PDA

View Full Version : Please take 2-4 years to develop the next AC game



heikki_kaperi
11-11-2015, 09:23 PM
Like, give the current AC teams some time off to make other games than AC. And after those games, come back to it and make the best AC game yet.

ze_topazio
11-11-2015, 09:28 PM
That's the time they already take.

Pandassin
11-11-2015, 09:32 PM
AC games do take 2-4 years to develop. I guess you mean you don't want another one released for 2-4 years?

Personally I really enjoy the yearly releases, they give me something to be excited for since I absolutely love AC and I'm always bored any ways :D

RVSage
11-11-2015, 09:46 PM
it is already a 2-4 year development cycle. Multiple teams working on different games in parallel.

Sushiglutton
11-11-2015, 09:53 PM
That's the time they already take.

Yeah the factory runs 24/7 all year around, so parts of the game have been in some section of the production line for that long. But I assume the OP meant 2-4 years of fresh ideas :confused:

RVSage
11-11-2015, 10:09 PM
Yeah the factory runs 24/7 all year around, so parts of the game have been in some section of the production line for that long. But I assume the OP meant 2-4 years of fresh ideas :confused:

Hmm. can you precisely define what you mean by fresh?

Every game has it's core

i.e Core mechanics, core lore, core gameplay or as Ubi calls it core pillars

Every AC game had something fresh too

1. AC1 -> AC2 assassin tombs, A new setting, different mission structure, upgrade your home territory, some cool missions like using leanardo flying machines
2. AC2 -> ACB Area capture by capturing borgia towers, leanardo machines, brotherhood recruitment, more playable modern day
3. ACB -> ACR hookblade, Crafting bombs, different interactions with different bombs, Some cool missions with the parachute.
4. ACB-> AC3 Terrain navigation, weather systems more dynamic, hunting , newer parkour, more detailed modern day missions, totally new setting, Basic ship navigation
5. AC3 -> ACIV Detailed naval gameplay, huge open sea world, underwater missions, harpooning missions, treasure hunts, more stealth mechanics, legendary ships with unique challenges
6. ACIV -> ACU Revamped parkour system, seemless interior navigation, kickass graphic upgrade, Co-op, A detailed skill progression system, detailed customization, Paris was huge, detailed
7 ACU -> ACS Carriages, boats make a return, trains, train heideout, gang gameplay, gangs also get progression, rope launcher

As mentioned above, each game has bought unique settings and fitting mechanics. The same cannot be said for GTA, just try to list different GTA games with similar feature addition , you will find it harder to list new things. (GTA did add new things, but in my opinion not as diverse as AC )

IN short AC deserves more credit than people give it. Yes it has not been perfect had flaws, bugs issues, incoherent story progression, then again what is perfect? It comes down individual preferences and view points.

Reptilis91
11-12-2015, 12:16 AM
They themselves admit that they need extra time. That's why Ubisoft Quebec has been in charge this year. Now we should have a two-studio rotation, hallelujah!


Quebec's Assassin's Creed will be the first instalment to be lead outside of Ubisoft Montreal, and the decision is one that is welcomed inside the flagship studio, according to Raynaud.

"In Montreal, we wanted to have more time to work on the Assassin's Creed franchise," he explained.

"I speak to Francois Pelland very often about [Quebec's] game and he is a friend. Honestly, it was not a huge issue. Quebec has worked with us a lot on the franchise... we were happy for that to happen and because we have strong experience we're also helping them a lot on the game they're making right now.

"For Montreal, this decision gives us more time. We've released a lot of Assassin's Creed games in Montreal every year and sometimes we wish we had more time to make decisions and experiment on stuff."

Although Montreal has succeeded in meeting its annual deadlines and still introduce new gameplay elements, Raynaud said he's concerned by the "tense rhythm" time constraints instil within the development teams.

"There are things we know we can do in Assassin's Creed and things we assume we can't, and I often stop and ask, 'why can't we do those things? What do we need to be able to try?'"

m4r-k7
11-12-2015, 12:30 AM
They themselves admit that they need extra time. That's why Ubisoft Quebec has been in charge this year. Now we should have a two-studio rotation, hallelujah!

Oh yea this is a great point. I totally forgot about this.

Assassin_M
11-12-2015, 12:47 AM
With the addition of Quebec, I feel like things might change for the better. The games do get developed in 2-4 years (Brotherhood and Revelations being the exceptions), but ideas tend to really suffocate when you're working on a schedule like AC's. I reckon we'll see one more game from Quebec next year and then we'll move back to Montreal with a multi-location AC ala AC III and Black Flag.

ze_topazio
11-12-2015, 01:06 AM
I think they should add a third studio to the party.

VoXngola
11-12-2015, 01:25 AM
Let Toronto work on one too.

SixKeys
11-12-2015, 02:03 AM
With the addition of Quebec, I feel like things might change for the better. The games do get developed in 2-4 years (Brotherhood and Revelations being the exceptions), but ideas tend to really suffocate when you're working on a schedule like AC's. I reckon we'll see one more game from Quebec next year and then we'll move back to Montreal with a multi-location AC ala AC III and Black Flag.

I wish I could say the days of short, rushed development cycles are over, but then there's Rogue. It remains to be seen if Ubi wants to keep pumping out two titles a year. They didn't do it this year, potentially because of last year's fiasco. They want to show people they're committed to delivering good quality and releasing another rushed game would run counter to that. Considering Syndicate was generally well received though, they may pick up the habit next year. Maybe a quick, cheap sequel with the Frye twins before moving on to another time period.

Assassin_M
11-12-2015, 02:13 AM
I wish I could say the days of short, rushed development cycles are over, but then there's Rogue. It remains to be seen if Ubi wants to keep pumping out two titles a year. They didn't do it this year, potentially because of last year's fiasco. They want to show people they're committed to delivering good quality and releasing another rushed game would run counter to that. Considering Syndicate was generally well received though, they may pick up the habit next year. Maybe a quick, cheap sequel with the Frye twins before moving on to another time period.

There doesn't seem to be any indication that they'll pull another Rogue. I think they said that it was the final AC game for last gen and it's unlikely they'll do double duty for next gen, lol.

RVSage
11-12-2015, 02:17 AM
They themselves admit that they need extra time. That's why Ubisoft Quebec has been in charge this year. Now we should have a two-studio rotation, hallelujah!

it gives them better breathing space, more time to try new stuff. the two studio rotation is a good thing to happen for the franchise and the fans.

VestigialLlama4
11-12-2015, 04:53 AM
The question that needs to be asked is if a game like Black Flag, Brotherhood, Revelations or indeed, Syndicate would be possible if they did take 3-4 years and devote all resources exclusively to one game?

For the sake of argument. AC1 and AC2 were both games that had this multi-year development. Both games are pretty intense, complete and polished experiences. Around this time AC3 was in development and the idea was the next numbered release would feature a new protagonist and meanwhile here's more Ezio. Then AC3 came and it didn't get the across the board popular reaction for a variety of reasons (not all of them good ones) and the American setting was essentially played out with the Revolution.

