PDA

View Full Version : AC Rogue, should it be brough to new gen, or should Ubi look into making a new IP?



Stealth Gamer92
04-23-2015, 01:04 AM
This is a poll to se how many feel about Ubi carrying on it's great ACIV and Rogue sailing into the next gen waters, wether as a AC spinoff or new IP. I've been waiting to see Raven's Cry to post this in case it was good but it was a dud.

D.I.D.
04-23-2015, 02:24 AM
I can't really vote for any of these, since I'm not against more of the sailing in AC, I don't necessarily want a new sailing IP, but I don't think there's any point in bringing Rogue to new gen.

Black Flag made it seem like a pirate game could be a new series. Rogue proved it would be bad timing. I've played Rogue on PC, and it's alright, but it really altered my point of view about the future of a pirate IP. I think it should be put to rest, temporarily, until we can see a new gen take on the sailing mechanics. There shouldn't be another like Rogue/Black Flag/Freedom Cry. Those are three games that do the naval thing about as well as it could be done under that engine, and those are more than enough.

Stealth Gamer92
04-23-2015, 05:39 AM
I can't really vote for any of these, since I'm not against more of the sailing in AC, I don't necessarily want a new sailing IP, but I don't think there's any point in bringing Rogue to new gen.

Black Flag made it seem like a pirate game could be a new series. Rogue proved it would be bad timing. I've played Rogue on PC, and it's alright, but it really altered my point of view about the future of a pirate IP. I think it should be put to rest, temporarily, until we can see a new gen take on the sailing mechanics. There shouldn't be another like Rogue/Black Flag/Freedom Cry. Those are three games that do the naval thing about as well as it could be done under that engine, and those are more than enough.

Well Rogue wasn't a pirate game. You were an independant british Privateer during the French and Indian War but that wasn't even a focus, it was just a way for you to get supplies for upgrades and renovating. Rogue was more about exploring Shay's point of view, it didn't even seem too focused on Templars and Assassins. To me anyway. And if you'd watched the hype before Ravens Cry was revealed to be a collosal dud, there's obviously a big market. Not huge, but big enough to make a pretty decent proffit.

VestigialLlama4
04-23-2015, 05:56 AM
Not huge, but big enough to make a pretty decent proffit.

Decent profits are good for small time independent companies but not for Ubisoft. For Ubisoft, Assassin's Creed are their banner franchise, it's meant to be blockbusters and bestsellers. They made ROGUE as a side-game and dumped it on last-gen consoles as a Sop.

For them to put another naval game they want it to be either a huge IP, a huge hit or huge something. Putting ROGUE on Next-Gen (which they might still do) makes zero sense when Black Flag is already on next-gen and moreover is selling very well on Next-Gen. While Rogue has barely sold over 1 million units.

Stealth Gamer92
04-23-2015, 06:31 AM
Decent profits are good for small time independent companies but not for Ubisoft. For Ubisoft, Assassin's Creed are their banner franchise, it's meant to be blockbusters and bestsellers. They made ROGUE as a side-game and dumped it on last-gen consoles as a Sop.

For them to put another naval game they want it to be either a huge IP, a huge hit or huge something. Putting ROGUE on Next-Gen (which they might still do) makes zero sense when Black Flag is already on next-gen and moreover is selling very well on Next-Gen. While Rogue has barely sold over 1 million units.

That Rogue sales argument is riged by Ubi from the start though. It was barely advertise stated no next gen plans despite being extremely similar to BF(which makes it seem like it'd be easy to port) and on top of that any other possible coverage was overshadowed by ACU's horrible condition at launch. Rogue was set up to fail from day 1 in my opinion.

VestigialLlama4
04-23-2015, 07:04 AM
That Rogue sales argument is riged by Ubi from the start though. It was barely advertise stated no next gen plans despite being extremely similar to BF(which makes it seem like it'd be easy to port) and on top of that any other possible coverage was overshadowed by ACU's horrible condition at launch. Rogue was set up to fail from day 1 in my opinion.

And for very good reasons. ROGUE is not a good game. it cannibalizes all its story and gameplay elements from better and more successful games like AC3 and Black Flag. Ideally they should have never made the game and put more resources on making 3D AC Chronicles.

king-hailz
04-23-2015, 07:09 AM
I voted new IP. That's because it's what I think they should do...

