PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on Annual Assassin's Creed Releases



JonoLee
12-30-2014, 01:07 PM
This has been bugging me for awhile, especially after I just got done playing AC: Unity.

A game franchise having annual releases never really appealed to me. While I understand the business side of things, the quality of the games really go downhill using this approach. It kind of works for franchises like Call of Duty, but that's because the main emphasis on COD is the multiplayer, in which the core gameplay remains the same, and not the campaign.

AC: Unity really opened my eyes on how bad things have gotten. While I was never really a fan of AC III or AC: Black Flag, I can say without a doubt AC: Unity is far and away the worst game in the franchise. The terrible thing is, this trend may not be reversed anytime soon unless Ubisoft stops this yearly release cycle (which I highly doubt they will do.) It is plainly obvious that the game is unfinished, unpolished, and just plain bad. While some of it can be blamed on the lack of creativity and sheer incompetence of some of Ubisoft's staff, I think a lot of it has to do with the studio's being pressured to create a quality AAA title within a couple of years at most.

This annual release of AC games really kills my excitement and hype for upcoming AC games. Back in the day, when a new AC game was announced, I still remember the massive amount of hype and excitement that erupted. Why? Because when you create a quality title and then spend at least 2-3 years developing a sequel that's just as good, if not better, people fall in love. With AC games now being churned out every year, the excitement is tempered to a standstill. It's the whole feeling of, "Oh, another one is coming out? This one just came out!"

What do you guys think? Is the trend of companies churning out games annually becoming a tired trend?

Matknapers18
12-30-2014, 01:28 PM
Completely agree. You get a lot more excited for a game if you've been waiting 2-3 years for it. Plus your'e also guaranteed a product of higher quality.

There's no way that Ubi can listen to all the feedback and every complaint on Unity and improve on it within a year. In fact, the game is probably 50% complete by now. Introducing annual releases is just Ubisoft stabbing them self in the foot, its a hinderance.

More time = Better game + More Hype

phoenix-force411
12-30-2014, 01:34 PM
Victory should come out in 2016. I think they're gonna need a lot more time. I'm iffy about even installing any patches into Unity once I get my PS4. I already have the games I want, but I've been reading up on the bugs that are introduced with those patches. Patch 4 to be precise.

phoenix-force411
12-30-2014, 01:35 PM
I don't mind the annual releases all too much, but then they need to be better at fixing these bugs and such. The games need more testing! Unity would have been great if there were more beta testing to it.

JonoLee
12-30-2014, 01:41 PM
I don't mind the annual releases all too much, but then they need to be better at fixing these bugs and such. The games need more testing! Unity would have been great if there were more beta testing to it.

Completely agree. AC: Unity was basically a demonstration of the graphics the newer generational consoles are capable of with some game play mixed in. Unless Ubisoft's game testers are completely incompetent (which I highly doubt), I think it's pathetic that they went forward with the release knowing that the game was unfinished. Sony be damned. I hate seeing one of my favorite game franchises go to hell because of a publisher pressuring the developer to churn out games annually. The quality just goes downhill.

JonoLee
12-30-2014, 01:51 PM
Completely agree. You get a lot more excited for a game if you've been waiting 2-3 years for it. Plus your'e also guaranteed a product of higher quality.

There's no way that Ubi can listen to all the feedback and every complaint on Unity and improve on it within a year. In fact, the game is probably 50% complete by now. Introducing annual releases is just Ubisoft stabbing them self in the foot, its a hinderance.

More time = Better game + More Hype

Yup. It's time for Ubisoft to go back to its roots. Assassin's Creed has gotten in its own way due to its success. Sony realizes that the franchise is a cash cow and wants to milk it to death. It's what is happening to Halo now, and Kudos to Bungie for recognizing when to stop and to move on. Because of its success, Ubisoft is basically pressured into releasing annually to keep the cash rolling in. And that's the saddest thing about the whole thing.

