PDA

View Full Version : The Assassin's Creed franchise is dying



zsuti1
12-17-2013, 09:35 PM
Assassin's Creed is a franchise with a great concept and potency, it started as a great original story with many misteries, secrets and mind-blowing moments and revelations. The first three (most importantly the first two) games were masterpieces. They introduced us to this great story, they built up an epic universe, but then capitalism came into the picture. Ubisoft, as a money hungry company, realised that they can make tons of money by using the "Call Of Duty tactic". releasing a new game every year, turning the once great quality franchise into a repetitive, unoriginal piece of ****.

I will continue the story where I left off, with Revelations. Revelations was a much needed part of the franchise, it closed down the Ezio-story, and built up the high point of the story, which should have been explained and continued by Assassin's Creed 3 (which turned out to be an epic fail). So the ending of Revelations was the most mind-blowing thing I ever saw in a video game. I couldn't wait for the next AC game.

When the first trailer/teaser or whatever came out, I knew this would happen. I saw the super hard marketing campaign: American flags, freedom speeches, justice, etc. At that point I knew Assassin's Creed would turn into another tragedy of the gaming industry (just like COD, which is now about to die). When I got the game I really enjoyed it at first. Haytham's character charmed me, I was like, whoa Ubisoft this game will be a masterpiece, how did you do it in such a small amount of time, but then the story started to become, hmm.. bull**** I should say? It was a big 0 compared to the former games, no secrets, no great conspiracy. You were playing as an American freedom fighter, not an Assassin. Period. Connor's character was not the issue, it was believable and realistic, I have no problem with him. The problem was, that this game was not about being an Assassin anymore, Hidden blades felt like they were wooden sticks, they were barely unique (no more 1 counter kills), and when I reached the "Chase Charles Lee" mission, I was disgusted. Is this Assassin's Creed? Connor Kenway, ladies and gentlemen, WALKS UP TO HIS MOST IMPORTANT TARGET, and starts talking to him, instead of assassinating him from a stealthy place. And there were the Desmond missions in the game, oh dear God. Those missions felt incomplete and rushed. They didn't feel like I was playing in the "real world" of the game. The ending was also a disaster. The great questions asked by Assassin's Creed 1, 2, Brotherhood and Revelations remained unanswered, becasue Ubisoft gave no f*cks anymore, they got the money, the game became popular without quality work, all good.

Then this Pirate Creed came out. I don't want to spoil the game for those who haven't played it yet. I will just say, that the story didn't become better compared to AC3 and the game still doesn't feel like a true AC game (being an Assassin is not about running around with 2 swords and 4 pistols, killing everybody in your way). I hope Ubisoft gets their sh*t together and make a good follow-up game to AC4. I wrote this, because I feel like a great masterpiece franchise is slowly dying and I want to share it with you. I loved this franchise since the beginning and I don't want it to become a cash-cow of a greedy company, who releases half of the game, and then finishes it with 5 DLCs of the same price as the base game.

TL;DR: I took the time to write it, so please read if you are a true Assassin's Creed fan.

SixKeys
12-17-2013, 09:40 PM
I don't think you understand the proper application of TL;DR.

Also, if you want people to read, you might want to use paragraphs.

LoyalACFan
12-17-2013, 09:42 PM
Paragraphs would have been nice.

There are already similar threads to this, you could have just posted there. But yes, AC4 is a "true" AC game, if you care to look past the naval gameplay you'll see the best stealth mechanics the series has ever had.

zsuti1
12-17-2013, 09:48 PM
I don't think you understand the proper application of TL;DR.

On other game-related forums, TLDR is used to summarize a wall of text for people who are lazy. I could also write TL;DR: Not available, etc.

DinoSteve1
12-17-2013, 09:49 PM
WO! OP that post, can someone summarise.

SixKeys
12-17-2013, 09:51 PM
On other game-related forums, TLDR is used to summarize a wall of text for people who are lazy. I could also write TL;DR: Not available, etc.

Or you could just not make it a wall of text.

MnemonicSyntax
12-17-2013, 09:51 PM
I lost most of this because, yawn. Opinions.

But many are very pleased with 4 because it's very fun and there's no risk of the franchise dying. At least AC adds something new and exciting every year. Can't say the same for COD.

Also, Desmond's story was already planned way in advance. It had nothing to do with money.

I swear, it's like certain people don't have enough people to back them, so they make alt accounts so more people will "agree."


On other game-related forums, TLDR is used to summarize a wall of text for people who are lazy. I could also write TL;DR: Not available, etc.

That's not a summary though. That's saying "read if you're a true AC fan" which is absolute BS.

zsuti1
12-17-2013, 09:59 PM
Paragraphs added, waiting for constructive comments, and hoping that this forums community is not as cancerous as the others #BELIEVE

MnemonicSyntax
12-17-2013, 10:01 PM
Ironic coming from a guy that thinks AC is dying...

And constructive in what way? That we might agree? Because that's not the meaning of constructive either...

Sushiglutton
12-17-2013, 10:05 PM
Disagree. The fifth game, AC3, sold the most copies. The sixth game is imo the best AC game so far. So since both sales and quality are going up, I don't really see how it's dying. There's still a massive number of interesting eras to explore.

Hofner Chris
12-17-2013, 10:20 PM
You're not going to get very far on a forum full of fans. The AC franchise is evolving very successfully in my personal opinion. If the franchise is "dying" for you, then don't play. Ubisoft has their franchise well taken care of.

DinoSteve1
12-17-2013, 10:37 PM
Funny thing after AC3 I was done with Assassin's Creed as I felt it was a sub par game then, they released ACBF and I wasn't all that interested in it but then I seen some in game footage and decided to give it a shot and now I'm totally interested in Assassin's Creed again.

Hans684
12-17-2013, 10:39 PM
-_- Right?
Opinion is talked like fact these days. Sure you can have an opinion, but don't talk like it is a word of god.
Do most people forget that the Amercian Revolution & the Golden Age of Piracy happend? Well if it history it is AC....unless i'm wrong and AC isn't based on history.

aL_____eX
12-17-2013, 11:26 PM
Funny thing after AC3 I was done with Assassin's Creed as I felt it was a sub par game then, they released ACBF and I wasn't all that interested in it but then I seen some in game footage and decided to give it a shot and now I'm totally interested in Assassin's Creed again.
Same goes for me. I was just pissed when I saw how the modern day story of Desmond came to a shameful end in ACIII, although the rest of the game was not bad and gameplay felt way better than former games, but it didn't thrill me anymore.
And I really loved AC until this point! Thank God, I decided to preorder the Buccaneer Edition and give Black Flag a chance, although I didn't like the setting at first. Now after discovering the Initiates website I'm looking forward to upcoming projects like Liberation HD. Ubi made it to keep one of their loyal customers!

Fatal-Feit
12-17-2013, 11:38 PM
Dumb casual. :cool:

Get lost, peasant.:rolleyes:

But in all srs, OP needs to lighten up. AC:3 and AC:IV are solid, innovative sequels.

ACfan443
12-17-2013, 11:52 PM
Also, Desmond's story was already planned way in advance. It had nothing to do with money.

It had everything to do with money. Desmond's story arc was never planned to stretch over 5 games, it was originally supposed to be a trilogy. Pushing a DS game to be ported to consoles and have virtually all elements of its narrative and design overhauled in the space of 8 months is a brilliant example of well thought out planning.

Hans684
12-18-2013, 12:00 AM
It had everything to do with money. Desmond's story arc was never planned to stretch over 5 games, it was originally supposed to be a trilogy. Pushing a DS game to be ported to consoles and have virtually all elements of its narrative and design overhauled in the space of 8 months is a brilliant example of well thought out planning.

Every company make desitions based on money, nothin new.
The modern day was planned, but the story was tweaked a bit.

MnemonicSyntax
12-18-2013, 12:32 AM
It had everything to do with money. Desmond's story arc was never planned to stretch over 5 games, it was originally supposed to be a trilogy. Pushing a DS game to be ported to consoles and have virtually all elements of its narrative and design overhauled in the space of 8 months is a brilliant example of well thought out planning.

Still doesn't change the fact that it was planned to go down the way it did.

Not sure what that has to do with money besides just stretching the story a bit longer. The ending was the same regardless.

AssassinHMS
12-18-2013, 12:57 AM
The first set of AC games werenít historical games with assassins. History was the background and the games revolved around the Assassins VS Templars instead of Patriots VS Redcoats and the historical characters were few and their presence was kept to a minimum (only to add flavor). The gameplay and the story were never driven or controlled by History or historical characters, History was in the background and the action was independent and only linked with History in specific occasions (such as assassination targets that were actually real and that are present in history books). History was a complement to the experience and didnít compete for the spotlight with the Assassin/Templar story and gameplay unlike in recent instalments.
AC1 was all about putting the player in the shoes of an assassin while showing both the Templarís and the Assassinís ideologies. These are the goals of AC. This is what ACís concept is about, there is no room for interpretation here. What many people do, is to mix Assassinís Creedís goals with Ubisoftís goals. One thing is what the franchise was set to be and another is what Ubisoft turned that franchise into.
Like I said, AC1 put the player in the shoes of an assassin. The others didnít (or, at least, not as much). The game showed Altair as an assassin first and only as an individual next (this also translates into the gameplay). After AC1, the protagonists were increasingly explored, not as assassins but as individuals. The stories became more personal, less focused on the creed, more focused on the protagonistís motivations, ideals, likes and dislikes, etc. I wonít say this is better or worse but I, personally, prefer AC1ís approach a lot more. This wouldnít be a big deal if it only meant to know more about the protagonist but the problem is, the assassin part became less relevant, less developed and lesser overall, which is not what ACís concept aims at (it aims at putting the player in the shoes of an assassin, not on a person who happens to be an assassin and only decides to act like one on a few occasions). Objectively speaking, the AC games strayed away from the assassin component and focused a lot more on the personal component which is completely against ACís concept.
And surprisingly, I would still be, more or less, ok with this if it didnít affect the gameplay in such nasty ways. It should be obvious to anyone who played AC, that the core mechanics of the game have been pretty untouched. Free running, stealth and combat are a shame when compared to other franchises and they have no excuse for being so miserable. Worse, they are completely unbalanced.
And why is this? Because Ubisoft strayed away from the assassin component, from ACís concept. What does this have to do with gameplay? Simple, free running, combat and (especially) stealth, are deeply linked to the assassin component. The more Ubisoft ignores the assassin component, the more ignored, and hence underdeveloped, the core mechanics will be. By focusing more on History, on the personal side of the protagonist (pirate, native, etc.) the gameplay focuses more on those points as well, on naval, on crafting, hunting, underwater, etc. But what about the assassin part? Either seamlessly gone or ridiculously incomplete. Again, this is completely against ACís concept.
ACís conceptís goal is to put the player in the shoes of an assassin (as developers said). Anything that goes against it and steals the spotlight is only destroying the actual AC part. Naval is fun and nice but, if its implement means the core mechanics are going to be forgotten and that the assassin part will be incomplete or mostly absent, then it becomes a cancer. An entertaining cancer but a cancer nevertheless.

The problem with the franchise is not that Ubisoft is trying new things, it is that Ubisoft is rejecting what makes ACís concept. Investigations are a crucial part of being an assassin which means they must have an important place in gameplay and in story or else the player wonít feel in the shoes of an assassin.
For the record, I didnít enjoy AC1ís investigations (much) but I can see that the reason why I didnít enjoy them was because they were hugely underdeveloped. A real detective job is fun and crucial for an assassin, which means it is a crucial part of ACís concept just like social stealth or the hidden blade.

So yeah, I donít consider these ďACĒ games to be actual AC games because, objectively, they donít carry ACís concept (which I didnít make up, Patrice did, History did).

Charles_Phipps
12-18-2013, 01:27 AM
The Assassins Creed series is going strong but the Templars vs. Assassins premise is one which can't sustain it indefinitely. Primarily, because once you start poking holes in the balloon then it starts to deflate. Ezio managed to get three games out of the Templars as stock villains while Altair was an individual who killed a large number of the former despite the fact they were arguably nicer people than him. Assassins Creed 3 was the death throws of the Templar vs. Assassin conflict as, really, we get to see the two sides as both possessing worthy ideologies.

It's not like Bowser where you can have him kidnap the Princess indefinitely.

So we need stuff to shake up the formula like Edward Kenway not being an Assassin for most of the game.

DarktheMagister
12-18-2013, 03:47 AM
Did the OP compare the series to CoD again?

I kinda don't feel up to another debate with someone who considers Assassins Creed to be the new CoD.

Slow4Door
12-18-2013, 05:29 AM
Strongly disagree with the OP. 3 was so much fun and 4 was fantastic! I wish it was not over, since so much was left unanswered I feel. I would like to see a Brotherhood/Revelations type sequel for Kenways character. There is so much more too explore!

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 05:32 AM
Doomsday prophets, love them. Look at the brighter side, For the first time in how many games does an AC game actually play like a stealth game and not a Hollywood adventure? Granted the stealth mechanics are still laughably inept but they're still better than the past games, they improved. Thats the point. If you said OMG AC is dying!! After Revelations or AC3, it'd have had a bigger impact. Now it just seems like another person who looked at the game superficially and decided its Pirate's Creed.. Maybe the next game will go back to being crap but as it is now, there's a slight upward curve, not downwards. Reserve your judgement for then. :D


But yes, AC4 is a "true" AC game, if you care to look past the naval gameplay you'll see the best stealth mechanics the series has ever had.