D.I.D.
04-23-2015, 12:40 PM
Well Rogue wasn't a pirate game. You were an independant british Privateer during the French and Indian War but that wasn't even a focus, it was just a way for you to get supplies for upgrades and renovating. Rogue was more about exploring Shay's point of view, it didn't even seem too focused on Templars and Assassins. To me anyway. And if you'd watched the hype before Ravens Cry was revealed to be a collosal dud, there's obviously a big market. Not huge, but big enough to make a pretty decent proffit.

Okay, except Rogue had me doing everything the same as I was doing it in Black Flag, and it looked a lot like piracy to me. You can substitute any mention in my post of piracy for sailing and the same is true for me - the naval concept felt like it was barely getting away with it, which surprised me because AC4 made it seem like there was more life in it.

I think they should let new gen AC solidify itself and then come back when there's a definite reason to make a naval AC/not-AC game.

Markaccus
04-23-2015, 12:42 PM
What is an "IP"?

D.I.D.
04-23-2015, 12:50 PM
That Rogue sales argument is riged by Ubi from the start though. It was barely advertise stated no next gen plans despite being extremely similar to BF(which makes it seem like it'd be easy to port) and on top of that any other possible coverage was overshadowed by ACU's horrible condition at launch. Rogue was set up to fail from day 1 in my opinion.

Personal theory, slightly crackpot, not necessarily true: I think Rogue's function was to keep last-gen holdouts on the AC brand for one more year, so that when the stragglers come to the new gen at last they have not been away from the franchise for too long.

My more sensible theory: While PC has been "new gen" for years, the spotlight on new gen console games is extremely harsh. If Rogue had been on PS4/XBO, sure, the fans might be understanding about it - the knowledgeable few who knew the title's genesis. The larger market would not know or care about that, and all they'd see is an old-fashioned game that doesn't look new gen. It would be another negative mark against AC's name in the marketplace, and satisfying a portion of your fanbase does not justify that cost.

D.I.D.
04-23-2015, 12:52 PM
What is an "IP"?

Intellectual property: Any creative entertainment work. Could be a one-off, but is more commonly used today to mean a sequelised series, or a branching franchise in a single fictional "universe".

Markaccus
04-23-2015, 01:06 PM
Intellectual property: Any creative entertainment work. Could be a one-off, but is more commonly used today to mean a sequelised series, or a branching franchise in a single fictional "universe".

I see. Thanks. I work in electronics, where IP means input :D

D.I.D.
04-23-2015, 01:19 PM
I see. Thanks. I work in electronics, where IP means input :D

Ah. Well there you are, we're all learning something today :)

It used to be a term that only a small subset of people would see in copyright legal-speak: record contracts, book deals, movie licensing and so on. It leaked into the wider world and transformed its meaning in the process, to the point where sci-fi nerds will gleefully tell me I'm wrong to use the term IP in reference to music (even though I've signing contracts saying exactly that for 15 years).

VestigialLlama4
04-23-2015, 01:30 PM
Ah. Well there you are, we're all learning something today :)

It used to be a term that only a small subset of people would see in copyright legal-speak: record contracts, book deals, movie licensing and so on. It leaked into the wider world and transformed its meaning in the process, to the point where sci-fi nerds will gleefully tell me I'm wrong to use the term IP in reference to music (even though I've signing contracts saying exactly that for 15 years).

It seems specific to the gaming world though. I mean no one calls a new movie a "new IP" or a new TV show a "new IP". In games, the vast majority of titles are franchises of some kind or the other, and its original titles that seem to be rare...which is well curious. The purpose is to make a sequel and trilogy. In movies that is there with summer blockbusters but its not like everyone wants a sequel to every kind of movie like no one wants a sequel to The King's Speech or Social Network.

