PDA

View Full Version : Ubisoft, You Need To Think Again About Annualizing AC



RinoTheBouncer
01-08-2014, 08:34 PM
Ok, just so I wonít be labeled a ďhaterĒ or someone who just worships Ezio and wants his games to go on forever, Iím not that person. But I have every right to comment about products Iím buying especially a franchise that Iíve followed since the very first release.

I did enjoy every single AC game so far. I do admit that the Ezio trilogy was the best the series had to offer but I was so in love with the locations of AC1, the sense of mystery in it, the present day missions of ACIII which were totally EPIC as well as all the First Civilization moments. The latter along with Modern Day are my most favorite parts of AC, to be quite honest.

However, looking at the series evolution, Itís like ACI rising p to ACII, then almost the same level with major upgrades to present day then the same level with AC:R and then the series started to go downhill, despite the amazing present day missions of ACIII and the interesting concepts of ACIII. That may not be a problem. I was still happy with ACIII and the gameplay of ACIV. Yet the part that bugs me is that during the Q&A with Darby McDevitt on acinitiates.com, all we heard was excuses and justifications that revolve around time and resources. Excuse me, Ubisoft. If you donít have enough time to make a good game on the same level of the past ones or better, then donít make one.

If making a better present day with a detailed character requires 2-3 years of development, then thatís how long the game needs to take in development. Releasing a game every year thatís lacking the luster of the past games and attempting to be a historical GTA game isnít the way to handle the series. You guys care about sales, but unfortunately, you wonít be able to get those 3 more games from now. Resident Evil for example, was a Survival Horror game and it turned into some action-shooter relying a lot on Multiplayer and co-up and cannot dream of getting the positive responses that it used to get back in the day when it was true to itís original theme. Make a game that people will remember decades from now, like how we still remember every moment of Resident Evil 1 or Silent Hill 2 or Final Fantasy VII, VIII and FFX.

When you make a game that everybody loves, that the fan base will be happy about like the first 3 games, it will sell and you will keep the fans and the public interested. Seeking to bring fans of plot-less games by changing the game to what itís not isnít really gonna make the success youíve reached last long. I know this may be the 100000th thread talking about this but if it means my voice is heard, then so be it. I LOVED Edward Kenway as a character, and he was a hairline away from becoming No.1 instead of Ezio but that didnít happen because the story was so ďwhateverĒ. Iím not here to discuss the weaknesses of a certain game, but all Iím saying is that the game is heading towards a style that focuses more on side missions and free-roaming and less about a story that thousands of us have invested a lot of time in to understand and followed every detail of since the first game.

Graphics need to get better. Storytelling should become more connected to the past games and of more value to the general arc of the franchise and also continuing the story not being just some context or idea or an excuse to use the Animus. ACII, AC:B, and ACIII present day was going hand in hand with the past, weíre reviewing the memories to find something, some other group is following us, thereís a story that matters. On both sides, thereís something that keeps you on the edge of your side and drops your jaw down at the end. I didnít see that in ACIV. Maybe Aita and Junoís moments were remarkable but I didnít feel so interested in being a floating camera. I donít wanna be me. I am a gamer, I canít fit into the AC present day unless you guys take me to your studios and render me in 3D and put me in the game. I donít wanna hear one sided conversations and pretend that theyíre talking to me and I donít wanna be a game tester and live in the illusion that somebodyís recording my data for some reason. I wanna know what theyíre doing with the Animus and my trips through my genetic memories and see something happening.

I donít hate ACIV. Itís gameplay was epic, it was fun and the protagonist was amazing. But I want a story, better graphics, more interesting scenes and lets not just bring any faction or group that is mainstream and public in hollywood movies and stick the ďAssassinĒ or ďTemplarĒ label on it. Pirates are not assassins. We barely did a few missions for the assassins and as far as I can see, we wonít be having more Edward so this isnít really an opening for something bigger about him being a true assassin like AC:Brotherhood and Revelations did after ACII introduced the assassin and inducted him near the end of the game.

The only reason Iím writing this is because Iím a fan, a huge fan and a collector too. I donít want a day to come where AC games are released and 2 copies are put on shelves for ages and donít sell nor do I wanna see all this big budget promo and this mass excitement and activity of fans to vanish because trust me, it will if you keep alienating the fans. I donít want another Ezio game nor another Connor game nor Altair again, either. I want something new and original and something that is Assassinís Creed. Something that I will LOVE so much like how I LOVED ACII when it came after ACI, so very much. It was also a new style but it was a style that we all loved so much. Not everything ďnewĒ or ďfreshĒ is good. Thereís fresh food and fresh ****, so before you just say ďWe wanna start freshĒ make sure that whatís fresh is something delicious.

Thank you.

Mr_Shade
01-08-2014, 08:38 PM
I am sure you are aware that the Dev Team - are not a single team..


There are many different teams and many hundreds of people who write and code the games - while some may think they are written in one year - since that is how they release - they all have taken multiple years of development..

So, I do not want people assuming that games are rushed or released without care and attention given to them, which many haters like to suggest.

However as always - feedback is always welcomed ;)

RinoTheBouncer
01-08-2014, 08:47 PM
I am sure you are aware that the Dev Team - are not a single team..


There are many different teams and many hundreds of people who write and code the games - while some may think they are written in one year - since that is how they release - they all have taken multiple years of development..

So, I do not want people assuming that games are rushed or released without care and attention given to them, which many haters like to suggest.

However as always - feedback is always welcomed ;)

I thank you for your response. I’ve always believed they’re multiple teams doing the job but during the chat sessions with Darby, all his explanations were related to time and resources. That’s why I got the impression that the game needs more time especially when he mentioned some parts being removed from the game as well.

I love AC so much and I’m in no way a hater (I know you didn’t mean me) but I’m just saying that trimming present day, deviating far from what the series looked like and focusing less on the story and more on a GTA-style game was a huge let down to me.

I’m glad you guys welcome our feedback :)

Mr_Shade
01-08-2014, 08:50 PM
Tbh - I'm sure if you talk to any member of the team, from sound design to textures - they all would prefer longer to develop - however it's not always the case it can be allowed.


I'm sure you remember a few famous games that took forever to release..


Also - even when games are delayed to allow that extra time - people get equally upset at the delays - as another thread in this very forum seems to be suggesting, or the PC versions of the AC games.

Fatal-Feit
01-08-2014, 08:50 PM
AC:IV had so much potential. I mean, the game was awesome, but it wasn't AC:2 or AC:3 level of innovation. In fact, it felt like a step back from AC:3. They might as well slapped the IV off the title and pull a Brotherhood by simply calling it Black Flag. Nobody would have mind.

I don't like to badmouth AC:IV but it's clear proof that annualizing the series is taking a toll on the games' quality.

ze_topazio
01-08-2014, 08:52 PM
...the present day missions of ACIII which were totally EPIC...

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120707113814/bakugan/images/c/c4/Jawdrop.gif

andreycvetov
01-08-2014, 08:52 PM
I am a fan since the first AC and i have one problem with their method of pulishing.For example if your favourite food is pizza and you eat pizza one night thats great.The second and third one also.But in time the concept just becomes dull and loses its uniques that made it different in the first place.Thats why they need to stop.Let it breathe,let the fans have a break.And in a couple of years the hunger for a big new ac installment will be more than ever.Also this way,they can polish the game and story(the thing for which i felt in love with the franchise).

RinoTheBouncer
01-08-2014, 08:57 PM
AC:IV had so much potential. I mean, the game was awesome, but it wasn't AC:2 or AC:3 level of innovation. In fact, it felt like a step back from AC:3. They might as well slapped the IV off the title and pull a Brotherhood by simply calling it Black Flag. Nobody would have mind.

I don't like to badmouth AC:IV but it's clear proof that annualizing the series is taking a toll on the games' quality.

Perfectly said. And I agree totally with pulling a Brotherhood. It would’ve been more acceptable even though it’s just a title. But bringing a fourth title that doesn’t know whether it’s supposed to be innovative and fresh because it’s a new numbered entry or just lie in the shadows of the past game is really a bad idea. And yes, it’s becoming more about quantity than quality, lately and concepts, graphics and additional contents are becoming quite repetitive.


http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120707113814/bakugan/images/c/c4/Jawdrop.gif

They were totally epic. I’m not sure why anybody would have a problem with them.


I am a fan since the first AC and i have one problem with their method of pulishing.For example if your favourite food is pizza and you eat pizza one night thats great.The second and third one also.But in time the concept just becomes dull and loses its uniques that made it different in the first place.Thats why they need to stop.Let it breathe,let the fans have a break.And in a couple of years the hunger for a big new ac installment will be more than ever.Also this way,they can polish the game and story(the thing for which i felt in love with the franchise).

EXACTLY! They’re just recycling stuff over and over and over and nothing is changing. Nothing is being innovative like ACII was in comparison to ACI or AC:R was in comparison to the others or how present day and how the story was unfolding in a much more exciting way with ACII and AC:B and ACIII. You’re literally waiting for something to happen and it does happen but with ACIV, it’s just like us being told that a dragon will appear in the sky tomorrow and tomorrow comes and we’re all waiting and excited and afraid and crazy but nothing happens, so it’s like building excitement for nothing.

You look at the franchise and you clearly feel that it’s aging. I still replay the past games and feel so entertained and affected and moved by the events like the first time but with the latter entires, It’s like “ok, when are the credits gonna roll? or NOT ANOTHER MISSION, PLEASE” and it’s only the second replay. I guess that’s a sign of weakness when you see a game losing it’s luster so fast while it’s predecessors still feel good as new. There hasn’t been any innovation since forever, just “remove this weapon and add that weapon” or “lets enable that type of climbing then disable it”. I’ve seen numerous fans writing theories about the future that sound much more interesting than what Ubisoft’s been offering.

Fatal-Feit
01-08-2014, 09:00 PM
Also - even when games are delayed to allow that extra time - people get equally upset at the delays - as another thread in this very forum seems to be suggesting, or the PC versions of the AC games.

I wouldn't mind the long delays for PC if they weren't so awfully ported. The delays are getting longer and longer with every release but the qualities are getting worse and worse. Again, another reason why annualizing is a problem.

RinoTheBouncer
01-08-2014, 09:04 PM
I wouldn't mind the long delays for PC if they weren't so awfully ported. The delays are getting longer and longer with every release but the qualities are getting worse and worse. Again, another reason why annualizing is a problem.

This problem too! very well said.
I’m not a PC gamer, but many of my friends are and they’re always left to wait forever and eventually get a malfunctioning game.

lothario-da-be
01-08-2014, 09:19 PM
Nailed it Rino! I don't fully agree on all your points, but i share your vision. Together with thousands of ac fans most likely. I am still a big ac fan, but that "passion" is slowly fading away. And i fear for the day that its almost vanished...

RinoTheBouncer
01-08-2014, 09:26 PM
Nailed it Rino! I don't fully agree on all your points, but i share your vision. Together with thousands of ac fans most likely. I am still a big ac fan, but that "passion" is slowly fading away. And i fear for the day that its almost vanished...

