PDA

View Full Version : Ubisoft Montreal will have ‘more time’ for Future AC Installments



RinoTheBouncer
11-15-2014, 01:05 PM
Ubisoft Montreal will have 'more time' to work on future Assassin's Creed instalments, thanks to the decision to hand leadership of one entry to the neighbouring Quebec studio (in the picture).

"For Montreal, this decision gives us more time. We've released a lot of Assassin's Creed games in Montreal every year and sometimes we wish we had more time to make decisions and experiment on stuff - VP of Creative, Lionel Raynaud, stated - When you have the pressure of time, you make faster decisions, so it also has a lot of value. Rather than trying to add things, you have to ask what kind of differences you're going to make to the experience and if it's worth it for the player."

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1779227_577209715713275_4602489970784351111_n.jpg? oh=7d6407e6d7be0a9209859d44bee47837&oe=551DF115&__gda__=1424185948_08f75cd28047b033d5c8658e956b4f8 2

source: computerandvideogames.com (http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcomputerandvideogames.com%2F&h=1AQFVUvX7&enc=AZMAqUOrMTb1AmIlNbUp3mN0hja8MVi1B7LDcIHNGVLxgt 2r_bbFN3yhCj-sQOpKBs_3fo4vjuzIrI-AZWBDesE0soEEVTXK-S4ZUEMMA5EYAWT2qSCOXQS66hdZfImq3MjaB8Bc0tHHQmkaIKR dQ564&s=1) and AccessTheAnimus.com

dxsxhxcx
11-15-2014, 01:14 PM
I read it earlier and IMO it won't make any difference... but I bet that the next game will do something right (what seems obvious after everything it's happening with ACU) and everyone will say: "OMGAWD! This franchise is saved!" Leading them to believe that everything will be fine now and the yearly releases should continue and Ubisoft should release 4 AC games a year instead of 2...

pirate1802
11-15-2014, 01:15 PM
ehh.....

ArabianFrost
11-15-2014, 01:24 PM
seams like a meaningless move. Starting from AC3 each game took at least two years to make and they are made with tons of studios in an apparently dysfunctional way, not just Montreal. So I don't really know how those will help montreal, because time isn't that big of a deal. The problems range from the too many cooks as well as the obvious little time allowed to work on criticism. Their whole development plan that they use to enable annualisation is what's hurting creativity. With a game as big and hurt Assassin's Creed, why the hell do they still have a close time window before development even starts. I'm not a game dev, but don't most studios decide when to release at least some time after development? This means nothing to me. I just can't imagine how this solves anything.

marvelfannumber
11-15-2014, 01:46 PM
But I thought Unity had been in development for 4 years Ubisoft :rolleyes:

dxsxhxcx
11-15-2014, 01:53 PM
But I thought Unity had been in development for 4 years Ubisoft :rolleyes:

Don't you dare to imply that their current business model decreases the final product quality in any way... :mad:

lol

Sushiglutton
11-15-2014, 02:14 PM
So with two studios now leading it means the next game will have been in development twice as long as Unity, 8 years! So they started working on it in 2007. Time is indeed a flat circle.

dxsxhxcx
11-15-2014, 02:18 PM
So with two studios now leading it means the next game will have been in development twice as long as Unity, 8 years! So they started working on it in 2007. Time is indeed a flat circle.

from what I understood, only Quebec will lead... IMO two studios leading a single game would be a disaster

Conniving_Eagle
11-15-2014, 02:45 PM
Well, it's something. I think Ubisoft seriously needs to reconsider their development philosophy. Maybe have one of the bigger studios primarily focus on the game while some of the others offer ancillary support with things like play testing and pointing out glitches/bugs.

SenseHomunculus
11-15-2014, 02:57 PM
IMHO this means to me not that they'll have more actual "calendar" time (i.e. 8 years as compared to 4 years) but probably means man-days time. That is, a single team will be devoted to a single project, rather than having to split teams to work across multiple projects simultaneously.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-15-2014, 03:29 PM
But I thought Unity had been in development for 4 years Ubisoft :rolleyes:

I suspect that means that they have the original idea on a scrap of paper four years before release.

When they say four years, it's meaningless, because it says nothing about how many people are actually working on the project. It could be one person for three of those years, then four people for six months, then 2000 people for the final six months. Sure, that would be crazy, but my point is that I very much doubt that the whole team listed in the credits is working at full speed for four whole years.