Markaccus
04-23-2015, 01:36 PM
I have heard of movie and book ideas being called intelectual property in legal battles. (Although like you can tell,i'd never seen it abreviated to IP until now lol )

D.I.D.
04-23-2015, 01:42 PM
It seems specific to the gaming world though. I mean no one calls a new movie a "new IP" or a new TV show a "new IP". In games, the vast majority of titles are franchises of some kind or the other, and its original titles that seem to be rare...which is well curious. The purpose is to make a sequel and trilogy. In movies that is there with summer blockbusters but its not like everyone wants a sequel to every kind of movie like no one wants a sequel to The King's Speech or Social Network.

They do, but you're right; certain films get the tag and others don't, and it's generally at the intersection of games, movies and comics where the pop-culture usage of "IP" gets banded about (for example, "the Marvel Universe IP", or in reference to The Avengers). I've seen it used on sci-fi sites such as io9 for YA novel series too, but yes, it certainly came via gaming communities, and to them via a shift in promotional language and a change in the choice of interviewees (more interviews with creators, voice actors, artists, fewer ones with PR).

Markaccus
04-23-2015, 02:27 PM
They do, but you're right; certain films get the tag and others don't, and it's generally at the intersection of games, movies and comics where the pop-culture usage of "IP" gets banded about (for example, "the Marvel Universe IP", or in reference to The Avengers). I've seen it used on sci-fi sites such as io9 for YA novel series too, but yes, it certainly came via gaming communities, and to them via a shift in promotional language and a change in the choice of interviewees (more interviews with creators, voice actors, artists, fewer ones with PR).

The world of Graphic Novels does tend to get the Intelectual Property tag often. Probably due to the fact there are so many characters in each of their respective universes, its tough to keep track.

"I think they should do a film where Sausage Man has a battle with The Mighty Lampshade"

"Nah, we cant. Sausage Man is the Intelectual property of Marvel, and Lampshade belongs to D.C."

LoyalACFan
04-23-2015, 09:30 PM
Neither. I just want them to dig their current franchises out of the dirt. AC is fatigued, Splinter Cell has gone silent, and Watch_Dogs disappointed. All could be truly great IP's if they were managed properly, so no, I don't want them blowing a bunch of money on a new IP that will fall on its face OR porting that sh*tfest Rogue to current-gen.

Stealth Gamer92
04-24-2015, 03:56 AM
Personal theory, slightly crackpot, not necessarily true: I think Rogue's function was to keep last-gen holdouts on the AC brand for one more year, so that when the stragglers come to the new gen at last they have not been away from the franchise for too long.

My more sensible theory: While PC has been "new gen" for years, the spotlight on new gen console games is extremely harsh. If Rogue had been on PS4/XBO, sure, the fans might be understanding about it - the knowledgeable few who knew the title's genesis. The larger market would not know or care about that, and all they'd see is an old-fashioned game that doesn't look new gen. It would be another negative mark against AC's name in the marketplace, and satisfying a portion of your fanbase does not justify that cost.

To your first point it's not a theory or crackpot(though I'll admit to bad writing) it is my opinion after watching both AC games closely.

This second part my response is you are mostly right but there are no sailing games on the market right now which is why AC4 sells so well, ACRogue would sell just as good or maybe better than AC4 if it was given the extra bits AC4 was given. Though I doubt it would sell AC4 under because, well Pirates sell. That also adresses your comment @VestigialLama, when I said pretty well I meant it in context of what Ubi would consider profitable so I was saying it would sell good enough to warrant the expendature especially if they tapped the currently game starved pirate genre. I know many people who just bought Black Flag for the Pirating and stopped progressing the story after they got the diving bell, in fact I'm the only person I know who bought it for the AC part of the title.

Stealth Gamer92
04-24-2015, 04:04 AM
Neither. I just want them to dig their current franchises out of the dirt. AC is fatigued, Splinter Cell has gone silent, and Watch_Dogs disappointed. All could be truly great IP's if they were managed properly, so no, I don't want them blowing a bunch of money on a new IP that will fall on its face OR porting that sh*tfest Rogue to current-gen.

I agree, they need to realize SC will never atract CoD fans, AC need better quality not quantity(damn chests all over Paris are pissing me off at the moment), and WD will inevitably be attacked by GTA fans but they don't need GTA style random violence(my bigest fear fow WD2 after seeing all the hate vids) it need more hacking opportunities better side missions better car handling and more suppresed guns. There are other thing but I don't think I need to spell them all out.