AC still has so much potential, even after eight games. Ubisoft really needs to look itself in the mirror and ask, "Is this really the direction we want Assassin's Creed to go? Annual releases of unfinished games which ultimately dilutes the product in the name of making tons of money short-term?" If it is, then I think I've moved on from the franchise. There's plenty of examples of hugely successful game franchises that have made tons of money without adopting the annual release model. Halo (before Halo 4), Far Cry (ironically a Ubisoft game), GTA, etc.

In terms of open-world, exploration type games, GTA continues to reign supreme not only because the superb gameplay, but because the game is NOT rushed. The developers take years to refine and test the game before being satisfied and releasing it to the public. And what's the result? Billions in sales, the most in gaming history I believe.

RADAR__4077
12-30-2014, 02:21 PM
Unity did a great job of improving gameplay and I have been wanting co-op since brotherhood, but you are right. The annual releases need to stop.

I said this on another thread and I will say it again.

Assassin's creed has forgotten it's roots.

They are so focused on making new online features (that they don't even bother to finish before releasing the game!) That the heart of the series, the STORY, is suffering. This story is lost mid ocean without a compass. AC 1 and 2 didn't have ANY online features but no one cares because of the excellent story. My jaw hit the floor at the end of 2 and could not wait to see what happens next! That magic is gone and can't be replaced by apps and websites and forcing community events down our throats. They need to forget online ********, and take as much time needed to make the future of the series as epic and memorable as the beginning.

And PLEASE make a plan, and use the next few games to wrap up the series on a high note.

JonoLee
12-30-2014, 02:30 PM
Unity did a great job of improving gameplay and I have been wanting co-op since brotherhood, but you are right. The annual releases need to stop.

I said this on another thread and I will say it again.

Assassin's creed has forgotten it's roots.

They are so focused on making new online features (that they don't even bother to finish before releasing the game!) That the heart of the series, the STORY, is suffering. This story is lost mid ocean without a compass. AC 1 and 2 didn't have ANY online features but no one cares because of the excellent story. My jaw hit the floor at the end of 2 and could not wait to see what happens next! That magic is gone and can't be replaced by apps and websites and forcing community events down our throats. They need to forget online ********, and take as much time needed to make the future of the series as epic and memorable as the beginning.

And PLEASE make a plan, and use the next few games to wrap up the series on a high note.

I HATE the forced integration of apps/websites/community events, I'm playing single player for a reason. I don't mind co-op too much, but when you're basically forced to do it to unlock certain things, forget it. And you're absolutely right. The draw of Assassin's Creed compared to other open-world games is the story. The AC games going up to AC: Revelations (maybe even up to ACIII) in terms of storytelling was fantastic. One of the biggest mistakes Ubisoft made with AC: Unity was completely ignoring the modern-day portion of the story. Hell, I would've been a little less disappointed by that if they had made Arno's story at least slightly interesting. Instead, we were treated with a cliche-filled murder mystery while the huge opportunity that was the French Revolution raged all around us. It was completely pathetic to see Ubisoft feebly trying to tie in the story with the French Revolution. They failed on an epic proportion.

The modern-day story in AC4 and AC:U has just been plain crap. It has some potential when Ubisoft introduced Sages and Precursor DNA but then it just delved into hell. What did we learn from AC: U? Oh wow! A sage has been found, let's go find his body! Oh, it's buried in the catacombs? Well, let's just ignore it then. *game ends*

Megas_Doux
12-30-2014, 03:10 PM
The modern-day story in AC4 and AC:U has just been plain crap. It has some potential when Ubisoft introduced Sages and Precursor DNA but then it just delved into hell. What did we learn from AC: U? Oh wow! A sage has been found, let's go find his body! Oh, it's buried in the catacombs? Well, let's just ignore it then. *game ends*

The two things that suffer THE most under the annualization model aside for the overall exhaustion of the fanbase are the story and the technical side. ACB, ACR, AC IV -my favorite in fact- and Rogue should not exist at ALL. Unity should have not been released the way it was......

natureboyAC
12-30-2014, 03:13 PM
I enjoy the annual releases because I'm not a gamer anymore and play only 2 franchises (AC and GTA).
So the annual releases give me that one game to wait for every year that I want.