SlyTrooper
11-15-2014, 04:34 PM
I don't understand how this changes anything? They're only changing who does it, right? I'm very confused right now...

Charles_Phipps
11-15-2014, 04:53 PM
Man, that picture of Ubisoft is EERIELY like Abstergo Entertainment.

I knew they based it on their own offices but that's just creepy.

SenseHomunculus
11-15-2014, 05:26 PM
Man, that picture of Ubisoft is EERIELY like Abstergo Entertainment.

I knew they based it on their own offices but that's just creepy.

Assuming it really IS the Ubisoft offices... MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

SpiritOfNevaeh
11-15-2014, 05:35 PM
Yeah, Ubisoft needs to space out their game releases a little bit more than a year TBH.

Maybe they'll start now after this fiasco.

Namikaze_17
11-15-2014, 06:02 PM
Yeah, Ubisoft needs to space out their game releases a little bit more than a year TBH.

Maybe they'll start now after this fiasco.

"May we never forget." :rolleyes:

Journey93
11-15-2014, 06:19 PM
But I thought Unity had been in development for 4 years Ubisoft :rolleyes:

Another lie by greedy Ubisoft
poor people who believed them its pretty obvious that this game needed a lot more time!
they only way Ubisoft can redeem themselves is if they actually take a break and come back with a great AC that actually took them 4 years to make

Pr0metheus 1962
11-15-2014, 06:21 PM
Yeah, Ubisoft needs to space out their game releases a little bit more than a year TBH. I'd rather they kept the same schedule and just employ more manpower. After all, it's not really the schedule that's the problem - it's that they have a schedule and not enough people to ensure they meet the deadline. Even if they did do releases every two years, what's to stop them from halving the development team, which would result in the exact same problem.

It's a manpower issue, not a scheduling issue.

Reptilis91
11-15-2014, 06:35 PM
So does that mean that the franchise will have a lead studio rotation, one year Montréal and the next one Québec ?

That would be a breath of fresh air for the developers, and a little more hope for the future of AC.

SixKeys
11-15-2014, 06:50 PM
Yeah, Ubisoft needs to space out their game releases a little bit more than a year TBH.

Maybe they'll start now after this fiasco.

And maybe pigs will learn how to fly.

dxsxhxcx
11-15-2014, 06:52 PM
I'd rather they kept the same schedule and just employ more manpower. After all, it's not really the schedule that's the problem - it's that they have a schedule and not enough people to ensure they meet the deadline. Even if they did do releases every two years, what's to stop them from halving the development team, which would result in the exact same problem.

It's a manpower issue, not a scheduling issue.


when 10 Ubisoft studios united (no pun intented) with a development time of (allegedly) 4 years (I would like to know for how many years they have worked on the game's code and assets and not the entire development process), release a new title of a 7 YEAR OLD franchise at ACU's state IMO is clear as water that manpower is not the issue here...

F3nix013
11-15-2014, 06:54 PM
I think they are kinda too late on that. Unity was a perfect example of how more time would have made the game better. If they had released Unity last month instead of pushing it back to this month, i shudder to think how much worse the game would have been. They made a gutsy move to not do it this time and look at the result, A LOT of people just flat out hate the game for one reason or another, myself included but i just hated the lack of context in the story.

guardian_titan
11-15-2014, 07:21 PM
Throwing more developers at a game isn't going to make it go faster. Too many cooks in the kitchen. More people means more inconsistencies and more bugs. Time is the only remedy. People who play World of Warcraft often make the same request. "Well, hire more developers." It's not that easy. People have to be trained in the systems which takes time. They also have to accumulate to the team. You also can't just hire every person who puts in an application. You might have 200 open positions but only 5 of your 500 applicants actually fit the job. They won't just hire the 5 good ones and 195 bad or decent ones to make development faster.

There's also development costs. If a team had 100 people and development was $10,000,000, assuming each developer got $100,000, to hire more developers, either everyone would have to take a salary cut or development costs would have to go up. Say they double the team to 200, now they're paying $20,000,000 for development. Throw in developing engines, story boards, marketing, etc and costs will end up higher. But at any rate, if the development costs end up going up, then the company has a choice with the game:
1.) Sell it for the original intended amount and possibly take a loss
2.) Sell it for more than the original intended amount and possibly anger fans but make a profit
3.) Sell it for just enough to break even
Put another way: hiring more developers = higher development costs = more time for a game to come out due to training people, etc = higher prices for games.