Now imagine if basically, Brotherhood and Revelations wasn't there and they jumped straight to AC3, all hands on deck...that means probably, better mission design, Great Fire in New York, Canoeing, Open World Sailing in the Atlantic and maybe a story that didn't fall apart at the end, also perhaps more time for a better MD. And after AC3, no Black Flag and Rogue, and they jump straight to UNITY and put more time and effort on the HD Release.

The fact of the matter is that Annualization, for lack of a better word, is a good thing. A good thing is anything that creates excellent games and Black Flag, Brotherhood, Revelations are excellent games. Sure Rogue sucks and Syndicate is "Meh" but you are bound to run into a couple of bumpy spots along the way. The other thing is that Black Flag and Brotherhood and Revelations are essentially B-Movie as compared to the A-Movie games of AC1-AC2-AC3. It focuses on a smaller set of characters and events, fewer locations with littel variation while the latter games are the big Hollywood Epics. There's no way BLACK FLAG would have been a major numbered release in the old system, it owes its existence to annualization and I think we should all be grateful for it.

Whatever problems Ubisoft does have it's related to other things but Annualization provides a nice handy scapegoat I will admit.

Sushiglutton
11-12-2015, 12:56 PM
Hmm. can you precisely define what you mean by fresh?

Every game has it's core

i.e Core mechanics, core lore, core gameplay or as Ubi calls it core pillars

Every AC game had something fresh too

1. AC1 -> AC2 assassin tombs, A new setting, different mission structure, upgrade your home territory, some cool missions like using leanardo flying machines
2. AC2 -> ACB Area capture by capturing borgia towers, leanardo machines, brotherhood recruitment, more playable modern day
3. ACB -> ACR hookblade, Crafting bombs, different interactions with different bombs, Some cool missions with the parachute.
4. ACB-> AC3 Terrain navigation, weather systems more dynamic, hunting , newer parkour, more detailed modern day missions, totally new setting, Basic ship navigation
5. AC3 -> ACIV Detailed naval gameplay, huge open sea world, underwater missions, harpooning missions, treasure hunts, more stealth mechanics, legendary ships with unique challenges
6. ACIV -> ACU Revamped parkour system, seemless interior navigation, kickass graphic upgrade, Co-op, A detailed skill progression system, detailed customization, Paris was huge, detailed
7 ACU -> ACS Carriages, boats make a return, trains, train heideout, gang gameplay, gangs also get progression, rope launcher

As mentioned above, each game has bought unique settings and fitting mechanics. The same cannot be said for GTA, just try to list different GTA games with similar feature addition , you will find it harder to list new things. (GTA did add new things, but in my opinion not as diverse as AC )

IN short AC deserves more credit than people give it. Yes it has not been perfect had flaws, bugs issues, incoherent story progression, then again what is perfect? It comes down individual preferences and view points.



You are correct that each game adds something completely new. Unfortunately they do so on a very familiar and flawed core. Take AC4 for example. It did add ship customization, harpooning, underwater exploration etc etc. But if you look at a lot of the missions they are still super familiar: eavesdropping, chase/tackle, infiltrate and so on. And these mission types rest on fundamentally broken gameplay mechanics (AI, unprecise navigation, simplistic combat). The result is a game that has fresh ideas yes, but still stinks like old seawater (and AC4 is the best AC imo And I did enjoy it overall).

If you compare GTAV to IV there are tons of new additions. The missions are also more handcrafted and polished than what AC has achieved. Overall I think it's a much higer quality product.



With the addition of Quebec, I feel like things might change for the better. The games do get developed in 2-4 years (Brotherhood and Revelations being the exceptions), but ideas tend to really suffocate when you're working on a schedule like AC's. I reckon we'll see one more game from Quebec next year and then we'll move back to Montreal with a multi-location AC ala AC III and Black Flag.

Why do you think Quebec will make next year's game? I think that would be fantastic if true as it would mean a great chance for a terrific 2017 game. But my assumption would be that Montreal and Qubec alternated as head studio on a yearly basis?

cawatrooper9
11-12-2015, 03:23 PM
Gosh, one of these threads again? We should just make a sticky thread, explaining that AC games are not all made by the exact same teams, and that they do in fact get multiple years in development. This is a common enough complaint, and an easy enough one to debunk.

That being said, I could empathize with the intent of this complaint last year... but this year? Syndicate was a pretty good game! Frankly, if I was so misled as to believe that it had been made in a year, I'd be amazed, not disappointed.

Sushiglutton
11-12-2015, 03:38 PM
Gosh, one of these threads again? We should just make a sticky thread, explaining that AC games are not all made by the exact same teams, and that they do in fact get multiple years in development. This is a common enough complaint, and an easy enough one to debunk.

That being said, I could empathize with the intent of this complaint last year... but this year? Syndicate was a pretty good game! Frankly, if I was so misled as to believe that it had been made in a year, I'd be amazed, not disappointed.


This is not entirely correct either. Some aspects of the games get multiple years of development, others do no. Surely you don't want to suggest that the difference between the parkour/combat/stealth of AC3 and 4 were the result of a four year effort? Clearly the devs took those mechanics from 3 and added an extra year of polish and tweaks.

The MP developer said at some conference that his team got to know the location of 4 after they wrapped up their work on 3 and then they started to create assets for it. They didn't even got a full year to do it.

These threads are important because many fans still buy into the 2-4 year development cycle myth, which just isn't an accurate description.

pacmanate
11-12-2015, 03:41 PM
There definitely needs to be a break. Multi teams working on different games makes AC's annual releases suffer.

There is NO jump in quality, Ive been saying this for years.

Say we have a studio working on AC6 and they have ideas for that game.
Say we have another studio working on AC7 who have ideas for THAT game.

If there weren't yearly releases, theoretically all these good ideas can go into ONE game rather than a few being trickled between the 2.


It doesn't matter what people say, yearly releases DO hurt the franchise because:

1. Different studios working on different games = messed up continuity, it's already happened in past AC games
2. 2-3 AC's being worked on at the same time = Stretched ideas between the 2-3 where they could be theoretically all in on super game
3. More time = More bug checking
4. More teams focusing on 1 game = Less workload, more productive work.


Don't even get me started on the PS3 era AI and the fact that combat is STILL an issue 8 years on since the original first AC. It's either slow and boring (Unity) or OP as hell (Syndicate).

Also this whole 2-3 years development means nothing. It doesn't mean that's all in engine stuff at all. That also takes into account the writing and script process for everything. Paperwork.

And yearly releases clearly aren't making the franchise any better.

cawatrooper9
11-12-2015, 04:06 PM
This is not entirely correct either. Some aspects of the games get multiple years of development, others do no. Surely you don't want to suggest that the difference between the parkour/combat/stealth of AC3 and 4 were the result of a four year effort? Clearly the devs took those mechanics from 3 and added an extra year of polish and tweaks.


I wouldn't necessarily say that's clear. Those assets could've been shared during AC3's development cycle (which would also help account for differences between them). Not that that's necessarily the case either, but I think it's hardly as "clear" as you seem to want to think.


The MP developer said at some conference that his team got to know the location of 4 after they wrapped up their work on 3 and then they started to create assets for it. They didn't even got a full year to do it.
Sorry, do you mean multiplayer by MP (I guess I'm getting old and don't know the lingo these youths are using in this day and age)? If so, that's hardly a substantial part of the game- if not, and you're referring to a larger part of the game... well, I think the quality of Black Flag speaks for itself. I don't care if the game was made over the course of two weeks in an RV in the desert- it's good, and that's really all that matters. In fact, I think that would speak to the fallacy of the development time argument pretty well.