Thank you very much. I hope our voice is heard and somebody out there among the decision makers and developers makes a difference. I really don’t want the franchise I love most to die because of lack of innovation. I’d rather have it ending with ACIII than dragging on and cheapening itself.

dxsxhxcx
01-08-2014, 09:34 PM
Also - even when games are delayed to allow that extra time - people get equally upset at the delays - as another thread in this very forum seems to be suggesting, or the PC versions of the AC games.

the problem isn't the delay itself but the lack of transparency from Ubisoft regarding the release date of the PC version, I wouldn't like it but I could live with a delay if I knew from the beginning (read: the game announcement) the PC version would be released a month or two after the console versions (funny how you're capable of announce with accuracy the date the console version will be released, even with the game still in development, but can't do the same for the PC version)...

yankeegamergirl
01-08-2014, 10:05 PM
Great thread Rino. I totally agree with your very first sentence! It's a shame you have to apologize before stating your opinion because some people can't separate the people who love the series and make well thought out critique's about it because they care ,to people who just like to rant and complain mindlessly. I also love the series in general mainly from ACI to Revelations (my main complaint with Revelations is it felt slightly rushed and characters like Piri Reis felt like throw away characters; I wanted to really care for him like I did with Leonardo). ACIII was a disappointment for me slightly for a number of reasons which I won't go into now; ironically it was the naval battles that saved it for me but that's mainly because I like the sound of cannons. Although I wouldn't call them epic I really enjoyed the modern day mission as well. :)

You know how I feel about the 'annualisation' of the series and I'm not that keen just as you aren't and for the same reasons you made mainly I'm concerned that people will tire of the series. I also have an issue with AC becoming unrecognizable and as you said with what seems like popular themes at the moment being taped to the series seems to me a bad move; I have yet to play IV but as a fan I wasn't keen on another 18th century game with more ships and the addition of pirates even though the open world looked beautiful and like it would be fun to explore, a few other games can offer me that so I don't necessarily play AC for those reasons. A game can be totally innovative and stay true to its foundations of what made it unique in the first place and I just want that original flavour brought back to the series and for it to be given some time to rest (for me ACI-ACIII).


QUOTE=andreycvetov;9477093]I am a fan since the first AC and i have one problem with their method of pulishing.For example if your favourite food is pizza and you eat pizza one night thats great.The second and third one also.But in time the concept just becomes dull and loses its uniques that made it different in the first place.Thats why they need to stop.Let it breathe,let the fans have a break.And in a couple of years the hunger for a big new ac installment will be more than ever.Also this way,they can polish the game and story(the thing for which i felt in love with the franchise).[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with this! :)

Rino your last paragraph was great. lol ;)

killzab
01-09-2014, 12:16 AM
Thank you very much. I hope our voice is heard and somebody out there among the decision makers and developers makes a difference. I really don’t want the franchise I love most to die because of lack of innovation. I’d rather have it ending with ACIII than dragging on and cheapening itself.

Exactly, and then there are people like Darby who call us long-time fans "elitists" ....

pineal_gland
01-09-2014, 12:31 AM
I share your vision too.

The modern-day part in AC4 feels like a complete gimmick. It's almost insulting for those who actually like the modern-day story.

dbzk1999
01-09-2014, 03:10 AM
I share your vision too.

The modern-day part in AC4 feels like a complete gimmick. It's almost insulting for those who actually like the modern-day story.

Tbh I actually liked the modern story

pirate1802
01-09-2014, 04:08 AM
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120707113814/bakugan/images/c/c4/Jawdrop.gif

Lol, my reaction exactly.

pacmanate
01-09-2014, 05:57 AM
Tbh - I'm sure if you talk to any member of the team, from sound design to textures - they all would prefer longer to develop - however it's not always the case it can be allowed.
.

Which is the problem, don't annualize.


I was going to make a thread like this but I am glad you did OP. Agree with your post.

There are a lot of fans that like AC's balls and are happy with how it is. I am not, I use to be about 5 years ago but its gotten stale.

RinoTheBouncer
01-09-2014, 11:32 AM
I share your vision too.

The modern-day part in AC4 feels like a complete gimmick. It's almost insulting for those who actually like the modern-day story.

Yeah, totally. It’s like they’re making fun of us with such a simplistic and reductive non-existing plot and just throwing in some known faces to make it look familiar. I liked hacking computers but as an extra, not that the whole story would revolve around that. When Juno appeared in that room or Aita injected me with something before being shot, I was like “God, please add another hour of this”. But that didn’t happen. So it feels like being invited to a fancy dinner and you get to the table, the appetizers arrive and then you discover that this is all there is. There’s excitement but there’s nothing beyond it.


Exactly, and then there are people like Darby who call us long-time fans "elitists" ....

Yeah, Darby is a very defensive person when chatting us on acinitiates.com. Every time you bring up a flaw and he’s either justifying it with shortage of time or saying “Oh I though it was good” or “I liked it” as if he’s developing a game that he’s gonna play alone. The other thing he says is “We made surveys and most fans don’t like modern day”. I was like WTH? 99% of people on AC forums want an improved modern day if not a whole game in modern day and then he comes to say that? of course to justify the historical GTA style, he has to make up stories.


Which is the problem, don't annualize.


I was going to make a thread like this but I am glad you did OP. Agree with your post.

There are a lot of fans that like AC's balls and are happy with how it is. I am not, I use to be about 5 years ago but its gotten stale.

Thank you. I’m glad you like my thread.

I was a fan of AC since ACI. The only things I said about the franchise to my friends and people who like video games were positive things like “Best franchise ever!” or “The best story-telling and mixture of facts and fiction I’ve ever seen. It looks and feels so believable” or “This franchise sure knows how to keep us intrigued” but with ACIV and the ending of ACIII, I can’t say that anymore. I’m not really gonna bow for something just because it’s labeled Assassin’s Creed.

The franchise is selling, yes but that won’t be for long. Call of Duty used to be the game everybody adored but now it’s losing it’s spark and becoming an example for plot-less, multiplayer-reliant games. Ubisoft is trying way too hard to make it appeal to multiplayer fans and I assure you that regardless of what they say about who develops multiplayer or how much time they need for each game, they ARE squeezing their timetable and favoring quantity over quality. If multiplayer didn’t exist and the resources for it were used on a better single player, it would’ve been much better. If they release a game every 2-3 years, focusing well on better storytelling, better graphics, better balance between modern and historical periods, the game will be warmly welcomed.

However, all they want is to stick the “Assassins” or “Templars” labels on some faction or group in real life that hollywood movies are tired of and sell a game about it. I like changes. I don’t want an all-time Ezio franchise. But I also want something to be as high as that level or higher.

ze_topazio
01-09-2014, 11:45 AM
They were totally epic. Iím not sure why anybody would have a problem with them.

I can't even imagine anyone calling them good much less epic, i like the modern day but AC3 modern day was bad, story was bad, mission design was bad and not even the temple was interesting.

RinoTheBouncer
01-09-2014, 11:47 AM
I can't even imagine anyone calling them good much less epic, i like the modern day but AC3 modern day was bad, story was bad, mission design was bad and not even the temple was interesting.

Oh c’mon no way! I mean seeing the city from above, using parachute and this whole thing was if not good then at least promising for future games to look like that and give us more play time in such missions. I honestly waited for historical missions to end so I can go and play more. Maybe they weren’t perfect but it gave me the feeling that next games are gonna be involved more into modern day story and have actual action and people making a difference in modern day. Sadly, that didn’t happen and they gave us a cheap alternative.

pirate1802
01-09-2014, 11:55 AM
Oh c’mon no way! I mean seeing the city from above, using parachute and this whole thing was if not good then at least promising for future games to look like that and give us more play time in such missions. I honestly waited for historical missions to end so I can go and play more. Maybe they weren’t perfect but it gave me the feeling that next games are gonna be involved more into modern day story and have actual action and people making a difference in modern day. Sadly, that didn’t happen and they gave us a cheap alternative.

The parachute jump was great, I enjoyed it a lot. But the other two were embarrassingly bad imo, and I was facepalming half the time and laughing the other half. That after hearing they were awesome, as said by the people on these forums immediately after AC3's release. Desmond "infiltrating" with just a knife, guards forgetting they've got guns.. you name it. I wanted them to feel epic honestly, but all I got was comedy.

The reason the series almost surely never have a dedicated modern day part is because that'd turn into Splinter Cell/GTA, or will be ridiculous like the last two AC3 modern day missions. I think the devs took the smarter route. Honestly my enjoyment of AC4 would have diminished a lot if I was forced through such crap again..

LoyalACFan
01-09-2014, 01:12 PM
Even though I think AC4 was probably the best AC game overall, I can't help but agree. Even if the games are consistently good, they're never going to surprise and thrill us like AC1 and AC2 did if we keep getting inundated with them. When playing AC4 I did not think, "Oh my God, this is head and shoulders above its predecessor," I thought, "This is what AC3 should have been." Even though 4 was better than 3, it was by the virtue of only a few improvements. And though 5 might be better than 4, it won't be by a margin as great as the one between 1 and 2. Perhaps that's the law of diminishing returns beginning to kick in, but I still feel like this franchise has somewhere great to go if it's given enough time and care to get there.

RinoTheBouncer
01-09-2014, 02:31 PM
The parachute jump was great, I enjoyed it a lot. But the other two were embarrassingly bad imo, and I was facepalming half the time and laughing the other half. That after hearing they were awesome, as said by the people on these forums immediately after AC3's release. Desmond "infiltrating" with just a knife, guards forgetting they've got guns.. you name it. I wanted them to feel epic honestly, but all I got was comedy.

The reason the series almost surely never have a dedicated modern day part is because that'd turn into Splinter Cell/GTA, or will be ridiculous like the last two AC3 modern day missions. I think the devs took the smarter route. Honestly my enjoyment of AC4 would have diminished a lot if I was forced through such crap again..

The problem with AC is that it’s ditching some really great ideas for Modern Day just so it won’t look like Splinter Cell or GTA while in fact, it’s becoming a GTA in historical times. I have no problems with games looking similar, like for example Tomb Raider and Uncharted are both games about explorers with some action and a bit of supernatural stuff and they’re still both unique and entertaining on their own. So I don’t see AC becoming cheap or unoriginal if the story required it to be focusing on modern day for at least one or two games.

I was happy about ACIII modern day not because it was the best thing ever but because it gave me hope that the next game would improve and expand what we’ve got. That didn’t happen and we got something that is neither entertaining nor of any story value or relevancy to the game. I loved how in Brotherhood, we go back and forth and try to make sense of what we see in the past. Those small chats had great significance to me and the story.


Even though I think AC4 was probably the best AC game overall, I can't help but agree. Even if the games are consistently good, they're never going to surprise and thrill us like AC1 and AC2 did if we keep getting inundated with them. When playing AC4 I did not think, "Oh my God, this is head and shoulders above its predecessor," I thought, "This is what AC3 should have been." Even though 4 was better than 3, it was by the virtue of only a few improvements. And though 5 might be better than 4, it won't be by a margin as great as the one between 1 and 2. Perhaps that's the law of diminishing returns beginning to kick in, but I still feel like this franchise has somewhere great to go if it's given enough time and care to get there.

I totally agree with you. ACIV isn’t a bad game. I definitely did enjoy the gameplay. But I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it gave excitement for something big but that thing did not happen and it was less original and as you said, more like “This is what ACIII should’ve been”. It was a good game but not like ACII was in comparison to ACI, at least to me.

pacmanate
01-09-2014, 02:51 PM
Even though I think AC4 was probably the best AC game overall, I can't help but agree. Even if the games are consistently good, they're never going to surprise and thrill us like AC1 and AC2 did if we keep getting inundated with them. .