Yeah.. that. Its sad that so many people professing to be true fans of the series don't care to look a little deeper than the skin of the game. Really people?


Funny thing after AC3 I was done with Assassin's Creed as I felt it was a sub par game then, they released ACBF and I wasn't all that interested in it but then I seen some in game footage and decided to give it a shot and now I'm totally interested in Assassin's Creed again.

That EXACTLY describes how I felt about the series. AC IV was do-or-die for the series in my view. Funny how for some people its the complete opposite. I mean they endured through Brotherhood and Revelations, those overpriced spinoff posing as sequels. The series didn't die then, when it legitimately looked like. From multiple cities to a single one, from different protags to the same rehashed one, less sequels, less assassination targets, every way you look at them they were certainly less than older ACs. It certainly looked like Ubisoft is cutting corners. But the series wasn't dying then. Now the game is back to multiple city and new protag route it is all of a sudden dying lawl



So yeah, I don’t consider these “AC” games to be actual AC games because, objectively, they don’t carry AC’s concept (which I didn’t make up, Patrice did, History did).

And what is that? I know of the fictitious "awesome stealth game concept" but hearing this for the first time. What did Patrice and history define AC as, objectively (lol)? And how does AC4 not fit into that concept.

MnemonicSyntax
12-18-2013, 05:42 AM
How would he know? He hasn't played AC4.

I am just thoroughly convinced that some people will never be happy, regardless.

Savage Baird LE
12-18-2013, 05:46 AM
lol no.

AC4 was the best AC yet and I can't wait for more.

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 05:48 AM
Btw CoD is not dying anytime soon either. Its making millions and will continue to do so for a while. Unless you mean dying creatively. In which case it died since CoD4. Not new stuff exactly.

Savage Baird LE
12-18-2013, 05:49 AM
Btw CoD is not dying anytime soon either. Its making millions and will continue to do so for a while. Unless you mean dying creatively. In which case it died since CoD4. Not new stuff exactly.
Not trying to defend CoD here, but I actually loved World at War. After that, it went down hill.

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 05:56 AM
Not trying to defend CoD here, but I actually loved World at War. After that, it went down hill.

What I meant is the last big jump in innovation came in CoD 4, wouldn't you agree? :D WaW had a good SP, I actually liked the SP stories of CoD right up to Black Ops. But CoD aren't known for SP are they? The MP is the real thing, and it was pretty much shameless copypasta after MW2..

roostersrule2
12-18-2013, 06:06 AM
I agree that the series is dying but not for his reasons.

I just finished replaying AC1 again and I'm now on AC2 and they're just better games. The gameplay is worse in these games, the graphics are worse, there is no MP and the newer games are much bigger but AC1 and AC2 have that thing, that magic. It's not the nostalgic feeling but it's like they knew what they were doing from the start and didn't change the core ideas, it made for games that are executed perfectly. AC4 was a step in the wrong direction IMO, while a great game that brought fresh ideas to an old formula that did get the AC series back on a high, it didn't get it back to the series that was. If the next game is to do that however then this step in the "wrong direction" will be the right one as going off track brought the freshness the series needed and made way for it's successor to bring the series back to it's roots.

Sauron001
12-18-2013, 06:15 AM
I completely disagree with you OP despite the raging pirate portions of the game, anytime you are conducting land missions they are almost entirely stealth based, even he naval story is. I don't see how this game has moved away from it roots unless your judging it based off of the fun travel time you can have.

Fatal-Feit
12-18-2013, 07:34 AM
What I meant is the last big jump in innovation came in CoD 4, wouldn't you agree? :D WaW had a good SP, I actually liked the SP stories of CoD right up to Black Ops. But CoD aren't known for SP are they? The MP is the real thing, and it was pretty much shameless copypasta after MW2..

I'm not much of a CoD guy, but I wouldn't say that the series is dying. About once a week, the past few years, I'd play a few CoD sessions with my friend, Andy. I'm not particularly good, but the games are still pretty fun and innovative from my experience. I like the jump from Zombies to Aliens and the massive improvement of Black Ops 1 to Black Ops 2.

I wouldn't call the series itself a masterpiece, but I don't think it's going downhill either.

phoenix-force411
12-18-2013, 07:35 AM
Is it just me, or everyone thinks it's dying since ACIII came out? Please, if it was dying, it wouldn't have won any awards. And plus, ACIV is not about being an Assassin, it's about doing the right thing and to fight for something more honorable than just yourself. What would you define an "assassin" is? There's a much deeper meaning than what meets the eye. Not everyone shares the same kind of story like Altair or Ezio.

Assassin's Creed III did feel incomplete and a lot of the things that were shown were not implemented therefore it felt short in variety. And I don't know who came up with the Optional Objectives in ACIII, but I hope they got fired.

About the Charles Lee mission, he wanted to tell Charles that Lee will fail no matter what, and I really liked that he didn't just want to kill Lee straight away.

MnemonicSyntax
12-18-2013, 07:40 AM
Is it just me, or everyone thinks it's dying since ACIII came out? Please, if it was dying, it wouldn't have won any awards. And plus, ACIV is not about being an Assassin, it's about doing the right thing and to fight for something more honorable than just yourself. What would you define an "assassin" is? There's a much deeper meaning than what meets the eye. Not everyone shares the same kind of story like Altair or Ezio.

Assassin's Creed III did feel incomplete and a lot of the things that were shown were not implemented therefore it felt short in variety. And I don't know who came up with the Optional Objectives in ACIII, but I hope they got fired.

About the Charles Lee mission, he wanted to tell Charles that he will Lee will fail no matter what, and I really liked that he didn't just want to kill Lee straight away.

Fantastic post.

SixKeys
12-18-2013, 07:50 AM
I agree that the series is dying but not for his reasons.

I just finished replaying AC1 again and I'm now on AC2 and they're just better games. The gameplay is worse in these games, the graphics are worse, there is no MP and the newer games are much bigger but AC1 and AC2 have that thing, that magic. It's not the nostalgic feeling but it's like they knew what they were doing from the start and didn't change the core ideas, it made for games that are executed perfectly. AC4 was a step in the wrong direction IMO, while a great game that brought fresh ideas to an old formula that did get the AC series back on a high, it didn't get it back to the series that was. If the next game is to do that however then this step in the "wrong direction" will be the right one as going off track brought the freshness the series needed and made way for it's successor to bring the series back to it's roots.

I disagree. While I love both AC1 and AC2, they are two such different games that it's obvious the devs didn't know what they were doing from the start, in the sense that they clearly changed their original plans after AC1. AC1 was like a big-budget indie game: it was experimental and atmospheric, focusing on the feel of the era more than gameplay elements. It was criticized for not being exciting enough, and as a result, we got AC2 aka Grand Theft Gondola. The difference was huge. Patrice Desilet's original concept for AC was perhaps a little too niche, so they dumbed it down to a game everyone could appreciate.

Were both games good? Absolutely. Did the changes in AC2 work for the series? Definitely. That doesn't change the fact that AC2 was such an obvious GTA knockoff that if you compare it with the first game, it's clear the changes were made due to pressure from consumers and Ubi higher-ups.

I definitely agree that AC is in serious need of another major revamp. AC3 tried to do that, but didn't quite succeed. AC4 played it safer and brought back the dumbed-down AI and some tried and tested mechanics from AC2. The only reason they worked this time was because so many people were disappointed with AC3. Going back to AC2-style felt like going back to what many consider the series' high point.

With that said, AC4 did bring some freshness into the dusty old formula. There are more stealth tools than ever. Modern day feels fresh. Notoriety is finally gone, seeing as ripping down posters was getting old and challenging gameplay can be created in better ways. The world is seamless and full of varied activities. Weather actually affects gameplay (water spouts and storms create navigation challenges and damage your enemies). The innovations may not be on the level of the the night-and-day comparison as AC2 was to AC1 and honestly I doubt we'll ever reach that level again (see my earlier point about going from essentially an indie game to GTA). AC4 took some steps back, true, but I disagree that they're necessarily in the wrong direction.

RinoTheBouncer
12-18-2013, 09:36 AM
I agree with you. And I did chat with the team behind it about the reasons why theyíre trimming present day missions and turning the story into more of a ďcontextĒ rather than an episodic, continuous story like ACI-ACIII. They did say itís hard to develop both a big present day and a great historical but I think thatís not an excuse because ACI-ACIII were good enough and if they wanna keep it to itís standards, they should stay on that level not become a reductive version of themselves.

Edward is a great character, the gameplay of ACIV is great but story-wise, ACIV didnít really matter.

Farlander1991
12-18-2013, 09:44 AM
Gotta love how some people pose "I'm not interested in Assassin's Creed franchise anymore" as "This franchise is dying".

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 09:48 AM
Edward is a great character, the gameplay of ACIV is great but story-wise, ACIV didnít really matter.

Depends on which story we are talking about. There are always two concurrent stories in any AC game, lest we forget.. :rolleyes:

RinoTheBouncer
12-18-2013, 09:55 AM
Depends on which story we are talking about. There are always two concurrent stories in any AC game, lest we forget.. :rolleyes:
That’s the whole point. In the past AC, there were two stories that mattered. Here, the historical feels disconnected and the present day feels new and irrelevant to the whole greater good. I mean one Juno cameo isn’t really gonna make it very special.

AC2_alex
12-18-2013, 11:05 AM
This series could go on as long, if not longer, than CoD has gone as an annual franchise. Mostly because they have proven time and time again that they can deliver completely fresh games every year.

Farlander1991
12-18-2013, 11:05 AM
Jumping all over the op because he didn't type 3 sentences for you with ADHD with a short attention span, is pathetic and classic forum brat behavour.

Or you could follow your own advice and read what the people were jumping over, which is the lack of paragraphs which makes large posts really hard to read (and these complaints, now that the post has been edited, are not of any value, and should just be skipped).

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 11:06 AM
Thatís the whole point. In the past AC, there were two stories that mattered. Here, the historical feels disconnected and the present day feels new and irrelevant to the whole greater good. I mean one Juno cameo isnít really gonna make it very special.

And there's also the

Sage bit, and the Observatory bit.. which essentially is the Eye abstergo satellite reincarnated. Then the Templars have John's body.. A lot of plot points have originated. Just because we didn't have Desmond and weren't given some lame mission to do doesn't mean its of no importance now. Optional? Yes (and thank god fo that) but unimportant? Nah..

And let's be honest.. do you honestly think (in this yearly schedule they have) they can make a fully fleshed ancestral story, and then on top of that make a fully fleshed modern day protagonist, give him cool stuff to do, make exciting new plot threads, by hundred studios around the world, tie them all together and pull it all off year after year? We all saw what happened in ACIII, half of the plot points were dumped altogether and the other half were tied togather in the messiest way imaginable. If they go back to that structure and keep up making new games every year that is bound to happen again, 3-4 years from now. Imo, its better to keep it simple and light, than allude to something grand and kick you off the train at the last moment. Again. They learned their lesson after AC III I guess. Ofcourse it would all not happen if there was not the pressure of a new game every year but fat hance of that happening.

Dev_Anj
12-18-2013, 11:21 AM
Jumping all over the op because he didn't type 3 sentences for you with ADHD with a short attention span, is pathetic and classic forum brat behavour. I thought we were past this as a "so last 5 minutes ago" trend.

This is a forum TO READ OPINIONS. If you disagree counter point what he types, or you know DON'T READ IT. Trying to shut him down because he's commenting on a game you fap over, is also pathetic.

Try and show some formsof intelligence, is it really that hard.

His points are incredably valid and not without merit if you take take to read them. He also isn't alone in his opinion which happens to be shared by an overwhelming amount of gamers OUTSIDE this forum.

I enjoy Ac4, but i can see everything OP has said. The industry for gaming is having more pressure each year and UBI soft is milking the ****e out of AC. It is suffering. You just keep the gid over wat they have brought you since revlations and you will all suffer. The AC game that sinks the whole franchise will come if you don't show some concearn!

TLDR? Then GTFO and read some FAP.

Okay, so let's see what points he/she made about Assassin's Creed 4, shall we?



........
Then this Pirate Creed came out. I don't want to spoil the game for those who haven't played it yet. I will just say, that the story didn't become better compared to AC3 and the game still doesn't feel like a true AC game (being an Assassin is not about running around with 2 swords and 4 pistols, killing everybody in your way). I hope Ubisoft gets their sh*t together and make a good follow-up game to AC4. I wrote this, because I feel like a great masterpiece franchise is slowly dying and I want to share it with you. I loved this franchise since the beginning and I don't want it to become a cash-cow of a greedy company, who releases half of the game, and then finishes it with 5 DLCs of the same price as the base game.

TL;DR: I took the time to write it, so please read if you are a true Assassin's Creed fan.

He/she didn't really make any points, he/she just dismissed it as a "Pirate's Creed" game while many people have pointed out that the game does in fact have focus on the Assassins and Templars and the whole story is about
The main character learning about his mistakes and embracing the Assassin order.