These threads are important because many fans still buy into the 2-4 year development cycle myth, which just isn't an accurate description.
I'm not sure why people seem to think that a 2-4 year development cycle means that the game is finished 2-4 years ago, and the rest of that time is used for polishing. Development doesn't necessarily happen wholesale...
For instance, let's say that Black Flag did happen to take AC3's parkour elements only after Connor's game was released. Well, that doesn't mean they were just sitting on their hands in development before that! They had research to do, storyboards to write, mission structure to create... not to mention every other gameplay mechanic other than parkour. So perhaps they weren't working on this one element the entire four years (if your theory is correct), but that doesn't mean that they weren't working on other aspects of the game.

As for whether or not these threads are important: sure, I think the idea is important, if not only because I think people deserve the right to voice their opinions regardless of how woefully misinformed they are. But do we really need to humor every single thread of this nature? This is hardly an original one.

RVSage
11-12-2015, 06:18 PM
You are correct that each game adds something completely new. Unfortunately they do so on a very familiar and flawed core. Take AC4 for example. It did add ship customization, harpooning, underwater exploration etc etc. But if you look at a lot of the missions they are still super familiar: eavesdropping, chase/tackle, infiltrate and so on. And these mission types rest on fundamentally broken gameplay mechanics (AI, unprecise navigation, simplistic combat). The result is a game that has fresh ideas yes, but still stinks like old seawater (and AC4 is the best AC imo And I did enjoy it overall).

If you compare GTAV to IV there are tons of new additions. The missions are also more handcrafted and polished than what AC has achieved. Overall I think it's a much higer quality product.





Each game series has its core, at it will always stay. Thats what makes them unique. The core elements like parkour have may not changed , but they have evolved. The stealth mechanics have evolved, unity has dedicated stealth button which we never had before. If you look at it , they have evolved a lot.

RVSage
11-12-2015, 06:23 PM
There definitely needs to be a break. Multi teams working on different games makes AC's annual releases suffer.

There is NO jump in quality, Ive been saying this for years.

Say we have a studio working on AC6 and they have ideas for that game.
Say we have another studio working on AC7 who have ideas for THAT game.

If there weren't yearly releases, theoretically all these good ideas can go into ONE game rather than a few being trickled between the 2.


It doesn't matter what people say, yearly releases DO hurt the franchise because:

1. Different studios working on different games = messed up continuity, it's already happened in past AC games
2. 2-3 AC's being worked on at the same time = Stretched ideas between the 2-3 where they could be theoretically all in on super game
3. More time = More bug checking
4. More teams focusing on 1 game = Less workload, more productive work.


Don't even get me started on the PS3 era AI and the fact that combat is STILL an issue 8 years on since the original first AC. It's either slow and boring (Unity) or OP as hell (Syndicate).

Also this whole 2-3 years development means nothing. It doesn't mean that's all in engine stuff at all. That also takes into account the writing and script process for everything. Paperwork.

And yearly releases clearly aren't making the franchise any better.

Again this is your opinion, if each game is developed for 2-3 years, why not annual release. That's average time for developing any AAA game, It has not worked perfectly in the past for Ubi, like rushed up push in like revelations or rogue. But if they manage 2-3 years cycle for all games with two studios in parallel, I see no reason it is not going to work from a deveopment perspective (Note: Both Montreal and Quebec collaborate on all games)

crusader_prophet
11-12-2015, 07:55 PM
Just shut up.

cawatrooper9
11-12-2015, 08:07 PM
Just shut up.

Sorry, who is this directed at? Would you mind clarifying?

Also (of course) we'd appreciate your input, but this is hardly constructive. If you disagree with something someone said, I'd love to hear why you disagree.

crusader_prophet
11-12-2015, 11:00 PM
Sorry, who is this directed at? Would you mind clarifying?

Also (of course) we'd appreciate your input, but this is hardly constructive. If you disagree with something someone said, I'd love to hear why you disagree.

It was directed at RVSage.

Sushiglutton
11-12-2015, 11:15 PM
I wouldn't necessarily say that's clear. Those assets could've been shared during AC3's development cycle (which would also help account for differences between them). Not that that's necessarily the case either, but I think it's hardly as "clear" as you seem to want to think.

AC4 even uses the same animations. Edward wields two swords so that they could copy the two-handed combat from 3. I wouldn't be suprised if the combat (as an example) is developed by the exact same people for the two games.




Sorry, do you mean multiplayer by MP (I guess I'm getting old and don't know the lingo these youths are using in this day and age)? If so, that's hardly a substantial part of the game- if not, and you're referring to a larger part of the game... well, I think the quality of Black Flag speaks for itself. I don't care if the game was made over the course of two weeks in an RV in the desert- it's good, and that's really all that matters. In fact, I think that would speak to the fallacy of the development time argument pretty well.

Yeah I meant multiplayer. It was used as an example because I heard the boss of that division say clearly that they speant less than a year.

As for your second point I agree that only the end product truly matters. And if they could make a great game/year that would be fantastic ofc.Where we disagree it seems is if the games they do make are good enough. Imo even AC4, which like I said I enjoyed, has a lot of flaws clearly connected to the yearly release schedule (such as undercooked core mechanics, some lackluster sidecontent and uninspired main missions). The dialogue in AC4 is great, but that is something which is very easily seperated from the other games which means it was probably worked on for longer.



I'm not sure why people seem to think that a 2-4 year development cycle means that the game is finished 2-4 years ago, and the rest of that time is used for polishing. Development doesn't necessarily happen wholesale...
For instance, let's say that Black Flag did happen to take AC3's parkour elements only after Connor's game was released. Well, that doesn't mean they were just sitting on their hands in development before that! They had research to do, storyboards to write, mission structure to create... not to mention every other gameplay mechanic other than parkour. So perhaps they weren't working on this one element the entire four years (if your theory is correct), but that doesn't mean that they weren't working on other aspects of the game.

As for whether or not these threads are important: sure, I think the idea is important, if not only because I think people deserve the right to voice their opinions regardless of how woefully misinformed they are. But do we really need to humor every single thread of this nature? This is hardly an original one.


I'm sure they were working on the game for as long as they claim. And like you suggest they likely did concepts, storyboards etc. However I don't think any of the core mechanics got more than a one year push from AC3. And that is not some niche aspect of the game, it is the game!

RA503
11-12-2015, 11:27 PM
Will be very sad to see a year without a AC,next year will be a bit cold for video games releases what is a bit good since this year complete destroy my pocket,The market needs year releases to merchandise still hot between a strong year like this one and a cold one.

also in the speed that the Modern Day runs will be a torture to wait even more to see Juno causing terror...

Syndicate was yearly and is nealy perfect only needs another save file...

VoXngola
11-12-2015, 11:30 PM
What makes you think there won't be a title next year??

Assassin_M
11-13-2015, 12:12 AM
AC4 even uses the same animations. Edward wields two swords so that they could copy the two-handed combat from 3. I wouldn't be suprised if the combat (as an example) is developed by the exact same people for the two games.