This is what I meant by getting stale, there is no quality jump.

Also I have found with AC games that if one part of the game is good, another lacks.

RinoTheBouncer
01-10-2014, 11:03 AM
This is what I meant by getting stale, there is no quality jump.

Also I have found with AC games that if one part of the game is good, another lacks.

I couldn’t agree more. And within the game itself, if one thing is good, the rest sucks. Good story, bad gameplay. Good gameplay, non-existent story. Good historical, bad present-day. Good characters, no gameplay nor story. LOL

pirate1802
01-10-2014, 11:23 AM
The problem with AC is that it’s ditching some really great ideas for Modern Day just so it won’t look like Splinter Cell or GTA while in fact, it’s becoming a GTA in historical times. I have no problems with games looking similar, like for example Tomb Raider and Uncharted are both games about explorers with some action and a bit of supernatural stuff and they’re still both unique and entertaining on their own. So I don’t see AC becoming cheap or unoriginal if the story required it to be focusing on modern day for at least one or two games.

Then why do you complain that AC is becoming historical GTA? :p See, the thing is, each game has a defining trait. And for AC its historical adventure. That is AC's trademark. Running across rooftops of famous ancient cities and stabbing people. If you do away or deviate from that the game isn't AC anymore. You gave the example of Tomb Raider, Tomb raider is defined by Lara and supernatural elements. These two HAVE to be in a game for it to be called Tomb Raider. I'm not a fan of all the supernatural crap let me tell you, and if it was up to me I'd cut out the ghosty stuff from TR but then I'd be killing the spirit of TR and make it nearly identical to Uncharted. It is the same with AC. A modern day-focussed AC wouldn't be AC, just like a GTA set in the past without ******s and cars would no longer be GTA, right? You'd notice many old TR fans are complaining that the new one isn't a worthy TR game. This is exactly why. Because they did away with some of the core elements of the series. Now I'm not complaining because I didn't like the old ones. But I do like the traditional non modern AC.

They sure can make a modern day AC, but I won't be buying it, or consider it an AC game. Because there are frankly countless good modern day stealth games out there. Better than what an modern AC can ever dream of being. I will play any one of them. Why waste time on AC? Its not like AC will suddenly become the very best of the best modern stealth game so that people will run after it. AC will become another one of them, and an average one at that. While on the other hand there are virtually no game set in the past using actual historical cities. That is AC's true identity. That is why even if it becomes historical GTA or whatever, it will retain its unique identity. That is why people buy the AC games, because its something no one else is doing. By focusing on modern day, they'll lose this selling point and become a truly average game.

But anyway, AC has been GTA ever since AC2. Let's be honest, the only truly Assassiny AC was AC1 and AC1 alone. All the rest are AC concepts mixed with GTA. Assassinations, with random non assassin side activities thrown in. That is all the ACs starting with AC2, in a nutshell. Which is a good thing imo, because I thought AC1, although showing potential, was bland. So its good they injected a little life in it. But it indeed is strange that people are complaining about it now when it was always the case.

Zafar1981
01-11-2014, 01:31 AM
In my view story and the way it presented is all which matter. In this form a person gave an example of eating pizza daily will make it less attractive. Yes it is right but eating pizza ONCE A YEAR would definitely make it attractive. Annualizing is not the problem with AC. The rummars are they are launching two AC games in 2014 and I know they will sell them handsomely.
The Problem which I think and most of the followers of the game would also agree with me is that either the story is not up to that mark or/and it is not presented well. According to my knowledge a single AC game took roughly 21 to 28 month to complete. So we cant say that they are making it in a rush as they have the engine and also most of the animations which are to be reused in the next game with some modifications. So rule out the theory of annual release as it is good to have an Assassin game ONCE A YEAR.
The major problem which they need to address is to get a good, interesting, ripe and a result oriented story. Then they have to focus on its presentation. In my view the main story of AC IV is not up to that mark but is was presented excellently. AC III story was awesome but not presented in a desired way. AC II is the example which I can give in the support as the story was near to the expectation and it was also presented in a professional way.

Zafar1981
01-11-2014, 02:11 AM
In addition Ubisoft had realized that the sale of Assassin's Creed game would remain between 6 million to 8 million(if every thing remain constant). So it is no a good idea to get that sale after every two or three years when we can have this on every year. So if any one of you who is a finance person or student could understand my point that what is the main benefits of releasing it annually and its not a negative approach especially when you are running an organisation in rescission time. In future we would see lots of main title including GTA having an annual release.
Now my word would become boring so the main idea is that if the story of the game and its presentation is strong then it didn't matter if it comes on annually or after a decade. We have seen lots of games who had good following were under development for so many years and when they released it only ends in a mess like Duke Nuken Forever. Why, week story and presentation. The word presentation here include all the things except story which are graphics, game play, controls and their execution.

Zafar1981
01-11-2014, 02:31 AM
They sure can make a modern day AC, but I won't be buying it, or consider it an AC game. Because there are frankly countless good modern day stealth games out there. Better than what an modern AC can ever dream of being. I will play any one of them. Why waste time on AC? Its not like AC will suddenly become the very best of the best modern stealth game so that people will run after it. AC will become another one of them, and an average one at that. While on the other hand there are virtually no game set in the past using actual historical cities. That is AC's true identity. That is why even if it becomes historical GTA or whatever, it will retain its unique identity. That is why people buy the AC games, because its something no one else is doing. By focusing on modern day, they'll lose this selling point and become a truly average game.

I buy this game because of History and how does these cities look like in that era. And I see no harm in the word calling it a historical GTA which is infact wrong. There are no cars in AC no bank robbery or gang politics. If you say that we call it GTA copy because of free roaming then we can also call GTA as a modern The Elder Scroll. Free roaming or sandbox is a style of gameplay which we can say was perfected by GTA but they were not the pioneers. Games like The Elder Scroll, Fallout and many other way before the birth of GTA had been set on free roaming gameplay. Its a way of making a game and if any one think that Rockstar games had any patient right on this specific gameplay then they would had sued lots of companies till now.

SixKeys
01-11-2014, 02:35 AM
You'd notice many old TR fans are complaining that the new one isn't a worthy TR game. This is exactly why. Because they did away with some of the core elements of the series.

"Core elements"....Is that some newfangled slang for "Lara's boobs?"

LoyalACFan
01-11-2014, 03:03 AM
"Core elements"....Is that some newfangled slang for "Lara's boobs?"

ROFL probably. Evidently many people had no issue that a go-go dancer was raiding tombs from 1996-2008.

AdamPearce
01-11-2014, 04:10 AM
Tbh - Also - even when games are delayed to allow that extra time - people get equally upset at the delays - as another thread in this very forum seems to be suggesting, or the PC versions of the AC games.

There is a very simple way to avoid that: don't announce the game if it's not ready. at this E3, The Division was annouced, and now we are told that the game won't be ready for 2015 ! That's frustrating. If the game was shown at E3 2015 and meant to be released on November 2015, then no one would've complained.

No Announce = No Hype
No Hype = No Pressure
No Pressure = Full time developement
Full time developement = Everyone happy !

Simple as that ! (actually since there is the Editors that would push the devs to release the game anyway but hey, at least I've tried.)

LoyalACFan
01-11-2014, 04:20 AM
There is a very simple way to avoid that: don't announce the game if it's not ready. at this E3, The Division was annouced, and now we are told that the game won't be ready for 2015 ! That's frustrating. If the game was shown at E3 2015 and meant to be released on November 2015, then no one would've complained.

No Announce = No Hype
No Hype = No Pressure
No Pressure = Full time developement
Full time developement = Everyone happy !

Simple as that ! (actually since there is the Editors that would push the devs to release the game anyway but hey, at least I've tried.)

It's the guys from corporate who make the decisions on when to reveal the game, not the developers. And those are the guys who want to finish the game as quickly as possible. It would be great if the devs could take as long as they want to finish games, but they still have to get paid, and their employers aren't going to want to pay them for working on the same game indefinitely.

It sucks for the devs and consumers though.

AdamPearce
01-11-2014, 04:35 AM
It's the guys from corporate who make the decisions on when to reveal the game, not the developers. And those are the guys who want to finish the game as quickly as possible. It would be great if the devs could take as long as they want to finish games, but they still have to get paid, and their employers aren't going to want to pay them for working on the same game indefinitely.

It sucks for the devs and consumers though.

I think the major problem is that the Editors don't trust the devs. I feel like they don't want to let them do what they want and they restrict them. Let's take Hideo Kojima and Konami for example. Konami fully support Kojima, they trust him 120%, the only restriction they give him are the capacities of the actual generation. And guess what ? Konami now as one of the biggest and the most respected franchise in the industry.

I really think the editors and developers should always be in communication and should always ask for advice from one another. An editor should ask for announcing a game, and the developer should ask for adding something into the game (polygon restriction. budget, etc), make it balanced. Now I don't know, maybe it's already the case for Ubisoft (even though that would suprise me a lot), it's just a general remark that I make here.

LoyalACFan
01-11-2014, 05:14 AM
I think the major problem is that the Editors don't trust the devs. I feel like they don't want to let them do what they want and they restrict them. Let's take Hideo Kojima and Konami for example. Konami fully support Kojima, they trust him 120%, the only restriction they give him are the capacities of the actual generation. And guess what ? Konami now as one of the biggest and the most respected franchise in the industry.

I really think the editors and developers should always be in communication and should always ask for advice from one another. An editor should ask for announcing a game, and the developer should ask for adding something into the game (polygon restriction. budget, etc), make it balanced. Now I don't know, maybe it's already the case for Ubisoft (even though that would suprise me a lot), it's just a general remark that I make here.

That's Hideo ****ing Kojima though, lol. The man's a legend; hell, THE legend. Arguably the most famous creative face in gaming. Anything he touches will turn into $$$$$. Konami would be stupid to impose limitations on him and risk alienating him, because if they don't give him what he wants, he'll take his talents elsewhere. Very few people in gaming could do that.

AdamPearce
01-11-2014, 05:30 AM
That's Hideo ****ing Kojima though, lol. The man's a legend; hell, THE legend. Arguably the most famous creative face in gaming. Anything he touches will turn into $$$$$. Konami would be stupid to impose limitations on him and risk alienating him, because if they don't give him what he wants, he'll take his talents elsewhere. Very few people in gaming could do that.

Patrice and Koji are bros. Actually Koji asked Patrice for his opinion for Peace Walker and Koji did the same for ACII. Dťsilets is the occidental Kojima, not kidding. And Patrice left Ubi for THQ, but the close, so he was back with Ubi, and now they kicked him off. All he wants is his project so he can continue it and release it. I really can wait for his next game.

Patrice is a legend, he just haven't had the opportunity to show it. Though he kinda did with Sands of Time and AC1...

LoyalACFan
01-11-2014, 05:53 AM
Patrice and Koji are bros. Actually Koji asked Patrice for his opinion for Peace Walker and Koji did the same for ACII. Dťsilets is the occidental Kojima, not kidding. And Patrice left Ubi for THQ, but the close, so he was back with Ubi, and now they kicked him off. All he wants is his project so he can continue it and release it. I really can wait for his next game.

Patrice is a legend, he just haven't had the opportunity to show it. Though he kinda did with Sands of Time and AC1...

I had heard that they were friends, but Patrice doesn't command the same power in the industry that Kojima does. He may have the same level of talent, but he just hasn't made a name for himself in the same way. I'm really rooting for him though.