Also, if you haven't paid attention to game developers in recent years, studios have often been laying off people after a game's completed. They bring on temporary workers to finish the game and then fire them afterward because they're no longer needed. Not sure about you, but I'd be apprehensive about taking a job like that. Yeah, might be nice to work for a studio for a year or two to help develop a game and get it on my resume, but getting fired even if I knew the job was temporary to start would be a hit for my self esteem. Was I not good enough to join the permanent team? It's one thing to have a job for 6 weeks or so and not get hired full time, but to have a job for half a year or more, you get used to that salary. Then it's suddenly not there and you have to once again go job hunting. Granted, some are smart and start job hunting before the temp job's up. Not everyone is or has the time.

TLDR: Hiring more developers is NOT the answer.

RinoTheBouncer
11-15-2014, 07:33 PM
I think it’s not just time nor just manpower, but those two, together along with a higher budget as well as adding the word “efficient” before manpower. Because adding so many people who don’t have the broad imagination and talent to picture a game that is original, engaging and entertaining enough to make people hooked to it and at the same time, still feels like an AC game rather than thousands of elements packed together and lacking any sort of connection or story value.

If the budget is $150,000,000, let’s make it $250,000,000 or $300,000,000, because even with so many developers on board and a broad imagination, these brilliant ideas and concept will never be translated to a beautiful work of art if they were too expensive to picture as beautifully as imagined.

The games could come out every other year or every two years with a much higher budget and a larger team. That would be ideal. One can’t just raise one factor only. All 3 factors, manpower, time and money affect the quality and functionality of a work of art.

I believe if such a high budget and effort are put into a well-known brand that has the faith of millions of fans, and given the right amount of time, it will definitely result in a higher number of sales and critical acclaim, leading to paying back the high development fees, and gaining people’s trust for future installments.

Landruner
11-15-2014, 09:32 PM
So with two studios now leading it means the next game will have been in development twice as long as Unity, 8 years! So they started working on it in 2007. Time is indeed a flat circle.

Hum... when I see how mUch issues you have with a game that was supposedatly in developpement for 4 years, I can't even imigine what a 8 years developpement will be LOL!

SquareToShoot
11-15-2014, 09:50 PM
I dunno, is it just me?

Other than the bugs which I've not across many of at all playing through the Xbox One version, I'm finding it one of the best ones ever. There's the frame rate hit when down amongst hundreds of npc's but even then it doesn't seem to have been worse than about 20 fps for brief periods whist moving through crowds. And whilst down there it's not a fast paced thing anyway so it's bearable. The only real issue I've got so far is the usual Uplay outages and the way the Unity Companion app is completely broken meaning I can't unlock anything in game at all via the app.

JustPlainQuirky
11-15-2014, 10:00 PM
time isn't the issue for me.

they need better writers IMO

Namikaze_17
11-15-2014, 10:03 PM
time isn't the issue for me.

they need better writers IMO

Who would you nominate? :rolleyes:

JustPlainQuirky
11-15-2014, 10:06 PM
Richard Farrese did a splendid job in Rogue. Would love to see him write more.

edit:

but he helped write Liberation...*groans*

PedroAntonio2
11-15-2014, 10:09 PM
Just bring back Corey May.

JustPlainQuirky
11-15-2014, 10:11 PM
Corey May did AC3 really well but IMO there was some hiccups here and there regarding Charles' and Connor's characterization which kinda ruined part of the enjoyment for me.

But he does write good characters.

I mean he wrote our lord and savior Haytham Kenway.

SpiritOfNevaeh
11-15-2014, 10:22 PM
Corey May is a great writer.

But yeah, still confused about Charles doing a complete 180 character change.

I would LOVE to see him write another AC story.

Not as a contributor either, as in, he will be the MAIN writer.

SlyTrooper
11-15-2014, 10:26 PM
I would love to actually experience the story of Rogue. Everyone is saying it's so good & I've already been spoilt on the link to Unity. If Shade's inbox was clear I could contact him about my order status.