Yeah I meant multiplayer. It was used as an example because I heard the boss of that division say clearly that they spent less than a year.
Various assets and system are shared throughout the development cycle of games. A lot of series like Uncharted, GTA...etc have 5-6 years between each iteration and yet retain most systems from the previous iteration. AC only seems cheap because it's released yearly. The MP developer's quote could be understood in a number of different ways. We don't know when exactly his division wrapped up work on AC III, it could very well have been some time before the release date.

It's really jarring for me to talk about this, because I already know how pointless it is to talk about things like save files and debugging and how we don't know how complicated things can be, but people will just continue to believe what they want. Like you, you're saying it's unbelievable that the gameplay systems have been in development for over a year because they're the same as AC III's (I'd really like to see people saying "It's not that hard" or "It shouldn't take that long" actually give tangible facts on what they're basing "easy" on or "shouldn't take that long" on)

No matter how many times Farlander or me or anyone else here comes in and argues about some points ALL of us are ignorant about, we'll get childish and idiotic comments like the one above in the thread and be told to shut up or we'll get accused of defending "unacceptable" and "shady" laziness and tactics. So **** it. I'm not referring directly to you, but just the attitude in general of some people here.

harsab
11-13-2015, 12:51 AM
Just shut up.

Smh

Sushiglutton
11-13-2015, 01:07 AM
Various assets and system are shared throughout the development cycle of games. A lot of series like Uncharted, GTA...etc have 5-6 years between each iteration and yet retain most systems from the previous iteration. AC only seems cheap because it's released yearly. The MP developer's quote could be understood in a number of different ways. We don't know when exactly his division wrapped up work on AC III, it could very well have been some time before the release date.


If I recall correctly he specifically said they had worked on the game for less than a year.



It's really jarring for me to talk about this, because I already know how pointless it is to talk about things like save files and debugging and how we don't know how complicated things can be, but people will just continue to believe what they want. Like you, you're saying it's unbelievable that the gameplay systems have been in development for over a year because they're the same as AC III's (I'd really like to see people saying "It's not that hard" or "It shouldn't take that long" actually give tangible facts on what they're basing "easy" on or "shouldn't take that long" on)

No matter how many times Farlander or me or anyone else here comes in and argues about some points ALL of us are ignorant about, we'll get childish and idiotic comments like the one above in the thread and be told to shut up or we'll get accused of defending "unacceptable" and "shady" laziness and tactics. So **** it. I'm not referring directly to you, but just the attitude in general of some people here.


Just to be clear I think it's unlikely they added more than a year on top of what they did for AC3. I think the gameplay in AC3 had probably been in development for longer. I don't take it personally as I haven't said those things :).

My point is just that I don't think the statement that the games are in development for several years is true for all aspects of the game. And I think the yearly releases to some extent explains the imo disapointing quality (I also think Ubi wants to make a different game than the one I want to play unfortunately).

Farlander1991
11-13-2015, 01:12 AM
If I recall correctly he specifically said they had worked on the game for less than a year.

You can't compare multiplayer (ACB-AC4) and single-player though. They're totally separate modes, and, heck, starting with AC3 - totally separate code base (AC3 and AC4 multiplayer still used everything that was created as a base in ACB, rather than code based on the single-player stuff of AC3/AC4). Each multiplayer mode for each game had 1 year of work, while we're at it. But it's different than making an open-world experience and, honestly, for the most part there's barely any crossover with the single-player development.

The multiplayer team was essentially working on their own miniature games that would come as part of the whole package.

Assassin_M
11-13-2015, 01:13 AM
If I recall correctly he specifically said they had worked on the game for less than a year.
Really? Can you direct me to the interview you're referring to? I just think it'd be very detrimental if that's what they really said since a lot of PR from Ubisoft during the time of AC III's hype was that this is the first game since AC II that they've been working on for over 2 years or as I said, it could just be referring to the MP portion of the game.


Just to be clear I think it's unlikely they added more than a year on top of what they did for AC3. I think the gameplay in AC3 had probably been in development for longer.
I disagree with that.


I don't take it personally as I haven't said those things :).
I'm glad, just wanted to be clear.


My point is just that I don't think statement that the games are in development for several years is true for all aspects of the game. And I think the yearly releases to some extent explains the imo disapointing quality.
Well, it's certainly not true for all aspects. In general, a game starts getting developed past the conception stage and that includes all the paper-work, so what I'm saying is that we don't know ALL the details so it's difficult to ascertain how exactly the development process goes, as it just can't be eyeballed, you know? This is not me fervently defending anyone nor saying that they MUST have been working on AC IV for more than a year, what I'm saying is simply we don't know.

Meowrynn
11-13-2015, 04:48 AM
wow people in this thread suddenly become AC expert and sh!t, making statements how AC games are developed without having even a basis/evidence on how they TRULY develop games LOL its like watching pacquiao fight, everybody becomes a boxing expert

VestigialLlama4
11-13-2015, 05:03 AM
wow people in this thread suddenly become AC expert and sh!t, making statements how AC games are developed without having even a basis/evidence on how they TRULY develop games LOL its like watching pacquiao fight, everybody becomes a boxing expert

Assassin_M is an actual video game developer and he knows the technical stuff about game development, how expensive they are, how the stuff people criticize Ubisoft for is actually common across all games.

You should be more respectful that an expert like Assassin_M is actually trying to explain things we have no idea about.

Assassin_M
11-13-2015, 05:09 AM
wow people in this thread suddenly become AC expert and sh!t, making statements how AC games are developed without having even a basis/evidence on how they TRULY develop games LOL its like watching pacquiao fight, everybody becomes a boxing expert
As Vestigial explained, Farlander and I are game design majors and developers. (Farlander is more big time than I am, with more experience, though). We didn't really make any claims to knowing how AC games are developed, but there are general standards that are shared across all spectrums of game development. We're also not trying to put ourselves above others, the AC expert label is really nothing, lol.


Assassin_M is an actual video game developer and he knows the technical stuff about game development, how expensive they are, how the stuff people criticize Ubisoft for is actually common across all games.

You should be more respectful that an expert like Assassin_M is actually trying to explain things we have no idea about.
Farlander too, especially. He has more experience than myself. Thanks.

RVSage
11-13-2015, 05:57 AM
It was directed at RVSage.

You better learn how to speak, You have no right to ask me to shut up. I was not talking to you either. And if you don not like what I am saying just don't respond. or give a constructive counter argument. Thanks


As Vestigial explained, Farlander and I are game design majors and developers. (Farlander is more big time than I am, with more experience, though). We didn't really make any claims to knowing how AC games are developed, but there are general standards that are shared across all spectrums of game development. We're also not trying to put ourselves above others, the AC expert label is really nothing, lol.


Farlander too, especially. He has more experience than myself. Thanks.

Wow did not know you were a game dev too, knew Farlander was one. Now I understand, how you get into details so neatly

crusader_prophet
11-13-2015, 06:03 AM
Various assets and system are shared throughout the development cycle of games. A lot of series like Uncharted, GTA...etc have 5-6 years between each iteration and yet retain most systems from the previous iteration. AC only seems cheap because it's released yearly. The MP developer's quote could be understood in a number of different ways. We don't know when exactly his division wrapped up work on AC III, it could very well have been some time before the release date.