I completely understand the issues that are apparent with annual releases though. AC3 was buggy at times even though I still loved it. And I haven't played Unity since I don't have a PS4 yet, but from all accounts it sounds like it's much worse in the glitch department.

Also a previous poster said,

I HATE the forced integration of apps/websites/community events, I'm playing single player for a reason. I don't mind co-op too much, but when you're basically forced to do it to unlock certain things, forget it. And you're absolutely right. The draw of Assassin's Creed compared to other open-world games is the story.
I completely agree with this. All of it, minus the Co-op part since I haven't experienced it yet. But I don't care about the online stuff.

natureboyAC
12-30-2014, 03:23 PM
The two things that suffer THE most under the annualization model aside for the overall exhaustion of the fanbase are the story and the technical side. ACB, ACR, AC IV -my favorite in fact- and Rogue should not exist at ALL. Unity should have not been released the way it was......

I hear what you are saying about the annual releases exhausting the fanbase, I agree with you to an extent. But I'm also trying to picture the AC franchise without the 4 games you mentioned and I guarantee I wouldn't be so excited about it. Black Flag was my favorite of the series and Revelations for me had the best setting.

I guess the question for Ubisoft, is do you put the games out annually, strike when the iron is hot so to speak, keep the gamer interest as high as you can for a few years risking the subsequent exhaustion? Or do you defend against that exhaustion and put out games every 2-3 years? GTA is a franchise that seems to do the latter successfully. That's an interesting question and I could make you an argument either way.

However, I know if I hadn't played ACB, Revelations, AC4 or Rogue I would've loved AC3 but not played AC since the end of 2012. And since I'm not buying a PS4 anytime too soon, I'd be SOL with Unity for another year. I'm willing to bet if that was true, I wouldn't be still as interested in the series as I am now.

Megas_Doux
12-30-2014, 03:32 PM
In terms of open-world, exploration type games, GTA continues to reign supreme not only because the superb gameplay, but because the game is NOT rushed. The developers take years to refine and test the game before being satisfied and releasing it to the public. And what's the result? Billions in sales, the most in gaming history I believe.

Aside from the fact Rockstar does a much better job with the releases and their PR is so good they are "allowed" to get away with stuff Ubi is torched for, GTA V was severely downgraded and very few cared for instance. AC will never be as loved as GTA because the fun of that franchise relies on fulfilling the fantasy to do "whatever you like" in any moment without any limits: steal cars, rob banks, blow everything up. In GTA you are a plain criminal with bare to none boundaries, the assassins have "rules" on the other hand. Then there is the fact 90% of that stuff is impossible to do in the "realistic" pre modern settings AC works with, you just cant make horses explode with a bow in 1780 New York.....

The closer AC has gotten to that is AC IV and guess what???? Many gamers and big youtubers like Angry Joe or Total Biscuit think that is the salvation of franchise. The less of the "traditional" AC for them, the better. Dont get me wrong, I liked that game, it is just I dont want AC to become a naval simulator.



I hear what you are saying about the annual releases exhausting the fanbase, I agree with you to an extent. But I'm also trying to picture the AC franchise without the 4 games you mentioned and I guarantee I wouldn't be so excited about it. Black Flag was my favorite of the series and Revelations for me had the best setting.

I guess the question for Ubisoft, is do you put the games out annually, strike when the iron is hot so to speak, keep the gamer interest as high as you can for a few years risking the subsequent exhaustion? Or do you defend against that exhaustion and put out games every 2-3 years? GTA is a franchise that seems to do the latter successfully. That's an interesting question and I could make you an argument either way.

.

I do understand, thing is I prefer 9 score games every two or three years over 7.5/8 or even less annually.