His/her only real complaints are that the story didn't get better in comparison to Assassin's Creed 3, which is pointless because he didn't explain what was wrong with the story, and his/her other complaint is that being an Assassin is not about running around with 2 swords and 4 pistols, killing everyone in your way, even though in previous Assassin's Creed games, you were made to kill a lot of people in your way, and you were more or less equipped with a lot more weapons than necessary to defeat your enemies. That's not even talking about how the stealth in this game is more robust than any Assassin's Creed game and actually allows you to sneak around without much frustration.

So, I don't see what valid points is he/she making.

aL_____eX
12-18-2013, 11:24 AM
I really like this thread because of its different views.

For me AC1 - ACR were just fantastic, everything fine, but still so much potential to grow. ACIII was the game I was most curious about. It would define the direction the AC series goes to. And Gameplay, story etc. everything felt very good, especially with the new engine it felt way more modern than former titles. But it didn't give me the satisfaction I hoped it would. After finishing the game I was just like "And now?". I think no one can deny, that Desmond's story was messed up in the end. And I was still wondering about this whole First Civ thing and everything I never got answers for. So the game was pretty good (don't know why so many people didn't like it) but there was a point I didn't know how this will go on. And so I had a lot of doubts about ACIV, set in the Caribbean, starring a pirate assassin. Also the modern day part was back at zero (and for me the modern part is ESSENTIAL to AC games!!!).

First I didn't want to play Black Flag, because I was offended by what Ubi did. But it appeared that Ubi did everythign right with Black Flag. They worked on the VERY good gameplay of ACIII and made the game more flexibel and stealth focused again. AND they gave themself a chance to build a new modern story, which I would appreciate so much!

So back to the topic: The franchise is definitely not dying! Games become better every year (I know, the steps are not as big as AC1 -> AC2 anymore) and it feels smoother more and more. The thing Ubi has to really care about, is to keep their games attractive, to choose good stories (because AC IS fictional + history) and settings and give the players more and more options in gameplaylike they already started to do! I think the trend of AC is so positive, although I for myself had big doubts after ACIII, not because it was bad, but because I didn't realize in which direction it would lead the series.

Hope this gets clear. Sometimes there are language barriers for me as a non native speaker :rolleyes:

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 11:29 AM
Erm... no one is asking him to shut up, atleast not directly. We are merely disagreeing. You know, stuff the forums are for. I see far too many people these days who get defensive if they see someone disagreeing with their opinions. If you don't want your views picked apart, please don't post them on the internet? Or if you do, expect people to disagree with you then. We didn't insult OP's mother, or called him a ***got. We are merely attacking his opinion (BIG difference between that and attacking the person saying the opinion).


his other complaint is that being an Assassin is not about running around with 2 swords and 4 pistols, killing everyone in your way, even though in previous Assassin's Creed games, you were made to kill a lot of people in your way, and you were more or less equipped with a lot more weapons than necessary to defeat your enemies. .

Ahhhh... gotta love the irony. How many weapons did Ezio have? Riight. He was far, far, far more heavily armed than Eddy. What did he do in Revelations? Riiight. Yet he's not complaining about those games.

RinoTheBouncer
12-18-2013, 11:33 AM
And there's also the

Sage bit, and the Observatory bit.. which essentially is the Eye abstergo satellite reincarnated. Then the Templars have John's body.. A lot of plot points have originated. Just because we didn't have Desmond and weren't given some lame mission to do doesn't mean its of no importance now. Optional? Yes (and thank god fo that) but unimportant? Nah..

And let's be honest.. do you honestly think (in this yearly schedule they have) they can make a fully fleshed ancestral story, and then on top of that make a fully fleshed modern day protagonist, give him cool stuff to do, make exciting new plot threads, by hundred studios around the world, tie them all together and pull it all off year after year? We all saw what happened in ACIII, half of the plot points were dumped altogether and the other half were tied togather in the messiest way imaginable. If they go back to that structure and keep up making new games every year that is bound to happen again, 3-4 years from now. Imo, its better to keep it simple and light, than allude to something grand and kick you off the train at the last moment. Again. They learned their lesson after AC III I guess. Ofcourse it would all not happen if there was not the pressure of a new game every year but fat hance of that happening.

You know, I don’t hate AC4. I loved the gameplay a lot and Edward too but I just hate the lack of dedication and the excuse you’re giving them is like saying “Oh the guests are gonna arrive for dinner, so lets serve them the stake medium rare cause it will take long to do a well don or medium-well one”. They can just ditch the annual releases and give some quality AC game. I guess that way it won’t suffer. I’m not really crying for Desmond but turning present day into a context rather than a story and just giving hints about what’s happening isn’t really fun at all.

They could handle it in the past, so I don’t see why not now. In the past, the games were probably given a lower budget because they were new but now they’re a flagship title of Ubisoft so why not give it more attention? it’s no longer a new and risky game that needs caution. So if it requires 2-3 years of development, then why not? I was really happy with ACI to ACIII and the annual releases and the amazing games we’ve got but now it’s a matter of quantity over quality which I totally hate.

The Sage was a smart move, the Observatory was good but it didn’t really take us anywhere. Present day and the whole “you” playing thing wasn’t so interesting. I mean how hard can it be to play in Abstergo Entertainment in 3rd person as a new character or as a Rebecca or Shaun doing all this? There was some huge potential in the games but it all felt like mission after mission after mission and little about a grand story that really mattered. I enjoyed it a lot but when the credits rolled, I was like “Where is the part when I’m like ‘Oh, so that’s what it’s all about”.

They did a great job portraying a standalone story of Edward in a segment of his life but to consider it as a story that mattered to the greater good, honestly, no. I didn’t really feel that.

Farlander1991
12-18-2013, 11:43 AM
I mean how hard can it be to play in Abstergo Entertainment in 3rd person as a new character or as a Rebecca or Shaun doing all this?

Do we need to point to the mess that Desmond's 3rd person story became? And if you mean that the story stays absolutely the same, then what's the point of controlling Shaun or Rebecca anyway?

aL_____eX
12-18-2013, 11:47 AM
The Sage was a smart move, the Observatory was good but it didn’t really take us anywhere. Present day and the whole “you” playing thing wasn’t so interesting. I mean how hard can it be to play in Abstergo Entertainment in 3rd person as a new character or as a Rebecca or Shaun doing all this? There was some huge potential in the games but it all felt like mission after mission after mission and little about a grand story that really mattered. I enjoyed it a lot but when the credits rolled, I was like “Where is the part when I’m like ‘Oh, so that’s what it’s all about”.
Me after ACIII. This grand story has become a background thing and AC and that's the major point which makes me worry about AC's future.

roostersrule2
12-18-2013, 11:50 AM
Do we need to point to the mess that Desmond's 3rd person story became? And if you mean that the story stays absolutely the same, then what's the point of controlling Shaun or Rebecca anyway?I don't think Desmond's story became a mess because of his camera view, his story was good until ACR, then it went to ****.

RinoTheBouncer
12-18-2013, 11:52 AM
Do we need to point to the mess that Desmond's 3rd person story became? And if you mean that the story stays absolutely the same, then what's the point of controlling Shaun or Rebecca anyway?

Desmond’s Story was perfect up until the moment he died. That badly directed moment ruined everything. However, the gameplay and story of ACIII up until the last 5 minutes was epic and most entertaining. Controlling Shaun or Rebecca would make you feel like playing as someone relevant not pretending that you’re the hero and not believing it yourself.


Me after ACIII. This grand story has become a background thing and AC and that's the major point which makes me worry about AC's future.
PERFECTLY SAID.
ACIV was a huge step back story-wise after ACIII and the ending and the story of the past 5 games, especially ACIII ending were too big of a twist to have such a cold modern day continuation. I just hope this won’t turn into another Resident Evil franchise were winning Call of Duty and GTA fans is all that’s at stake.


I don't think Desmond's story became a mess because of his camera view, his story was good until ACR, then it went to ****.
This. And also killing him in such a badly directed, rushed manner ruined what had the potential to be an epic moment. Honestly, I would’ve been happier had he chosen what Minerva told him to do.

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 11:58 AM
Sage stuff didn't go anywhere just like the satellite stuff didn't go anywhere. Only in other games would we see how much that would or wouldn't matter.

RinoTheBouncer
12-18-2013, 12:01 PM
Sage stuff didn't go anywhere just like the satellite stuff didn't go anywhere. Only in other games would we see how much that would or wouldn't matter.
The question is “will we?” or this game will just end here and the next one we’ll be in a whole different Abstergo linked facility or Assassins base and a whole different story being told? that’s what worries me. Past AC games gave you new mythologies and did gave you enough to hope for a next adventure and in the next one, they continued it. Now I feel like they’re just throwing hints around and continuing them on acinitiates.com or comic books.

Farlander1991
12-18-2013, 12:02 PM
I don't think Desmond's story became a mess because of his camera view, his story was good until ACR, then it went to ****.

The camera view did have a lot to do with it, though.

When you have a 3rd person character, this character has got to have an arc. The thing is, for that to happen, action must take place, the character must do something. And with the realities of 3rd person gameplay production and the way resources are divided between historical periods and modern day during AC development, that was pretty much a no-no from the get go (we get action in AC:B, which was possible thanks to tons of reused assets, and ACIII, which had hell of a budget and resources but managed to get like only 30-40 minutes in the modern day). Heck, the biggest character arc progression happen in the abstract first person Desmond Memories from ACR and Desmond Memos from ACIV (which was just a recorded voice).

There's also the fact that AC2's plot twist introduced one main plotline too many, and the number of subplots that appeared from AC1 to ACB was too much for ACR and AC3 to handle because of the production realities.

So, yeah, his story was a mess, and while the 3rd person camera isn't THE reason, it did affect a lot.

RinoTheBouncer
12-18-2013, 12:10 PM
The camera view did have a lot to do with it, though.

When you have a 3rd person character, this character has got to have an arc. The thing is, for that to happen, action must take place, the character must do something. And with the realities of 3rd person gameplay production and the way resources are divided between historical periods and modern day during AC development, that was pretty much a no-no from the get go (we get action in AC:B, which was possible thanks to tons of reused assets, and ACIII, which had hell of a budget and resources but managed to get like only 30-40 minutes in the modern day). Heck, the biggest character arc progression happen in the abstract first person Desmond Memories from ACR and Desmond Memos from ACIV (which was just a recorded voice).

There's also the fact that AC2's plot twist introduced one main plotline too many, and the number of subplots that appeared from AC1 to ACB was too much for ACR and AC3 to handle because of the production realities.

So, yeah, his story was a mess, and while the 3rd person camera isn't THE reason, it did affect a lot.

Their problem is that they’re limited by annual releases and a trilogy idea. I mean what’s wrong with going past ACIII, 2 more games as Desmond? without having to kill him in the end of ACIII? they could’ve had enough potential to fill the plot holes you’re mentioning. They could’ve just found a way to make him survive or whatever but not this bland new entry that has nothing to do with the whole story. Now, I feel like it’s gonna be series of annual releases that are just linked by the idea of Assassins vs. Templars but nothing really connected or episodic like that past.

DinoSteve1
12-18-2013, 12:19 PM
The thing that hurt Desmond's story the most was the annual release, they weren't fit to flesh his is out properly because of release dates, honestly I was expecting Desmond to become this uber-assassin that would level the playing field in the Assassin v Templer fight, it has to one of the biggest waste of a character in gaming. srsly the best thing about AC3 was the Desmond bits (bar the ending of course).

MinoDan
12-18-2013, 12:24 PM
I really don't see the satelite thing as a plothole at all.

Eye-Abstergo never launched because the Templars couldn't get their hands on an Apple of Eden in time.

That thing was a boring story setup anyway but I got a feeling that it might come up again when Juno is strong enough to cause some havoc.

RinoTheBouncer
12-18-2013, 12:28 PM
I really don't see the satelite thing as a plothole at all.

Eye-Abstergo never launched because the Templars couldn't get their hands on an Apple of Eden in time.

That thing was a boring story setup anyway but I got a feeling that it might come up again when Juno is strong enough to cause some havoc.

I really hope Juno plays a much larger role and gets killed in an actual battle or nexus/time crisis LOL rather than gets deleted like software.
Eye-Abstergo felt like a larger than life event up until AC:R. After that, it will relied on the end of the world and the Eye-Abstergo thing felt like a secondary thing. I wish they actually had a more epic end to it and same for Desmond but both felt so rushed and not well-written.

DinoSteve1
12-18-2013, 12:29 PM
I knew you were going to hit back at me that was a given for calling out the fan boy beat down, but don't try to gain the moral high horse by stating you were only this or that blah blah blah!

You didn't like what he was saying so you got petty. End of!.

If you don't take the time to type a thought out response and give it: TLDR, then you're a forum fan boy brat. YES, yes you are!

OP may be right or wrong, but he has the right to type as much as he wants JUST LIKE YOU! Grow up.

Who is that directed at?

Farlander1991
12-18-2013, 12:32 PM
Their problem is that they’re limited by annual releases and a trilogy idea. I mean what’s wrong with going past ACIII, 2 more games as Desmond? without having to kill him in the end of ACIII? they could’ve had enough potential to fill the plot holes you’re mentioning. They could’ve just found a way to make him survive or whatever but not this bland new entry that has nothing to do with the whole story. Now, I feel like it’s gonna be series of annual releases that are just linked by the idea of Assassins vs. Templars but nothing really connected or episodic like that past.

