could expand it, and they could do an extended pirate games concept, and some other studio could work on the hunting, the underwater sequence, and else, but imagine if they came with another concept?

SixKeys
12-06-2013, 08:16 PM
It's only the last two games that have gotten the proper 2-3 year development time. ACB and ACR were both developed in about 10 months.

Regardless of gameplay, I think yearly releases are definitely leading to franchise fatigue. There's only so long Ubi can keep covering up the cracks in the core elements of the series (combat, stealth, parkour) with more side content. Despite how much fun AC4 has turned out to be, the more tired and sloppy mechanics are getting more and more noticeable with each release.

TheHumanTowel
12-06-2013, 08:20 PM
I'm frankly sick of discussing that game as I have done it so many times and I don't enjoy it, so sorry if I'm short. New content that fitted poorly: Den defense, bombs, Desmond sections. Charging extra for info on the biggest twist in the franchise is shameful. The animus island concept made the lore silly.

There's a reason why the guy who directed AC:R left the industry...
AMANCIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
http://www.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_m6tvc4318f1qzwj6wo3_1280-650x365.png

MnemonicSyntax
12-06-2013, 08:21 PM
I'm frankly sick of discussing that game as I have done it so many times and I don't enjoy it, so sorry if I'm short. New content that fitted poorly: Den defense, bombs, Desmond sections. Charging extra for info on the biggest twist in the franchise is shameful. The animus island concept made the lore silly.

There's a reason why the guy who directed AC:R left the industry...

But they do tie together. Bombs were made around that time period and in that location. Den Defense was atrocious, I hated that very much, but the bombs were fun. At first, they weren't but I grew to like them.

The FPS Desmond sections sucked. The STORY however was great and gave insight to Desmond's life. As for 16 and Lucy, I agree that charging for extra information is bad, but Lucy's issue is explained in 3, and 16's in 4. Though both are "minor characters" and both dead anyway, I feel that the Lost Archive story was really good and I'm glad they took the time to go into detail regarding Clay. They could have just shrugged it off. I happen to actually like Clay though, and I can relate to him on many levels.

The Animus Island was just a metaphor for an information hub, which is what it was. Based on "fragmentation" and how they can relate to not only memories but of the mind as well, I think the setting for Animus Island was fairly apt.

If you don't care to respond to this, I understand. We all have our opinions and I'm not trying to irritate you either. However, I do feel that ACR was pretty polished, in terms of bugs and other content added (besides what you mentioned before, like the new Eagle Sense) were great and they should have carried some of that over.

Sushiglutton
12-06-2013, 08:23 PM
AMANCIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
http://www.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_m6tvc4318f1qzwj6wo3_1280-650x365.png

That's my exact reaction when I realised you needed to renovate tailor stores again to be able to buy parachutes in Istanbul. I mean what kind of ***-hat does something like that?




But they do tie together. Bombs were made around that time period and in that location. Den Defense was atrocious, I hated that very much, but the bombs were fun. At first, they weren't but I grew to like them.

The FPS Desmond sections sucked. The STORY however was great and gave insight to Desmond's life. As for 16 and Lucy, I agree that charging for extra information is bad, but Lucy's issue is explained in 3, and 16's in 4. Though both are "minor characters" and both dead anyway, I feel that the Lost Archive story was really good and I'm glad they took the time to go into detail regarding Clay. They could have just shrugged it off. I happen to actually like Clay though, and I can relate to him on many levels.

The Animus Island was just a metaphor for an information hub, which is what it was. Based on "fragmentation" and how they can relate to not only memories but of the mind as well, I think the setting for Animus Island was fairly apt.

If you don't care to respond to this, I understand. We all have our opinions and I'm not trying to irritate you either. However, I do feel that ACR was pretty polished, in terms of bugs and other content added (besides what you mentioned before, like the new Eagle Sense) were great and they should have carried some of that over.

Yeah we have different views on this, just gonna leave it at that. No offense what so ever :)!

SixKeys
12-06-2013, 08:33 PM
But they do tie together. Bombs were made around that time period and in that location. Den Defense was atrocious, I hated that very much, but the bombs were fun. At first, they weren't but I grew to like them.


I liked the distraction bombs, but most of the other combinations weren't very exciting, they just made the gameplay ridiculously easy.


As for 16 and Lucy, I agree that charging for extra information is bad, but Lucy's issue is explained in 3, and 16's in 4.

Lucy really wasn't explained at all in AC3. Anyone who skipped The Lost Archive and didn't look it up on YouTube or read a summary of the plot must have been highly confused in AC3 when Rebecca suddenly out of the blue mentions: "So, about Lucy being a Templar...." Wait, what?! That is just extremely sloppy. They should have at least made sure to give a quick rundown of Desmond finding all this out, but it's literally not explained at all. They just assumed everybody knew this by now. DLC is extra content, nothing more. It should not be required to understand big plot twists from the main story.

