Man Sues Ubisoft Over Assassin’s Creed

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This case should be interesting to follow. The case seems kinda weak and he probably doesn't stand a chance but, you never know, we've seen stranger things happen.

According to the Complaint, in Link, the Plaintiff’s plot includes the conception and creation of a link device and process whereby ancestral memories can be accessed, recalled, relived, and re-experienced by the user. Link apparently further describes a bio-synchronizer. The Complaint further alleges that Assassin's Creed's "Animus" and "Animus 2.0" device and process, among other portions of the game, are infringements of Plaintiff's Link copyright.
 

bigted

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - Oct. 2013
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
3,334
so will nintendo sue this guy for name "Link"?
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
Don't they have to have proved they have read it? It's kind of unlikely, especially if it's just some story in some guys head.
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
7,995
Wish we had a "loser pays" system. Think that would do away with a lot of weak suits and claims like this. This would mean that any game, book, movie or TV show that has a spaceship in it could be sued by the people that did the first game, book, movie or TV show that had a spaceship in it.
 

KatalDT

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
2,567
Wish we had a "loser pays" system. Think that would do away with a lot of weak suits and claims like this. This would mean that any game, book, movie or TV show that has a spaceship in it could be sued by the people that did the first game, book, movie or TV show that had a spaceship in it.

While in theory that's great, it would also prevent any individual from suing a large corporation for even legitimate reasons.

When they have legal teams already paid and on-call, the corporations have nothing to lose (ie. it's a cost of doing business) by throwing EVERYTHING into every small case. And when that adds up to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars billed for a small case, nobody would sue even if they had a legitimate claim, because of the chance of putting themselves into bankruptcy territory.
 

TwiceOver

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 14, 2003
Messages
2,409
Instead should sue to recoup the cost for those of us that paid full price for the first shitty ass game.
 

fenixv

Gawd
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
612
I enjoyed the first and second.

As for loser pays, KatalDT is exactly right. While it would cull a lot of ridiculous lawsuits, it would also prevent a lot of legitimate suits from being brought by people with lesser means because of the chance that it would put them in a worse off position.
 

matchstick

n00b
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
51
Instead should sue to recoup the cost for those of us that paid full price for the first shitty ass game.

Really? So shitty that it spawned 4 additional games (AC3 is out later this year) on the major platforms and 4 games on handhelds.

One of the few games that has a very unique and developed plotline (unlike ::cough:: ME3).

Is not a straight up FPS, that actually has goals and a very good sandbox world.

Alrighty then, if you didn't like it, why even leave a comment.
 

matchstick

n00b
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
51
Also to add, it's just funny how this guy waited till now to sue, and not back in 2006/07 when the game was being developed and first released. When the franchise is at its peak.
 

DarkStar_WNY

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
2,362
While in theory that's great, it would also prevent any individual from suing a large corporation for even legitimate reasons.

When they have legal teams already paid and on-call, the corporations have nothing to lose (ie. it's a cost of doing business) by throwing EVERYTHING into every small case. And when that adds up to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars billed for a small case, nobody would sue even if they had a legitimate claim, because of the chance of putting themselves into bankruptcy territory.

I enjoyed the first and second.

As for loser pays, KatalDT is exactly right. While it would cull a lot of ridiculous lawsuits, it would also prevent a lot of legitimate suits from being brought by people with lesser means because of the chance that it would put them in a worse off position.

So we punish companies/people by allowing, and making them pay to defend against, frivolous lawsuits to protect some hypothetical person who might bring a valid suit at some point in the future?

I understand that there needs to be recourse for legitimate lawsuits but punishing everyone, and in effect creating a jobs programs for lawyers, has done nothing but create a system sort of like a legal lottery where it can be worth it to press BS suits just to try and swing a settlement (we'll take $50k instead of forcing you to spend $100k to defend yourself.)

Ironically many of the same people who will oppose loose pays will also decry the RIAA using this same form of what is basically legalized extortion.
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
7,995
While in theory that's great, it would also prevent any individual from suing a large corporation for even legitimate reasons.