D.I.D.
04-24-2015, 09:58 AM
To your first point it's not a theory or crackpot(though I'll admit to bad writing) it is my opinion after watching both AC games closely.

This second part my response is you are mostly right but there are no sailing games on the market right now which is why AC4 sells so well, ACRogue would sell just as good or maybe better than AC4 if it was given the extra bits AC4 was given. Though I doubt it would sell AC4 under because, well Pirates sell. That also adresses your comment @VestigialLama, when I said pretty well I meant it in context of what Ubi would consider profitable so I was saying it would sell good enough to warrant the expendature especially if they tapped the currently game starved pirate genre. I know many people who just bought Black Flag for the Pirating and stopped progressing the story after they got the diving bell, in fact I'm the only person I know who bought it for the AC part of the title.

I'm a bit puzzled by this! Either you misunderstood me or I'm misunderstanding you now, but I was criticising my own ideas, not yours.

On the other issue, pirates sell in theory, but it's one thing for people to say, "I'd play the hell out of a pirate series!" and another for the same customers to consistently go out and get it without becoming bored. If your friends are representative of a big chunk of the market, and only played the land game grudgingly to get the tools for the sea, then every game you give them is set in the sea. It's already hard to make marked improvements in a game of the Black Flag model, but now you're dealing with customers who claim they'll support a future series but didn't even want half of the original title. There are real limits to the scope of a range of pirate games, in any case, but if you expand it into a naval game then you have other problems. Will your pirate fans abandon you if your next game involves a Chinese imperial fleet? What if it's a Viking game, and everyone thinks it's awful because they miss gunpowder weapons? And all the time, if it doesn't change enough: "Why buy Ship Game 3? I already own Ship Game 1 and 2".

With AC, a common complaint is that the gadgets are too powerful or too numerous, whereas the appeal of III/BF/FC/Ro's combat is the sheer theatre of it: explosions, fireballs, so much smoke you can't see the enemy anymore. Therefore, once you've given the player the most spectacular naval warfare technology, it's going to be pretty hard to take them anywhere else after that. By comparison, AC players are more accepting of the hopping through time, and they're more likely to complain if the character is overpowered than if he/she is not given enough technical weaponry.

Then there's another problem; make it a series, and you're ruling out naval cannon battles ever forming a decent part of another AC - the single most popular new mechanic in years, amputated forever.

THE_JOKE_KING33
04-24-2015, 03:46 PM
New IP, definitley!

Stealth Gamer92
04-24-2015, 03:50 PM
I'm a bit puzzled by this! Either you misunderstood me or I'm misunderstanding you now, but I was criticising my own ideas, not yours.

On the other issue, pirates sell in theory, but it's one thing for people to say, "I'd play the hell out of a pirate series!" and another for the same customers to consistently go out and get it without becoming bored. If your friends are representative of a big chunk of the market, and only played the land game grudgingly to get the tools for the sea, then every game you give them is set in the sea. It's already hard to make marked improvements in a game of the Black Flag model, but now you're dealing with customers who claim they'll support a future series but didn't even want half of the original title. There are real limits to the scope of a range of pirate games, in any case, but if you expand it into a naval game then you have other problems. Will your pirate fans abandon you if your next game involves a Chinese imperial fleet? What if it's a Viking game, and everyone thinks it's awful because they miss gunpowder weapons? And all the time, if it doesn't change enough: "Why buy Ship Game 3? I already own Ship Game 1 and 2".

With AC, a common complaint is that the gadgets are too powerful or too numerous, whereas the appeal of III/BF/FC/Ro's combat is the sheer theatre of it: explosions, fireballs, so much smoke you can't see the enemy anymore. Therefore, once you've given the player the most spectacular naval warfare technology, it's going to be pretty hard to take them anywhere else after that. By comparison, AC players are more accepting of the hopping through time, and they're more likely to complain if the character is overpowered than if he/she is not given enough technical weaponry.

Then there's another problem; make it a series, and you're ruling out naval cannon battles ever forming a decent part of another AC - the single most popular new mechanic in years, amputated forever.

You called my opinion a crackpot theory when I had just stated my opinion.