Zafar1981
01-11-2014, 06:39 AM
Patrice and Koji are bros. Actually Koji asked Patrice for his opinion for Peace Walker and Koji did the same for ACII. Dťsilets is the occidental Kojima, not kidding. And Patrice left Ubi for THQ, but the close, so he was back with Ubi, and now they kicked him off. All he wants is his project so he can continue it and release it. I really can wait for his next game.

Patrice is a legend, he just haven't had the opportunity to show it. Though he kinda did with Sands of Time and AC1...
Definitely Patrice is an icon. I don't know why Ubisoft terminate him as he had the experience and talent which is what a company is seeking in their employees. If there were any issues regarding 1666: Amsterdam it should have been resolved by other way. I personally doesn't want 1666 to be next assassin game and loved if it become a new franchise. From this forum I still implore Ubisoft to reconsider about Patrice.

SixKeys
01-11-2014, 06:48 AM
Patrice is nowhere near as big a name as Kojima or other long-time veterans in the industry. Patrice revived PoP (which existed as a brand before he came along) and created AC, of which the first game received a lukewarm reception. Those are pretty much his claim to fame. AC as a brand was just starting to pick up steam when he left Ubi. Now it's huge and he doesn't have any control over his creation anymore.

LoyalACFan
01-11-2014, 07:07 AM
From this forum I still implore Ubisoft to reconsider about Patrice.

Bah, screw that. I hope he makes it somewhere else. Ubisoft has treated him like crap. I hope he gets the rights to 1666 and has huge success with it elsewhere.

Zafar1981
01-11-2014, 07:36 AM
Bah, screw that. I hope he makes it somewhere else. Ubisoft has treated him like crap. I hope he gets the rights to 1666 and has huge success with it elsewhere.
Yes but the problem is 1666 is now Ubisoft property which I m sure is going to become an other assassin game.

LoyalACFan
01-11-2014, 07:42 AM
Yes but the problem is 1666 is now Ubisoft property which I m sure is going to become an other assassin game.

Yes, but he said he's going to be taking legal action to get his own intellectual property back. As I said, I hope he makes it elsewhere. If the next AC looks suspiciously similar to Patrice's 1666 idea, I'm seriously going to consider not buying it. That's extremely shabby treatment of the man who created Ubisoft's flagship franchise.

Zafar1981
01-11-2014, 07:53 AM
Yes, but he said he's going to be taking legal action to get his own intellectual property back. As I said, I hope he makes it elsewhere. If the next AC looks suspiciously similar to Patrice's 1666 idea, I'm seriously going to consider not buying it. That's extremely shabby treatment of the man who created Ubisoft's flagship franchise.
To be honest they day when he left Ubisoft again I really feel bad for him. That's why I didn't consider Assassin's Creed every new game upto that standard where Assassin' Creed 1 and 2 were. AC1 was a brilliant experiment and was perfected in AC2 and all because of Him. ACB is also upto that level but ACR is really a disappointment. Its clear that the point where he left Ubisoft the graph of AC goes downward.

DinoSteve1
01-11-2014, 09:13 AM
I dunno ACIV seems to be a step back in the right direction.

Fatal-Feit
01-11-2014, 09:17 AM
I dunno ACIV seems to be a step back in the right direction.

LOL

The wisdom in this.

LoyalACFan
01-11-2014, 11:09 AM
I dunno ACIV seems to be a step back in the right direction.

I'm sort of afraid it was a one-off though. AC4 was fantastic, but it had the pirate crutch to lean on, with much of the game being built on the excellent naval content. The actual core pillars of the franchise (combat, stealth, and free-running) are all underdeveloped and as yet not strong enough to hold up a whole game, which is very bad. Free-running is OK, though I'm not overly fond of the new one-button system, but stealth and combat need to be seriously worked on in order for a pure Assassin game to fly. Especially stealth; while I appreciated that there were more options for it in AC4, it relied almost entirely on the extremely overpowered and gimmicky stalking zones. Stealth should be more than just "walk into bushes = VANISH."

jdowny
01-11-2014, 01:59 PM
I entirely agree with the OP, though I think it's easy to judge a game harshly because they are annualised. If these same games came out every two years, I wonder if we'd be so critical.

However, there is a trend with the previous two games that concerns me with regard to story - and I wonder if others agree. I get the feeling with AC III and IV that the setting is strangling the story. AC III was a potentially gripping and touching story about a father and son caught on opposite sides in a civil war, but the American Revolution got in the way of that on so many levels that I felt the story kept on having to be reeled in and forced around historical events.

Similarly, AC IV's Edward Kenway rivalled Ezio for sheer personality and charisma, but I got the impression that the pirate setting kept dragging it down, occupying the storyline for 75% of the game while the Assassins and Templars made up a tiny proportion.

The advantage of AC I, II, Brotherhood and Revelations was that their settings were often so loose that the writers had more or less free reign to experiment, without having to worry too much about historical events taking precedence. In fact, in much of Ezio's stories the historical events actually enhanced the story instead of becoming just a sideline. As such, I felt their stories were far more appealing.

O-Rei-do-Frango
01-11-2014, 02:15 PM
I definitely agree that it would be better if AC weren't a once-a-year thing. I say one game every 2 years would be just right.
I am aware that Ubisoft is huge and that there are multiple huge teams working on different AC games, but releasing a game once every couple of years would nevertheless allow for more development time, which is always good. Plus, it'd also give players some time off. There were many annual franchises which were once extremely successful, but not anymore, due to the fact that people got tired of them. That's why I believe that annualizing AC will eventually mean the death of it, which is a real shame, since there's nothing else like it out there.

However, I disagree that having a pirate game, which doesn't feel like like it fits the Assassin's Creed lore, is a bad thing.
AC II was awesome, I loved the setting and it was a lot fun. ACB wasn't as mind-blowing, but it was still fun, due to the concept of taking over the city, plus it had Rome, which is probably the coolest city ever, and definitely the best city in any AC game, so far. The story was much worse, but at least it provided closure to AC II's story and it still had those great characters.
ACR, however, was nothing but a copy of ACB, and an inferior one at that: the story was pointless and ridiculously uninteresting, the city wasn't nearly as cool as Rome (yet, at the same time, it felt too similar, somehow) and the whole bombs thing, which was pretty much the only new thing in the game, was actually a pointless nuisance. Yeah, ACR definitely felt like it was rushed. Kind of like a huge expansion disc for ACB.

Needless to say, ACR was a huge disappointment.
I eventually skipped AC III, especially with so many people saying so many bad things about it.
I was on the fence about AC IV, as the pirate setting seemed really cool and a breath of fresh air in the series so to speak, but, again, after the lackluster experience of ACR... However, I got the game as a gift during Christmas and now I'm happy to say that Black Flag has restored my faith (at least, for now) in the series. There's definitely a huge evolution this time around (when compared to Revelations. The fact that I skipped AC III helped, I'm sure, as it was the game that introduced a new graphics engine, with all the new animations, tree climbing, animals and whatnot), the setting is awesome, unique and the game is just FUN.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about all the modern day stuff and I don't particularly care about the whole Assassins versus Templars, First Civilization, conspiracy theories, etc., stuff. In fact, it would be better if they just ditched the whole animus thing. It detracts from the experience. I mean, I'm having fun being a pirate in the 18th century Caribbean, when, all of a sudden, I'm hacking computers in some futuristic game company. Not my idea of fun.

All I care about is having great adventures in beautifully recreated open-world historical settings. Period. Do I care about the whole story arch regarding the First Civilization and the war between Assassins and Templars? No. So, when someone complains that AC IV doesn't fit the whole thing, I just say "It's about being a pirate in the Golden Age of Piracy in the Caribbean and it's awesome." That's all I care about and I could do without the whole sci-fi stuff. There are already way too many sci-fi games, but nothing like the great historical recreations and playgrounds that you see in AC.
Plus, the fact that each AC game has to have some relation to the others, due to having to fit the lore and the meta story, is a constraint in their storytelling and, often, it blemishes it.
AC II is a great example. In my opinion, AC II has the best story so far. It was great being in Italy during the Renaissance, in a fictional revenge story amidst historical events with all those great historical characters. Yet, by the end of the game, the story had become ridiculous. I mean [SPOILER] the final boss fight sees you fighting in some sort of spaceship under St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, against Pope Alexander IV, who uses magical powers with his staff a la Gandalf!!! [SPOILER]. I could do without that sort of stuff. History itself has more than enough great material for compelling stories. No need to add sci-fi, conspiracy theories mumbo jumbo.
I'm a history buff, I love history and that's why I love AC and why I don't want AC to go away, because there's nothing else like it. If I wanted sci-fi, I'd play one of the million other games out there.

If it were up to me, Ubisoft would just forget about the whole modern day stuff and just release different AC games with independent, self-contained stories, purely based on the historical stuff.

To sum up, I do agree with the main point in the OP, because annualizing AC will mean the death of it and more time between games is always good both for the developer and for us gamers.

As for AC IV Black Flag, I don't give a crap if it fits the Assassin's Creed universe. When on land, gameplay-wise, it still feels like AC (but way better than the Ezio games, which were the only ones I had played), so that's enough. It's still AC, but it feels new, it feels like it has evolved and it is a lot of FUN and that's what really matters, at the end of the day.

In my opinion, AC IV is by far the best AC game to date and I must congratulate Ubisoft for it. It feels like this time around they really got their **** together and were really inspired.
Still, it seems unlikely that they'll manage to pull off such greatness with AC every year (just like they didn't after AC II), so, yeah, slow down, please.

Oh, while I'm on it (and I know that Ubisoft doesn't really decide about the next AC setting based on gamers' opinions, but still...), they should definitely consider making an AC game set in the 19th century British Raj. It would be, quite simply, a perfect (and I mean PERFECT in every single way) setting for AC. I won't argue why here, as that should be made in another topic, but I'm sure Ubisoft is aware of it and I just want to add my approval.

dbzk1999
01-11-2014, 04:58 PM
Whether u like it or not the modern day has to stay just to explain why you go back in time and B) TWCB are a major factor in the series
The animus is the major plot device it's meant to show how history truly happened (in the ac verse)

O-Rei-do-Frango
01-12-2014, 01:49 AM
Oh, I know that the modern day stuff isn't going anywhere. It wouldn't make sense to just ditch the entire thing now. They do have to finish the plot, of course. The problem, in my opinion, is that they should never have done the modern day stuff to begin with. And it is not necessary at all to explain why you go back in time. You go back in time because it's a videogame set in the past. You don't have to pretend you're playing a videogame inside a videogame and that you're playing as a character who's playing as another character.

Again, the whole meta story only serves to constrain the storytelling in the games, the way I see it. Each time the developers make a new game, they have think of a way to make it fit the Assassin's Creed fictional universe. You want cool plots and great characters? History has them all! No need for aliens or whatever the hell those people from before were. And there's no need to forcefully try to relate everything between games.

Of course, I'm aware that there are people who do like the modern day stuff and the whole Assassins versus Templars and First Civilization stuff. I could do without them, but, hey, as long as they focus on making the games 95 % historical stuff and make the modern day stuff not mandatory, I can live with it, I suppose.
Just don't ever make an entire AC game set in the present. That would kill the entire idea of AC. After all, what makes an AC game AC? It's not the animus, Abstergo, TWCB, the Templars or any of that stuff. As a videogame, what makes an AC game AC is having a beautifully recreated historical open-world to play around in. If the entire thing focused on the modern day, then the game would just be like countless other videogames.

