Sequels.. | Forums

[kruskev]

I loved sands of time, I thought it was a great game. However I really did not like warrior within or two thrones mainly because I felt that the sequels did not capture the original game's quality in terms of the map's design and just overall quality level in general. I know that the original team did not work on the sequels and I really dislike how ubisoft handles these franchises. Take Splinter cell for instance. They had different teams working for sequels and they went back and forth. I understand from a business standpoint, ubisoft wants to make quick sequels to make money but I really hope they do not do this with the assassin's creed franchise. For once, I want to see ubisoft allow a team to take control of a franchise and let them work at their own pace to build a quality game and sequels. If Assassin's creed turns out to be AAA game I better not hear that the sequel is coming out in a year by Ubisoft shanghai or a different team at ubisoft montreal. What do you guys think?

[yavanna_1986]

One year is not enough to make a good sequel. I for one liked Warrior Within, but many people complained about bugs and glitches ( I was lucky enough to play the game without encountering any ). As for The Two Thrones, they had to give up on a lot of cool things because they didn't have enough time.

Real fans can wait even 3 or 4 years for a sequel. For example, I've been waiting for Gothic 3 for since 2003. The guys from Piranha Bytes take their time because they don't want to disappoint the fans. I could wait another year, just to get the game that I was waiting for. A beautiful game, which is a good sequel to the previous game(s).

Or they should leave the game alone and stop making sequels for every game that comes out.

[kruskev]

Yeah, If I really like a franchise I could wait 3 to 4 years for a sequel (i.e metal gear solid). 1 year is definitely too short. Ubisoft makes some amazing games but I am really hoping that they let at least some franchises some much needed development time for the sequels... it isnt always about the money ubisoft!

I really don't want to compare ubisoft to EA but if they mess up assassin's creed by announcing 3 sequels over the next 4 years or someting they are no better than EA.

[Red_Mercury901]

I was loonking foreward to Black and White 2 for a long time... REALLY long time, and when it came out I was like "Damn". (i.e. I was dissapointed in Black and White 2) *sigh* I lost all respect for EA .

[moobz]

Or they should leave the game alone and stop making sequels for every game that comes out.

So what you are saying is that we shouldnt have another pop or AC?? oh no, that cannot happen, i would completly loose it.

[HorTyS]

Originally posted by Red_Mercury901:
I was loonking foreward to Black and White 2 for a long time... REALLY long time, and when it came out I was like "Damn". (i.e. I was dissapointed in Black and White 2) *sigh* I lost all respect for EA .

your first mistake was having respect for EA in the first place. but Black and White 2 wasn't EA's fault, they may have put pressure on Lionhead to get it done faster, but Lionhead studios werer the developers, EA just published B&W 2.

i do agree on the single studio idea though. i think that when you're switching the same franchise back and fourth between studios, the feel/ tone of the game changes. i think that the focus on a series can change when you switch who's in charge of it's development. for example, with splinter cell, Montreal's team seems to focus a bit more on staying realistic and they have a more scientific approach, while it seems Shanghai's focus seems to be more on story and they focus on it so much so that they change things about the series to justify what they need for the story to work with the gameplay. a prime example of this is that they removed the goggles, this would be ok but they then thought people would complain about not having vision modes so they put vision modes in the reflex sight of Sam's rifle, which is basically a magnifying glass with a targeting dot in the center, that is just stupid. they should take the "tom clancy" name off the box if they're gonna do stuff like that.

It sounds like the creators of this game have a very defined focus and vision for where the game should go, and i wouldn't want to see that vision ruined by handing it off to another development house.

[yavanna_1986]

Originally posted by moobz:

So what you are saying is that we shouldnt have another pop or AC?? oh no, that cannot happen, i would completly loose it.

Something like that... I would love to see a new POP Trilogy, but I would like to see consistency throught the game. Same voice for the Prince, same atmosphere. You know what happened with the POP Games... The voices of the characters changed, even the face of the Prince. In every game he looked different. I didn't like that.

[kew414]

Originally posted by yavanna_1986:
The voices of the characters changed, even the face of the Prince. In every game he looked different.

They did change heaps...
In fact when I saw WW in the shops I went like a month without knowing it was the sequel for SoT until I actually read the back and figured out it was .
Even when I was playing it was hard for me to believe it was the next game...

Thats how much everything changed

But WW was a great game though

[Mouse03]

Well, they are saying AC sequels are planned for the future, so lets hope they get it right.

I think if you are planning a trilogy, you need to have things mapped out from the start.

Like Yavanna, i loved WW, but it was a totally different game.

[eltrevo]

I believe that if there is gonna be a sequel, that it should be during the Fourth Crusade, and it would be set in Constantinople, Venice, (they had a large role in the crusade) and Zara, in Dalmatia. (this city was destroyed by the crusaders as a result of Venetian manipulation)