It's really jarring for me to talk about this, because I already know how pointless it is to talk about things like save files and debugging and how we don't know how complicated things can be, but people will just continue to believe what they want. Like you, you're saying it's unbelievable that the gameplay systems have been in development for over a year because they're the same as AC III's (I'd really like to see people saying "It's not that hard" or "It shouldn't take that long" actually give tangible facts on what they're basing "easy" on or "shouldn't take that long" on)

No matter how many times Farlander or me or anyone else here comes in and argues about some points ALL of us are ignorant about, we'll get childish and idiotic comments like the one above in the thread and be told to shut up or we'll get accused of defending "unacceptable" and "shady" laziness and tactics. So **** it. I'm not referring directly to you, but just the attitude in general of some people here.

I don't think anyone here is denying how difficult and complicated game development can be, what is being criticized here is that bare minimum iterations in each Assassin's Creed game due to its yearly release does not do any justice to the franchise in making it feel fresh. It is called franchise fatigue. And every studio that develops games at a larger scale, goes through the same hardships and development curve that UbiSoft developers go through (more or less), yet the other AAA studios like CDPR, BioWare, Bethesda, Naughty Dog, Bungie are capable of captivating critics AND players at the same time, while UbiSoft's juggernaut and once critically acclaimed franchise has failed to attract consistent opinions across critics and players in recent years. Why? Many reasons, UbiSoft's capitalistic formula of sticking every open world design into a more or less same gameplay style, annual release takes priority over completion and perfection of the art being created by the developers, mostly being arrogant prior to unity's mess openly in media. So, even though the franchise has evolved since AC1 (I would be in shock if it hadn't) the pace of the evolution via incremental additions to each edition does not justify annual release. And when people instead of acknowledging that support the idea of incremental progress, we get mess like Unity or mediocre games that the recent games have been (in my opinion). The other option is to take each game with heart and craft it to the point that they can dare to send out review copies (like Witcher 3) to the critics 10 days before release and sleep in peace knowing your game is going to make money because you have truly put your 100% in it without cutting corners and treated it as a piece of art instead of a money making machine.

FYI - The "shut-up" was intended for RVSage, because I didn't really feel like writing a whole paragraph in argument of his/her non-sense. People like him/her has kept the franchise behind by making UbiSoft feel that they pump out their best work every year.

Mr.Black24
11-13-2015, 06:04 AM
As Vestigial explained, Farlander and I are game design majors and developers. (Farlander is more big time than I am, with more experience, though). We didn't really make any claims to knowing how AC games are developed, but there are general standards that are shared across all spectrums of game development. We're also not trying to put ourselves above others, the AC expert label is really nothing, lol.

The only imput I can ever put to play is that sure, there are general standards that are shared within game development.

My question is, is it really followed well within the teams at Ubisoft making the AC games?

I mean they claim that they won't ship a game unless its high quality, but then look how Unity turned out. Story aside, gameplay was broken until patches came along. But even then what really matters is the condition of the game when its first shipped out. Some people claim that their game isn't bad running. But that logic is poor, as its like saying everyone who has eaten this brand of sandwich is eating a spoiled one and is making everyone sick to the bone. However one guy comes along saying, "Well my sandwich isn't bad at all". But what about everyone else who is sick?

Personally, as long as the game runs smoothly at least in the 90s % and the modern day story gets back on track on being good again that isn't useless Unity cutscenes, I don't mind on where we go in history.

Oh and drop the "charismatic and brash" trope, its tiring as hell.

crusader_prophet
11-13-2015, 06:09 AM
You better learn how to speak, You have no right to ask me to shut up. I was not talking to you either. And if you don not like what I am saying just don't respond. or give a constructive counter argument. Thanks

I'll say it again, just shut up.

RVSage
11-13-2015, 06:12 AM
I don't think anyone here is denying how difficult and complicated game development can be, what is being criticized here is that bare minimum iterations in each Assassin's Creed game due to its yearly release does not do any justice to the franchise in making it feel fresh. It is called franchise fatigue. And every studio that develops games at a larger scale, goes through the same hardships and development curve that UbiSoft developers go through (more or less), yet the other AAA studios like CDPR, BioWare, Bethesda, Naughty Dog, Bungie are capable of captivating critics AND players at the same time, while UbiSoft's juggernaut and once critically acclaimed franchise has failed to attract consistent opinions across critics and players in recent years. Why? Many reasons, UbiSoft's capitalistic formula of sticking every open world design into a more or less same gameplay style, annual release takes priority over completion and perfection of the art being created by the developers, mostly being arrogant prior to unity's mess openly in media. So, even though the franchise has evolved since AC1 (I would be in shock if it hadn't) the pace of the evolution via incremental additions to each edition does not justify annual release. And when people instead of acknowledging that support the idea of incremental progress, we get mess like Unity or mediocre games that the recent games have been (in my opinion). The other option is to take each game with heart and craft it to the point that they can dare to send out review copies (like Witcher 3) to the critics 10 days before release and sleep in peace knowing your game is going to make money because you have truly put your 100% in it without cutting corners and treated it as a piece of art instead of a money making machine.

FYI - The "shut-up" was intended for RVSage, because I didn't really feel like writing a whole paragraph in argument of his/her non-sense. People like him/her has kept the franchise behind by making UbiSoft feel that they pump out their best work every year.

Anyone who does not agree with you speaks "non-sense", is it? The franchise does not cater just to you, It caters to a wider audience. I am not a fan of Unity or Rogue either. But many people liked tha game for its graphics, despite it's disastrous launch. It sold quite a bit too, nevertheless Syndicate's opening sales was affected. But it is now the top selling PS4 game for October. Everyone has different opinions and wishlists for the franchise. Not all of it can be catered to. If majority like a game, and it sells well, that's what matters the most. Any game franchise needs to satisfy most people, not all people.


I'll say it again, just shut up.
I will say it again, you have no right

I-Like-Pie45
11-13-2015, 06:13 AM
Yo yo yo, I protest to da UBI!

It ain't about fresh princes or cryme tyme bangin', it's about disappearing long enough that no one realizes that it's the same fragga-lackin-creamsicling game yo.

Jus' look at Uncharted plus the Last of Us, Zelda, or Gee-Tee-Aaa yo. Every game is exactly the same as the one before it, no changed or new mechanics, only with different movies spliced in, but since there's a gap of two years insteada one, everyone forgets that they're just buyin' the same game again.

And speakin' of Cryme Tyme, whatever the crackin-exs happenend to qualitay wrasslin' on da Teevee.

crusader_prophet
11-13-2015, 06:13 AM
The only imput I can ever put to play is that sure, there are general standards that are shared within game development.

My question is, is it really followed well within the teams at Ubisoft making the AC games?

I mean they claim that they won't ship a game unless its high quality, but then look how Unity turned out. Story aside, gameplay was broken until patches came along. But even then what really matters is the condition of the game when its first shipped out. Some people claim that their game isn't bad running. But that logic is poor, as its like saying everyone who has eaten this brand of sandwich is eating a spoiled one and is making everyone sick to the bone. However one guy comes along saying, "Well my sandwich isn't bad at all". But what about everyone else who is sick?

