Ubi: Assassin's Creed now an annual IP

Blade-Runner

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,785
It was meant to be a trilogy, just goes to show how much more weight $$$ have over artistic integrity.
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
21,093
the difference is that all the AC games after the first 1 have been pretty excellent...Brotherhood might be the pinnacle but the drops in quality have been very minor compared to CoD...I don't mind the yearly release if they can maintain the quality...having a different setting every time also helps
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,812
It's been yearly since AC2.Ubisoft isn't saying that now it's a yearly franchise, they are saying that it will continue to be one until it no longer makes sense to do so.
 

illybang

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
359
the difference is that all the AC games after the first 1 have been pretty excellent...Brotherhood might be the pinnacle but the drops in quality have been very minor compared to CoD...I don't mind the yearly release if they can maintain the quality...having a different setting every time also helps

I got bored in the middle of the second one. I can't believe the series has been so successful.
 

Stiler

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
10,538
I think some people don't understand that Ubisoft has MULTIPLE developer studios on the AC franchise.

It's not like they make a "new" ac game within a single year. They simply have over-lapping studios making one while another studio is finishing up, etc.

Like with AC3, it was made by people from the first AC games over three years while other studios made Brotherhood/Revelations.

That's how ubisoft can put out a "new" ac game and not have it be a simple upgrade a la Madden style.
 

Drakenfeng

Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
671
The only problem with them being released yearly is I never have time to get around to playing them as is! Currently half way through brotherhood which puts me 2 games behind already :(. I didn't even get around to doing the optional stuff in AC2 because Brotherhood and Revelations had already been released. Steam backlog is really quite a problem.
 

Blade-Runner

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,785
I think some people don't understand that Ubisoft has MULTIPLE developer studios on the AC franchise.

It's not like they make a "new" ac game within a single year. They simply have over-lapping studios making one while another studio is finishing up, etc.

Like with AC3, it was made by people from the first AC games over three years while other studios made Brotherhood/Revelations.

That's how ubisoft can put out a "new" ac game and not have it be a simple upgrade a la Madden style.

It really doesn't matter how many studios they have, the issue is that they have taken a game which initially had a compelling plot and narrative which was meant to be told over the course of three games and diluted it into the equivalent of a shitty prime time popcorn TV show with the same crap plot rehashed every week.

The story is really all AC had going for it, the combat mechanics were garbage and the stealth elements were overly simple, although the parkour running and climbing made it interesting at times. AC Brotherhood and Revelations were effectively the same fucking games as AC2 except for slivers of additional meaningless plot and very little substance, at which point it was quite evident that Ubi was planning on milking this IP for all its worth.

So really if their plan is to just keep pumping out the same mediocre experiences for as long as possible I can safely say that I am done with Assassin's Creed.
 

fdiaz78

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
2,123
I got bored in the middle of the second one. I can't believe the series has been so successful.

Same here. The story is very stupid and forced into a package that makes not sense. Uwe Boll should be able to direct the direct to DVD movie.
 

ounumen

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
333
I got bored with the second. Hell I wouldnt have played that one after the first crappy ending. My hope was they would explain it. The story just got more conveluted.
 

purple_haze

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,124
i played the hell out of brotherhood. The following games are total failure in terms of story development to me. AC3 was a necessary evil since they ruined the game with revelations.
 

MorgothPl

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
3,020
Good news... I love this game, and I really regret waiting that long for next part. Annual release is best what I could hope for.
 

Stiler

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
10,538
It really doesn't matter how many studios they have, the issue is that they have taken a game which initially had a compelling plot and narrative which was meant to be told over the course of three games and diluted it into the equivalent of a shitty prime time popcorn TV show with the same crap plot rehashed every week.

The story is really all AC had going for it, the combat mechanics were garbage and the stealth elements were overly simple, although the parkour running and climbing made it interesting at times. AC Brotherhood and Revelations were effectively the same fucking games as AC2 except for slivers of additional meaningless plot and very little substance, at which point it was quite evident that Ubi was planning on milking this IP for all its worth.