JonoLee
12-30-2014, 03:52 PM
I hear what you are saying about the annual releases exhausting the fanbase, I agree with you to an extent. But I'm also trying to picture the AC franchise without the 4 games you mentioned and I guarantee I wouldn't be so excited about it. Black Flag was my favorite of the series and Revelations for me had the best setting.

I guess the question for Ubisoft, is do you put the games out annually, strike when the iron is hot so to speak, keep the gamer interest as high as you can for a few years risking the subsequent exhaustion? Or do you defend against that exhaustion and put out games every 2-3 years? GTA is a franchise that seems to do the latter successfully. That's an interesting question and I could make you an argument either way.

However, I know if I hadn't played ACB, Revelations, AC4 or Rogue I would've loved AC3 but not played AC since the end of 2012. And since I'm not buying a PS4 anytime too soon, I'd be SOL with Unity for another year. I'm willing to bet if that was true, I wouldn't be still as interested in the series as I am now.

I agree. I would love the annual release model in a perfect world. However, when the quality of the games have been noticeably declining, that's when I have a problem with it. I too, loved AC Brotherhood/Revelations and liked Black Flag. But I would much rather, in our rather imperfect world, have high quality games be released every 2-3 years rather than lower quality ones every year. Quality over quantity has always been my motto.

JonoLee
12-30-2014, 03:55 PM
Aside from the fact Rockstar does a much better job with the releases and their PR is so good they are "allowed" to get away with stuff Ubi is torched for, GTA V was severely downgraded and very few cared for instance. AC will never be as loved as GTA because the fun of that franchise relies on fulfilling the fantasy to do "whatever you like" in any moment without any limits: steal cars, rob banks, blow everything up. In GTA you are a plain criminal with bare to none boundaries, the assassins have "rules" on the other hand. Then there is the fact 90% of that stuff is impossible to do in the "realistic" pre modern settings AC works with, you just cant make horses explode with a bow in 1780 New York.....

The closer AC has gotten to that is AC IV and guess what???? Many gamers and big youtubers like Angry Joe or Total Biscuit think that is the salvation of franchise. The less of the "traditional" AC for them, the better. Dont get me wrong, I liked that game, it is just I dont want AC to become a naval simulator.




I do understand, thing is I prefer 9 score games every two or three years over 7.5/8 or even less annually.

Yup. My quip about GTA wasn't the differences in the game play, don't get me wrong. My point was simply the now vast chasm that exists between the overall quality of the games rather than their individual mechanics.

VestigialLlama4
12-30-2014, 04:10 PM
I have said this before and I will say it again.

ANNUALIZATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF THE FRANCHISE

Assassin's Creed III and Assassin's Creed Unity were the games with the longest development times, the stop-gap games Brotherhood-Revelations, Black Flag-Rogue were made to satisfy long delays. These games, intended to "relaunch" the succeeding phase of the franchise are far less liked and more flawed than the games with shorter development times. A game like Black Flag was floated towards the middle of AC3's development when they saw the sailing component. In other words, it came about by chance, and nobody expected before that a pirate game would be possible.

The ultimate problems with the franchise is the people who want to build the franchise and the people who want to create good games.

The ones with the franchise are looking for the next Ezio, they keep looking for "relaunch" games that break from unpopular entries like AC2 did with AC1, without considering the character, protagonist and setting and thinking deeply about possibilities of storytelling and gameplay. So they latch on to big sprawling events like the American Revolution or the French Revolution thinking that it could create a round of sequels without thinking deeply about the period, setting and how it revolves around the Creed and Concepts. They also have similar ideas, Connor has the revenge and building the Brotherhood element from the Ezio games despite the fact that he isn't convincing as a leader while Arno is so patently an Ezio clone that it's not even funny.

The people who make the stopgap games (Brotherhood, Revelations, Black Flag) by and large have more freedom than these relaunch titles. A game like Revelations doesn't have a lot of baggage, so it can tell a simple story and develop some interesting systems, create a beautiful open-world city and go from there. BLACK FLAG has the pirate lore and a light-hearted story so the developers had way more freedom and fewer constraints.