Personally, as long as the game runs smoothly at least in the 90s % and the modern day story gets back on track on being good again that isn't useless Unity cutscenes, I don't mind on where we go in history.

Oh and drop the "charismatic and brash" trope, its tiring as hell.

Their narrative has been lackluster and barely captivating since ACIII, actually since Revelations.

crusader_prophet
11-13-2015, 06:19 AM
Anyone who does not agree with you speaks "non-sense", is it? The franchise does not cater just to you, It caters to a wider audience. I am not a fan of Unity or Rogue either. But many people liked tha game for its graphics, despite it's disastrous launch. It sold quite a bit too, nevertheless Syndicate's opening sales was affected. But it is now the top selling PS4 game for October. Everyone has different opinions and wishlists for the franchise. Not all of it can be catered to. If majority like a game, and it sells well, that's what matters the most. Any game franchise needs to satisfy most people, not all people.

Hence Syndicate's standard deviation of review is as high as 13.63 on a scale of 0 - 100. And CoD and Destiny also has huge sales, does not necessarily reflect them as critically acclaimed games at par with games like Bioshock, Witcher, Fallout, Half-Life, Mass Effect, TLoU, Uncharted, Tomb Raider, Red Dead Redemption, Dishonored....and list goes on.

RVSage
11-13-2015, 06:20 AM
Yo yo yo, I protest to da UBI!

It ain't about fresh princes or cryme tyme bangin', it's about disappearing long enough that no one realizes that it's the same fragga-lackin-creamsicling game yo.

Jus' look at Uncharted plus the Last of Us yo. Every game is exactly the same as the one before it, no changed mechanics, only with different movies spliced in, but since there's a gap of two years insteada one, everyone forgets that they're just buyin' the same game again.

:D valid point.

crusader_prophet
11-13-2015, 06:21 AM
Yeah the factory runs 24/7 all year around, so parts of the game have been in some section of the production line for that long. But I assume the OP meant 2-4 years of fresh ideas :confused:

Hey didn't you hear the news, Samsung's every iteration of Galaxy is a set of fresh ideas at least according to most folks in this thread. Unlike you and me, seeing another version of hookblade is a massive gameplay change. WOW...UbiSoft nailed it.

crusader_prophet
11-13-2015, 06:25 AM
Yo yo yo, I protest to da UBI!

It ain't about fresh princes or cryme tyme bangin', it's about disappearing long enough that no one realizes that it's the same fragga-lackin-creamsicling game yo.

Jus' look at Uncharted plus the Last of Us, Zelda, or Gee-Tee-Aaa yo. Every game is exactly the same as the one before it, no changed or new mechanics, only with different movies spliced in, but since there's a gap of two years insteada one, everyone forgets that they're just buyin' the same game again.

And speakin' of Cryme Tyme, whatever the crackin-exs happenend to qualitay wrasslin' on da Teevee.

Except TLoU had pretty much Oscar winning acting, narrative and immersion. And oh what you are referring to, UbiSoft should learn a lesson or two called franchise fatigue. I savor my double cheeseburger when I eat it every two weeks, not when I eat it two meals daily for seven days a week.

RVSage
11-13-2015, 06:32 AM
Hence Syndicate's standard deviation of review is as high as 13.63 on a scale of 0 - 100. And CoD and Destiny also has huge sales, does not necessarily reflect them as critically acclaimed games at par with games like Bioshock, Witcher, Fallout, Half-Life, Mass Effect, TLoU, Uncharted, Tomb Raider, Red Dead Redemption, Dishonored....and list goes on.

Critical acclaim? You mean people who gave Fallout 4 a ninety, when it runs so terribly across platforms? Stutter so bad that 0 FPS on Xbox one? I stopped buying everything critics say long ago. Not denying the fact it is one of the accepted indicators, on how good a game is. The truth is AC has had ups and downs, like everything. The yearly release you are not with, produced Black Flag, with similar time constraints. And we all know, how well received it was.

Mr.Black24
11-13-2015, 06:38 AM
Except TLoU had pretty much Oscar winning acting, narrative and immersion. And oh what you are referring to, UbiSoft should learn a lesson or two called franchise fatigue. I savor my double cheeseburger when I eat it every two weeks, not when I eat it two meals daily for seven days a week.
Very valid point! :D

Assassin_M
11-13-2015, 07:39 AM
I don't think anyone here is denying how difficult and complicated game development can be
Except neither Farlander nor I said anything about how difficult game development is. We're presenting tangible facts and arguing that since we don't have all the facts, we can't make any concrete claims about ANYTHING. We're putting forth ALL the facts on the table, all the possible things the trickiness of game development can lead to so that people can understand. When someone comes here and says "hurr durrrr, Evie is a reaction to the ****ty treatment Elise got in Unity", either Farlander or me or anyone else comes in and says no, that's not possible because of this and this and that. It's about information. Being informed is hell of a lot more important than being opinionated.


What is being criticized here is that bare minimum iterations in each Assassin's Creed game due to its yearly release does not do any justice to the franchise in making it feel fresh.
But it wont ever feel fresh because you seem to think you're entitled to some revolutionizing of the core of the game. Everyone's up and down saying "Bleeehhhh same game", well what did you expect? OF COURSE it's the same game. Uncharted, GTA, The Last of Us (Oscar storylines, which I'm pretty sure is subjective, not withstanding) ALL have the same core, they're the same unchanged game throughout their different iterations. The change only feels substantial because of the longer gaps.


It is called franchise fatigue
Yes, and no one is denying that this exists. No one is denying that franchise fatigue due to the yearly schedule is killing the franchise. What I'm saying is that it's wrong to say that AC has not innovated as much as other games when it HAS. It's arbitrary to say "It's the same ol' same ol'". OF COURSE it is.


Yet the other AAA studios like CDPR, BioWare, Bethesda, Naughty Dog, Bungie are capable of captivating critics AND players at the same time
Pretty sure subjective opinions are not solid grounds for objective discussions. You can‘t design "fun". Fun is a tweakable thing, not something that exists in a design document. You hope like hell that the original design will result in a fun game, but the first playable version frequently leaves you with the distinct impression that the game needs some more chili powder and a little more time on the stove.

And pffff, why are Bethesda and Bungie up there? Just...just no.


While UbiSoft's juggernaut and once critically acclaimed franchise has failed to attract consistent opinions across critics and players in recent years.
Good God, people. AC has had only ONE hiccup since 2007. ONE. HICCUP. Since AC III, we've had AC IV and AC:S and both got pretty good reviews, but just ONE hiccup and suddenly it's "recent years"?


Why? Many reasons, UbiSoft's capitalistic formula of sticking every open world design into a more or less same gameplay style
Arbitrary since sharing of concepts and systems is standard in the industry. Again, you're going back to franchise fatigue.


we get mess like Unity or mediocre games that the recent games have been (in my opinion).
No opinion has any place in this discussion, really. Not mine nor yours.


FYI - The "shut-up" was intended for RVSage, because I didn't really feel like writing a whole paragraph in argument of his/her non-sense. People like him/her has kept the franchise behind by making UbiSoft feel that they pump out their best work every year.
I don't care who it was aimed at. RVSage could have been me, it could have been Farlander, Vestigial, whoever. It's disrespectful and childish.