So really if their plan is to just keep pumping out the same mediocre experiences for as long as possible I can safely say that I am done with Assassin's Creed.


Brotherhood is generally considered the best in the series.

However I do agree that the series was getting stale, that's why I actually did enjoy Ac3, from a variety/gameplay perspective.

The rural setting, tree climbing, season weather, and naval aspects I though were fresh and added much needed life/difference in the series compared to the other games. Conner's story wasn't as good as Ezio's by far (but he had multiple games to flesh him out).

The next AC game is changing the setting again, going to a pirate theme with more naval aspects and the abiity to travel around islands and other things.
 

NickTheNut

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 18, 2001
Messages
4,657
It really doesn't matter how many studios they have, the issue is that they have taken a game which initially had a compelling plot and narrative which was meant to be told over the course of three games and diluted it into the equivalent of a shitty prime time popcorn TV show with the same crap plot rehashed every week.

The story is really all AC had going for it, the combat mechanics were garbage and the stealth elements were overly simple, although the parkour running and climbing made it interesting at times. AC Brotherhood and Revelations were effectively the same fucking games as AC2 except for slivers of additional meaningless plot and very little substance, at which point it was quite evident that Ubi was planning on milking this IP for all its worth.

So really if their plan is to just keep pumping out the same mediocre experiences for as long as possible I can safely say that I am done with Assassin's Creed.

Man, you're brutal.

I don't know how they're going to continue the Desmond side of the story, considering the main protagonist of Black Flag is still a descendent of Desmond. But they have concluded his story that was originally meant to be a trilogy. And if you get technical, it really was a trilogy. At least in numbered releases.

Honestly, I don't feel like they've made so many AC games to milk the game for money at all. While it's easy to really tear the game apart for various aspects, the fact of the matter is that the characters really resonated with gamers. It's part of the reason they were able to make so many Ezio AC games. His character was really interesting and had a great history.

(Obviously I've really enjoyed the games)
 

CryingGod

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
2,718
As long as the games aren't as bad as Revelations I'm fine with this. I still have yet to force myself to beat Revelations, thusly keeping me from trying AC3.
 

CrimsonKnight13

Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
8,138
WTF Ubi... go ahead & ruin one of my favorite game franchises. While you're at it, quit trying to tell us we want always-on DRM as well. :mad:
 

Intel_Hydralisk

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,743
the difference is that all the AC games after the first 1 have been pretty excellent...Brotherhood might be the pinnacle but the drops in quality have been very minor compared to CoD...I don't mind the yearly release if they can maintain the quality...having a different setting every time also helps

I got kind of burned out during the middle of brotherhood. AC1 was great. AC2 improved on almost everything in AC1 and was excellent. I got fatigued with so many AC games though and still haven't touched AC3. I plan to though...
 

Q-BZ

Fully [H]
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
19,438
AC3 is awesome. TONS to do. They're still putting out content for it.
 

whitewarrior11

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
267
I only completed AC1, at the beginning of AC2 right now. I find the games fun so far, have heard of Revelations and Brotherhood as fair games.

I am, however, an opponent of "yearly" releases, forcing developers to actually come up with a game every year. I understand Ubisoft has multiple studios (two of which are incidentally close to me, Montreal and Quebec) but still. I really hope they can actually find new ways to play AC after all the games already released, instead of going Madden-style and sacrificing work on new IPs or under-developed existing IPs.

Assassin's Creed is a nice franchise so far but, as this is the case with some movies, overdoing sequels/prequels can actually ruin the whole thing.

Now, let's have a poll: who's gonna be the Jar Jar Binks of Assassin's Creed? :p
 

Filter

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 30, 2001
Messages
9,471
till the game quits selling so good. of course there going to milk it dry.
 

Q-BZ

Fully [H]
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
19,438
I only completed AC1, at the beginning of AC2 right now. I find the games fun so far, have heard of Revelations and Brotherhood as fair games.

I am, however, an opponent of "yearly" releases, forcing developers to actually come up with a game every year. I understand Ubisoft has multiple studios (two of which are incidentally close to me, Montreal and Quebec) but still. I really hope they can actually find new ways to play AC after all the games already released, instead of going Madden-style and sacrificing work on new IPs or under-developed existing IPs.