If you're reading this, Shade, please clear your inbox.

JustPlainQuirky
11-15-2014, 10:27 PM
Not sure how I feel about Richard.

Liberation is one of my least fav ACs and Rogue is one of my favs.

Hnnghhhh.

I just want another AC game with a narrative as good as Rogue.

I don't know why Ubi's writing (aside from Rogue) has been so poor lately (even W_D) IMO.

Development time cant be the reason...can it? (considering Rouge's dev time was short and its story so great IMO)

PedroAntonio2
11-15-2014, 10:33 PM
I love the way Corey May writes his characters, I had no problems with Connor or Charles Lee. And he knows how to make the story have shades of gray instead of only white and black ( With a expection of ACII, whick I believe they made the Templars so evil and corrupt to fit the time period )

And I like Darby as well, but I don't think he knows how to make a proper Templar, I hate Governor Torres and that guy from Revelations who betrayed his nephew. Darby is better at making an emotional and impactul storyline, Corey is better at making a plot where you think about the two groups and whick philosophy is better.

Namikaze_17
11-15-2014, 10:36 PM
I liked Corey May's writing...why not? :)



But I'm surprised/impressed Richard did a good job on Rogue.

Too bad I can't say the same about Liberation.

JustPlainQuirky
11-15-2014, 10:38 PM
And I like Darby as well, but I don't think he knows how to make a proper Templar

Agreed. Every time he talks about templars in interviews & twitter he's always describing how bad, wrong, and sneaky they are. And he expressed how he wouldn't be able to write morally grey templars in a podcast once due to gamplay limitations.

It's like c'mon son templars are people too.

Namikaze_17
11-15-2014, 10:45 PM
Agreed. Every time he talks about templars in interviews & twitter he's always describing how bad, wrong, and sneaky they are. And he expressed how he wouldn't be able to write morally grey templars in a podcast once due to gamplay limitations.

It's like c'mon son templars are people too.

I thought the AC4 Templars were decent...

They weren't deep like AC1 Templars or ambiguous as AC3 Templars, but they were alright.

JustPlainQuirky
11-15-2014, 10:46 PM
I thought the AC4 Templars were decent...

They weren't deep like AC1 Templars or ambiguous as AC3 Templars, but they were alright.

The problem with ACIV's templars is that they were boring.

They opposed slavery and such which showed their good reasonable side, but they were still bland and uninteresting IMO. Torres and such.

Namikaze_17
11-15-2014, 10:52 PM
The problem with ACIV's templars is that they were boring.

At least they were better than the Borgias and ACL/ACU Templars. :rolleyes: But yeah, they could've been fleshed out more.


They opposed slavery and such which showed their good reasonable side, but they were still bland and uninteresting IMO. Torres and such.

But that was only because they were only used to be a backdrop to Edward's development and such. But like I said before, they could've been fleshed out more.

JustPlainQuirky
11-15-2014, 10:53 PM
Exactly. Pretty much all the characters in black flag needed to be fleshed out more IMO.

SlyTrooper
11-15-2014, 10:54 PM
I liked Torres. He seemed very wise & collected. Or maybe I'm just being overly nice to his character because he was so vocal about his opposition to slavery (which I find admirable).

PedroAntonio2
11-15-2014, 11:07 PM
Torres was o.k, but very boring if compared to Haytham or Al Mualim. I prefered the Sage as an antagonist. This is was I prefer Corey, he knows how to make a good villain, even Rodrigo Borgia was more interesting than Torres in my opinion.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-16-2014, 12:53 AM
It sounds like some of the newer writers don't understand the basic philosophy of the franchise, which is that BOTH Assassins and Templars are GOOD GUYS! As Al Mualim said in AC1, they both want the same thing - they just disagree about how to get it:

Al Mualim: What do he and his followers want? A world in which all men are united. I do not despise his goal, I share it, but I take issue with the means. Peace is something to be learned, to be understood, to be embraced.
Altaïr: He would force it!
Al Mualim: And rob us of our free will in the process.

Fatal-Feit
11-16-2014, 01:26 AM
As moral greyness are in AC, I'd say the only titles that have displayed them poorly are AC:2, B, and somewhat R (not complete with Unity, but it looks like it'll be joining).

AC:1,3,4, and RO does a fair job at it. In AC:4, the Templars are not the main antagonists, but they were indeed good Templars.