When they have legal teams already paid and on-call, the corporations have nothing to lose (ie. it's a cost of doing business) by throwing EVERYTHING into every small case. And when that adds up to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars billed for a small case, nobody would sue even if they had a legitimate claim, because of the chance of putting themselves into bankruptcy territory.

If it's a legitimate reason, you're gonna win. If jury's are awarding damages because some tard spilled hot coffee on themself, they'll hand out awards for legit reasons. If you knew you'd have to pay if you lose, you're less likely to sue your hairdresser if she gives you a bad haircut or if you got cancer after 30 years of smoking.
 

ballistic90

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
3,308
If it's a legitimate reason, you're gonna win. If jury's are awarding damages because some tard spilled hot coffee on themself, they'll hand out awards for legit reasons. If you knew you'd have to pay if you lose, you're less likely to sue your hairdresser if she gives you a bad haircut or if you got cancer after 30 years of smoking.

First of all, not all people suing for a legitimate reason will win. Companies have the option to drag out a lawsuit until the one filing it runs out of money to pursue legal action. That happens all the time, and some of the largest companies in the US, like Monsanto, are notorious for using that BS tactic.

Second, the woman that spilled McDonald's Coffee on herself actually DID have a legitimate case. Corporations and the US Chamber of Commerce used the case to try and trick people into asking for tort reform. The terms of the case were replaced by false 'facts' that companies send to the media to get a reaction out of people. The woman that spilled coffee on herself was NOT driving, she was in the passenger seat. The car had no cup holders, and the car was stopped in the parking lot when it happened. She tried to open it to put the cream and sugars into the coffee that the McDonald's employees refused to do, when it spilled on her, causing third degree burns. She required skin grafts because the skin turned black. She was suing McDonald's because that was not the first time it happened, and McDonald's new that their coffee was way too hot. She wanted her medical bills paid, and the jury decided to award her what they thought was fair, which was 1 day's income that McDonald's makes from coffee, which was millions of dollars. Of course, McDonald's appealed and the amount they actually paid was never revealed due to the agreements that McDonald's had the plaintiff sign. They can also no longer talk about it due to the same agreements, which is why people keep pushing the bullshit "TORT REFPORMSSS!!!!" that we see all the time.

Realisitically, when lawsuits like this come up, they make headlines when they're filed, but when it comes before the judge, they're thrown out. Not only that, but the lawyer for this idiot will likely be seeing a hefty fine or penalty for frivolous lawsuits. My wife is an attorney and explained that if you keep submitting these, you can lose your license. Moreover if you try to bully a company or someone using a lawsuit that you really don't have a case for, that's called "Abuse of process" which can get you an even bigger penalty. If you find yourself on the recieving end of one of these types of lawsuits, get a good lawyer, one that isn't just in it for the money. If they want you to go into a long settlement talk for something you know they don't have a case for, say no. They want your legal fees. Get them to petition the judge for a dismissal of the case or to charge the other with abuse of process. You can also countersue them for legal fees.

So remember, when you see these headlines, remember that there's a 99% chance that the lawsuit will be thrown out almost immediately if it really is frivolous.
 

ballistic90

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
3,308
Wish we had a "loser pays" system. Think that would do away with a lot of weak suits and claims like this. This would mean that any game, book, movie or TV show that has a spaceship in it could be sued by the people that did the first game, book, movie or TV show that had a spaceship in it.

We do have that. It's called "counter suing for legal fees". It works.
 

dandirk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
1,831
If it's a legitimate reason, you're gonna win. If jury's are awarding damages because some tard spilled hot coffee on themself, they'll hand out awards for legit reasons. If you knew you'd have to pay if you lose, you're less likely to sue your hairdresser if she gives you a bad haircut or if you got cancer after 30 years of smoking.

That is the problem with arguments for loser pays, the assumption is that the legal system is perfect.

"If it's a legitimate reason, you're gonna win."

The above statement is wrong, there are many cases virtually everyday (both civil and criminal) where the case is "legitimate" and yet they still lose. All sorts of reasons why... evidence gets thrown out, bad judge/jury, etc etc etc

Talk to any court room attorney and they will tell you virtually any case can blow up.