Assassin's Creed is a nice franchise so far but, as this is the case with some movies, overdoing sequels/prequels can actually ruin the whole thing.

Now, let's have a poll: who's gonna be the Jar Jar Binks of Assassin's Creed? :p

The only thing I'll say in defense of this so far...even though I share the same concerns everyone else does about going yearly...is that there's rotating studios and people working on installments. So you don't have the same exact crew of people going in marathon burn out mode.

Thus far, there's been a general upward trend on addition of features, variety, gameplay refinements and so forth. The narrative went off the sides a little bit with Brotherhood and Revelations but it ultimately works out well enough at the end of part 3 as much as it could with a storyline like this. As far as Desmond is concerned.

I haven't really thought very highly of that particular concept but the rest of it's gold for me.

IMHO...hindsight being 20-20...they should never have bothered with the Desmond thing at all. Just have games set in various time periods with various characters with a hint of a larger background and tapestry across time.
 

NickTheNut

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 18, 2001
Messages
4,657
I am, however, an opponent of "yearly" releases, forcing developers to actually come up with a game every year. I understand Ubisoft has multiple studios (two of which are incidentally close to me, Montreal and Quebec) but still. I really hope they can actually find new ways to play AC after all the games already released, instead of going Madden-style and sacrificing work on new IPs or under-developed existing IPs.

Honestly, they've been on a yearly release schedule for quite a few years now. Them admitting that's the plan makes very little difference with how the franchise has been playing out for quite a while.
 

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,889
I only watched the cutscenes from the first 4 main games, then got AC3 free with a video card. Honestly, it's a struggle to get through, the story is just not very captivating and does not seem to be getting close to any sort of resolution. It feels like watching Lost all over again or something, and I just don't want to waste my time like I feel I did with that storyline.

It also doesn't help that I'm not a fan of historical events.

I don't really have an issue with the gameplay, other then it feels really clunky for something so simple. The production value is good though, and that's my main draw to the franchise.

For fans of the game I've no problem with them releasing more games. Good for you guys!!!
 

NickTheNut

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 18, 2001
Messages
4,657
I only watched the cutscenes from the first 4 main games, then got AC3 free with a video card. Honestly, it's a struggle to get through, the story is just not very captivating and does not seem to be getting close to any sort of resolution. It feels like watching Lost all over again or something, and I just don't want to waste my time like I feel I did with that storyline.

Where in the story are you? AC3 has, in my opinion, probably the slowest starting story out of all the games. That said, I don't think AC3 is good game story wise without having played through the previous games. Connor is probably the least likable assassin out of all of the franchise.

It also doesn't help that I'm not a fan of historical events.

Do you mean you're not a fan of games based on historical events? Or just not a history fan in general?

I don't really have an issue with the gameplay, other then it feels really clunky for something so simple. The production value is good though, and that's my main draw to the franchise.

With regards to gameplay mechanics, I think AC3 is actually the best out of all the others. Though what do you mean something simple? While they don't really make the game overly difficult, it's not exactly a "simple" game either.

For fans of the game I've no problem with them releasing more games. Good for you guys!!!

It sounds like the AC series is just not for you. Good on you for not completely bashing it. :)
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
20,271
I like the AC series a lot, but they've been phoning in new gameplay elements for a while. The base gameplay has luckily been good enough to sustain them thus far, but I'm not sure it can last beyond another sequel or two.
 

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,889
Though what do you mean something simple?
I just mean the control scheme isn't complex. The clunkyness I talk of might go away after I get used to it.

Actually, I will probably get into it again to give it a chance. As for historical stuff, yea, just not a huge history fan, especially american history. Sometimes it can be engaging, but it takes a lot to get me there... I'm only a few hours into it, so yea don't wanna be too quick to judge it.

I don't mind Connor, I just hope there is a love interest or something to help motivate him... he's kind of a downer, no? I do like the present day characters and that storyline. Yeah, I didn't mean to bash the game at all, no offense intended...
 
Top