So I say, let Ubisoft make AC take place in all sorts of historical periods and settings. As long as it's fun, that's what matters. Who cares if pirates in the Caribbean don't feel like Assassin's Creed (the Creed itself, I mean)? It's a great setting and theme and Ubisoft nailed it. I'm having a lot of fun playing it and that's why I pay money for games and why I use my precious time playing them; to have fun.

RinoTheBouncer
01-12-2014, 12:29 PM
Oh, I know that the modern day stuff isn't going anywhere. It wouldn't make sense to just ditch the entire thing now. They do have to finish the plot, of course. The problem, in my opinion, is that they should never have done the modern day stuff to begin with. And it is not necessary at all to explain why you go back in time. You go back in time because it's a videogame set in the past. You don't have to pretend you're playing a videogame inside a videogame and that you're playing as a character who's playing as another character.

Again, the whole meta story only serves to constrain the storytelling in the games, the way I see it. Each time the developers make a new game, they have think of a way to make it fit the Assassin's Creed fictional universe. You want cool plots and great characters? History has them all! No need for aliens or whatever the hell those people from before were. And there's no need to forcefully try to relate everything between games.

Of course, I'm aware that there are people who do like the modern day stuff and the whole Assassins versus Templars and First Civilization stuff. I could do without them, but, hey, as long as they focus on making the games 95 % historical stuff and make the modern day stuff not mandatory, I can live with it, I suppose.
Just don't ever make an entire AC game set in the present. That would kill the entire idea of AC. After all, what makes an AC game AC? It's not the animus, Abstergo, TWCB, the Templars or any of that stuff. As a videogame, what makes an AC game AC is having a beautifully recreated historical open-world to play around in. If the entire thing focused on the modern day, then the game would just be like countless other videogames.

So I say, let Ubisoft make AC take place in all sorts of historical periods and settings. As long as it's fun, that's what matters. Who cares if pirates in the Caribbean don't feel like Assassin's Creed (the Creed itself, I mean)? It's a great setting and theme and Ubisoft nailed it. I'm having a lot of fun playing it and that's why I pay money for games and why I use my precious time playing them; to have fun.

I personally find Modern Day as my main reason to play AC games and the whole mixture of historical+modern+first civ is what really got me into the franchise. So ditching that all of a sudden or turning it into a reductive version of it’s former self would be like “Hey Reno, the series ain’t good for you no more. So, leave”. I guess I loved AC because it has those and be cause of how efficiently it managed to tell connected stories between the past and present with each future game. All the franchise needs now is some original vision like that past and some time to actually develop.

killzab
01-12-2014, 01:02 PM
I personally find Modern Day as my main reason to play AC games and the whole mixture of historical+modern+first civ is what really got me into the franchise. So ditching that all of a sudden or turning it into a reductive version of it’s former self would be like “Hey Reno, the series ain’t good for you no more. So, leave”. I guess I loved AC because it has those and be cause of how efficiently it managed to tell connected stories between the past and present with each future game. All the franchise needs now is some original vision like that past and some time to actually develop.

You know... they already pretty much said that. Derby said something like " liking AC for its modern day plot is a wrong reason". I'm pretty close to giving up on the franchise. But just a friendly advice, don't expect them to put focus on modern day anymore. ACIV's modern part is as good as it's gonna get. Try to deal with it as I'm trying ... :(

DinoSteve1
01-12-2014, 01:28 PM
Thats sad, to be told you are liking something wrong (I can think of no better way to alienate some of your fanbase), and the modern day stuff in ACB and AC3 is better than the historic part of the games.

Hans684
01-12-2014, 01:52 PM
Thats sad, to be told you are liking something wrong (I can think of no better way to alienate some of your fanbase), and the modern day stuff in ACB and AC3 is better than the historic part of the games.

I dubt most people think that regarding AC3, the ending is the best example.

DinoSteve1
01-12-2014, 02:09 PM
Bar the ending the only reason to replay AC3 is the modern day stuff, the stuff with Conor is boring as hell, AC3 really is the runt of the litter.

ze_topazio
01-12-2014, 02:15 PM
You know... they already pretty much said that. Derby said something like " liking AC for its modern day plot is a wrong reason". I'm pretty close to giving up on the franchise. But just a friendly advice, don't expect them to put focus on modern day anymore. ACIV's modern part is as good as it's gonna get. Try to deal with it as I'm trying ... :(

And he's right, one doesn't have to be a genius to realize that, ever since the first game, the modern day plot, is just there to enrich the background, connect everything and to give a sci-fi feeling, these games have always been about the historical settings.

People can like it, but expecting the modern day to be more important, and worse, expecting a full game on modern days, people must be fooling themselves.

O-Rei-do-Frango
01-12-2014, 02:56 PM
I personally find Modern Day as my main reason to play AC games and the whole mixture of historical+modern+first civ is what really got me into the franchise. So ditching that all of a sudden or turning it into a reductive version of it’s former self would be like “Hey Reno, the series ain’t good for you no more. So, leave”. I guess I loved AC because it has those and be cause of how efficiently it managed to tell connected stories between the past and present with each future game. All the franchise needs now is some original vision like that past and some time to actually develop.

While I'm not fond of the whole modern day meta story thing, I can definitely see where you're coming from and have no problems accepting your opinion.
What everybody seems to agree with is that the franchise needs to stop this once a year thing. It's not just a matter of franchise fatigue. It's also a matter of never realizing its true potential. Just look at the following thread:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/804444-ACIV-The-Little-Things-%29

In it, someone posted the following link:
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/09/30/100-little-things-in-gta-5-that-will-blow-your-mind

Now, again, I must say that I'm having a blast playing AC 4 and one of the reasons for it is how it has lots of nice details, but I must recognize that it's nowhere near the level of GTA 5. And why is that? Ubisoft has the resources and the talent to pull it off, but how could they do it when the developers are forced to release a game once a year? GTA 5 came several years after GTA 4 and it shows. Not only does it show but it payed off. Rockstar made (and is making) ridiculous amount of money with GTA 5 alone.

Now, I'm not saying Ubisoft should only release an AC game every 5 years, but if Black Flag already has so many neat touches and is, overall, a really high quality game, can you imagine what they could do with a couple more years in their hands? I'd love to see the results. Like I said, I love history, so, even though I recognize that GTA 5 is a more impressive game technologically, I ended up getting AC 4 instead of GTA 5, quite simply because the idea of being a pirate in 18th century Caribbean is, to me, much more appealing than playing around in a fictional version of modern-day Los Angeles. It is a shame that schedules push the franchise back, though.

Now that I think about, a couple of posts ago I mentioned that an AC game set in the 19th century British Raj would be a perfect setting, but the truth is, unless the developers had a few years to really make it all it could be, it could turn out to be a disappointment. You see, the idea I have in mind for an AC in such a setting is extremely epic. India isn't just a huge country with a very long history, more important than that, it's an extremely diverse country, both in terms of landscapes, fauna and architecture, and in terms of peoples and cultures (and the potential for naval stuff is very much still there). It seems unlikely that they could do justice to it with such a short amount of development time. They'd probably just get 2 or 3 cities around Delhi/Rajasthan/Punjab and that's it. That would never do justice to it. Not even close.

So yeah, Ubisoft should know that it's never a good thing to just look at short-term profit. Such attitude is keeping the franchise back and will eventually kill it. I'm happy to be a few years without any new AC game, if that means that, when we do get one, it'll be something truly awesome and unlike anything else.


And he's right, one doesn't have to be a genius to realize that, ever since the first game, the modern day plot, is just there to enrich the background, connect everything and to give a sci-fi feeling, these games have always been about the historical settings.

People can like it, but expecting the modern day to be more important, and worse, expecting a full game on modern days, people must be fooling themselves.

Couldn't have said it better.
Cool avatar, by the way. :)

killzab
01-12-2014, 02:57 PM
And he's right, one doesn't have to be a genius to realize that, ever since the first game, the modern day plot, is just there to enrich the background, connect everything and to give a sci-fi feeling, these games have always been about the historical settings.

People can like it, but expecting the modern day to be more important, and worse, expecting a full game on modern days, people must be fooling themselves.

Patrice Desilets would like a word with you ...

And since HE is the one who created AC, I'll always respect his vision and opinion more than people like Derby.

Shahkulu101
01-12-2014, 03:05 PM
Patrice is not here, and ACIV is amazing. The guy's not God.

Fatal-Feit
01-12-2014, 03:12 PM
Patrice is not here, and ACIV is amazing. The guy's not God.

Well said.

aL_____eX
01-12-2014, 03:14 PM
Just don't ever make an entire AC game set in the present. That would kill the entire idea of AC. After all, what makes an AC game AC? It's not the animus, Abstergo, TWCB, the Templars or any of that stuff. As a videogame, what makes an AC game AC is having a beautifully recreated historical open-world to play around in. If the entire thing focused on the modern day, then the game would just be like countless other videogames.
That's exactly how I don't see Assassin's Creed. It this magical connection, TWCB who can speak with characters through centuries, the Pieces of Eden etc. When i first played AC1 I was impressed of the way, Desmond's part ended in the game. And I expected so much of the next games! If Ubi (in this case Patrice) didn't want the modern part in AC, they could have left it out! Playing in history e.g. with Altair speaks for itself. But they WANTED this to be connected to a modern day protagonist! And now they screw this part of the game so much... I agree, the historical part should be more than modern day, but AC is both (maybe 70% historical, 30% present day) and that's what made it so special for me in the beginning. And now...

killzab
01-12-2014, 03:18 PM
Patrice is not here, and ACIV is amazing. The guy's not God.

He's not God, but he CREATED AC, so his opinion on what AC is ( or was ) supposed to be is to me the most valuable one out of all people that worked on the franchise. Any change from that vision, to me, is a loss of AC's essence. No matter how good Black Flag actually is, it is not an AC game to me.

Darby even said they didn't make Edward an Assassin until the very end of the game just so they could justify the Pirate gameplay. Their first intent when creating Black Flag was creating a pirate game and AC was an excuse for doing it.

Shahkulu101
01-12-2014, 03:25 PM
He's not God, but he CREATED AC, so his opinion on what AC is ( or was ) supposed to be is to me the most valuable one out of all people that worked on the franchise. Any change from that vision, to me, is a loss of AC's essence. No matter how good Black Flag actually is, it is not an AC game to me.

Darby even said they didn't make Edward an Assassin until the very end of the game just so they could justify the Pirate gameplay. Their first intent when creating Black Flag was creating a pirate game and AC was an excuse for doing it.

So it's not an AC game even though the core gameplay from previous games is there barring an awesome naval mechanic, and the game has the largest focus on stealth and open-endedness to date. The whole story is an analysis of the Creed itself as well. If Black Flag wasn't an AC game and a plain pirate game there would be no free-running, no assassination missions etc.

I get that you don't like the series direction but claiming it's not an AC game is too dubious a claim to make.

itsamea-mario
01-12-2014, 03:31 PM
Annualisation is bad mmm'kay.

killzab
01-12-2014, 03:36 PM
So it's not an AC game even though the core gameplay from previous games is there barring an awesome naval mechanic, and the game has the largest focus on stealth and open-endedness to date. The whole story is an analysis of the Creed itself as well. If Black Flag wasn't an AC game and a plain pirate game there would be no free-running, no assassination missions etc.