I wouldn't say the newer writers have forgotten, it's just that Unity is a response to what the vocal fans enjoy, which was AC:2/B. People seem to have fuzzy memories about what those games really had. :p

rprkjj
11-16-2014, 01:29 AM
As moral greyness are in AC, I'd say the only titles that have displayed them poorly are AC:2, B, and somewhat R (not complete with Unity, but it looks like it'll be joining).

AC:1,3,4, and RO does a fair job at it. In AC:4, the Templars are not the main antagonists, but they were indeed good Templars.

To be fair, the main antagonists in Unity are more like Templar rebel upstarts. De La Serre and Elise are portrayed to be good characters, whilst Germain and the other targets are like the Borgias of the French Rev.

ItsGaryPOG
11-16-2014, 01:36 AM
I think the story in Unity was overall quite good, some parts I didn't enjoy as much.
I also didn't come across most bugs I've seen, the only problem I had was framerate dropping a few times ( That I noticed anyway ) so that probably made me enjoy the story more as I wasn't brought out of the zone so to say

Ubisoft in my opinion need to go back to being single player or having much less online elements.

1. People with no internet or poor connections suffer.
2. Some people don't like online play
3.It's a single player story so they should focus all their time on that rather that stupid online features, companion apps and initiates

Some of you may agree or not. But more time is all well and good, but it depends what they spend that time on

Shahkulu101
11-16-2014, 01:40 AM
I haven't played Unity and don't have an opinion on the story, but apparently the problem is that Amancio wrote the bulk of the story and got Travis to tidy it up. So Amancio not being a writer and all, the story turned out pretty bad...

Fatal-Feit
11-16-2014, 01:42 AM
To be fair, the main antagonists in Unity are more like Templar rebel upstarts. De La Serre and Elise are portrayed to be good characters, whilst Germain and the other targets are like the Borgias of the French Rev.

Besides those two, I've personally seen very little of the Templars, so I can't make an assessment of them yet (sequence 6), but they're pretty much non-existent in comparison to the Kenway Saga. And the only time they're given some attention (during CO-OP, cut-scenes, etc), it's like they're the new Borgias. They're displayed as your typical generic antagonizing villains (even looking the part) who're responsible for any bad thing in the world. It sucks, really.

Namikaze_17
11-16-2014, 01:46 AM
Man, Unity's Templars are soooo original. It's not like I've never seen ones like them before. :rolleyes:

rprkjj
11-16-2014, 02:02 AM
Besides those two, I've personally seen very little of the Templars, so I can't make an assessment of them yet (sequence 6), but they're pretty much non-existent in comparison to the Kenway Saga. And the only time they're given some attention (during CO-OP, cut-scenes, etc), it's like they're the new Borgias. They're displayed as your typical generic antagonizing villains (even looking the part) who're responsible for any bad thing in the world. It sucks, really.

Make another post when you get to a certain part. You'll know when.

Fatal-Feit
11-16-2014, 02:08 AM
Make another post when you get to a certain part. You'll know when.

In a few days, probably. I'm trying to take my time with Unity, as I'm really, really enjoying it. If you're defending the Templars in this game, I'll take your side on it.

rprkjj
11-16-2014, 02:11 AM
In a few days, probably. I'm trying to take my time with Unity, as I'm really, really enjoying it. If you're defending the Templars in this game, I'll take your side on it.

The part is more about the assassins, but still helps achieve the grey side of the Templar/Assassin conflict.

I-Like-Pie45
11-16-2014, 02:12 AM
You can't hurry love!

Hehehehehe....

ace3001
11-16-2014, 03:16 AM
But I thought Unity had been in development for 4 years Ubisoft :rolleyes:

I'm curious about this, actually. Just three years ago, wasn't Alex Amancio working on Revelations? So how? Did they work without a creative director? Or did they have a different one then? Honestly sounds like a load of tosh to me.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-16-2014, 05:01 AM
Ubisoft in my opinion need to go back to being single player or having much less online elements.