The failure of UNITY comes because it lacks guts, it lacks vision, and it lacks b-lls pure and simple. It is a reactionary game because it checklists every complaint made of III without considering that it might have been a problem of poor execution than bad ideas:
- III was considered too much of a Forrest-Gump Story. Okay in UNITY, the hero isn't participating in history at all, its the Templars who are actually changing the world and making it a better place.
- III had a hero who was considered too stoic and boring. Okay, UNITY has a hero who gives fake wit, has fake charm, is a hodge-podge of character traits from Ezio and Edward.
- III had a gray storyline that had a likable villain and complex story. In UNITY, the villains eat babies while the heroes cure the lame and blind.
- III had too many side missions and systems, in UNITY, the side missions suck and are repititive.
- III was too linear, UNITY talks itself into believing that coming up with five different ways to enter a single room is actually doing something different.

Put it simply, if they did UNITY without the baggage of it being a relaunch title, a next-gen game, it might have been better, because then they would leave developers alone.

JonoLee
12-30-2014, 04:20 PM
I have said this before and I will say it again.

ANNUALIZATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF THE FRANCHISE

Assassin's Creed III and Assassin's Creed Unity were the games with the longest development times, the stop-gap games Brotherhood-Revelations, Black Flag-Rogue were made to satisfy long delays. These games, intended to "relaunch" the succeeding phase of the franchise are far less liked and more flawed than the games with shorter development times. A game like Black Flag was floated towards the middle of AC3's development when they saw the sailing component. In other words, it came about by chance, and nobody expected before that a pirate game would be possible.

The ultimate problems with the franchise is the people who want to build the franchise and the people who want to create good games.

The ones with the franchise are looking for the next Ezio, they keep looking for "relaunch" games that break from unpopular entries like AC2 did with AC1, without considering the character, protagonist and setting and thinking deeply about possibilities of storytelling and gameplay. So they latch on to big sprawling events like the American Revolution or the French Revolution thinking that it could create a round of sequels without thinking deeply about the period, setting and how it revolves around the Creed and Concepts. They also have similar ideas, Connor has the revenge and building the Brotherhood element from the Ezio games despite the fact that he isn't convincing as a leader while Arno is so patently an Ezio clone that it's not even funny.

The people who make the stopgap games (Brotherhood, Revelations, Black Flag) by and large have more freedom than these relaunch titles. A game like Revelations doesn't have a lot of baggage, so it can tell a simple story and develop some interesting systems, create a beautiful open-world city and go from there. BLACK FLAG has the pirate lore and a light-hearted story so the developers had way more freedom and fewer constraints.

The failure of UNITY comes because it lacks guts, it lacks vision, and it lacks b-lls pure and simple. It is a reactionary game because it checklists every complaint made of III without considering that it might have been a problem of poor execution than bad ideas:
- III was considered too much of a Forrest-Gump Story. Okay in UNITY, the hero isn't participating in history at all, its the Templars who are actually changing the world and making it a better place.
- III had a hero who was considered too stoic and boring. Okay, UNITY has a hero who gives fake wit, has fake charm, is a hodge-podge of character traits from Ezio and Edward.
- III had a gray storyline that had a likable villain and complex story. In UNITY, the villains eat babies while the heroes cure the lame and blind.
- III had too many side missions and systems, in UNITY, the side missions suck and are repititive.
- III was too linear, UNITY talks itself into believing that coming up with five different ways to enter a single room is actually doing something different.

Put it simply, if they did UNITY without the baggage of it being a relaunch title, a next-gen game, it might have been better, because then they would leave developers alone.
Completely agree. Sorry, my original intent wasn't to imply that the annual release trend was the reason for AC: Unity being terrible. I just wanted to get the opinions of others on what they thought of the model.