Well, Desmond's sacrifice to save the world is really the best way to end his arc. The thing is, we need to find a reason for him to get into the Animus all the time. Let's say, he saves the world without having to sacrifice himself... then the next goal is to defeat Juno. So that means that he has ancestors that have something related to it. That can get REALLY stretchy. It was somewhat stretchy already as it is, but alright, Desmond was special.

But with this new storytelling way we don't have to get confined by Desmond. We can have people from all over the world and all over the time (both in past and present) contributing to Juno's defeat. I don't know, I feel like this is an exciting possibility.

And let's not forget that ACIV is as much as continuation as it is a new beginning - so it should set-up and re-cap a lot of things, so it's natural that the plot didn't progress in leaps and bounds, but it did progress.

RinoTheBouncer
12-18-2013, 12:42 PM
Well, Desmond's sacrifice to save the world is really the best way to end his arc. The thing is, we need to find a reason for him to get into the Animus all the time. Let's say, he saves the world without having to sacrifice himself... then the next goal is to defeat Juno. So that means that he has ancestors that have something related to it. That can get REALLY stretchy. It was somewhat stretchy already as it is, but alright, Desmond was special.

But with this new storytelling way we don't have to get confined by Desmond. We can have people from all over the world and all over the time (both in past and present) contributing to Juno's defeat. I don't know, I feel like this is an exciting possibility.

And let's not forget that ACIV is as much as continuation as it is a new beginning - so it should set-up and re-cap a lot of things, so it's natural that the plot didn't progress in leaps and bounds, but it did progress.

It’s good to see people from all parts of the world contributing to defeat Juno, as you said but will that actually happen? or we’re just gonna delete her from the servers before she takes over someone’s body and that’s it? I guess they could’ve done a finale to Desmond’s story in a majorly present day game without or with less use of the Animus. It’s just one game. In that case, whether Desmond lives or dies, the new beginning will be much more welcomed because it’s like a whole story has ended in a proper epic ending.

I wish Desmond went with Minvera’s choice to let the world burn. In that case, they could’ve found a way to use an Animus hidden somewhere in the Grand Temple and not being destroyed just like how the grand temple itself wasn’t destroyed by Toba Catastrophe and many of the tech created by TWCB and then we go to historical times (which are real and recorded in history) and revert back to present day where it’s a whole new world that can also have it’s own ancient-looking gameplay.

ACIV a new beginning as you said and it was recapping some thing but from what Darby McDevitt said, it feels like the future of AC, at least the next few games will be the same as ACIV. I love the historical portion of the game but I loved it more when it went hand in hand with the present like AC:B and ACIII. I know ACIV had some links to present day but the whole idea of a slow-pace “me” roaming around Abstergo and cracking computers doesn’t really feel like it’s gonna end up in an epic battle or a major role for the Assassins to play. You said that it would’ve been hard to give a reason to use the Animus while Desmond has to fight Juno today, the same will happen when people are contributing from all over the world. If Desmond or other people wanna defeat Juno in the present then that where the game should majorly take place, unless the find an excuse to go back to the Animus and that can be applicable whether Desmond or anyone else is doing it.

MinoDan
12-18-2013, 12:48 PM
The only real complaint I can think of with the franchise is the criminally underused ERUDITO collective.

I really hope they take center stage in the next games.

RinoTheBouncer
12-18-2013, 12:49 PM
The only real complaint I can think of with the franchise is the criminally underused ERUDITO collective.

I really hope they take center stage in the next games.
THIS. Instead of using Abstergo Entertainment in a reductive way in ACIV. We could’ve been an Erudito Collective hacker.

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 12:52 PM
THIS. Instead of using Abstergo Entertainment in a reductive way in ACIV. We could’ve been an Erudito Collective hacker.

Or.... PLOT TWIST! YOU were an Erudito hacker all along!

Farlander1991
12-18-2013, 01:04 PM
I know ACIV had some links to present day but the whole idea of a slow-pace “me” roaming around Abstergo and cracking computers doesn’t really feel like it’s gonna end up in an epic battle or a major role for the Assassins to play.

As opposed to the epic ACIII ending which is essentially touching an orb to save the world? :p


You said that it would’ve been hard to give a reason to use the Animus while Desmond has to fight Juno today, the same will happen when people are contributing from all over the world. If Desmond or other people wanna defeat Juno in the present then that where the game should majorly take place, unless the find an excuse to go back to the Animus and that can be applicable whether Desmond or anyone else is doing it.

The difference is, when different people with different ancestry (each of which has some key to the puzzle on how to defeat Juno) explore the past together to forge a better future is more believable than having absolutely every Desmond's ancestor have those puzzle pieces.

Plus I feel that transition from a, essentially, Messiah to a group of people is a nice one.

itsamea-mario
12-18-2013, 01:09 PM
We're all dying.

DinoSteve1
12-18-2013, 01:20 PM
We're all dying.
and Happy Christmas to you too sir!

MIA SILENT
12-18-2013, 02:52 PM
The question is ďwill we?Ē or this game will just end here and the next one weíll be in a whole different Abstergo linked facility or Assassins base and a whole different story being told? thatís what worries me. Past AC games gave you new mythologies and did gave you enough to hope for a next adventure and in the next one, they continued it. Now I feel like theyíre just throwing hints around and continuing them on acinitiates.com or comic books.

True. We're pretty much left guessing. But all AC games have made me feel the same. How they handled Juno in ACIV was pretty poor - yet I'm still hanging on to see her become powerful again. And on the face of things, the Sage seems pretty unimportant. I'm only left with an assumption that Abstergo or the Assassin's will somehow gain access to his memories and maybe uncover more about TWCB. Overall the ending was pretty dull compared to past games.

MnemonicSyntax
12-18-2013, 03:30 PM
Jumping all over the op because he didn't type 3 sentences for you with ADHD with a short attention span, is pathetic and classic forum brat behavour. I thought we were past this as a "so last 5 minutes ago" trend.

This is a forum TO READ OPINIONS. If you disagree counter point what he types, or you know DON'T READ IT. Trying to shut him down because he's commenting on a game you fap over, is also pathetic.

Try and show some formsof intelligence, is it really that hard.

His points are incredably valid and not without merit if you take take to read them. He also isn't alone in his opinion which happens to be shared by an overwhelming amount of gamers OUTSIDE this forum.

I enjoy Ac4, but i can see everything OP has said. The industry for gaming is having more pressure each year and UBI soft is milking the ****e out of AC. It is suffering. You just keep the gid over wat they have brought you since revlations and you will all suffer. The AC game that sinks the whole franchise will come if you don't show some concearn!

TLDR? Then GTFO and read some FAP.

The irony of your post. All of it.

How about you stop white-knighting people instead and open your eyes to see that no one attacked him. We merely told the OP that paragraphs are easier to read and understand, the definition of "TL;DR" really means, as well as "constructive criticism."

Note how the OP hasn't returned either to chime in? Just because people disagree with him doesn't mean it's not "constructive." Sorry Superman, you're not saving anyone's day.


Or you could follow your own advice and read what the people were jumping over, which is the lack of paragraphs which makes large posts really hard to read (and these complaints, now that the post has been edited, are not of any value, and should just be skipped).

Indeed.


Desmond’s Story was perfect up until the moment he died. That badly directed moment ruined everything. However, the gameplay and story of ACIII up until the last 5 minutes was epic and most entertaining. Controlling Shaun or Rebecca would make you feel like playing as someone relevant not pretending that you’re the hero and not believing it yourself.


PERFECTLY SAID.
ACIV was a huge step back story-wise after ACIII and the ending and the story of the past 5 games, especially ACIII ending were too big of a twist to have such a cold modern day continuation. I just hope this won’t turn into another Resident Evil franchise were winning Call of Duty and GTA fans is all that’s at stake.


This. And also killing him in such a badly directed, rushed manner ruined what had the potential to be an epic moment. Honestly, I would’ve been happier had he chosen what Minerva told him to do.

But Desmond's story was planned out. How he died was the plan all along. The "Jesus allegory self-sacrifice" cliche. Also, Minerva's way would have essentially had people fighting and going to war, in his name, and eventually starting the entire Assassin/Templar thing all over again. Desmond didn't want to be revered as a god, and he saved billions of lives. That's what an Assassin would do.


I knew you were going to hit back at me that was a given for calling out the fan boy beat down, but don't try to gain the moral high horse by stating you were only this or that blah blah blah!

You didn't like what he was saying so you got petty. End of!.

If you don't take the time to type a thought out response and give it: TLDR, then you're a forum fan boy brat. YES, yes you are!

OP may be right or wrong, but he has the right to type as much as he wants JUST LIKE YOU! Grow up.

Again, the irony. Stop white-knighting a guy on the internet and open your eyes. So far, the only person that is causing any sort of issue in the thread is you.

Protip: Saying "End Of" especially out of context and used incorrectly, doesn't win you any arguments.

itsamea-mario
12-18-2013, 03:41 PM
White knighting.

A bit racist there mate, can only whites be knighted? seems unfair.

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 03:45 PM
I want to be a brown knight.

itsamea-mario
12-18-2013, 03:46 PM
I want to be a brown knight.

I will be the knight of nights.

Shahkulu101
12-18-2013, 03:50 PM
What about half-breed knights like myself?

itsamea-mario
12-18-2013, 03:54 PM
Goes on about whte knight and a loud of other crap and then starts judging poeoples replies like a school teaching.

Look Mr Arm Chair champion of the internet, what i said stands. Take yourself, and your flashing little signature there for a crap.

What I said stands fella.

You want to give your little pearl of wisdom on the forum topic, fine go ahead, but don't talk down to me you little over opinionated little ragga muffin fan boy. You're nothing better than that, no matter what pomp you feed yourself.

You're a lurker of forums hoping to gain the upper hand on posts and feel better about life from random lines of text. My god to go with the rest of the cliche' I suppose you look something like Francis off youtube with a game of thrones hoody? I presume you know who that is. Yep of course you do.

m..me?

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 03:55 PM
m..m..me?

itsamea-mario
12-18-2013, 03:57 PM
m..m..me?

mama mia?

MnemonicSyntax
12-18-2013, 03:57 PM
Goes on about white knighting (did you copy right that little term there forum hero?) and a load of other crap, and then starts judging poeples replies like a school teaching git.

Look Mr Arm Chair champion of the internet, what i said stands. Take yourself, and your flash little signature there with it's cool user name for a nice big juicy 10 ton crap.

What I said stands fella.

You want to give your little pearl of wisdom on the forum topic, fine go ahead, but don't talk down to me you little over opinionated little ragga muffin fan boy. You're nothing better than that, no matter what pomp you feed yourself.

You're a lurker of forums hoping to gain the upper hand on posts and feel better about life from random lines of text. My god to go with the rest of the cliche' I suppose you look something like Francis off youtube with a game of thrones hoody? I presume you know who that is. Yep of course you do.

I'm the internet forum hero. Ha.

When you learn how to actually respond to the people you're talking to, then maybe people will take you seriously.

Enjoy your little temper tantrum!

itsamea-mario
12-18-2013, 04:01 PM
I'm the internet forum hero. Ha.

When you learn how to actually respond to the people you're talking to, then maybe people will take you seriously.

Enjoy your little temper tantrum!

Quench your rage, JESUS!

can't you go one minute without violently harassing someone? Learn how to be nice to people for christ's sake, we can't have you constantly flipping out and raging at people all the time!

MnemonicSyntax
12-18-2013, 04:17 PM
Quench your rage, JESUS!

can't you go one minute without violently harassing someone? Learn how to be nice to people for christ's sake, we can't have you constantly flipping out and raging at people all the time!

These things take time. I'm working on it.

AssassinHMS
12-18-2013, 04:24 PM
One of AC’s biggest strengths is people, NPCs. Imagine an AC game where we can explore the different cultures, meddle in people’s lives, and find out about their costumes and daily activities, about their secrets. I think AC is too focused on the protagonist, the whole gameplay and story circle around him/her and that leaves many interesting things out.

I’d really like an AC where NPCs are fleshed out. For example, each NPC has a house, a job (unless they’re beggars or something of sorts), a story and something interesting or important to say. For example, the player could follow them and find their daily routines, their secrets, etc.
I think this would be really interesting, especially considering that these people live in a completely different reality (time period and location) from ours.
Missions could be related with them like, you are told that there is a Templar that is trying to lay low and is disguised as a civilian, near your area. By investigating, talking to people who usually know the rumors around the city, by following on clues (like a puddle of blood in an alley that actually belonged to some unlucky fella who found out the Templar’s true identity), etc. the player can find out who the Templar posing as a civilian is. Now, since the NPCs are fleshed out, we could find out that the Templar is, in fact, the apparently honest innkeeper that we talked to and visited so many times. This way the player could really feel a part of the city, of the society and have fun just exploring the world, meddling in private affairs and learning about the different cultures and characteristics of these societies.
Anyway, I really think AC could use something like this, after all, the assassin fights for the people so, might as well get to know them.
What is the point of having so many NPCs around if they don’t feel alive or aren’t actually interesting and fleshed out? Also, this could add some feel to social stealth. No more random faces that appear all the same. Investigating, spying on people’s lives would be much more interesting and the world would feel much more alive since you could interact with any civilian and explore (if you so wish) their lives (that can vary, from simple and plain, to dark and mysterious such as of those that are into cults, radical religious groups, shady affairs etc.). This could also mean more interesting random events or side missions where you can learn about the secrets of the society around you, discover conspiracies and decide whether to join or put a stop to them, etc.