The best thing to a guarantee you will get from a lawyer is that they take your case on a % of awards (for civil only obviously).

While I agree that bogus lawsuits suck ass, there really should be another method of determining such things, cause loser pays (as a universal rule) significantly boosts the advantage to the party with the most resources, even more so then would inherently be there already.

As to the article... Doesn't the warning most games/shows use "characters are purely fictional..." line protect a work of fiction from someone claiming copy write on the characters etc in the game (as long as they are not complete rip-offs). Thus the wiggle room parody allows?

Crap, if he won, better throw out laser guns, time travel, aliens.

Though if for some odd reason it was proved that a plot/writer just read his book months before creating AC... Wow, could that even be protected? The device itself, I don't think so... maybe if they copied the characters and general plot outline???

I know Lucas and Star Wars sort of fight a similar battle, having to do with products... Like the use of the work lightsaber... vs some other name...
 

DocFaustus

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
2,830
So we punish companies/people by allowing, and making them pay to defend against, frivolous lawsuits to protect some hypothetical person who might bring a valid suit at some point in the future?

I understand that there needs to be recourse for legitimate lawsuits but punishing everyone, and in effect creating a jobs programs for lawyers, has done nothing but create a system sort of like a legal lottery where it can be worth it to press BS suits just to try and swing a settlement (we'll take $50k instead of forcing you to spend $100k to defend yourself.)

Ironically many of the same people who will oppose loose pays will also decry the RIAA using this same form of what is basically legalized extortion.

I know we are venturing off topic a bit here, what you are suggesting would actually make the problem 100x worse. Nobody would ever try to defend themselves when threatened by a large company, virtually guaranteeing more thuggish settlement practices.

If the problem is stemming from a particular law, that law might be too encompassing and should probably be reviewed/revised before we go changing how the court system itself works.

Back on topic. This guy seems to have blurred the line between copyright and patent, whereby he is using some of the more recent bastardized practices of patenting an end concept without having a solution for said concept. This seems ultra strange when brought into the copyright realm. Why? Well nobody "invented" anything in the patent sense since we are talking about a story, and nobody infringed copyrights because nothing was copied. His complaint is a plot device to bring up ancestral memory is similar. He is essentially saying that the first person to ever write any book about time travel (using a time machine) should prevent all future authors from ever writing on that genre again.
 

Oomps

Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
789
Really? So shitty that it spawned 4 additional games (AC3 is out later this year) on the major platforms and 4 games on handhelds.

One of the few games that has a very unique and developed plotline (unlike ::cough:: ME3).

Is not a straight up FPS, that actually has goals and a very good sandbox world.

Alrighty then, if you didn't like it, why even leave a comment.

I got the first one for like $4 on steam.

Still too much :cool:
 

TwiceOver

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 14, 2003
Messages
2,409
Alrighty then, if you didn't like it, why even leave a comment.

Because that's what people do on the internet. Interject their opinion on a topic even though it has little to do with the subject. Haven't been to the internet much eh?

The first game basically played itself. Sure you could wander wherever you want, but there wasn't shit to do so there was no reason to. The fighting was ridiculous and made for button mashers. By the time you finished the 3rd "quest" (very loose term) you could pretty much run through the rest of the game without talking to anyone because all the quests were the same.

It just wasn't as advertised. Not one bit.
 

DocFaustus

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
2,830
If it's a legitimate reason, you're gonna win.

Others have already pointed out the fallacy of this statement but you also have to define what a "win" means. The case in question has 210 "Facts". When should the loser pay? When all 210 facts are proved in court? What if only 10 facts are proven, who pays then? 105? What if the facts that are proven are not directly related to monetary compensation?

What happens if someone asks for 10 Million, but the jury awards 10 thousand? Who is the real winner then? prosecution or defense? Who pays based on a paltry win?
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
7,995
Spilling coffee on yourself is a "you" problem especially if you keep doing it. Unless the bottom of the cup fell out and dumped it in her lap, its not McD's fault. The cup wasn't defective. She took the lid off in a car and spilled it on her.