The quality of the game overall, ultimately falls upon the developer. The game failed because of the points you stated above. I was just making the point that in my opinion, the quality of games tend to decrease if a developer is forced to maintain a time schedule. I completely agree that Ubisoft failed on an epic proportion on ACU. It was, frankly, an embarrassment to the franchise as a whole. To call this buggy, broken, and ultimately pile of crap a game is being generous. The people who were on the test/quality control team deserve to get fired. I still can't believe they didn't catch the game-breaking bug of the game freezing after the title screen. Ridiculous.

While I did like Arno being a sort of throwback to Ezio (nostalgia), there was absolutely no character development. Germain is probably one of the worst antagonists in all of gaming history, much less AC history. Boring, bland, uninteresting; I felt literally nothing when I first encountered him and when I killed him. Hell, my favorite character was probably Napoleon in his five minute cameo.

hood3dassassin5
12-30-2014, 04:53 PM
I'm fine with annually releases as long as they are worked on within a period of 2-4 years. Kind of like what COD has right now, 3 studios working on a game for 3 years a piece. No rushed games within 1 year.

pacmanate
12-30-2014, 06:48 PM
I think Ubi should pull a few of us off here and reddit to properly game test.

Will_Lucky
12-30-2014, 06:59 PM
The people who make the stopgap games (Brotherhood, Revelations, Black Flag) by and large have more freedom than these relaunch titles. A game like Revelations doesn't have a lot of baggage, so it can tell a simple story and develop some interesting systems, create a beautiful open-world city and go from there. BLACK FLAG has the pirate lore and a light-hearted story so the developers had way more freedom and fewer constraints.

I actually find it rather interesting in a sense that two games that are in a sense spin offs those being Black Flags and Rouge ironically in my opinion got characters that could very well have carried on at least a sequel. The adventures of Edward in London for example in between 1622-1625 as he founds his family in the city and works for the British Assassins. And Shay who has been sent off on his mission we know he succeeds at 16 years after he was set out on it, thats a long 16 years to potentially fill in with another adventure or two and best of all in his case the canvas is blank they could go anywhere with him that fits historical parameters.

Altair1789
12-30-2014, 06:59 PM
I think the main problem is the lack of passion for the series and what it is. Unity didn't even need to exist, but they made it. The game has no overarching storyline anymore, the plots have been getting worse, and most of it is because it means more money for Ubi. They're allowed to do that though, they don't need to realize that more quality=more money, because most fans buy the game even though they know it's going downhill

Ubisoft never wants to go the extra mile, and that's probably due to the set release dates before the game is even finished. So much of the game's potential is wasted on that

Namikaze_17
12-30-2014, 07:01 PM
I think Ubi should pull a few of us off here and reddit to properly game test.


And we survey how we feel about it... :rolleyes:

JustPlainQuirky
12-30-2014, 07:41 PM
I actually enjoy annual releases.

Yeah I said it.

But if it does prove to harm the quality (ex. destroying the overarching narrative)

then yes I want it to end.

Megas_Doux
12-30-2014, 08:16 PM
I have said this before and I will say it again.

ANNUALIZATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF THE FRANCHISE



Everybody's entitled to their own opinion, so my quick thoughts about annualization in AC:

1 Exhaustion!
I have a fan since 2007 and I have never seen so much alienation/indifference or even plain disapproval towards a leak as with the Victory one, like only 15 fans over the internet are excited over the next AC......Let alone the critics and non fans who are just TIRED of AC, the single most hated gaming franchise at the moment.

2 Performance!
As much as they say any given game has been in "development" for Horus knows how many years....The releases of AC III, AC IV and mostly Unity have proven otherwise. From a technical standpoint, the ports have suffered of different levels of bad performance, more QA was needed. After a month my PC can run Unity at 40-45 frames per second, whereas Far Cry 4, Shadow of Mordor and Dragon age NEVER go below 60....

3 Story/narrative!
At this rate of one and even TWO annual releases, writers will run out of stories because is a proven fact that many times successful games/movies do not get a sequel because the lack of proper scrypts . Again look at Far cry, whereas those games are not TLoU narrative/story wise, the plots have been really solid.....