Anyway, this was just a random thought inspired by this great music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c2gL18xawk


Perhaps this could make AC more interesting and mysterious to those who find recent AC games lacking.

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 04:29 PM
^That, if ever implemented, would be simply brilliant.

Although I might add that AC IV's NPCs feel slightly more alive than past ones. They talk to each other, greet each others occasionally, stop to talk, quicken their pace in rain, sometimes argue with other men and women and cheer lecherously at dem dancers (and then the women NPCs come and shoo the away). So they're not completely dead, but yep, they certainly become more.. alive.

AssassinHMS
12-18-2013, 04:45 PM
^That, if ever implemented, would be simply brilliant.

Although I might add that AC IV's NPCs feel slightly more alive than past ones. They talk to each other, greet each others occasionally, stop to talk, quicken their pace in rain, sometimes argue with other men and women and cheer lecherously at dem dancers (and then the women NPCs come and shoo the away). So they're not completely dead, but yep, they certainly become more.. alive.

Yeah, well it's like AC4's world (full of possibilities, treasures, danger, mysteries) but condensed in a city, in a society. Like, each person (NPC) is a treasure (light or dark). They provide information, missions, conspiracies mysteries, and interesting (fun, dark, sad or epic) stories. So, instead of a marker telling you there is this thing here, there are people that the player needs to discover, talk to, follow, spy, etc. in order to be rewarded.
The world would feel lively (more than AC4’s), deep and real and most importantly, you feel immersed in it like never before and you feel like a part of it.

However, in order for this to work properly, I think most buildings should be explorable, whether they’re habitations, inns, palaces, caves, etc.


Edit: And you also get to know them, as well as their costumes and personalities plus, you gain historical insight.

TAZ427
12-18-2013, 04:51 PM
TL;DR everything. That said, while the OP has a point, the reality is the game did sum up at the end of AC III IMHO. So what do you do? Limit yourself to more of the same, or try to expand your horizons. AC doesn't have to limit itself to what you believe is the pure pursuit of assassination. In a much broader sense it's been about the liberation of the oppressed. Whether that be out of an altruistic nature, intended revenge, or fascias upbringing it's not the point. The point is getting to that point and having an understanding of what it is.

To me the continuation of the exact same game focus would have been the money churner that you see in CoD. They've taken risks and significantly changed the game in order to keep it fresh, new and expansive. You can't say the same for the majority of game series.

MnemonicSyntax
12-18-2013, 05:00 PM
^That, if ever implemented, would be simply brilliant.

Although I might add that AC IV's NPCs feel slightly more alive than past ones. They talk to each other, greet each others occasionally, stop to talk, quicken their pace in rain, sometimes argue with other men and women and cheer lecherously at dem dancers (and then the women NPCs come and shoo the away). So they're not completely dead, but yep, they certainly become more.. alive.

They even ask each other why you're standing with them if you blend with a crowd.

MnemonicSyntax
12-18-2013, 05:41 PM
More personality from the AI would be incredable, in stead of cookie cutter fodder.

I think it's entirely possible to code too. people have managed similair in mods for skyrim off their own back.

So why can't people paid a shed load do this too?

Because for all intents and purposes, Skyrim's resources are more open source than Assassin's Creed is, with the Modding Tool.

And game code can be very proprietary as well, as it's not always universal.

MnemonicSyntax
12-18-2013, 06:01 PM
However it's coded, its the same foundation of NPC's moving around a 3d plain and interacting with each other and objects.

Ac is mostly about killing someone or somethi sooner or later. due to this they have made minions who have less itelligence than the creeps in league of legends or dota.

I think as we are pretty much in 2014, we can jump a few steps now, surely.

My point of mentioning watchdogs was that these AI there seems to at least have a bit more reaction and just overall "life" about it than walking a set path.

Oh I agree with you. I'm just saying that it would have to be up to the devs more than us to actually change anything because the code isn't exactly something we can just mess with ourselves.

pacmanate
12-18-2013, 08:12 PM
Agree with OP in a way. Slightly getting bored of AC now even though Black Flag was fun.

The series just isn't jumping in quality like it did from AC1 - AC2. Sure the AC3 jump was big but the game sucked imo. I wish it would take a break.

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 08:23 PM
Imagine if Black Flag came straight after ACR. Or still, after AC2, without the Ezio or Connor games in between.

lagrue
12-18-2013, 08:51 PM
10/10

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 08:57 PM
What's funny is, in every game forum I have visited there will always be atleast one thread ruing the demise of the franchise and predicting its death. Each one of them.

BATISTABUS
12-18-2013, 08:58 PM
Disagree. The fifth game, AC3, sold the most copies. The sixth game is imo the best AC game so far. So since both sales and quality are going up, I don't really see how it's dying. There's still a massive number of interesting eras to explore.
/thread

phoenix-force411
12-18-2013, 09:09 PM
When people think about the series dying, it's always being referenced to ACIII then a bit of ACIV saying that there wasn't enough assassin presence or it just wasn't about being an assassin and more pirates. I thought it was good that there wasn't too much Assassin presence, because there was already too much of that in the previous games besides ACIII since ACIII didn't have too much either. Anyways, it's all about character development when it comes to something intriguing. You can put so much to so little assassin presence, but with bad character development, it wouldn't change the fact that it was horrible.

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 09:12 PM
I thought it was refreshing to see the two creeds through the eyes of an outsider. (stupid idealists vs power-hungry bastards) and how he turns from a careless pirate to a responsible fellow. Good stuff, more diverse viewpoints pls Ubisoft.

phoenix-force411
12-18-2013, 09:16 PM
I thought it was refreshing to see the two creeds through the eyes of an outsider. (stupid idealists vs power-hungry bastards) and how he turns from a careless pirate to a responsible fellow. Good stuff, more diverse viewpoints pls Ubisoft.
Yeah, I mean that time where he got drunk badly and they made us play through a dream. That was sort of the turning point for Edward. It was a really intriguing transition.

MIA SILENT
12-18-2013, 09:16 PM
I thought it was refreshing to see the two creeds through the eyes of an outsider. (stupid idealists vs power-hungry bastards) and how he turns from a careless pirate to a stupid idealist. Good stuff, more diverse viewpoints pls Ubisoft.

Fixed !

MIA SILENT
12-18-2013, 09:18 PM
Yeah, I mean that time where he got drunk badly and they made us play through a dream. That was sort of the turning point for Edward. It was a really intriguing transition.

Waaaaat? I don't remember that.

Shahkulu101
12-18-2013, 09:20 PM
Ah Tabai cared less about helping the people than he did simply protecting his kind. Throughout the story, the Assassina literally don't have any cause and just feel there for the sake of it. No Assassin, except Mary Read, was remotely interesting.

phoenix-force411
12-18-2013, 09:23 PM
Waaaaat? I don't remember that.
It was the part where Edward is chasing Roberts while he's drunk.

phoenix-force411
12-18-2013, 09:24 PM
Ah Tabai cared less about helping the people than he did simply protecting his kind. Throughout the story, the Assassina literally don't have any cause and just feel there for the sake of it. No Assassin, except Mary Read, was remotely interesting.

The assassins did less than Edward even before Edward sworn to help the assassins.

MIA SILENT
12-18-2013, 09:27 PM
It was the part where Edward is chasing Roberts while he's drunk.

Might be time for me to replay through the story if I can't even remember that.

pirate1802
12-18-2013, 09:42 PM
Yeah, I mean that time where he got drunk badly and they made us play through a dream. That was sort of the turning point for Edward. It was a really intriguing transition.

Yuup. A totally linear "mission" but one of the best moments in the game storywise. Loved that one.


Ah Tabai cared less about helping the people than he did simply protecting his kind. Throughout the story, the Assassina literally don't have any cause and just feel there for the sake of it. No Assassin, except Mary Read, was remotely interesting.

I liked Anto as well. The way he said "You lacked the conviction to win"...

But you know, this might be seen as we are seeing the story from Edward's PoV. We see things as he sees. To him the assassins are merely guys in funny hoods talking lofty things but barely doing anything.

Landruner
12-18-2013, 10:23 PM
Disagree. The fifth game, AC3, sold the most copies. The sixth game is imo the best AC game so far. So since both sales and quality are going up, I don't really see how it's dying. There's still a massive number of interesting eras to explore.

I agree but AC3 although commercially successful because of the pre-orders had been a critical disaster... (I mean no offence to the one that love that game and Connor, that is not my point to offend the AC3 and Connor's fans, okay?)

Now I think what the OP tries to say is that AC is dying for some fans (since AC3a lot of fans left the franchise either by disappointment or just because having the feeling the franchise fatigue or still because they did not recognize much as AC3 as the previous AC games were, and AC4 did not reconcile them with the franchise.

It does not mean that AC franchise is dead, but sure the way the franchise is taking a turn now, a lot of people including some left oven AC's fans do not like at all.
Anyway, Ubisoft would not care about AC "loyal or die hard" fans because since AC3 & 4 they found a new public and new customers for the franchise in the pre-teen category like another well known franchise does.

So on the financier plan, AC won't stop as long as Ubisoft makes money of it and get new fans for the next installments, even if the cost is loosing some of their die hard fans in the process .

Conclusion for some fans yes the franchise is dying for some others including Ubisoft - NO - the franchise is not dying.

SixKeys
12-18-2013, 10:57 PM
I thought it was refreshing to see the two creeds through the eyes of an outsider. (stupid idealists vs power-hungry bastards) and how he turns from a careless pirate to a stupid idealist. Good stuff, more diverse viewpoints pls Ubisoft.


Fixed !

This, pretty much. I never saw the intent that was supposed to be behind Edward's story. He was supposed to scoff at both the assassins and Templars and reject both philosophies, but ultimately he embraced the assassins and their creed after all. How does that make him impartial? The assassin philosophy gets glorified when Edward realizes the error of his ways and joins them. Nikolai Orelov's story was much more morally ambiguous. A sympathetic assassin who embraced the creed yet was ultimately killed by his brothers. That story really called into question the idea that either side is truly good and righteous. I wanted Edward to say that there were merits to the assassins' ideology but to ultimately reject it and walk his own path instead.

ACfan443
12-18-2013, 10:59 PM
Still doesn't change the fact that it was planned to go down the way it did.

Not sure what that has to do with money besides just stretching the story a bit longer. The ending was the same regardless.

But Desmond's story was planned out. How he died was the plan all along.

You know this how exactly?

Considering devs confirmed AC3 was originally supposed to be a fully present day set game featuring Desmond as the main protagonist, it was most definitely not planned to go down the way it did. As a trilogy (the way it was originally conceptualised) the arc would have completely ended with the third instalment, Juno was a plot device introduced in ACB (when the annualisation of the series began) and now stretches past the so called end of an era. Let's not forget that, other than 'saving the world', the reason Desmond died was to facilitate her materialisation, something that would not have happened if the series followed its original blueprint.

What's more, many signs from AC2/ACB pointed to a completely different outcome/chain of events, namely the ramblings of 16 and Lucy stating at the end of ACB that they had to locate the lost temples (note: plural) which, clearly never happened considering we only went to one. It's really quite obvious a large amount of present day content has been heavily altered and subject to a make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach, especially after the change in creative direction. Since money is the chief driving force behind pumping out yearly iterations, it is directly at fault for the glaring inconsistencies.

Charles_Phipps
12-18-2013, 11:00 PM
This, pretty much. I never saw the intent that was supposed to be behind Edward's story. He was supposed to scoff at both the assassins and Templars and reject both philosophies, but ultimately he embraced the assassins and their creed after all. How does that make him impartial? The assassin philosophy gets glorified when Edward realizes the error of his ways and joins them. Nikolai Orelov's story was much more morally ambiguous. A sympathetic assassin who embraced the creed yet was ultimately killed by his brothers. That story really called into question the idea that either side is truly good and righteous. I wanted Edward to say that there were merits to the assassins' ideology but to ultimately reject it and walk his own path instead.

I think the story works on that level still because Edward Kenway embraces the Assassin's ideology and THINKS it makes things better.

But arguably made things much much worse for his family.

The final scene is one of blissful family contentment but because of Edward's choices, his son will be murdered by his own child.

Hell, worse, Edward's descendants will be murdered by Templars for the next few CENTURIES thereafter culminating in Desmond Miles' fate.

Shahkulu101
12-18-2013, 11:01 PM
This, pretty much. I never saw the intent that was supposed to be behind Edward's story. He was supposed to scoff at both the assassins and Templars and reject both philosophies, but ultimately he embraced the assassins and their creed after all. How does that make him impartial? The assassin philosophy gets glorified when Edward realizes the error of his ways and joins them. Nikolai Orelov's story was much more morally ambiguous. A sympathetic assassin who embraced the creed yet was ultimately killed by his brothers. That story really called into question the idea that either side is truly good and righteous. I wanted Edward to say that there were merits to the assassins' ideology but to ultimately reject it and walk his own path instead.

So did I, Forsaken wouldn't permit that. He was an Assassin in London - to show him reject the order in the game wouldn't make sense.