I would usually agree with you - I never liked any of the earlier AC multiplayer modes, but I really like the multiplayer in this game. I like that it's co-op and that joining a game is easy. This is only the second game that I've enjoyed the online aspect - the first was Left 4 Dead.

ace3001
11-16-2014, 05:05 AM
I would usually agree with you - I never liked any of the earlier AC multiplayer modes, but I really like the multiplayer in this game. I like that it's co-op and that joining a game is easy. This is only the second game that I've enjoyed the online aspect - the first was Left 4 Dead.

Coop is fine. What they need to get rid of is stupid stuff like PLAY AC INITIATES TO UNLOCK CHESTS LOL!!!! At least don't show them in my map if I'm not an Initiates player, and don't make that stuff necessary for 100%. Same for companion app.

Fatal-Feit
11-16-2014, 05:55 AM
Coop is fine. What they need to get rid of is stupid stuff like PLAY AC INITIATES TO UNLOCK CHESTS LOL!!!! At least don't show them in my map if I'm not an Initiates player, and don't make that stuff necessary for 100%. Same for companion app.

(rant)

This.

Leave CO-OP, but take out Initiates, Companion APP, Microtransaction, Uplay, and everyone will have a better experience, including the developers. I mean, at this point, the devs are having a much rougher time fixing said problems with all of these unnecessary accessories (try saying that 3 times) as we are beta-testing this game with all these unwanted peripherals. They aren't enhancing our experience, they're ruining it. They're stripping in-game content and forcing players to leave the game, continuously breaking our immersion.

Want the Legacy Outfits or complete the Map? First, find the many chests scattered around Paris. Next, leave the game and go sign up for Initiates on the internet. Then, get to level 9/19+, which means forcing players to purchase and play most of their other products/etc for countless more hours.

Now how about those Nomad Chests and Altair's ****ing Robe. You're looking at spending around 100+ more hours on that APP, literally, if you want to collect all the chests. And Altair's Robe? You know, the one Legacy Outfit almost everyone wants to have. You have to unlock it through playing a 5 star area (hardest), which will require you to build a pro Brotherhood and spend about 20+ more to complete the entire damn area. And all that is beside the fact that you will need to own an Android or iOS device.

Microtransaction... What a joke. Really, does Assassin's Creed need this? Are you kidding me? A product that's already $60 straight off the shelf. I mean, I don't know what to say. You really think someone wants to pay $99 for some Helix Credits? The fact that's even implemented, let alone thought about, is already disheartening to the core. With this alone, you've nearly trumped EA in being the worse video game company.

And you know what's worse than all of this? THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T WORK (including the game, itself)! It's unfathomable. Not the CO-OP, not Initiates, not the APP, not the almost DRM, Microtransaction, and not Unity. Come on, Ubisoft. Just what are you guys thinking? Are you TRYING to compete with EA? Because it seems like you really are. You really, really, truly, are. #keepondigging

Here you have a god damn brilliant game, made by one of my favorite developer, and you all **** it up with these BS. Congratulations, you just lost the trust and respect of a customer (now I know how people over the internet felt during AC:3's launch), but you obviously don't care. It's not like you cherish your customers. I mean, I LOVE Unity. I really, really love it to the core. It's a good sequel, the one I've been waiting for, in terms of gameplay and hell, the story wasn't that bad (still better than half of the games). But with all of this, I just can't give it the rating I would like to.

...Oh well. (rant over)

Back to enjoying Unity, haha.

Ziiimmie
11-16-2014, 12:29 PM
SMFH UBISOFT have you not learnt QUALITY>>>..QUANTITY WE DONT WANT GAMES YEARLY we want quality games listen to your damn buyers :mad::mad::mad::mad:

Bigodon
11-16-2014, 02:37 PM
depends how much time they will have, will not be the solution to all problems
but seeing they cannot deliver something big like this in a short time frame is a great start

i'm pretty much done with ac for a time
not quiting play the franchise like i did with resident evil, but i will think twice for the next.. easily the biggest fustration of the year to me, i was so pumped with hype for this

SlyTrooper
11-16-2014, 02:38 PM
SMFH UBISOFT have you not learnt QUALITY>>>..QUANTITY WE DONT WANT GAMES YEARLY we want quality games listen to your damn buyers :mad::mad::mad::mad:

Who's we? I've never had a problem with any AC game. I enjoy them yearly & don't want them to stop until I think they're not trying anymore.

RzaRecta357
11-16-2014, 03:11 PM
Who's we? I've never had a problem with any AC game. I enjoy them yearly & don't want them to stop until I think they're not trying anymore.