My question is, is it really followed well within the teams at Ubisoft making the AC games?
It's safe to assume so, since the games are in minimal functional condition.


I mean they claim that they won't ship a game unless its high quality, but then look how Unity turned out. Story aside, gameplay was broken until patches came along. But even then what really matters is the condition of the game when its first shipped out. Some people claim that their game isn't bad running. But that logic is poor, as its like saying everyone who has eaten this brand of sandwich is eating a spoiled one and is making everyone sick to the bone. However one guy comes along saying, "Well my sandwich isn't bad at all". But what about everyone else who is sick?
The poor argument you refer to is not actually poor at all. It actually demonstrates how unpredictable QA testing is. Of course, I'm not saying people who experienced the bug should be ignored just because someone else didn't experience it, not at all. I'm saying that this perfectly demonstrates the unpredictability. A downside to software is that the more it advances, the more complicated it becomes. This is why I slam my head on a desk when people say "Back in the old days, there were no day one patches". Well, duh. Games now are monsters. People think advancement in hardware is amazing, but it's only more hell for developers. It means larger games, thus more complicated monsters. It's simply the unfortunate reality.

Just the sheer volume of bugs affects the technical and business side of development. Games tend to be rushed into testing and the QA department does what they are paid to do and writes up every problem they observe. They hope that eventually the producers will get the point and stop sending proto-ware into the test department. They hope in vain because the pressure to call the game "testable" is usually too much for the project management to bear. It‘s too bad that there tends to be no solid definition of what testable is unless you work in QA. From their point of view, it‘s pretty obvious.

There‘s nothing like having the rug pulled out from underneath you because a bug that you intended to fix is marked "won‘t fix" by the team leadership. You might even have the code fixed on your machine, ready to check in for the next build. Instead, you get to undo the change. All coders watch the Internet bash them for writing buggy code, and even point out the very bug that the coder intended to fix. Most programmers I know are perfectionists and take a lot of pride in their work, and because of that they lose sleep over bugs. As evil as this seems, making those decisions is as tough as knowing your code has a bug you aren't allowed to fix.

Is this a good thing? From my perspective as a programmer and from yours, probably not, but there's a lot more to the business side of things as well. I wish programmers could get all the time they want to properly fix and polish their games, but the truth is one of, or all, of three things will happen:

1) It'll lead to more bugs. Seriously, HUGE games can NEVER be bug free. Not even 80% bug free. A game like Witcher which everyone brings up has A TON of bugs, a lot of them game breaking. CDPR are at patch .10 so far and the next one is coming soon. Does that mean CDPR did not take their time to polish their game? Could they have delayed the Witcher and simply chose not to? Nope, this simply means that bugs are unpredictable.

2) When a game is in development for multiple years, it‘s easy for new hardware technology to blaze past you.

3) It'll have some sort of effect on the business side of things. I'm not well versed in this side of development to properly explain it, though.

The heavy bug volume due to the advancement of hardware weighs hard on everyone, developers and testers alike. They end up creating a logistical nightmare. The graphical reports that get spit out by bug databases are watched like the stock market. The worst part by far is what happens when a team can‘t quite keep the bug count under control, which is most of the time. In the end, some bugs actually become "features".

VestigialLlama4
11-13-2015, 08:46 AM
...The heavy bug volume due to the advancement of hardware weighs hard on everyone, developers and testers alike. They end up creating a logistical nightmare. The graphical reports that get spit out by bug databases are watched like the stock market. The worst part by far is what happens when a team can‘t quite keep the bug count under control, which is most of the time. In the end, some bugs actually become "features".

I was reading about Arkham Knight and why the PC port was poor. Apparently the developers found the PS4 and Next-Gen toolkit so complicated that all their energy went there and the PC port suffered as a result and was outsourced to an understaffed company. Which is a shame but then considering that the PS4 version came out really well and to the developer's satisfaction, they did well I think.

I wish that we can have for games what we have for movies, something like Making-Of books and the like. That is actually get access to scripts and stuff and study the production and development of a game in detail, all the different iterations. It would be even more complicated than movies because in movies different people are together in one place and one time whereas everyone in game development is, I imagine, doing different things separately and so on.

Sushiglutton
11-13-2015, 10:27 AM
Really? Can you direct me to the interview you're referring to? I just think it'd be very detrimental if that's what they really said since a lot of PR from Ubisoft during the time of AC III's hype was that this is the first game since AC II that they've been working on for over 2 years or as I said, it could just be referring to the MP portion of the game.


I disagree with that.


I'm glad, just wanted to be clear.


Well, it's certainly not true for all aspects. In general, a game starts getting developed past the conception stage and that includes all the paper-work, so what I'm saying is that we don't know ALL the details so it's difficult to ascertain how exactly the development process goes, as it just can't be eyeballed, you know? This is not me fervently defending anyone nor saying that they MUST have been working on AC IV for more than a year, what I'm saying is simply we don't know.

From my phone…

I think it was a developer event, "vault" something? It wasn't for PR.

I'm suprised you disagree tbh. Just to see if we can find some common ground: Do you believe the parkour in AC4 was the result of more than a years work on top of the AC3 system? I mean for an amateur like me the parkour seems identical down to the individual animations. I believe the "parkour devs" moved onto Unity after they were finished with 3.

Ubisoft have said that they worked for AC4 for more than a year, no? And I def don't think they would lie about that. I agree wholeheartedly that we don't know much. What is left is speculation supported by arguments.

When I compare the gameplay jump between AC:R and AC3 vs AC3 and AC4 I think the former is the result of a way longer dev time. There are no core differences between 3 and 4. That 4 was so good was a bloody miracle, which is the result of a excellent writer working together with a clever director (my speculation)!

KittyRino
11-13-2015, 03:15 PM
yes i dont want to see new AC game every year that would be awesome.or take pause 5 years and start making new prince of persia games already.

cawatrooper9
11-13-2015, 03:54 PM
From my phone…


I'm suprised you disagree tbh. Just to see if we can find some common ground: Do you believe the parkour in AC4 was the result of more than a years work on top of the AC3 system? I mean for an amateur like me the parkour seems identical down to the individual animations. I believe the "parkour devs" moved onto Unity after they were finished with 3.

Ubisoft have said that they worked for AC4 for more than a year, no? And I def don't think they would lie about that. I agree wholeheartedly that we don't know much. What is left is speculation supported by arguments.



Like Assassin_M, I'm not defending the games, but pointing out that our lack of information on development means that we have to fill in a lot of gaps- and your assumptions may simply not be correct.

In previous comments, we discussed how parkour is only one aspect of the game. Who knows how long the team worked on creating the other mechanics, the locations, etc... but we've discussed this (though you seemed to think that work was basically relegated to storyboarding, which I disagree with).

However, you ask now if we think parkour in the game was worked on for over a year- and honestly, I don't know. Personally, I don't think that it is identical to AC3- similar, sure, and the animations might overlap a lot, but there are definitely some changes.



First of all, I don't believe Edward could do Connor's diagonal run (for lack of a better word). Now, obviously this seems like a downgrade, but it is still an example of how it's different. (Again, perhaps he could, but I don't remember it).