And suing to recoup legal fees I never really liked. Some tool sues me for no reason, I have to spend a fortune on legal fees to defend myself over a long period of time but that's OK, I can just spend more money to counter-sue him for those legal fees, then he can appeal and so on. Maybe if I'm lucky, Ill get some cash out of him in 20 years. I'd rather have it a little quicker process.

At least make it an option for the judge. If somebody brings a suit and loses then let the judge decide if it was a bullshit reason or not based on the evidence and if so then he/she can award the defendant legal fees.

I'm no lawyer so I can give you all the details that would have to be addressed but I do know that I don't have to be a lawyer to see the glut and complete abuse of the legal system by frivolous lawsuits. Suing Walmart for 100 million because a stuffed animal fell off a shelf and hit you because you know they'll settles since its cheaper to settle than to defend themselves in court is a stretegy trial lawyers know too well and take advantage of far too often.
 

Kaitian

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
4,870
Spilling coffee on yourself is a "you" problem especially if you keep doing it. Unless the bottom of the cup fell out and dumped it in her lap, its not McD's fault. The cup wasn't defective. She took the lid off in a car and spilled it on her.

And suing to recoup legal fees I never really liked. Some tool sues me for no reason, I have to spend a fortune on legal fees to defend myself over a long period of time but that's OK, I can just spend more money to counter-sue him for those legal fees, then he can appeal and so on. Maybe if I'm lucky, Ill get some cash out of him in 20 years. I'd rather have it a little quicker process.

At least make it an option for the judge. If somebody brings a suit and loses then let the judge decide if it was a bullshit reason or not based on the evidence and if so then he/she can award the defendant legal fees.

I'm no lawyer so I can give you all the details that would have to be addressed but I do know that I don't have to be a lawyer to see the glut and complete abuse of the legal system by frivolous lawsuits. Suing Walmart for 100 million because a stuffed animal fell off a shelf and hit you because you know they'll settles since its cheaper to settle than to defend themselves in court is a stretegy trial lawyers know too well and take advantage of far too often.
You really need to read up on the McDonald's case. They served the coffee way TOO FUCKING HOT and their coffee machine was defective. McDonald's served the coffee at 180-190 Fahrenheit when most competitors served their coffee at 140 Fahrenheit. Big difference between the two. Also McDonald's had over 700 people who suffered from these coffee burns which established precedence that this was a huge fuck up by McDonald's. Also McDonald's in the end conceded that their coffee would have harmed people if consumed right away.
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
7,995
You really need to read up on the McDonald's case. They served the coffee way TOO FUCKING HOT and their coffee machine was defective. McDonald's served the coffee at 180-190 Fahrenheit when most competitors served their coffee at 140 Fahrenheit. Big difference between the two. Also McDonald's had over 700 people who suffered from these coffee burns which established precedence that this was a huge fuck up by McDonald's. Also McDonald's in the end conceded that their coffee would have harmed people if consumed right away.

Sorry dude I just can't get there. You buy a cup of hot coffee then sit in a car and take the lid off it and spill it on yourself, that is your fault. She's the one that took the lid off. McD's gave it to her with the lid on it. At MOST, McD's should pay medical bills not several million dollars.

Either way, system you're right and I'm wrong about that one case, I think we both know I could pull up a billion other cases that are undeniably frivolous. Even if this one case was not, there is still undoubtedly a big problem with abuse of the legal system.
 

Kaitian

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
4,870
Sorry dude I just can't get there. You buy a cup of hot coffee then sit in a car and take the lid off it and spill it on yourself, that is your fault. She's the one that took the lid off. McD's gave it to her with the lid on it. At MOST, McD's should pay medical bills not several million dollars.

Either way, system you're right and I'm wrong about that one case, I think we both know I could pull up a billion other cases that are undeniably frivolous. Even if this one case was not, there is still undoubtedly a big problem with abuse of the legal system.