I get that you don't like the series direction but claiming it's not an AC game is too dubious a claim to make.

it's not a claim, it's my opinion. And AC is not only defined by its gameplay as you seem to think but many things tied together that are absent from Black Flag ( the relevance of the modern day plot for example).

And well the "whole story is an analysis of the creed" ? When assassins aren't mentioned for 6 sequences in a row ? The game stops being an AC game after Tulum until the last 2 sequenceS.

itsamea-mario
01-12-2014, 03:41 PM
it's not a claim, it's my opinion. And AC is not only defined by its gameplay as you seem to think but many things tied together that are absent from Black Flag ( the relevance of the modern day plot for example).

And well the "whole story is an analysis of the creed" ? When assassins aren't mentioned for 6 sequences in a row ? The game stops being an AC game after Tulum until the last 2 sequenceS.

To be fair, i think AC4 is a step in the right direction for AC. It felt a lot more like the older games in many ways, definitely more so than any of the games since brotherhood.
And you mention the modern day story, but AC4's modern day was the first to have any of the elements i liked from AC1 modern day, being the mystery and conspiracy, hacking the computers and learning about some of the stuff abstergo have been up to felt a lot like reading the emails and learning about the world.

Shahkulu101
01-12-2014, 03:44 PM
it's not a claim, it's my opinion. And AC is not only defined by its gameplay as you seem to think but many things tied together that are absent from Black Flag ( the relevance of the modern day plot for example).

And well the "whole story is an analysis of the creed" ? When assassins aren't mentioned for 6 sequences in a row ? The game stops being an AC game after Tulum until the last 2 sequenceS.

Assassin's don't need to be present for the story to focus on the morals and philosophy of the Creed, you're simply thinking too shallow. Long story short, Edward takes the Creed literally and ruins everything around him - when he comes to understand the Creed and it's true message he is accepted by the Assassin's and his life finally has a purpose - with the Assassin's. Not money, not infamy but a conviction to fight for freedom against those that would restrain humanities free thinking.

ze_topazio
01-12-2014, 03:56 PM
Patrice Desilets would like a word with you ...

And since HE is the one who created AC, I'll always respect his vision and opinion more than people like Derby.

AC1 and AC2 modern day was minimal, i don't remember Patrice ever saying the modern day story was very important, i think Patrice is the best man that worked on this franchise, but he's gone, he's not working on it anymore and i doubt he cares, his vision matters nothing right now, deal with it.

killzab
01-12-2014, 04:00 PM
AC1 and AC2 modern day was minimal, i don't remember Patrice ever saying the modern day story was very important, i think Patrice is the best man that worked on this franchise, but he's gone, he's not working on it anymore and i doubt he cares, his vision matters nothing right now, deal with it.

The original plan for ACIII, when Patrice was still here, was to have Desmond as the protagonist and he would visit his ancestors' memories to unlock some puzzles or find temples. I think it was supposed to be 60% Desmond and 40% various ancestors.

DinoSteve1
01-12-2014, 04:01 PM
That sounds awesome.

itsamea-mario
01-12-2014, 04:01 PM
The original plan for ACIII, when Patrice was still here, was to have Desmond as the protagonist and he would visit his ancestors' memories to unlock some puzzles or find temples. I think it was supposed to be 60% Desmond and 40% various ancestors.

I don't think it was, that's just what everyone speculated, Patrice never actually said anything like that.
I don't think.

ze_topazio
01-12-2014, 04:09 PM
Just like everybody seems to believe Patrice wanted AC3 to be about the French Revolution when in fact he never said anything about that, rumors.

Hans684
01-12-2014, 05:23 PM
So yeah, Ubisoft should know that it's never a good thing to just look at short-term profit. Such attitude is keeping the franchise back and will eventually kill it. I'm happy to be a few years without any new AC game, if that means that, when we do get one, it'll be something truly awesome and unlike anything else.

Like COD? No if AC is dying is not gonna depend on their releases, but us we pay for the games, so if their is something someone consider bad/good the individual is going to pay for it. Vote with you wallet. The fans are just as much to guilty and the CEO of Ubisoft who said AC is going eary after the success of AC2 that every fan created and it still sands today. It's far from dying.


Patrice Desilets would like a word with you ...

And since HE is the one who created AC, I'll always respect his vision and opinion more than people like Derby.

Not he ALONE, you are for example forgetting the lead writher Corey May who still work for Ubisoft as their AC overlord. If you dislike anything with Darby, don't by his games and waith for the next.

killzab
01-12-2014, 05:33 PM
Like COD? No if AC is dying is not gonna depend on their releases, but us we pay for the games, so if their is something someone consider bad/good the individual is going to pay for it. Vote with you wallet. The fans are just as much to guilty and the CEO of Ubisoft who said AC is going eary after the success of AC2 that every fan created and it still sands today. It's far from dying.



Not he ALONE, you are for example forgetting the lead writher Corey May who still work for Ubisoft as their AC overlord. If you dislike anything with Darby, don't by his games and waith for the next.

Well, I LOVED Revelations ( except for the Lost Archives fiasco) so I can't say I don't like anything he does. BUT, I definitely hate his vision of AC and I know Assassin's Creed doesn't have much to offer me anymore. I will buy and play the games like I would buy a COD game, casually, with no expectations and it's pretty sad when I used to be a fan.

Hans684
01-12-2014, 06:13 PM
Well, I LOVED Revelations ( except for the Lost Archives fiasco) so I can't say I don't like anything he does. BUT, I definitely hate his vision of AC and I know Assassin's Creed doesn't have much to offer me anymore. I will buy and play the games like I would buy a COD game, casually, with no expectations and it's pretty sad when I used to be a fan.

I loved Revelations too, i have hight expectations for his games. It's fine to hate someones vision(fun fact: he loves haters), is sad that AC dosen't offer you anymore. What is you favorite AC? I stopped to by COD after MW series, then BO came and it went downhill. Never byed myself after that, only gotten fro others. Not a fan of COD, but i play when i need to have mindless action and be a one-man-army aka god. Still fan of AC, there is always something. If the game fail and the comic is good, then see no reason to quit. I enjoy the series becouse it's bigger than just a game.

ze_topazio
01-12-2014, 06:14 PM
I just think it's kind of funny all this complains when in fact AC4 has as much modern day story as any of the previous games.

killzab
01-12-2014, 06:26 PM
I loved Revelations too, i have hight expectations for his games. It's fine to hate someones vision(fun fact: he loves haters), is sad that AC dosen't offer you anymore. What is you favorite AC? I stopped to by COD after MW series, then BO came and it went downhill. Never byed myself after that, only gotten fro others. Not a fan of COD, but i play when i need to have mindless action and be a one-man-army aka god. Still fan of AC, there is always something. If the game fail and the comic is good, then see no reason to quit. I enjoy the series becouse it's bigger than just a game.

My favorite is ACII, not because of "BADASS EZIO" but because it felt like a complete experience, with no compromise ( that came with annualization) and it was well balanced, it had a compelling and satisfying story, mystery with its modern day part ( remember how good subject 16's puzzles used to be ? ) and the truth ( which they completely abandoned after ), it was long, at least the story was longer etc

A wonderful experience all around.

dbzk1999
01-12-2014, 06:31 PM
My favorite is ACII, not because of "BADASS EZIO" but because it felt like a complete experience, with no compromise ( that came with annualization) and it was well balanced, it had a compelling and satisfying story, mystery with its modern day part ( remember how good subject 16's puzzles used to be ? ) and the truth ( which they completely abandoned after ), it was long, at least the story was longer etc

A wonderful experience all around.
Yea the story was longer it encompassed 30 years of his life

Hans684
01-12-2014, 07:37 PM
My favorite is ACII, not because of "BADASS EZIO" but because it felt like a complete experience, with no compromise ( that came with annualization) and it was well balanced, it had a compelling and satisfying story, mystery with its modern day part ( remember how good subject 16's puzzles used to be ? ) and the truth ( which they completely abandoned after ), it was long, at least the story was longer etc

A wonderful experience all around.

It was better performed becouse the series wasn't releaseing yearly there for the balance was better. The story was black and white. So for me it wasn't that compelling or satisfying, there was more mystery but only becouse it's the second game, the series just started. It's building up and setting the ground work for the future and Clay's puzzles is good(the only only one build on was the one with Washington) and the truth is well kinda still going. Eve mentioned in brotherhood and AC Liberation, but they are going something.

predatorpulse7
01-12-2014, 09:54 PM
Ubisoft is actually running this franchise into the ground by annualizing it.

The reason why so many of us love AC1 and AC2 isn't just because they were the first. They felt like an EXPERIENCE that came out of a vision. AC1 was the first and the second game tried to ADD stuff while bringing a whole new setting. And this isn't nostalgia goggles, I play these games today and they still feel very solid on most fronts. Assassination actually meant something, targets were far more fleshed out(I still remember targets from the first 2 games while I mostly forgot those from Brotherhood onwards, including AC4 which I finished yesterday) and once you finished them you felt like an actual journey had ended.

They should flesh out the story more and CUT OUT ALL OF THE GAMEPLAY FILLER. What do I mean by this? Stop putting tens of chests, flags and other BS that no one cares about. I get it that they are a way of making you explore the world but this is a world in which I am supposed to be an ASSASSIN.

Why do I have to I have to get x amount of collectibles to unlock a new sword or such? Instead of wasting time with BS like this they could actually try out new mechanics. The naval battle mechanic was awesome, I would like to have it in future games as well if possible(though not another navally focused game like this one, just a side thing).

Why not actually try making a combat system that doesn't suck and is actually DIFFICULT for once? AC was been all about parry and strike since the first game. We are in the sixth game of the series and the combat system is still INCREDIBLY EASY. Why give us many weapons options if we can finish the game with the starting kit?

Since AC is so story focused why not give us more sequences of gameplay and BETTER missions? It's inexcusable that we still have eavesdrop and tailing missions. They are not only boring and frustrating at times, they also add little. If I have to find out more about my target why not make me sneak into a mansion to steal documents or something?

IMO this series has lost focus a long time ago and while I enjoyed the latest releases they still feel like hollow experiences when compared to the first few games. It's hard to put into words but I feel like they had a more unified vision. The latest games seem pretty much scattered and you have to put the pieces together.

RinoTheBouncer
01-13-2014, 11:08 AM
Ubisoft is actually running this franchise into the ground by annualizing it.

The reason why so many of us love AC1 and AC2 isn't just because they were the first. They felt like an EXPERIENCE that came out of a vision. AC1 was the first and the second game tried to ADD stuff while bringing a whole new setting. And this isn't nostalgia goggles, I play these games today and they still feel very solid on most fronts. Assassination actually meant something, targets were far more fleshed out(I still remember targets from the first 2 games while I mostly forgot those from Brotherhood onwards, including AC4 which I finished yesterday) and once you finished them you felt like an actual journey had ended.

They should flesh out the story more and CUT OUT ALL OF THE GAMEPLAY FILLER. What do I mean by this? Stop putting tens of chests, flags and other BS that no one cares about. I get it that they are a way of making you explore the world but this is a world in which I am supposed to be an ASSASSIN.