SixKeys
12-18-2013, 11:04 PM
I think the story works on that level still because Edward Kenway embraces the Assassin's ideology and THINKS it makes things better.

But arguably made things much much worse for his family.

The final scene is one of blissful family contentment but because of Edward's choices, his son will be murdered by his own child.

Hell, worse, Edward's descendants will be murdered by Templars for the next few CENTURIES thereafter culminating in Desmond Miles' fate.

Anyone who hasn't read "Forsaken" doesn't know that, though. A player who doesn't know about the events described in the book will simply see Edward living to a ripe old age with his two children who both love him. What we see in the game is more important than any superfluous background info given in some other form of media.

MIA SILENT
12-18-2013, 11:05 PM
You know this how exactly?

Considering devs confirmed AC3 was originally supposed to be a fully present day set game featuring Desmond as the main protagonist, it was most definitely not planned to go down the way it did. As a trilogy (the way it was originally conceptualised) the arc would have completely ended with the third instalment, Juno was a plot device introduced in ACB (when the annualisation of the series began) and now stretches past the so called end of an era. Let's not forget that, other than 'saving the world', the reason Desmond died was to facilitate her materialisation, something that would not have happened if the series followed its original blueprint.

What's more, many signs from AC2/ACB pointed to a completely different outcome/chain of events, namely the ramblings of 16 and Lucy stating at the end of ACB that they had to locate the lost temples (note: plural) which, clearly never happened considering we only went to one. It's really quite obvious a large amount of present day content has been heavily altered and subject to a make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach, especially after the change in creative direction. Since money is the chief driving force behind pumping out yearly iterations, it is directly at fault for the glaring inconsistencies.

All of this right here.

Charles_Phipps
12-18-2013, 11:10 PM
Anyone who hasn't read "Forsaken" doesn't know that, though. A player who doesn't know about the events described in the book will simply see Edward living to a ripe old age with his two children who both love him. What we see in the game is more important than any superfluous background info given in some other form of media.

I dunno, if we disregard Forsaken, we STILL know Haytham will end up becoming a Templar and being murdered by his son.

His fate is also spoken of in the "portraits" if you hack things.

SixKeys
12-18-2013, 11:14 PM
You know this how exactly?

Considering devs confirmed AC3 was originally supposed to be a fully present day set game featuring Desmond as the main protagonist, it was most definitely not planned to go down the way it did. As a trilogy (the way it was originally conceptualised) the arc would have completely ended with the third instalment, Juno was a plot device introduced in ACB (when the annualisation of the series began) and now stretches past the so called end of an era. Let's not forget that, other than 'saving the world', the reason Desmond died was to facilitate her materialisation, something that would not have happened if the series followed its original blueprint.

What's more, many signs from AC2/ACB pointed to a completely different outcome/chain of events, namely the ramblings of 16 and Lucy stating at the end of ACB that they had to locate the lost temples (note: plural) which, clearly never happened considering we only went to one. It's really quite obvious a large amount of present day content has been heavily altered and subject to a make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach, especially after the change in creative direction. Since money is the chief driving force behind pumping out yearly iterations, it is directly at fault for the glaring inconsistencies.

Eeeexactly. The biggest cop-out IMO was the introduction of the idea that TWCB could only see into possible futures. It was obviously invented so the devs could explain away the inconsistencies of 16's predictions that never happened. "Oh, the 'Sun, your son' stuff was never meant to be a hint, it was just one of possible outcomes that 16 glimpsed into". Yeah, I call BS. TWCB in AC2 were presented as a super-intelligent, all-knowing race who tasked Desmond with a relatively simple (from a a storytelling POV) task: stop the end of the world so that the bloodline of both humans and TWCB can live on. The whole Juno being resentful against humans plot severely complicated the plot with all this unnecessary "alternate future" crap and made TWCB look like incompetent fools.

Charles_Phipps
12-18-2013, 11:18 PM
I am willing to cut Ubisoft some slack on this, mostly because the First Civilization being evil slavers makes them more interesting than the beneficent godlike beings of the past. It also makes Altair's revelations and teachings more interesting given we know he's been Apple-brainwashed for decades.

Also, the "Adam and Eve were the first assassins" thing was the stupidest plotline imaginable.

So that not being carried forward is great.

SixKeys
12-18-2013, 11:19 PM
I dunno, if we disregard Forsaken, we STILL know Haytham will end up becoming a Templar and being murdered by his son.

His fate is also spoken of in the "portraits" if you hack things.

But that's Haytham's story. Here's the rundown if you don't take the novels into account and only go by what we see happen in the games:

Edward becomes an assassin, moves to England -> Is seen happily living with his two children at the end of AC4. -> Flash forward to AC3: Haytham is a Templar for some reason, Edward is never mentioned except in a throaway comment by Connor who simply says his grandfather was a sailor.

These events don't show how Haytham became a Templar or how he felt about his father. Connor doesn't know about Edward being an assassin and Jenny is never spoken of again. For all intents and purposes, to the unititiated it's a complete mystery why Haytham chose to become a Templar after being raised by an assassin.

Shahkulu101
12-18-2013, 11:23 PM
These games are still great in their own right but they royaly ****ed up the lore long ago. I wanted to see the original concept brought to fruition, one of three games, three ancestors - because of this being thrown out the window we're left with absolute nonsense that borders on incoherent.

MIA SILENT
12-18-2013, 11:24 PM
[QUOTE=SixKeys;9444768 For all intents and purposes, to the unititiated it's a complete mystery why Haytham chose to become a Templar after being raised by an assassin.[/QUOTE]

True. I didn't even know he used to be an Assassin until someone on the forum mentioned it.

DinoSteve1
12-18-2013, 11:26 PM
I was under the impression that the Templer his sister was dating indoctrinated him into the templer order.

MasterSimaYi
12-18-2013, 11:28 PM
Nikolai Orelov's story was much more morally ambiguous. A sympathetic assassin who embraced the creed yet was ultimately killed by his brothers. That story really called into question the idea that either side is truly good and righteous.

Nikolai didn't embrace the Creed. He was born into the Brotherhood, but it wasn't his choice to serve the Assassins. His father joined the Brotherhood and he raised Nikolai to become one as well, and that is the only reason why Nikolai was an Assassin. When he saw an opportunity to leave both the Assassins and the country when he got the shard of the Imperial Scepter, he gladfully took the opportunity. And Nikolai most definitely wasn't sympathetic, at least not after the loss of his first child; he became quite ruthless, to the shock of his brothers.


Also, the "Adam and Eve were the first assassins" thing was the stupidest plotline imaginable.

They're never mentioned as the first Assassins. It's only mentioned that the Assassins (at least, the original ones, of course) were descended from the hybrids of the First Civilization and humans. But Adam and Eve aren't called Assassins anywhere.


True. I didn't even know he used to be an Assassin until someone on the forum mentioned it.

He never was an Assassin. He was 10 years old when his father was killed. He had no knowledge of the Assassins until he fell under Birch's tutelage, and even then he only discovered his father was an Assassin when he was a young adult, when he was molded into a Templar.

SixKeys
12-18-2013, 11:29 PM
I am willing to cut Ubisoft some slack on this, mostly because the First Civilization being evil slavers makes them more interesting than the beneficent godlike beings of the past. It also makes Altair's revelations and teachings more interesting given we know he's been Apple-brainwashed for decades.

Also, the "Adam and Eve were the first assassins" thing was the stupidest plotline imaginable.

So that not being carried forward is great.

Stupider than Juno being a magical ghost in the machine whose face appears holographically from electrical devices? The original plot may not have been War and Peace, but it was certainly more coherent than whatever the hell it's devolved into by now.

MIA SILENT
12-18-2013, 11:32 PM
He never was an Assassin. He was 10 years old when his father was killed. He had no knowledge of the Assassins until he fell under Birch's tutelage, and even then he only discovered his father was an Assassin when he was a young adult, when he was molded into a Templar.

Oh, I though at least he was training to become one. Don't listen to me, I haven't read the book.

MIA SILENT
12-18-2013, 11:33 PM
Stupider than Juno being a magical ghost in the machine whose face appears holographically from electrical devices? The original plot may not have been War and Peace, but it was certainly more coherent than whatever the hell it's devolved into by now.

Yeah, that was laughable.

Charles_Phipps
12-18-2013, 11:36 PM
Stupider than Juno being a magical ghost in the machine whose face appears holographically from electrical devices? The original plot may not have been War and Peace, but it was certainly more coherent than whatever the hell it's devolved into by now.

Actually, I'm not so problematic with that. Abstergo's tech is derived from studying First Civilization tech.

DinoSteve1
12-18-2013, 11:38 PM
lol, it was strange that, wouldn't you need some form of projector for that to be even possible.

SixKeys
12-18-2013, 11:39 PM
Actually, I'm not so problematic with that. Abstergo's tech is derived from studying First Civilization tech.

The multiplayer storyline actually states it's not just Abstergo's tech that Juno is affecting. She's hacking into computer systems all over the globe apparently, emptying banks and such.

MnemonicSyntax
12-18-2013, 11:39 PM
You know this how exactly?

Considering devs confirmed AC3 was originally supposed to be a fully present day set game featuring Desmond as the main protagonist, it was most definitely not planned to go down the way it did. As a trilogy (the way it was originally conceptualised) the arc would have completely ended with the third instalment, Juno was a plot device introduced in ACB (when the annualisation of the series began) and now stretches past the so called end of an era. Let's not forget that, other than 'saving the world', the reason Desmond died was to facilitate her materialisation, something that would not have happened if the series followed its original blueprint.

What's more, many signs from AC2/ACB pointed to a completely different outcome/chain of events, namely the ramblings of 16 and Lucy stating at the end of ACB that they had to locate the lost temples (note: plural) which, clearly never happened considering we only went to one. It's really quite obvious a large amount of present day content has been heavily altered and subject to a make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach, especially after the change in creative direction. Since money is the chief driving force behind pumping out yearly iterations, it is directly at fault for the glaring inconsistencies.

What? There was never to be a whole game in modern times.

To quote you, "You know this how exactly?"

There's a post by Darby McDevitt on ACIniaties forum on page 19, last post that says moden day isn't that popular and in order to "keep" Desmond around, they'd have to dedicate a game solely to him, which didn't seem like it was in the cards.

https://acinitiates.com/forum/discussion/3904/page/19#/390437160

And this is from Corey May himself, discussing the details of Desmond from Day 1, and keeping that "vision."

http://www.shacknews.com/article/75895/assassins-creed-3-interview-ending-sequence

The details of his death aren't there, due to not trying to spoil anything, but what we got was that vision.

And uh... doesn't look like there was ever really a full on game for Desmond. Of course, if you can show me something, I'd love to read it. I find what might have been very fascinating.

adventurewomen
12-18-2013, 11:40 PM
Oh, I though at least he was training to become one. Don't listen to me, I haven't read the book.
It was mentioned in forsaken that Edward was sending Haytham for Assassin training.

Charles_Phipps
12-18-2013, 11:44 PM
The multiplayer storyline actually states it's not just Abstergo's tech that Juno is affecting. She's hacking into computer systems all over the globe apparently, emptying banks and such.

I admit, it would have made more sense to have Juno possess Desmond's body but I guess they didn't want to go that direction.

MIA SILENT
12-18-2013, 11:54 PM
I admit, it would have made more sense to have Juno possess Desmond's body but I guess they didn't want to go that direction.

Not really. Now she's in the system she can have a far more reaching affect. Which makes me wonder why the hell she wanted to posses us in ACIV.


It was mentioned in forsaken that Edward was sending Haytham for Assassin training.

Ah ok, thanks.

ACfan443
12-19-2013, 12:30 AM
What? There was never to be a whole game in modern times.

To quote you, "You know this how exactly?"

There's a post by Darby McDevitt on ACIniaties forum on page 19, last post that says moden day isn't that popular and in order to "keep" Desmond around, they'd have to dedicate a game solely to him, which didn't seem like it was in the cards.

https://acinitiates.com/forum/discussion/3904/page/19#/390437160

And this is from Corey May himself, discussing the details of Desmond from Day 1, and keeping that "vision."

http://www.shacknews.com/article/75895/assassins-creed-3-interview-ending-sequence

The details of his death aren't there, due to not trying to spoil anything, but what we got was that vision.

And uh... doesn't look like there was ever really a full on game for Desmond. Of course, if you can show me something, I'd love to read it. I find what might have been very fascinating.

Yes there was. Lead mission director who worked on AC1, ACB and AC3 revealed in a Q&A live stream for gamespot last year(or for some other video game informer), that the trilogy was supposed to revolve around building Desmond up to become master assassin, and that the third game was to be entirely present day set. Of course, I can see why they changed this, and I don't particular disagree with it, the historical component is far more appealing to the broader consumer base, and business-wise more lucrative for Ubi. But that doesn't change the fact that the overarching narrative was altered, and further evidence for its altercations lie in the other reasons I stated.

MnemonicSyntax
12-19-2013, 12:36 AM
Yes there was. Lead mission director who worked on AC1, ACB and AC3 revealed in a Q&A live stream for gamespot last year(or for some other video game informer), that the trilogy was supposed to revolve around building Desmond up to become master assassin, and that the third game was to be entirely present day set. Of course, I can see why they changed this, and I don't particular disagree with it, the historical component is far more appealing to the broader consumer base, and business-wise more lucrative for Ubi. But that doesn't change the fact that the overarching narrative was altered, and further evidence for its altercations lie in the other reasons I stated.