They served her coffee at temperature that exceeded what people would consume them normally and she wasn't the only one that had been burned by this. McDonald's had other settlements over the same coffee issues where one example was where they paid $500,000. She didn't sue McDonald's for millions, the jury awarded her that when she only wanted McDonald's to cover her medical expenses. It's like me serving you hamburgers that's flaming on fire and it's not my fucking fault that you got burned by the flames.
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
7,995
They served her coffee at temperature that exceeded what people would consume them normally and she wasn't the only one that had been burned by this. McDonald's had other settlements over the same coffee issues where one example was where they paid $500,000. She didn't sue McDonald's for millions, the jury awarded her that when she only wanted McDonald's to cover her medical expenses. It's like me serving you hamburgers that's flaming on fire and it's not my fucking fault that you got burned by the flames.

Right! You set down a plate of food with flames on it and I dig in and burn myself, that's my fault. You'd be right if she'd ordered a Coke and they gave her piping hot coffee instead and she burned herself but she ordered HOT coffee. Even if it wasn't 20-30 degrees hotter than the competitors, it would still burn the shit out of you if you spilled it.

It would be like when I order fajitas at Chilis (best in the world by the way) and they bring that sizzling hot skillet out and set it down and then I grab the handle of it and put 3rd degree burns on my hand. That is MY fault. She knew the coffee was hot. She chose to take the lid off in the car. She got burned. I know it sucks and I'm not saying she deserved it and should be shot, but it sure as hell wasn't McD's fault and definitely not to the tune of a few million dollars.
 

ballistic90

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
3,308
Sorry dude I just can't get there. You buy a cup of hot coffee then sit in a car and take the lid off it and spill it on yourself, that is your fault. She's the one that took the lid off. McD's gave it to her with the lid on it. At MOST, McD's should pay medical bills not several million dollars.

Either way, system you're right and I'm wrong about that one case, I think we both know I could pull up a billion other cases that are undeniably frivolous. Even if this one case was not, there is still undoubtedly a big problem with abuse of the legal system.

Third degree burns of this calibur meant that the coffee cooked her skin immediately when it hit her. To cook meat by FDA standards, it has to reach 145 degrees. 180 degrees means that it is way, WAY beyond that. There was flesh on her body that, according to the FDA, was cooked enough to be consumed.

And you know what? Her lawsuit WAS for medical bills and that was it. The punitive damages was added by the JURY.

Oh, and you know those 'billions' of lawsuits? You bring them up, and multiple people will tell you exactly how far they got: Likely nowhere. The problem is how the media reports this shit. You hear about it when the lawsuit is filed, and that's it. That's because no one is interested in hearing that the lawsuit was tossed out immediately. Trust me, either there's more to the cases that you're thinking of than was released to the media, it was tossed out in less than a day and the plaintiff was countersued, or it was part of a miniscule 1% that went further than it should.
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
7,995
Third degree burns of this calibur meant that the coffee cooked her skin immediately when it hit her. To cook meat by FDA standards, it has to reach 145 degrees. 180 degrees means that it is way, WAY beyond that. There was flesh on her body that, according to the FDA, was cooked enough to be consumed.

And you know what? Her lawsuit WAS for medical bills and that was it. The punitive damages was added by the JURY.

Oh, and you know those 'billions' of lawsuits? You bring them up, and multiple people will tell you exactly how far they got: Likely nowhere. The problem is how the media reports this shit. You hear about it when the lawsuit is filed, and that's it. That's because no one is interested in hearing that the lawsuit was tossed out immediately. Trust me, either there's more to the cases that you're thinking of than was released to the media, it was tossed out in less than a day and the plaintiff was countersued, or it was part of a miniscule 1% that went further than it should.

LOL! No mas! If you're going to start throwing out FDA regs you obviously care a lot more about this case than I do. You win. ;)
 

DocFaustus

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
2,830
The McDonald's Coffee case was a bad example to prove your point as many others have attested to, the case was not simply about some lady spilling coffee on herself. To use your coke analogy more appropriately, this would be more akin to you ordering a coke and somehow it would cause severe frost-bite if touched. Everyone knows coffee is hot, and coke is cold, its the extreme severity and the negligence. McDonald's knew of the malfunctioning coffee maker, even paid out on it already. The jury gave awarded millions of dollars to the lady for the sole purposes of saying to McDonalds, "Hey fucking assholes, stop burning everyone and fix this fucking problem already."