MnemonicSyntax
12-06-2013, 08:38 PM
I liked the distraction bombs, but most of the other combinations weren't very exciting, they just made the gameplay ridiculously easy.



Lucy really wasn't explained at all in AC3. Anyone who skipped The Lost Archive and didn't look it up on YouTube or read a summary of the plot must have been highly confused in AC3 when Rebecca suddenly out of the blue mentions: "So, about Lucy being a Templar...." Wait, what?! That is just extremely sloppy. They should have at least made sure to give a quick rundown of Desmond finding all this out, but it's literally not explained at all. They just assumed everybody knew this by now. DLC is extra content, nothing more. It should not be required to understand big plot twists from the main story.

Yes it was. Desmond starts talking about how he killed Lucy, and gets a bit upset, then states why he did it and said he saw what was going to happen, specifically.

inferno33222
12-06-2013, 11:03 PM
I'm gonna say it, but I wish that Brotherhood and Revelations were never made. They were both great games, but I can't help but think how amazing AC3 would have been with three years with the full team. ACB and ACR just ended up tiring the franchise, with many of the core mechanics feeling lackluster. Especially ACR. Still a fun game, and I love Constantinople, but I'd rather have AC3 be absolutely amazing rather than have three "just" great games. They're all fun, but I think that the annual releases are hurting the franchise.

SixKeys
12-06-2013, 11:16 PM
Yes it was. Desmond starts talking about how he killed Lucy, and gets a bit upset, then states why he did it and said he saw what was going to happen, specifically.

Yes, but Rebecca mentions it even earlier in the game during one of those optional scenes where you can talk to her. She's just all casual about it like "oh yeah, how are you taking the whole Lucy-being-a-traitor thing?" Desmond later elaborates on it in the scene you mentioned, but I can imagine people who never played TLA would have been quite confused if they talked to Rebecca first. (I did, and thought it was a really cheap way to handle the whole thing.)

STDlyMcStudpants
12-07-2013, 07:50 PM
It's only the last two games that have gotten the proper 2-3 year development time. ACB and ACR were both developed in about 10 months.

Regardless of gameplay, I think yearly releases are definitely leading to franchise fatigue. There's only so long Ubi can keep covering up the cracks in the core elements of the series (combat, stealth, parkour) with more side content. Despite how much fun AC4 has turned out to be, the more tired and sloppy mechanics are getting more and more noticeable with each release.

I don't think so. ACB was supposed to be AC2 DLC So they more than likely were already working on it by time they were 3/4 done with AC2
They just added MP in which was going to be what AC3 brought to the table....
Either way ACB and ACR still gave up the length a numbered title gave, and they didnt seem rushed..so idk what the big deal is....

STDlyMcStudpants
12-07-2013, 07:52 PM
I'm gonna say it, but I wish that Brotherhood and Revelations were never made. They were both great games, but I can't help but think how amazing AC3 would have been with three years with the full team. ACB and ACR just ended up tiring the franchise, with many of the core mechanics feeling lackluster. Especially ACR. Still a fun game, and I love Constantinople, but I'd rather have AC3 be absolutely amazing rather than have three "just" great games. They're all fun, but I think that the annual releases are hurting the franchise.

having 1 million people work on a project doesnt make it better....
If a studio can split - they should.

NxtDoc1851
08-15-2014, 06:07 PM
I love Assassin's Creed, but it truly needs to give us a break. 13 AC games in 7 years? If you just count console games then it is about to be 9 games in 7 years. 2 AC games in one month? Really? I own the collector's edition of every game, the collector's edition strategy guides as well as the Encyclopedia's. And I am here to say, please just slow it down. It seems like Ubisoft is milking this franchise.

You had a chance with AC4: Black Flag, to make a new IP Pirate game. You could have given it a really cool RPG aspect, kind of like Mass Effect/Dragon Age style recruiting for your crew, customize our ships, hijack other ships and make it our own. And I could keep going, but instead Ubisoft made it an AC game as what I feel is a cash grab on the franchise.

I love Assassin's Creed, but 2 in one month 13 in 7 years, is beating a franchise to death. Assassin's Creed is not Call of Duty where it needs to keep people fresh and into the franchise with little tweaks yearly.

JustPlainQuirky
08-15-2014, 06:08 PM
Welcome to the forums!

AherasSTRG
08-15-2014, 06:43 PM
Double posting and ressurecting old threads... I wouldn't say "Welcome" is the first thing that comes to mind...