4 No Focus!
So many hit and miss in the likes of "letīs include this new element feature" in order mask the shame of annualization in detriment of improving the CORE with many different outcomes, naval was loved, den defense and first person platforming were NOT. At least Unity improved the some of the core elements with its navigation, 1:1 buildings, harder combat, customization and such....! Again take GTA for instance, it has been pretty much the same game since 2001 with minor tweaks here and there and a improved core though. Other franchises like Far cry, Arkham and God of war know who they are aiming to. AC on the other hand is trying to please everybody while, again, masking the shame of annualization. Thing is there is not have a clear path....

5 Feedback!
It "takes" more time aka games to be acknowledged because if any given feature is "demanded" the next annual game is already in the making. For example Crouch, customization and Co op were asked by fans since 2009. News hit that crouching was removed from AC III due to "lack of time", Co op was supposed to be featured in AC IV as well.....

6 Overall disconnection!
Instead of having one dedicated team working in a franchise -the clear path again- like in GTA or AC I and AC II the task is divided into several people, you have seen the results....

My opinion of course, but If you ask me annualization is killing this franchise.....

m4r-k7
12-30-2014, 08:21 PM
Hopefully Unity has showed Ubisoft that they need to sort out their quality control. Probably not though as I thought the uproar when AC 3 came out with all those bugs would sort them out. Well hopefully Victory will be delayed a few months if it needs it. According to the kotaku leak, it looked well into development and they seemed surprised to see an e3-like demo up and running already.

Fatal-Feit
12-30-2014, 08:28 PM
Hopefully Unity has showed Ubisoft that they need to sort out their quality control. Probably not though as I thought the uproar when AC 3 came out with all those bugs would sort them out. Well hopefully Victory will be delayed a few months if it needs it. According to the kotaku leak, it looked well into development and they seemed surprised to see an e3-like demo up and running already.

That was target gameplay footage (not actual gameplay or quality).

Namikaze_17
12-30-2014, 08:35 PM
like only 15 fans over the internet are excited over the next AC......


http://media.tumblr.com/4ba84438cef6c792a8ea1abab71a594b/tumblr_inline_mj7sfdNjm81qz4rgp.gif

SlyTrooper
12-30-2014, 10:06 PM
Yearly releases aren't the problem. I don't understand how people can justify criticising Ubi for it. The main problem is that Ubi don't understand what we want, & quite frankly don't even know how to make an amazing AC game anymore. Here's what Ubi need to improve:

- Yearly releases: Yearly releases shouldn't matter to Ubisoft because they have such a large company. If different people are working on different AC games then it shouldn't be any different than one developer making a new game over the course of a few years. Their issue is that they try to have multiple studios working on the same game over large distances. That doesn't work. If Montreal is making the game then Sofia shouldn't be touching the game. If Quebec are making the game then Montreal shouldn't be touching it. If this all happens, we will have new & unique AC games every year because another developer is creating it in their image.

- Random ********: Ubi also need to stop implimenting features everybody hates cough*companion app*cough. Nobody who plays AC yearly wants nor cares about these features. They just piss us off. Get rid of that crap & the game might even run better.

- Glitches: They need to hire more testers or something because a repeat of Unity will drive them into the ground.

- Story: As many people on here are saying, we want a decent story. There are such interesting parts of the lore which are just being ignored because some people moaned that they didn't want modern day. I want to see the first civ & I want to see some interesting conflict between or within the Templars & Assassins.

- Time period: Ok, I will admit that Victory is quite different to Unity, being in the 19th century & all, & it does interest me because of this, but I want to see older time periods again. Playing the start of Unity just made me want that to be the actual game. It's so much more interesting than later time periods.

Ghaleon80
12-31-2014, 05:52 AM
I actually really like the annual release, and until Unity quality was great(only had 3 glitches with unity actually( only thing i disliked about unity was the storyline and MD direction.