Can you post a link or something? I'd like to read it.

Landruner
12-19-2013, 02:52 AM
Yes there was. Lead mission director who worked on AC1, ACB and AC3 revealed in a Q&A live stream for gamespot last year(or for some other video game informer), that the trilogy was supposed to revolve around building Desmond up to become master assassin, and that the third game was to be entirely present day set. Of course, I can see why they changed this, and I don't particular disagree with it, the historical component is far more appealing to the broader consumer base, and business-wise more lucrative for Ubi. But that doesn't change the fact that the overarching narrative was altered, and further evidence for its altercations lie in the other reasons I stated.

Ah at least someone on this forum that knows what's going on! finally, yep you are right and even the ideas proposed for Desmond as a master Assassin turned to be a new project called Watchdog! (Executives thought the ideas were too cool for just standing for a character that was not critically loved by everybody, instead it was better to start a new IP from it) - Dude, that is funny to actually be on that forum and read the threads and posts from people that have no clue of what's going on at Ubisoft and Co Lol!

DarktheMagister
12-19-2013, 03:22 AM
OK....so is there like a large portion of people who "hated" AC3 because Desmond dies? or because it was a cliffhanger?

Because seriously..... anyone who'd ever played an AC game before 3 could've told you the ending was going to be a cliffhanger.

pirate1802
12-19-2013, 04:06 AM
Stupider than Juno being a magical ghost in the machine whose face appears holographically from electrical devices? The original plot may not have been War and Peace, but it was certainly more coherent than whatever the hell it's devolved into by now.

Yeah.. that was embarrassingly bad..


The multiplayer storyline actually states it's not just Abstergo's tech that Juno is affecting. She's hacking into computer systems all over the globe apparently, emptying banks and such.

Wait what? LOL

MnemonicSyntax
12-19-2013, 04:24 AM
Ah at least someone on this forum that knows what's going on! finally, yep you are right and even the ideas proposed for Desmond as a master Assassin turned to be a new project called Watchdog! (Executives thought the ideas were too cool for just standing for a character that was not critically loved by everybody, instead it was better to start a new IP from it) - Dude, that is funny to actually be on that forum and read the threads and posts from people that have no clue of what's going on at Ubisoft and Co Lol!

Is there a video of this or an article? I'm not doubting anyone, I'm just interested in knowing the backstory.

HiddenKiller612
12-19-2013, 05:50 AM
Wait what? LOL
Gonna need funding when she has a human body... not to mention, taking over the world is gon' be expensive.

pirate1802
12-19-2013, 05:56 AM
It was mentioned in forsaken that Edward was sending Haytham for Assassin training.

Not sending, he was already training him himself no? He even gave him his first sword.

UbisoftSlick
12-19-2013, 06:06 AM
Darby confuses me. People wanted more and better modern-day missions in AC3. They wanted Desmond to finally go out and take action. A lot of the slack on AC3 is because Desmond had less closure than people wanted. It's like they took the lazy route and decided to kill him off in the most anti-climatic way. I loved AC3 more than most people, but these thoughts are just striking me. I've seen/heard Corey talk about the games and I can tell that he is pretty passionate about these games and the modern-day story.

Hrafnagud72
12-19-2013, 06:15 AM
My thing is that the modern day story line is what drove the entire game. The first scene in AC was with Desmond and the animus. It set up the entire reason to go into the animus in the first place. Without the modern day story line, what is the entire point of going into the animus? And why do you need that element to "tie the games together" if you have strayed from the course of what the original storyline was supposed to be anyways? They killed off Desmond, which is fine I don't really care about that, but now what? What is the entire reason for the animus now? It's kinda just left in limbo. Pointless to have the modern day, just cut it and be done with it if it isn't going to drive the storyline.

MnemonicSyntax
12-19-2013, 06:32 AM
Darby confuses me. People wanted more and better modern-day missions in AC3. They wanted Desmond to finally go out and take action. A lot of the slack on AC3 is because Desmond had less closure than people wanted. It's like they took the lazy route and decided to kill him off in the most anti-climatic way. I loved AC3 more than most people, but these thoughts are just striking me. I've seen/heard Corey talk about the games and I can tell that he is pretty passionate about these games and the modern-day story.

According to Darby in a different post, the research and whatnot that Ubi did, showed that about 80% didn't really want anything to do with the modern day. At all.

And we have had a lot of threads complaining about the small amount of "forced" modern day you have to do in 4, stating they don't ever want to leave the Animus and just be a pirate all day long.

Darby also said that most people on forums are fans who tend to agree and get this mindset that people actually wanted more modern day. This is paraphrased of course, but it's in the very same thread on AC Initiates.

phoenix-force411
12-19-2013, 06:36 AM
The popularity of the game is more based on the ancestor himself. Of course, the modern-day stuff do play a large part too.

pirate1802
12-19-2013, 06:43 AM
The popularity of the game is more based on the ancestor himself. Of course, the modern-day stuff do play a large part too.

One cursory look at the box art tells you that. Desmond was more of a plot device than an actual character, used so we could get to the real main characters.

Landruner
12-19-2013, 09:11 AM
Is there a video of this or an article? I'm not doubting anyone, I'm just interested in knowing the backstory.

Do like some of us that post there, get an artistic job that involves you somewhat to meet and sometimes closely some people involved in the video game industry and then you get your own answers & conclusions...(you wrote a few weeks ago that you wanted to work for Ubisoft, well apply, and if you get hired, perhaps, you can get a different view about the game(s)?) - Anyhow, no one needs to be very clever in order to define that Watchdog was one feature for Desmond in AC3.

The same goes for what ACfan443 wroteabove about Desmond post to AC1 and he is right about what he said, except that post to AC2 It was at first question to give a big finale for Desmond in order the conclude the trilogy.
but then came ACB and its intriguing ending (Kristen Bell could not any longer play Lucy for professional constraints) - However, Desmond did not get the feedback hoped even if I personally thing that it was his best part in the series.

after ACB the decision came a way above the developer's heads and no one had really had to choice in this matter (No time an asset for a character that is not successful enough, even if it has to hurt the story arc stated with him, no the main focus are the his ancestors)

ACR had to be considered as a filler since the original screenplay from Darby did not include the modern days at all, and Corey had to write some pieces that turned into that puzzle first person game (once again pushed out the door by the executives since the character had bad feedback) - It was actually a nice idea concept but it was too close from a Portal and it did not help Desmond to be more likeable.

And finally the modern days in AC3 did not get the attention previously envisaged one more time because the executives did not want to give the time and asset to work with something concrete, and the ideas and concepts had been recycled for something else (Watchdog) , it was question to leave the player the choice for the ending, but that had been removed still by some obscure decision. All the cinematic and concepts for a climax at the ending had been dropped down the drain as well.

The game AC3 had to be released at any cost at the date given, and we got what we got with AC3.

Now, I can tell you that anyone at Ubisoft has a concrete idea where the modern days go or have to be, they will be there because they belong to the trademark of the franchise, but they will more as a secondary feature for the players with some clues to resolve (a bit like AC4) than something such as a concrete story with a new character.

Landruner
12-19-2013, 09:23 AM
OK....so is there like a large portion of people who "hated" AC3 because Desmond dies? or because it was a cliffhanger?

Because seriously..... anyone who'd ever played an AC game before 3 could've told you the ending was going to be a cliffhanger.

No most people that did not like AC3 it was mostly because of Connor, the technical issues, the AI, and some pieces of the gameplay and mission designs.

For Desmond's ending, well this is not because Desmond dies or because of the cliffhanger (like you call it) this is how ridiculously bad in its execution and the anti climax for a trilogy finale were that chocked a lot of people, but this the not the cause why people did not like it. ---- That is called a "cliff anger" Lol;)

ACfan443
12-19-2013, 09:29 AM
Can you post a link or something? I'd like to read it.

I've tried looking around for the video and can only find short sections of the full stream, it was the Assassin's Creed 3 panel live at Pax Prime 2012 (not gamespot as I previously mentioned), featuring lead mission director Philippe Bergeron and lead game designer Steve Masters. (Also I don't think I've heard about it evolving into watchdogs as Landruner mentioned, I don't think that part's true).

Farlander1991
12-19-2013, 09:39 AM
A full Desmond game idea was something that was scrapped way back during AC2 development (it's just that Philippe still really wanted a full modern day game). Also, Patrice was the person who first thought of American Revolution as a possible setting, so there's that, but I'm not sure how deep in AC3 pre-production he was considering that he worked on AC:B as his final title at Ubisoft.

pacmanate
12-19-2013, 10:09 AM
It was mentioned in forsaken that Edward was sending Haytham for Assassin training.

This is the second time in 2 days you have given false information.

Edward trained Haytham himself. He gave Haytham his first real weapon too.

killzab
12-19-2013, 10:37 AM
According to Darby in a different post, the research and whatnot that Ubi did, showed that about 80% didn't really want anything to do with the modern day. At all.

And we have had a lot of threads complaining about the small amount of "forced" modern day you have to do in 4, stating they don't ever want to leave the Animus and just be a pirate all day long.

Darby also said that most people on forums are fans who tend to agree and get this mindset that people actually wanted more modern day. This is paraphrased of course, but it's in the very same thread on AC Initiates.

Yeah yeah Darby this, Darby that, I'd like to hear Corey's opinions on the franchise for a change.

Darby is biased IMO. And prefers catering to a new audience instead of old fans.

Hitakori
12-19-2013, 10:57 AM
I think i agree with "zsuti"

The 1st 2 was mind blowing,

the story and city wise, experiencing the great historical cities. I prefer that part more than improved gameplay. I know that gameplay wise its been improving over new sequences. However Ubisoft need to also get back to the root, i believe fans and people in general do love experiencing historical cities with improved gameplay such as AC4. i would want to see better AC5 in the future with big historical cities and much improved gameplays.


The proof that all love the previous AC more

i comleted playing these games this Quantity times

AC 1 = 10 times +
AC 2 = 10 times +
ACB = 7 times
ACR = 5 times
AC 3 = 1 time never felt the hunger of playing it again
AC4 = 1 time never felt doing it again now

AC5 = i need to experience playing it more than 10 times atleast (please make it better ubisoft)

SixKeys
12-19-2013, 01:05 PM
Wait what? LOL

I know. :p

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y200/JessKat/AssassinrsquosCreedregIVBlackFlagtradeDeluxeEditio n2013-12-19-13-4-3_zps2f3d5c36.jpg

aL_____eX
12-19-2013, 01:33 PM
Prestige 4? WTF? I'm on Level 20 and my progress is about +- nothing. AC Multiplayer, think it will never be my special field.

MinoDan
12-19-2013, 01:40 PM
I can't believe that some people complain about Juno manifesting through technology in a franchise about a system that lets you replay your ancestors memories to find long lost highly advanced technolgical marvels created by a race of transdimensional super-beings.

Its just sci-fi! Don't be so hard on the franchise...at least not for that!

MnemonicSyntax
12-19-2013, 02:48 PM
Do like some of us that post there, get an artistic job that involves you somewhat to meet and sometimes closely some people involved in the video game industry and then you get your own answers & conclusions...(you wrote a few weeks ago that you wanted to work for Ubisoft, well apply, and if you get hired, perhaps, you can get a different view about the game(s)?) - Anyhow, no one needs to be very clever in order to define that Watchdog was one feature for Desmond in AC3.

The same goes for what ACfan443 wroteabove about Desmond post to AC1 and he is right about what he said, except that post to AC2 It was at first question to give a big finale for Desmond in order the conclude the trilogy.
but then came ACB and its intriguing ending (Kristen Bell could not any longer play Lucy for professional constraints) - However, Desmond did not get the feedback hoped even if I personally thing that it was his best part in the series.

after ACB the decision came a way above the developer's heads and no one had really had to choice in this matter (No time an asset for a character that is not successful enough, even if it has to hurt the story arc stated with him, no the main focus are the his ancestors)

ACR had to be considered as a filler since the original screenplay from Darby did not include the modern days at all, and Corey had to write some pieces that turned into that puzzle first person game (once again pushed out the door by the executives since the character had bad feedback) - It was actually a nice idea concept but it was too close from a Portal and it did not help Desmond to be more likeable.

And finally the modern days in AC3 did not get the attention previously envisaged one more time because the executives did not want to give the time and asset to work with something concrete, and the ideas and concepts had been recycled for something else (Watchdog) , it was question to leave the player the choice for the ending, but that had been removed still by some obscure decision. All the cinematic and concepts for a climax at the ending had been dropped down the drain as well.

The game AC3 had to be released at any cost at the date given, and we got what we got with AC3.

Now, I can tell you that anyone at Ubisoft has a concrete idea where the modern days go or have to be, they will be there because they belong to the trademark of the franchise, but they will more as a secondary feature for the players with some clues to resolve (a bit like AC4) than something such as a concrete story with a new character.

I never said I wanted to work for Ubisoft. What I said was that I "wished I worked for Ubisoft" because apparently I'm a "Ubi lapdog" and was accused of working there.

No offense, but without any sort of proof, I'm not buying it. I'm not going to sit here and say "you're wrong, you're wrong" but I'll remain skeptical.