Assassin_M
08-15-2014, 06:49 PM
Double posting and ressurecting old threads... I wouldn't say "Welcome" is the first thing that comes to mind...
"please stop it" is the first thing that came to my mind

AherasSTRG
08-15-2014, 06:52 PM
"please stop it" is the first thing that came to my mind

You are just too kind, M...

bitebug2003
08-15-2014, 07:01 PM
My only complaint is the plethora of bugs that seem to pass QA
AC3 was perhaps the worst in that respect and it hampered my enjoyment of that game.
AC4 had less bugs, and the only one that really stood out for me was the social chests, whales. and convoys.

I don't play AC MP so I can't comment on that.

But I voted Option 1: Yes.

LeVoyageur07
08-15-2014, 07:08 PM
When a game creator does not release a sequel to a popular game after 2-3 years: Gamers complain.

When a game creator releases a game every year for a popular series: Gamers complain.

Seems it is impossible to please Gamers.

Hans684
08-15-2014, 07:09 PM
It's complicated.

First just look at Unity, where do you think all the cash crab [for the most part] goes? To develop games so they(like every other game company) can make bigger and better games. Unity got where it it is becouse of the state of the series(yearly releases) and other stuff like the The Devision and Watch_Dogs, think about it. If this series hadn't been sacrificesed(yearly releases) itself Watch_Dogs and The Devision might not have had the founding needed, sure they might have existed in paper but without money to support it, it won't get anywhere. Not to mention criticsm is a hell of a lot better in a series releases yearly becouse it grings most fans gears. They will get constant non-stop critic with casual COD comparison so they can plan ahead for The Big Deal(an offer we can't refuse(Unity)). All of this is becouse of the yearly releases. Sure it gives the story a difficult road but it can handle it like MGS, it's a messy story if you havn't been carving for every detail non-stop(MGS:TPP is going to be my first MGS), then you will not lose sight of the story(from what I've heard it's the current state of MGS to be messy). The only downside from my perspective is money, I need to balence my purchase times to not get in minus. Unity is the prime example of a yearly series done right, how many improments is there compared to previous games? Stupid question, it's so much that's not worth to even compare.

SlyTrooper
08-15-2014, 07:19 PM
I couldn't live without an AC to look forward to every year. I'm 15, so AC has been around for almost half the time I've been alive; it would be like my birthday being every two years if there wasn't a new AC every year. Besides, with all the staff & different development teams at Ubisoft, they spend longer making games than most. They have got into a nice rhythm that allows for plenty of development time, added to by an amazing concept. It's not possible for it to grow stale because they can choose any time period in history.

Jexx21
08-15-2014, 07:30 PM
Where's the vote for "I don't mind it either way?"

Because I wouldn't mind it if they took a break, or increased the time between games, but I also don't really mind the way the series is going now.

Shahkulu101
08-15-2014, 07:45 PM
Where's the vote for "I don't mind it either way?"

Because I wouldn't mind it if they took a break, or increased the time between games, but I also don't really mind the way the series is going now.

I agree with this. Don't mind if they take a break, still think the series is going strong. I mean look at Unity.

ze_topazio
08-15-2014, 07:49 PM
I agree with this. Don't mind if they take a break, still think the series is going strong. I mean look at Unity.

They had, apparently, four years to make Unity, when they have a lot of time they can make great things, the problem is when they have little time.

Shahkulu101
08-15-2014, 07:56 PM
They had, apparently, four years to make Unity, when they have a lot of time they can make great things, the problem is when they have little time.

They haven't had little time since ACR. The games would be the same if there was a year break but games release while others are still in development , they are developed for at least two years nowadays - Rogue may be an exception, since it's only there to please last gen gamers to might only have a year dev cycle.

ze_topazio
08-15-2014, 08:09 PM
I meant more in the sense that they don't have to worry about the deadline as hard, with only two years they can't make any major experiment.

HDinHB
08-15-2014, 08:26 PM
Double posting and ressurecting old threads... I wouldn't say "Welcome" is the first thing that comes to mind...

How about "Welcome! Please choose a smaller font!"? :rolleyes:

Considering some of the fresh threads that get started, and that this one is actually relevant to the fact that we are being presented with two games this year, this isn't a bad one to bring back. And the NP deserves credit for looking for an old thread before starting a new one.

Plus it let me stumble across this little gem:

There's a reason why the guy who directed AC:R left the industry... :nonchalance:



I haven't had a problem with (and look forward to) the annual releases. I'm not sure I'll be able to keep up with biannual releases though.

Jexx21
08-15-2014, 08:31 PM
There's a reason why the guy who directed AC:R left the industry...

yo sushi

who's directing unity

SlyTrooper
08-15-2014, 10:07 PM
I agree with this. Don't mind if they take a break, still think the series is going strong. I mean look at Unity.

Exactly. If Unity was still using the same mechanics from AC3 I might actually want a break, but it's not. There is so much improvement in Unity that I can't see what's wrong with what they're doing. This makes me excited for what the next game is. There's so much opportunity to add on to Unity's mechanics now that we've gone back to basics.