Fair points but I never said they didn't like land gameplay just the story though I can see how you drew that conclusion.

It would need a good Bioware grade story(not like that companies recent attempts, but the older ME1 or Chaos Theory to use a Ubi example) but all that requires is a competent writer.

I thought a large majority of AC community was already wanting naval banned for life from AC? I might just subconciously miss the pro-future naval supporters I guess.

D.I.D.
04-24-2015, 04:20 PM
You called my opinion a crackpot theory when I had just stated my opinion.

No, I didn't. Go back and read it again. I introduced two different explanations for why the last gen got Rogue, and I signposted each one for how plausible I believed it to be.

Stealth Gamer92
04-24-2015, 04:47 PM
So that answers your question, it was a misunderstanding. Your words were misinterpreted by my brain. ;)

Altair1789
04-24-2015, 08:20 PM
I feel like sailing will get old. If we were still on AC3's level of sailing, there would be a lot of expansion potential but they've gotten almost as seamless as possible with sailing. I just don't see much potential is making this the star component of many more games. I do think it should stay in the main IPs where it can, but not be as intrusive and important as it was in AC4. Make it as seamless as AC4, but not as big. This is asking for a lot imo, but if AC3 let us jump on the aquila and sail out of the dock and only sail around the coastline and a bit further, that'd be what I consider ideal

Shahkulu101
04-24-2015, 08:56 PM
Regardless of whether it's in a new AC title or new IP, I want to see what they can do with naval using next-gen technology.

There's will no doubt be a future Ubisoft title that features this, it's too popular a feature for them to just let sit. Ashraf's working on a new project, maybe that's a naval game - AC or not AC...

The_Kiwi_
04-25-2015, 01:34 AM
Rogue doesn't need a remaster
I say new IP for sailing, because imagine the hate Ubisoft would get for making an AC game every 6 months; a main game in November and a sailing spin-off in July
A new IP is the safest option

pirate1802
04-25-2015, 06:47 AM
Yeah just make a new IP. That sailing mechanism is just too good to let off after a few tries. And just like AC, the possibilities are endless. One can be a chinese pirate pillaging the east coasts or a Mediterranean Berber, or a Portuguese pirate harassing Mughal ships or a Maratha one attacking the East India Company vessels, or a Malaccan pirate operating around Sumatra. The possibilities are vast, making a game on pirates doesn't mean just trawling the Caribbeans.

Because as much as I loved AC IV, I have to agree with a friend who told me after playing the game that this could have been a much, much better pirate game if it didn't have the hackneyed AC baggage weighing it down. I agree with him. So please, let us see how much sailing can truly shine. Keep evolving it, bring in a fleet mechanism, let us control entire fleets and choose a flagship at our whim. And just for the heck of it, maybe have our pirate protagonist interact with certain hooded people once in a while. :rolleyes:

Stealth Gamer92
04-25-2015, 07:06 AM
Yeah just make a new IP. That sailing mechanism is just too good to let off after a few tries. And just like AC, the possibilities are endless. One can be a chinese pirate pillaging the east coasts or a Mediterranean Berber, or a Portuguese pirate harassing Mughal ships or a Maratha one attacking the East India Company vessels, or a Malaccan pirate operating around Sumatra. The possibilities are vast, making a game on pirates doesn't mean just trawling the Caribbeans.

Because as much as I loved AC IV, I have to agree with a friend who told me after playing the game that this could have been a much, much better pirate game if it didn't have the hackneyed AC baggage weighing it down. I agree with him. So please, let us see how much sailing can truly shine. Keep evolving it, bring in a fleet mechanism, let us control entire fleets and choose a flagship at our whim. And just for the heck of it, maybe have our pirate protagonist interact with certain hooded people once in a while. :rolleyes:
You get it, man!

The biggest must I'd have for an IP would be 1st you can lose your ship and have to steal ot buy another, and 2nd you can get more than one type like a fast but vulnerable and lightly armed Schooner to a 100 gun slow but tough Man O' War or at least a frigate if they think Man O' War would be too much.

The4orTy67
04-26-2015, 02:27 AM
They should implement this in a new Prince of Persia because the Prince once had its own ship and crew.