Yeah yeah Darby this, Darby that, I'd like to hear Corey's opinions on the franchise for a change.

Darby is biased IMO. And prefers catering to a new audience instead of old fans.

I just posted a link about what Corey said about Desmond's "story" just a few pages back.

I mean, you can say it's opinion all you want, but I'm pretty sure Ubi does do it's research for it's fans in the way of polls, questionnaires', gaming reviews, this forum, etc.

I highly doubt the 80% who don't like the modern day story and just want to be an Assassin isn't any sort of opinion at all.

Also, this: And prefers catering to a new audience instead of old fans.

Is pretty much proving this: Darby also said that most people on forums are fans who tend to agree and get this mindset that people actually wanted more modern day. This is paraphrased of course, but it's in the very same thread on AC Initiates.

He also hates elitism too.

SixKeys
12-19-2013, 02:58 PM
I can't believe that some people complain about Juno manifesting through technology in a franchise about a system that lets you replay your ancestors memories to find long lost highly advanced technolgical marvels created by a race of transdimensional super-beings.

Its just sci-fi! Don't be so hard on the franchise...at least not for that!

There are varying levels of suspension of disbelief. The sci-fi elements in AC started out as fairly minimal. The plot has been getting crazier ever since AC2.

aL_____eX
12-19-2013, 03:03 PM
There are varying levels of suspension of disbelief. The sci-fi elements in AC started out as fairly minimal. The plot has been getting crazier ever since AC2.
Which wouldn't be bad if there actually was a plot around this mystical stuff anymore. But they dropped it with ACIII, and now (not to offend Black Flag's story) it's about non saying Sages and observatory, which (I really believe that!) will never lead to any conclusion. Unfortunately...

killzab
12-19-2013, 03:04 PM
I never said I wanted to work for Ubisoft. What I said was that I "wished I worked for Ubisoft" because apparently I'm a "Ubi lapdog" and was accused of working there.

No offense, but without any sort of proof, I'm not buying it. I'm not going to sit here and say "you're wrong, you're wrong" but I'll remain skeptical.



I just posted a link about what Corey said about Desmond's "story" just a few pages back.

I mean, you can say it's opinion all you want, but I'm pretty sure Ubi does do it's research for it's fans in the way of polls, questionnaires', gaming reviews, this forum, etc.

I highly doubt the 80% who don't like the modern day story and just want to be an Assassin isn't any sort of opinion at all.

Also, this: And prefers catering to a new audience instead of old fans.

Is pretty much proving this: Darby also said that most people on forums are fans who tend to agree and get this mindset that people actually wanted more modern day. This is paraphrased of course, but it's in the very same thread on AC Initiates.

He also hates elitism too.

Well fans should be more important than new kids who play for "Yarr Pirates are badass"

SixKeys
12-19-2013, 03:06 PM
Well fans should be more important than new kids who play for "Yarr Pirates are badass"

Who says those kids aren't fans as well?

killzab
12-19-2013, 03:08 PM
Who says those kids aren't fans as well?

I said "new", they can't be fans if they just played Black Flag, and if they played it only for pirates.

Farlander1991
12-19-2013, 03:08 PM
So... getting into the series because of AC2 and AC3 and their settings is alright, but because of AC4 and its setting is a no-no?

Also, who are you to define who's a 'real' fan?

SixKeys
12-19-2013, 03:11 PM
I said "new", they can't be fans if they just played Black Flag, and if they played it only for pirates.

I played AC1 only because the trailer looked cool. Does that mean I got into the series for the wrong reasons?

roostersrule2
12-19-2013, 03:14 PM
I said "new", they can't be fans if they just played Black Flag, and if they played it only for pirates.If they like the game, they're fans.

If they rotate and cool people down, also fans.

pirate1802
12-19-2013, 03:17 PM
You see this kind of behavior, irritating as it is, in all fandoms though. Like I liked the new TRs (that being my first TR I completed), went to their forums, found that the new one is pretty much universally disliked there and new fans are treated as casual scum and made fun of. So I said **** that place and **** that pretentious fanbase came back here.

You can never know who'll go on to become a long time fan, bro. So what if someone got attracted by the pirate stuff? Maybe he'll grow to become a huge fan and eventually play the older ACs as well? I personally am always happy to see more fans coming into the fanbase, more people with nov/dec 2013 signup dates. No matter if they were only attracted by the pirate stuff. Creating this kind of divide and hating new fans is what I find incredibly distasteful. And also detrimental to the franchise. No new fans = the series dying, for real. Also like with me, you can be on the receiving end of such treatment someday. You may like a game and get into its forums to discuss it. Imagine them treating you like kids, making fun of you and considering you the reason for the demise of the franchise. Not cool right?

killzab
12-19-2013, 03:19 PM
I am done debating, just believe what you want, I'm done. We'll agree to disagree and that's that. I am tired of all this, and this franchise. I know it will never become what I hoped it would. I'll just enjoy it casually from now on. I guess I'm not a fan anymore.

roostersrule2
12-19-2013, 03:21 PM
You see this kind of behavior, irritating as it is, in all fandoms though. Like I liked the new TRs (that being my first TR I completed), went to their forums, found that the new one is pretty much universally disliked there and new fans are treated as casual scum and made fun of. So I said **** that place and **** that pretentious fanbase came back here.

You can never know who'll go on to become a long time fan, bro. So what if someone got attracted by the pirate stuff? Maybe he'll grow to become a huge fan and eventually play the older ACs as well? I personally am always happy to see more fans coming into the fanbase, more people with nov/dec 2013 signup dates. No matter if they were only attracted by the pirate stuff. Creating this kind of divide and hating new fans is what I find incredibly distasteful. Also like with me, you can be on the receiving end of such treatment someday. You may like a game and get into its forums to discuss it. Imagine them treating like kids and considering you the reason for the demise of the franchise. Not cool right?It's the same with GTA V and GTA Forums, it's just hated there, more so since GTA Online came out. I strongly advise no one go there, the place is a mess.

The more fans the better though, as much as I don't like AC3 I did like how well it sold and succeeded.

SixKeys
12-19-2013, 03:22 PM
I am done debating, just believe what you want, I'm done. We'll agree to disagree and that's that. I am tired of all this, and this franchise. I know it will never become what I hoped it would. I'll just enjoy it casually from now on. I guess I'm not a fan anymore.

Only you would know that, seeing as you're the expert on who is and isn't a true fan.

killzab
12-19-2013, 03:29 PM
Only you would know that, seeing as you're the expert on who is and isn't a true fan.

I said I don't consider myself a fan anymore, it's my opinion. Another franchise lost in the abysses of greed. But I'm entitled to think I hate the direction the franchise is going, aren't I ?

I'm not giving up on AC, but I'm done getting excited for it, speculating etc...

I've been way too much into lately and couldn't stop thinking about Black Flag before it was released. But It's not worth it.

aL_____eX
12-19-2013, 03:40 PM
One thing I don't agree with is whole fan thing. I play the series since its beginning and decided to come to this forum this November, just because I wanted to discuss what the series could look like or maybe will look like one day. And that's what I got in the last few days...
And I hate everything about bashing others, because they don't like something that you may like. I'm happy that this forum is very civilized and hope this continues...

AND it's bad that some of the "hardcore" fans left the franchise because it didn't give them what they wanted. I was at that point too, but I love AC and I hope there will be a day the series will be back with full strength! And until then there is Initiates, comics etc. which really keep the franchise interesting in my opinion.

Also it's not a bad thing that some people join AC because they maybe like the pirate theme but only if this doesn't get over the fanbase that exists for sure. And that's the case at the moment... :-(

That's what I think about the development of this franchise, besides what the games themeselves hold up for the players...


Addition: These plot holes left behind by former games and the now side modern story is something I really criticize because I think this IS something caused by the facts, that Ubisoft wants to get their games played more and more and make the series more comercial every year. This is one thing were I hoped, Ac would have less fans and players, because then Ubisoft could not cancel these major game parts!

Hans684
12-19-2013, 04:10 PM
I said I don't consider myself a fan anymore, it's my opinion. Another franchise lost in the abysses of greed. But I'm entitled to think I hate the direction the franchise is going, aren't I ?

I'm not giving up on AC, but I'm done getting excited for it, speculating etc...

I've been way too much into lately and couldn't stop thinking about Black Flag before it was released. But It's not worth it.

It's an understandble opinion since this series is on yearly releases, the "greed" you speak of is nothing new. All companies makes theire desitions based on what gives the best amount of money, even R* does it with GTA. GTA has had more sequals than AC. Making both series "milked" out of "greed", the only diffrence betten AC and GTA is that GTA don't release yearly.
I agree the yearly releases is a "bad" direction, but the series itself is in a "good" direction. Yes you are entitled to hate, but what is going to make you by the games then?

I agree on speculation( a.k.a "dreaming") part, if we never gett any awnser to stuff like: What's in the boks given to Shao Jun? It will go from being a "dream" to a "nightmare". Why should we speculate on something that won't be awnserd?(directed at Corey, Darby and any other AC lead writher(no offence)), so to dodge this "nightmare" you can stop speculating on stuff that is likely to never gett awnserd or live through the "nightmare". If the "nightmare" never ends(by awnser), then there is no reason to "dream".

Charles_Phipps
12-19-2013, 05:34 PM
Who says those kids aren't fans as well?

I've played the entire series and have all the Expanded Universe material.

And I'm still happy to be a pirate.

pirate1802
12-19-2013, 05:43 PM
As was I. Guess we both aren't real fans. :(

Charles_Phipps
12-19-2013, 05:45 PM
As was I. Guess we both aren't real fans. :(

I'm actually kind of irritated we never got to see Assassin Pirates.

Adewale and Edward retire from piracy to be assassins.

Why not Assassins who fund anti-slavery and Templar activities with piracy?

Wear the A over the Jolly Roger!

Edit:

But no, seriously, you have to shake up the formula every now and then. It's like comic books. I love Batman and think Batman is awesome. However, I wouldn't want to play Batman is every single video-game released every year (which is why the Arkham Asylum series is wearing thin after three games). Each assassin should be unique and different. Edward the Pirate is cool because he's different from Altair the Assassins-Assassin and Ezio the Assassin Swashbuckler and Connor the Mohawk Assassin.

I wouldn't want another Italian guy, for example, because he'd just be a rip-off of Ezio.

pirate1802
12-19-2013, 05:49 PM
Edward kinda was, for the last two sequences, atleast unofficially. But yeah, I wanted more of that stuff too. What we thought Edward would was, was actually James Kidd, coming to think of it. Also, I'm not sure whether Edward ever returned to the Caribbean or not. His legendary costume suggests he did, but..

Charles_Phipps
12-19-2013, 05:58 PM
Edward kinda was, for the last two sequences, atleast unofficially. But yeah, I wanted more of that stuff too. What we thought Edward would was, was actually James Kidd, coming to think of it. Also, I'm not sure whether Edward ever returned to the Caribbean or not. His legendary costume suggests he did, but..

It'd be a huge retcon but I'd be comfortable with a story about him coming back in the decade til his death.

pirate1802
12-19-2013, 06:11 PM
We could always have a story about him returning to the area for a couple of years without retconning anything. I think Rogers returns as well? If he does, then thats the perfect excuse for Eddy to return as well. To finish the job, as he promised he would.

Charles_Phipps
12-19-2013, 06:22 PM
We could always have a story about him returning to the area for a couple of years without retconning anything. I think Rogers returns as well? If he does, then thats the perfect excuse for Eddy to return as well. To finish the job, as he promised he would.

How very true.

You could also show how the region has changed with the increased presence of other figures and the end of the Golden Age of Piracy.

pirate1802
12-19-2013, 06:38 PM
Well, as it turns out, Rogers indeed does return to Nassau for a second term as governor in 1728 and dies there three years later. So that's the perfect reason for Edward to return there I'd say. Think about it, something is up because otherwise they wouldn't have him alive at the end. I thought they let him live so that he'd be killed by Ade in Freedom Cry but that clearly didn't happen either. So...?

killzab
12-19-2013, 07:00 PM
Well, as it turns out, Rogers indeed does return to Nassau for a second term as governor in 1728 and dies there three years later. So that's the perfect reason for Edward to return there I'd say. Think about it, something is up because otherwise they wouldn't have him alive at the end. I thought they let him live so that he'd be killed by Ade in Freedom Cry but that clearly didn't happen either. So...?

I call a second solo dlc with Edward killing Rogers.

Charles_Phipps
12-19-2013, 07:52 PM
We already did Crystal Skulls with the Observatory.

I wonder what other craziness we could end up doing.

DarktheMagister
12-19-2013, 09:53 PM
Like I tried to say a while back... Truly being a fan of something means appreciating its strengths while also accepting/acknowledging its flaws.

Sometimes you just need to acknowledge that something is good, BUT at the same time you need to realize that no matter how good it is...it has flaws. Blindly following something because you "like it" while carving a bloody path through those that disagree while foaming at the mouth makes you a "fanboy"....not a "fan". I have come to realize that the two are different beasts. One has the ability to constructively criticize the thing they love....the other...will kill your grandma if you say "I dislike *insert thing they love*"

Now "haters" are something that I have issue with. Why even bother coming online to just actively hate on something? It seems like such a waste of time. Especially since no one ever cares about their rantings and mostly just shrugs them off as "butthurt".