I fully support an annual release and am glad to see a few development studios are trying to shift to doing like Ubisoft does

Shahkulu101
12-31-2014, 06:18 AM
My thoughts on annual releases:

https://bloggiusmaximus.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/stahp-sign.jpg

RADAR__4077
12-31-2014, 06:24 AM
I actually really like the annual release, and until Unity quality was great(only had 3 glitches with unity actually( only thing i disliked about unity was the storyline and MD direction.

I fully support an annual release and am glad to see a few development studios are trying to shift to doing like Ubisoft does

Idk about you, but the story has been the only reason I have been coming back for more.

The story is what set assassin's creed apart from other games, and now that it is almost nonexistent I am beginning to lose interest. I am playing unity because I spent the money already and the gameplay is pretty good, but I will not dive into victory without waiting to see what others have to say first.

Sad... I remember when you could preorder assassin's creed and you knew you were going to have a great game on release day. Now I'm actually dreading what the next one might to butcher the story.

GoldenBoy9999
12-31-2014, 06:30 AM
I like the annual releases. I don't think they're hurting it that much. Some other factors are at play imo. People are getting tired of AC because the quality of the games have been lacking and they know the next game could be worse. I'm no expert, but I believe Ubisoft can make good quality AC games with an annual schedule.

And having a game be announced early doesn't necessarily make me more hyped for it either. Evolve was announced a long time ago and has had tons of news, but each time I see a new article, I realize how little I care. I just want to see how the game does. Don't make me wait until the hype train runs out of fuel.

This could change if they did an AC game that way, but I'm happy with the current method atm.


I think Ubi should pull a few of us off here and reddit to properly game test.

That's an awesome idea. :cool:

Shahkulu101
12-31-2014, 06:50 AM
Unity was pretty soulless. No lore, no great characters, no amazing 'wow' moments in story or gameplay. The mechanics were finally not ****e, but that's not enough for me to say I enjoyed the game. I tried to convince myself I did, and that putting myself through the repetitive and monotonous Paris Stories was somehow worthy of my time, but the entire game just isn't very good in any aspect. Barring the beautiful and insanely detailed Paris, which carves some enjoyment out of the game through the sheer spectacle.

It's the best game mechanically but still mediocre, the side missions are very bad, the story completely bog standard, characters and their interactions bland, dull script, overbearing collectibles, companion app ******** -- so many things make this game a limp, frustrating experience. There is NO reason anyone should play Unity. The gameplay is done better by countless other titles -- bizarrely even in Ubisoft's own games, which shows the lack of passion the developers have for the series -- and the narrative is not worth anyone's time.

IMO Unity has very few redeeming qualities and is one of the worst games hovering near the likes of AC3 and the original. This is a jarring difference in comparison to my original feedback but honestly I was just kidding myself then. The design of the missions are in the right direction but honestly I only found them vaguely enjoyable, had they a decent set of mechanics behind them they'd probably be fantastic. The amount of options is pretty nice, and there's satisfaction in finding underground entrances and a convenient window, but it counts for little if the stealth is wonky, obtuse and unreliable. This isn't me complaining about Unity's difficulty, I love that combat is challenging and discouraged but the stealth at times is frustrating for the wrong reasons such as the terrible cover system, insane LoS on the snipers, hive mind effect of the AI (once one guy detects you the other enemies are aware of your presence instantly) and the pointless removal of whistling.

I don't like the state the series is in and I think they need to take a break for a few years and think about what they want to do with the franchise - so yes, I am against yearly releases. As of now I see no reason to buy the next game. Even after AC3 I had some faith left, it's not so much that Unity itself was SO bad - it's the disappointment that still, after all these years and with the greatest effort yet, they haven't made AC a competent stealth action game. And of course, the story has absolutely no heart and the lore that pulled me in to the series long ago has been forgotten about.

SOLIDSOUTHCENTRA
12-31-2014, 11:04 AM
Keep releasing them every year please. And please expand on the co-op I need more Heist missions. AC Unity is a brilliant game.

SOLIDSOUTHCENTRA
12-31-2014, 11:10 AM
GTA wasn't even that good of a game.