Why do I have to I have to get x amount of collectibles to unlock a new sword or such? Instead of wasting time with BS like this they could actually try out new mechanics. The naval battle mechanic was awesome, I would like to have it in future games as well if possible(though not another navally focused game like this one, just a side thing).

Why not actually try making a combat system that doesn't suck and is actually DIFFICULT for once? AC was been all about parry and strike since the first game. We are in the sixth game of the series and the combat system is still INCREDIBLY EASY. Why give us many weapons options if we can finish the game with the starting kit?

Since AC is so story focused why not give us more sequences of gameplay and BETTER missions? It's inexcusable that we still have eavesdrop and tailing missions. They are not only boring and frustrating at times, they also add little. If I have to find out more about my target why not make me sneak into a mansion to steal documents or something?

IMO this series has lost focus a long time ago and while I enjoyed the latest releases they still feel like hollow experiences when compared to the first few games. It's hard to put into words but I feel like they had a more unified vision. The latest games seem pretty much scattered and you have to put the pieces together.

I can’t agree more with you, my friend. What you said is absolutely true!
It isn’t a nostalgia or “clinging” to past games. It’s just the style, the story and the characters mattered much more.

As repetitive as ACI was, each one of the targets had a speech that made me think over and over about it. Now with AC4 or AC3, I barely care what they have to say. I’m ok with the difficulty. It can be easy or hard, I don’t care. But it saddens me to see that the game is trying to slip away from it’s original style of brilliant storytelling. The games are starting to feel like standalone titles linked by a context or a title, nothing more. While with ACI, ACII and AC:B, even AC:R, you actually feel that there’s something big linking those games. By the end of ACIII, it feels like the lack of interest in directing a good cutscene, interesting dialogue and a story that matters has began to cease, from the developers’ side.

Now we have good gameplay but it’s like GTA set in historical times. There’s no interesting story, anymore nor locations, anymore. I mean c’mon, American Revolution? Pirates? can we get any more mainstream? can the developers even more loudly beg for attention rather than work hard on an original story that matters?

killzab
01-13-2014, 12:51 PM
I can’t agree more with you, my friend. What you said is absolutely true!
It isn’t a nostalgia or “clinging” to past games. It’s just the style, the story and the characters mattered much more.

As repetitive as ACI was, each one of the targets had a speech that made me think over and over about it. Now with AC4 or AC3, I barely care what they have to say. I’m ok with the difficulty. It can be easy or hard, I don’t care. But it saddens me to see that the game is trying to slip away from it’s original style of brilliant storytelling. The games are starting to feel like standalone titles linked by a context or a title, nothing more. While with ACI, ACII and AC:B, even AC:R, you actually feel that there’s something big linking those games. By the end of ACIII, it feels like the lack of interest in directing a good cutscene, interesting dialogue and a story that matters has began to cease, from the developers’ side.

Now we have good gameplay but it’s like GTA set in historical times. There’s no interesting story, anymore nor locations, anymore. I mean c’mon, American Revolution? Pirates? can we get any more mainstream? can the developers even more loudly beg for attention rather than work hard on an original story that matters?

Exactly how I feel.

As for the mainstream-ization of AC, I'd like for example for the devs to grow balls and set a game showing Jesus' life and "the truth" behind it, like they half did with Adam and Eve. It would allow the plot to be extremely relevant, and show a lot more about the first civilization.

Dev_Anj
01-13-2014, 01:20 PM
I just think it's kind of funny all this complains when in fact AC4 has as much modern day story as any of the previous games.

It has a lot of modern day content, but not much as far a cohesive story is concerned.

Fatal-Feit
01-13-2014, 01:42 PM
Exactly how I feel.

As for the mainstream-ization of AC, I'd like for example for the devs to grow balls and set a game showing Jesus' life and "the truth" behind it, like they half did with Adam and Eve. It would allow the plot to be extremely relevant, and show a lot more about the first civilization.

That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

RinoTheBouncer
01-13-2014, 02:06 PM
Exactly how I feel.

As for the mainstream-ization of AC, I'd like for example for the devs to grow balls and set a game showing Jesus' life and "the truth" behind it, like they half did with Adam and Eve. It would allow the plot to be extremely relevant, and show a lot more about the first civilization.

Exactly! I’d love to see something controversial, even if it’s just a side-story. But I’m sure those developers won’t really grow any balls to do such stuff. All they want is good gameplay, without any story or any identity. AC4 already stripped the franchise from the “Assassins” theme. Whatever the intended to do or say with this game, it didn’t work. They had great gameplay but not an Assassin’s Creed game.


It has a lot of modern day content, but not much as far a cohesive story is concerned.

Exactly. Amount of modern day missions =/= quality of modern day missions. AC:B had modern day but it’s a billion times better than that of ACIV.


That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

I’d rather see this than see the philosophy behind how a Pirate expressed his will to become an assassin right before the credits roll or how Ninjas are labeled assassins to appeal to mainstream culture (which I won’t be surprised to see).

Fatal-Feit
01-13-2014, 02:16 PM
I’d rather see this than see the philosophy behind how a Pirate expressed his will to become an assassin right before the credits roll or how Ninjas are labeled assassins to appeal to mainstream culture (which I won’t be surprised to see).

I'd rather that than have Ubisoft attempt to make Jesus relevant. Adam and Eve is good enough.

killzab
01-13-2014, 03:09 PM
That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.Thank you ******-bag, but care to elaborate ? How is it stupid ? They already kinda did it in Legacy and other games. With the Holy Shroud being a POE for example .... :rolleyes:

Fatal-Feit
01-13-2014, 03:37 PM
Thank you ******-bag, but care to elaborate ? How is it stupid ? They already kinda did it in Legacy and other games. With the Holy Shroud being a POE for example .... :rolleyes:

Sure, [insert generic name calling + smiley face]

They left these things subtle for a reason. Nobody wants to play a full-on Sci-fi AC, with magical Templars to kill and mythical creatures to hunt. They screwed up giving us poorly CGI Adam and Eve / end-of-the-world shenanigans, Juno's constant appearances in AC3, and not to mention those laser firing guns.

Whether Jesus existed or not is not confirmed and even if he did in AC's lore, the developers would be stupid to tackle religion. And it's not because they don't have ''balls'', it's because it's not AC's thing. Here's your new ancestor-- Jesus Christ, an Assassin who spreads love and Christianity around. Order the Season Pass and you can play as Moses as he crosses the Red Sea.

DinoSteve1
01-13-2014, 04:15 PM
That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

Don't sugar coat it or anything.

SixKeys
01-13-2014, 04:25 PM
Whether Jesus existed or not is not confirmed and even if he did in AC's lore, the developers would be stupid to tackle religion. And it's not because they don't have ''balls'', it's because it's not AC's thing. Here's your new ancestor-- Jesus Christ, an Assassin who spreads love and Christianity around. Order the Season Pass and you can play as Moses as he crosses the Red Sea.

My reasons for not wanting to address Jesus' life are different. AC has already talked about Jesus. He existed in the AC universe, but was an ordinary mortal who used a PoE to create his so-called miracles (same goes for Moses). That's a genius twist, and should be left at that. No need to stretch it into a whole game.

RinoTheBouncer
01-13-2014, 05:43 PM
Sure, [insert generic name calling + smiley face]

They left these things subtle for a reason. Nobody wants to play a full-on Sci-fi AC, with magical Templars to kill and mythical creatures to hunt. They screwed up giving us poorly CGI Adam and Eve / end-of-the-world shenanigans, Juno's constant appearances in AC3, and not to mention those laser firing guns.

Whether Jesus existed or not is not confirmed and even if he did in AC's lore, the developers would be stupid to tackle religion. And it's not because they don't have ''balls'', it's because it's not AC's thing. Here's your new ancestor-- Jesus Christ, an Assassin who spreads love and Christianity around. Order the Season Pass and you can play as Moses as he crosses the Red Sea.

Well you can look at it in a funny way, of course. Anything can be made fun of. You can say ďhereís that pirate who wanted money and in the end, he found a meaning in life other than thatĒ sounds like a bedtime story to me or ďOnce upon a time, there was a young guy whose parents were executed, so he hunted those responsible and lived happily ever after with his wife and kidsĒ, a simplified version of Ezioís story that most of us adore.

You can make a game not starring Jesus Chris as an assassin but somehow deals with that subject. Perhaps youíre an assassin who lived before Chris and after him and you get to witness parts of the life of Jesus Christ during your travels. It doesnít even have to revolve around Jesus. Maybe heís one of the apostles or someone totally unrelated who just happened to live in that period.


I'd rather that than have Ubisoft attempt to make Jesus relevant. Adam and Eve is good enough.

Well Jesus IS relevant. Iím not Christian but a man whose religion is followed by millions is relevant.

ze_topazio
01-13-2014, 06:08 PM
Ubisoft would never do that because that would be controversial, could give the series a bad reputation and hurt sales, next you asking for a game with Muhammad.




It has a lot of modern day content, but not much as far a cohesive story is concerned.

That depends on personal preference.

RinoTheBouncer
01-13-2014, 06:15 PM
Ubisoft would never do that because that would be controversial, could give the series a bad reputation and hurt sales, next you asking for a game with Muhammad.


That’s why we said that the developers have no balls to take risks. How many works of art in cinema have interfered with Jesus’ character, let alone Lady Gaga almost masturbating with a Cross or Madonna hanging on one in her 2006’s Confessions Tour and still selling out tours like never before and breaking the record in 2009 and 2012? Those people take risks, Ubisoft isn’t willing to take risk. That’s what they’ll never surpass the success of ACI-AC:R

killzab
01-13-2014, 06:27 PM
My reasons for not wanting to address Jesus' life are different. AC has already talked about Jesus. He existed in the AC universe, but was an ordinary mortal who used a PoE to create his so-called miracles (same goes for Moses). That's a genius twist, and should be left at that. No need to stretch it into a whole game.

I just think it would be passionating, the religious aspect is my favorite part of the whole modern day metastory. With the first civilization being the ancient greek and roman gods ( Tinia is Zeus etc ) and their infinitely superior technology made them seem like gods to the less-developed humans.

killzab
01-13-2014, 06:30 PM
That’s why we said that the developers have no balls to take risks. How many works of art in cinema have interfered with Jesus’ character, let alone Lady Gaga almost masturbating with a Cross or Madonna hanging on one in her 2006’s Confessions Tour and still selling out tours like never before and breaking the record in 2009 and 2012? Those people take risks, Ubisoft isn’t willing to take risk. That’s what they’ll never surpass the success of ACI-AC:R

Indeed, and The Passion of Christ was a huge risk but it paid off and was a controversial but huge success.

dbzk1999
01-13-2014, 07:02 PM
Indeed, and The Passion of Christ was a huge risk but it paid off and was a controversial but huge success.

Of course the passion of Christ was a success because they didn't add unnecessary crap to it
Lady gags and Madonna didn't flat out say anything different about Jesus It's not the cross is the person who was on it
I respect ubisoft it hey don't have to do it but they at least reference it like in ac2

SixKeys
01-13-2014, 07:10 PM
I just think it would be passionating, the religious aspect is my favorite part of the whole modern day metastory. With the first civilization being the ancient greek and roman gods ( Tinia is Zeus etc ) and their infinitely superior technology made them seem like gods to the less-developed humans.