Plenty of people have had those cheap 7-Eleven or McDonald's cups fail. I know I have. It sucks, it hurts, and you have to go home and change your clothes. But I have never got so much as a blister. That's the difference.
 

ballistic90

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
3,308
LOL! No mas! If you're going to start throwing out FDA regs you obviously care a lot more about this case than I do. You win. ;)

The point I was making is that coffee at 180 degrees is hot enough to cook meat. And even drinking coffee at that temperature is likely to cause significant burns to your throat.

Of course, you try and discredit someone when you have no point to make by being an asshole. Congratulations.
 

Red Squirrel

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
9,211
Another reason the lawsuit system needs to be out. This is a complete waste of time when the courthouse could be used for much better things. Just a petty excuse to make money.

And hasn't that game been out for a while now? They need to at very least have a rule that if you're going to sue someone for something, it should be done within a month or something.

Think I'm going to invent a mushroom that makes you grow, and sue Nintendo.
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
7,995
The point I was making is that coffee at 180 degrees is hot enough to cook meat. And even drinking coffee at that temperature is likely to cause significant burns to your throat.

Of course, you try and discredit someone when you have no point to make by being an asshole. Congratulations.

Settle down sweetheart. I wasn't trying to be a dick I was just joking around to say I don't want to argue about it anymore which is why I put in a winkie and the "LOL". You think McD's is responsible - I think she was. The only point I was trying to make is the abuse of the legal system with frivolous lawsuits simply looking for a payday.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
551
I'm no fan of Ubisoft, but I hope this asshole gets his case shitcanned.

The last thing we need is an even broader more utterly ridiculous interpretation of IP and copyrights like what this prick is trying to accomplish. To try and claim copyrights on extremely loose similarities in story and plot ideas is one of the most insane things I've ever heard. :mad:
 

Xae

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
158
Settle down sweetheart. I wasn't trying to be a dick I was just joking around to say I don't want to argue about it anymore which is why I put in a winkie and the "LOL". You think McD's is responsible - I think she was. The only point I was trying to make is the abuse of the legal system with frivolous lawsuits simply looking for a payday.

In which case the coffee incident was a wrong choice to make said point. People arleady pointed out what I was going to with this in the thread. Sure its hot, but hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns on contact is pure negligence on McD's part. And that person now is screwed for life by those burns.

Anyhow, the current systems for patents and other crap you can sue for is definately in need of an overhaul/change since it breeds a lot of retarded cases.
 

fattypants

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
3,284
Next thing you know, the people from Battle Royale will sue the people from The Hunger Games. Then the producers of The Running Man will sue them both.

Then Italy can sue all of them for gladiatorial themes in their stories.
 

swalters

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
108
I find it ridiculous that he's suing gametrailers.com. If anyone is at fault for copyright issues, it starts and stops with the developers. The gaming news site that posts trailers can't and shouldn't be held responsible. Money grubbing idiot.
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
What I don't get (if this is at all legitimate) is why didn't he sue before? Why wait years and manny sequels to sue?

I think money grab.
 

Cube

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
1,111
The assasin creed series mosty sucks anyway so I can see why he would sue.

Buggy glitchy game with crap controls, bad AI and poor combat and the only thing interesting about it is the semi matrixy story but that is only because I like the matrix so much.


(oh and the matrix game sucked more than assassins creed)
 

DarthV

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
165

4saken

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
11,618
Really? So shitty that it spawned 4 additional games (AC3 is out later this year) on the major platforms and 4 games on handhelds.

One of the few games that has a very unique and developed plotline (unlike ::cough:: ME3).

Is not a straight up FPS, that actually has goals and a very good sandbox world.

Alrighty then, if you didn't like it, why even leave a comment.

so you are obviously a massive Modern Warfare fan too right?
 
Top