This. Maybe it's because I have a 50 down and 30 up but my framerate has NOT been that bad. That coupled with the 900p thing and everyone wanted to hate this from the start.

The city and parkour are amazing. Arno is great and after the first like two sequences he's nothing like Ezio. Honestly, they're missing death speeches, whistling and like fists and hidden blade combat. Wah wah wah when the new engine is pretty damn amazing. The co-op is incredible fun with friends. Having my own custom assassin and playing with friends... All I need is to stab templars from history and see a piece of eden and I'm golden.

Sad about modern day still though. Hope Initiates is awesome enough to make up for it.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-16-2014, 03:44 PM
Who's we? I've never had a problem with any AC game. I enjoy them yearly & don't want them to stop until I think they're not trying anymore.

I'm with you. I like getting an AC game every year, and if they apply their resources properly, yearly releases shouldn't make games any worse. The problem with Unity wasn't the yearly schedule - it's that they applied their resources poorly so they didn't do a good job with the time they had, which was way more than a year.

Something needs to change at Ubisoft, so that this debacle doesn't happen again, but yearly releases is not the thing that needs changing. Nor is it going to change - Ubisoft, like any publicly traded corporation, counts its profits on a yearly basis, so it's going to want to get its franchise games out on a yearly basis to maximize the end-of-year profits and keep investors happy.

medcsu
11-16-2014, 04:22 PM
Catering to the peasants ruined the franchise much like it does for every single franchise they get their claws into. Sit and consider your favorite franchise/games, think about how the progressed once the masses moaned about this/that because they were too fail to get things done and thus.... game/franchise ruined. Competitive gamers are a dying breed and being replaced by gongshow MP peasants who are starting to shift the industry from great storylines and SP experiences to thrown together MPs mainly to cater to them until they decide to move on and ruin another game/franchise.

I am not trying to be antagonistic here and I am 100% positive my fellow real gamer types will know exactly who and what I am talking about. Suffice to say, you guys and myself know exactly what I am referring to and it's a sad state of affairs our past time has been reduced to this PC fest. From a business standpoint I get it but.... man oh man... have things changed.

Relmar_Vel
11-16-2014, 04:33 PM
For an investment of $28m and government tax breaks, with $4m of that going directly into the Quebec studio. Yeah I would hand leadership to Quebec too. But I'm sure it isn't anything to do with that... Of course it is for the player to benefit and better games.

ace3001
11-16-2014, 04:42 PM
Who's we? I've never had a problem with any AC game. I enjoy them yearly & don't want them to stop until I think they're not trying anymore.I wanted one yearly until now. Now, I'm not so sure anymore.
If they can go back to the quality they had upto Black Flag, though, I'm all for a game a year.

ItsGaryPOG
11-16-2014, 05:16 PM
I would usually agree with you - I never liked any of the earlier AC multiplayer modes, but I really like the multiplayer in this game. I like that it's co-op and that joining a game is easy. This is only the second game that I've enjoyed the online aspect - the first was Left 4 Dead.

Sorry I should have been more specific, but yeah I like co-op and hope they put it in the next game.
But I want them focused on single player more than co-op or the older multiplayer

Pr0metheus 1962
11-16-2014, 06:22 PM
Catering to the peasants ruined the franchise much like it does for every single franchise they get their claws into.

LOL. Since when has any game company "catered to the peasants"? What they do is cater to the money guys.

"Real gamers"? What are those? Are you really sure you want to get all elitist on us? Because that never ends well for those who think they represent "real" anything.


Sorry I should have been more specific, but yeah I like co-op and hope they put it in the next game.
But I want them focused on single player more than co-op or the older multiplayer

Totally agree with that. I think the older multiplayer kinda sucked - it catered to the griefer nutcases and the hyper-competitive folks who Medcsu calls "real gamers" and it left the rest of us wondering why they wasted so many resources on it. Single player has never been the same since Ubisoft got the multiplayer bug. I just hope they are satisfied with this form of multiplayer so that they just stop trying to innovate on that front, so they can get back to what AC should be all about.

CartopBALTO
11-18-2014, 05:26 PM
Just brings diversity.
We'll have different designers working on a series.
Like there are many differences in the three studios' works in the CoD series...