That's AC's approach to all religions, including Christianity. In the AC universe, all people who claimed to perform miracles were just charlatans who used a PoE to create illusions. This was even addressed at the end of AC3, so the claim that it's too controversial doesn't hold water. Minerva's alternative to saving the world involved Desmond making himself into a larger-than-life legend on a religious level, raising himself an army of followers who would revere him as godlike. Minerva described this as a cycle that had been happening since the dawn of humanity, obviously referring to other religious cults.

killzab
01-13-2014, 07:12 PM
That's AC's approach to all religions, including Christianity. In the AC universe, all people who claimed to perform miracles were just charlatans who used a PoE to create illusions. This was even addressed at the end of AC3, so the claim that it's too controversial doesn't hold water. Minerva's alternative to saving the world involved Desmond making himself into a larger-than-life legend on a religious level, raising himself an army of followers who would revere him as godlike. Minerva described this as a cycle that had been happening since the dawn of humanity, obviously referring to other religious cults.


Indeed, that's what I'm saying. And that's why I would personally love seeing it in a game.

dbzk1999
01-13-2014, 07:12 PM
That's AC's approach to all religions, including Christianity. In the AC universe, all people who claimed to perform miracles were just charlatans who used a PoE to create illusions. This was even addressed at the end of AC3, so the claim that it's too controversial doesn't hold water. Minerva's alternative to saving the world involved Desmond making himself into a larger-than-life legend on a religious level, raising himself an army of followers who would revere him as godlike. Minerva described this as a cycle that had been happening since the dawn of humanity, obviously referring to other religious cults.
IMO it's different to show something insteAd of. Referencing it

RinoTheBouncer
01-13-2014, 09:40 PM
Indeed, and The Passion of Christ was a huge risk but it paid off and was a controversial but huge success.

I totally agree with you about this. The list goes on about how many comedy films made fun of religious figures and beliefs. Like the film Paul, for example where the religious girl talks about how God created the world in seven days and Paul, the alien (voiced by Seth Rogen) says ďThatís horse****Ē out loud. And the movie was still a success.


Of course the passion of Christ was a success because they didn't add unnecessary crap to it
Lady gags and Madonna didn't flat out say anything different about Jesus It's not the cross is the person who was on it
I respect ubisoft it hey don't have to do it but they at least reference it like in ac2

Itís true. But when a singer hangs herself on a cross decorated like a discoball with small mirrors on it and sheís wearing a crown of thorns on her head isnít really friendly towards religion. I know she had a message to deliver and the backdrops behind her talked about humanitarian work and she had a philosophy for her performance, Madonna, I mean and Iím a big fan of hers, but to religious people, it was an outrageous act. Iím a religious person, myself. But seeing a work of art is 100% different to me than insulting my religion directly.


That's AC's approach to all religions, including Christianity. In the AC universe, all people who claimed to perform miracles were just charlatans who used a PoE to create illusions. This was even addressed at the end of AC3, so the claim that it's too controversial doesn't hold water. Minerva's alternative to saving the world involved Desmond making himself into a larger-than-life legend on a religious level, raising himself an army of followers who would revere him as godlike. Minerva described this as a cycle that had been happening since the dawn of humanity, obviously referring to other religious cults.

I agree with you. Minervaís speech at the end clearly meant that all other religions were nothing more than a twisted version of what they taught humans. And that ďWhat was said to sustain life, was used instead to justify taking itĒ in the words of Juno. However, I donít think we should play as Jesus Christ nor should we be around him 24/7 but a game set in that time, with references to him or set in a time shortly after him and trying to find the Piece of Eden that he used can actually make a good game and still strays away from controversy.

LoyalACFan
01-14-2014, 12:53 AM
I agree with you. Minerva’s speech at the end clearly meant that all other religions were nothing more than a twisted version of what they taught humans. And that “What was said to sustain life, was used instead to justify taking it” in the words of Juno. However, I don’t think we should play as Jesus Christ nor should we be around him 24/7 but a game set in that time, with references to him or set in a time shortly after him and trying to find the Piece of Eden that he used can actually make a good game and still strays away from controversy.

You can't even bring up Jesus in a sentence without raising controversy, lol. At least in the United States, where we make a huge national debacle about Santa Claus' ethnicity :nonchalance:

I agree though, I'd like AC to return to some stronger religious themes. It gave a kind of controversial edge to AC1 (and to a lesser degree, AC2) that's been absent since. Not saying they should do something just to be controversial for the sake of it (looking at you, GTA torture scene) but I think it would help AC to start taking risks again.

Shahkulu101
01-14-2014, 12:57 AM
You can't even bring up Jesus in a sentence without raising controversy, lol. At least in the United States, where we make a huge national debacle about Santa Claus' ethnicity :nonchalance:

I agree though, I'd like AC to return to some stronger religious themes. It gave a kind of controversial edge to AC1 (and to a lesser degree, AC2) that's been absent since. Not saying they should do something just to be controversial for the sake of it (looking at you, GTA torture scene) but I think it would help AC to start taking risks again.

Critics and fans seem to really enjoy the light-hearted stories more so don't expect anything soon...

LoyalACFan
01-14-2014, 01:10 AM
Critics and fans seem to really enjoy the light-hearted stories more so don't expect anything soon...

Really? If anything, I've heard more criticism of AC4's lighthearted story than the stories of any previous game (ACB's bare-bones Scooby-Doo story notwithstanding).

I-Like-Pie45
01-14-2014, 01:16 AM
On the contrary, i think AC should have more cont. for the sake of cont

Just imagine how cool it would have been if FC exp. the slavers' side of the story

LoyalACFan
01-14-2014, 01:17 AM
On the contrary, i think AC should have more cont. for the sake of cont

Just imagine how cool it would have been if FC exp. the slavers' side of the story

They sort of trod that ground already with Talal in AC1.

I-Like-Pie45
01-14-2014, 01:22 AM
Or if we got a WW2 AC in the style of Der Untergang

Shahkulu101
01-14-2014, 02:11 AM
Really? If anything, I've heard more criticism of AC4's lighthearted story than the stories of any previous game (ACB's bare-bones Scooby-Doo story notwithstanding).

People love AC2 the most though and hate AC3 the most - generally.

LoyalACFan
01-14-2014, 03:38 AM
People love AC2 the most though and hate AC3 the most - generally.

AC2 was simple, but it wasn't what I would call lighthearted. And the criticisms I've seen of AC3 (including my own) are largely about the story's presentation, rather than the story itself.

RinoTheBouncer
01-14-2014, 09:27 AM
You can't even bring up Jesus in a sentence without raising controversy, lol. At least in the United States, where we make a huge national debacle about Santa Claus' ethnicity :nonchalance:

I agree though, I'd like AC to return to some stronger religious themes. It gave a kind of controversial edge to AC1 (and to a lesser degree, AC2) that's been absent since. Not saying they should do something just to be controversial for the sake of it (looking at you, GTA torture scene) but I think it would help AC to start taking risks again.

I agree with you that it can get controversial but mentioning Jesus did happen in ACI and we attacked the Pope in ACII, where he confessed that he doesn’t believe in religion and only uses it to gain access to the Vault and showed that his family is full of incest from his side and his sons towards his daughter. So they pretty much tackled that area where it hurts. I love it if they returns to make daring stories. I’m really tired of the generic, light-hearted, mainstream-friendly style they’ve been following lately.


Really? If anything, I've heard more criticism of AC4's lighthearted story than the stories of any previous game (ACB's bare-bones Scooby-Doo story notwithstanding).

Yeah, AC was praised for it’s gameplay and criticized for it’s story by the majority.

LoyalACFan
01-14-2014, 11:35 AM
I agree with you that it can get controversial but mentioning Jesus did happen in ACI and we attacked the Pope in ACII, where he confessed that he doesn’t believe in religion and only uses it to gain access to the Vault and showed that his family is full of incest from his side and his sons towards his daughter. So they pretty much tackled that area where it hurts.

They mentioned Jesus in the past, but they never really focused on them too much. Al Mualim simply made mention that Jesus' miracles were the result of the Apple's power, and the AC2 glyphs indirectly suggested that he possessed the Shroud. As for the Pope, well, Rodrigo Borgia is pretty much universally derided as a corrupt, perverted bastard in real life, so there wasn't much controversy to be found in fighting him. I'd like for them to be a bit more daring, or at least not shy away from it. I don't want to assassinate Templar Jesus or anything that stupid, but I did like the series' religious undertones and I haven't seen much of them since AC2.


I love it if they returns to make daring stories. I’m really tired of the generic, light-hearted, mainstream-friendly style they’ve been following lately.

Ehh... I wouldn't say "lately" as if it's been a trend. AC4 was relatively lighthearted (though not entirely, since all your friends die) but AC3's was not AT ALL.

Besides, if my suspicions are correct that we'll play as Shao Jun, former child concubine who was essentially raped by the Emperor until she was 16... I doubt AC5 will be bright and cheery.

RinoTheBouncer
01-14-2014, 11:52 AM
They mentioned Jesus in the past, but they never really focused on them too much. Al Mualim simply made mention that Jesus' miracles were the result of the Apple's power, and the AC2 glyphs indirectly suggested that he possessed the Shroud. As for the Pope, well, Rodrigo Borgia is pretty much universally derided as a corrupt, perverted bastard in real life, so there wasn't much controversy to be found in fighting him. I'd like for them to be a bit more daring, or at least not shy away from it. I don't want to assassinate Templar Jesus or anything that stupid, but I did like the series' religious undertones and I haven't seen much of them since AC2.



Ehh... I wouldn't say "lately" as if it's been a trend. AC4 was relatively lighthearted (though not entirely, since all your friends die) but AC3's was not AT ALL.

Besides, if my suspicions are correct that we'll play as Shao Jun, former child concubine who was essentially raped by the Emperor until she was 16... I doubt AC5 will be bright and cheery.

I never really want them to show someone assassinating Jesus. I don’t want them to flat out offend religions. But a story of an assassin that lived in the times of Jesus or spent a portion of his life in that time and place with some mythology about the Pieces of Eden and the likes. Perhaps a story in Ancient Egypt that has to do with the Staff that Moses used. Now that would be 2 in one. An Ancient Egyptian setting is highly demanded by many fans and to add a little bit of twist with the Staff that moses had, even if it’s just a thing they mention or you reclaim after his death..etc. would be really interesting.

It would be good to play as Shao Jun. Her story would make a dark and profound entry to the franchise, not to mention a pivotal change in the series look and feel given that we’ll move to all the way to the east and the box she was given by Ezio remains a mystery that interests most of us. I’d love to see her traveling and perhaps “getting lost” so she opens the box and she finds clues somehow and then she travels to china so the game can be similar to AC:R with a start in a certain location and the rest in another.

It would also be very interesting to finally create a game about the Erudite God, Consus and Giovanni Borgia in addition to the present day group, Erudito which I’m almost 100% sure that it has to do with the Erudite God. Oh, and not to forget, Eve should make an appearance too.

It’s amazing how there are endless ideas in our heads yet the game ditches all that and goes for the light hearted stuff (with ACIV and I hope not anymore in the future) . It feels like they created so many side-stories, introduced so many theories and left so many loose ends that they don’t really know how to move on with them and instead, running away to a “fresh” silly new adventure.

Btw, am I the only one who thinks there’s a tricky and smart references to Prophet Mohammed with Al-Mualim? I mean his name alone “Al-Mualim” can give that reference. I know both existed in totally different times and Al Mualim’s real name is Rashid Al Din Sinan. But I dunno, maybe it’s just me.