Second, I believe AC4 parkour was much smoother than AC3. Aesthetically this might not be all that interesting, but I remember the devs talking (and fans agreeing) that the parkour in Black Flag was more responsive than in AC3.

Third- well, there were many other movement features that they obviously put in that AC3 didn't have. Underwater swimming was a huge one. Then there's swinging on ropes, a much better passive cover system- not to mention the plethora of other nonmovement features (one of the best of all being a significantly improved weapon change system- I liked Ezio's wheel the best, but Connor's separate screen was abysmal).


When I compare the gameplay jump between AC:R and AC3 vs AC3 and AC4 I think the former is the result of a way longer dev time. There are no core differences between 3 and 4. That 4 was so good was a bloody miracle, which is the result of a excellent writer working together with a clever director (my speculation)!

Well yeah, that's because it was the first game on their new engine and assets... I mean, this argument is the epitome of not understanding the multi studio system. Revelations was the last of its cycle, AC3 was the first- so obviously, the jump between the two would seem more significant than the jump between AC3 and AC4. That's just common sense.

However, ask the general populous of fans which game they'd prefer between AC3 and Black Flag... :rolleyes:

RVSage
11-13-2015, 06:39 PM
When I compare the gameplay jump between AC:R and AC3 vs AC3 and AC4 I think the former is the result of a way longer dev time. There are no core differences between 3 and 4. That 4 was so good was a bloody miracle, which is the result of a excellent writer working together with a clever director (my speculation)!

The ship gameplay, the side missions like harpooning and underwater stuff were preety big changes IMO. But yea most of the combat remained unchanged , actually it was a easier version of AC3 when it came to combat. It was the same engine as AC3, basically, mind expanding why you think there is little change from AC3 to AC4? Because I saw significant mechanic changes and world changes. ACBF to ACRogue now that was cut paste

VestigialLlama4
11-13-2015, 08:11 PM
The main difference between AC3 and Black Flag is that AC3 is visually, a more beautiful, or rather a more detailed game.

Compare the natural environment of AC3 and Black Flag. AC3 is more detailed, the trees look like actual trees and not specially landscaped beams dressed to look like trees as in Black Flag. You also had rock climbing in AC3 which is totally missing in Black Flag. The weather system of AC3 is also far more detailed obviously than Black Flag which is you know the Caribbean so Sun and Sand and bright colours and rum all around! Of course this is deliberate, AC3 is 70% natural environment while the naval is like Black Flag's Underwater segments (you can't actually dive beneath the waters in free-roam, you can just hover below the surface same as AC2 swimming) while Black Flag is the same percentage on sea.

Compare likewise the environment of AC3 and ROGUE. Rogue's New York has Havana colours and it has an Ice World Level at the Atlantic, and visually it's not a patch on AC3. Making an Ice World Level in the Arctic as opposed to a weather system where a single environment and landscape alters because of the weather in practically every city and part of the map...AC3 was more ambitious and it's a pity recent games haven't gone there like Unity and Syndicate both set in Northern Europe cities that do not bother reflecting the weather of that place.

The main innovations in Black Flag is the greater systemization of Stealth. It invented the AC Stealth Room which is repeated in Unity and Syndicate (without acknowledgment naturally). So you had Snipers on Top, Patrols on Ground, Alarm Bells, places to infiltrate and exfiltrate. Now part of this was there in AC3's Forts but it didn't have the same systemization and focus nor did it have the replay value either. The hunting in Black Flag is also easier in that there's no penalty for outright shooting animals in terms of damaged pelt. Whereas in AC3 we had to do Hidden Blade kills or trap them and so on. Of course the complicated crafting system in AC3 is streamlined and that's a good thing I guess.

In terms of Naval, BLACK FLAG removed the Grape Shot from the Arsenal and added the Swift Sail and Mortar Mechanic, but then that's what happens when a Side mechanic gets upgraded to a full game. The Aquila was also a little more accurate in that the cannons were below the deck whereas Jackdaw had it on top of the deck so that we could see it firing as we manned the rudder. But otherwise the rudiments are there in AC3's Naval and the main thing is we can do stuff in Black Flag that we only saw in AC3's cutscenes, aka Connor boarding a ship and Connor using the Lift and Hook (which is there in a Naval Cutscene).

Mr.Black24
11-13-2015, 09:57 PM
It's safe to assume so, since the games are in minimal functional condition.


The poor argument you refer to is not actually poor at all. It actually demonstrates how unpredictable QA testing is. Of course, I'm not saying people who experienced the bug should be ignored just because someone else didn't experience it, not at all. I'm saying that this perfectly demonstrates the unpredictability. A downside to software is that the more it advances, the more complicated it becomes. This is why I slam my head on a desk when people say "Back in the old days, there were no day one patches". Well, duh. Games now are monsters. People think advancement in hardware is amazing, but it's only more hell for developers. It means larger games, thus more complicated monsters. It's simply the unfortunate reality.

I agree on that, its just my gripe is that there are many who think the game itself is in good condition just because their game runs, ignoring that the majority is suffering.

As for the hardware, its why I believe that many people, heck even myself included in some way, that they should be given additional time to understand this beast of a game that they just created. I mean of course Unity was a awesome thing, it looks visually amazing, no one can't deny that. But its the fact that they couldn't try to patch up at least the heavy hitting bugs that causes players to glitch out the world, or crash. I don't mind glitches like disappearing NPCS, but when its a glitch that causes people to respawn in a wall, or crash, its something that the developers need to take seriously.


Just the sheer volume of bugs affects the technical and business side of development. Games tend to be rushed into testing and the QA department does what they are paid to do and writes up every problem they observe. They hope that eventually the producers will get the point and stop sending proto-ware into the test department. They hope in vain because the pressure to call the game "testable" is usually too much for the project management to bear. It‘s too bad that there tends to be no solid definition of what testable is unless you work in QA. From their point of view, it‘s pretty obvious.

This is why I resent business models. I understand you got a game to make, but no one wants to buy a poorly made, or at least a half baked game. In the end, those folks end up losing money and trust from the consumers.


There‘s nothing like having the rug pulled out from underneath you because a bug that you intended to fix is marked "won‘t fix" by the team leadership. You might even have the code fixed on your machine, ready to check in for the next build. Instead, you get to undo the change. All coders watch the Internet bash them for writing buggy code, and even point out the very bug that the coder intended to fix. Most programmers I know are perfectionists and take a lot of pride in their work, and because of that they lose sleep over bugs. As evil as this seems, making those decisions is as tough as knowing your code has a bug you aren't allowed to fix. And I feel for those who want to fix it as much as they able too. Once again, I hate corporate models forcing them to deliver half baked goods.


Is this a good thing? From my perspective as a programmer and from yours, probably not, but there's a lot more to the business side of things as well. I wish programmers could get all the time they want to properly fix and polish their games, but the truth is one of, or all, of three things will happen:

1) It'll lead to more bugs. Seriously, HUGE games can NEVER be bug free. Not even 80% bug free. A game like Witcher which everyone brings up has A TON of bugs, a lot of them game breaking. CDPR are at patch .10 so far and the next one is coming soon. Does that mean CDPR did not take their time to polish their game? Could they have delayed the Witcher and simply chose not to? Nope, this simply means that bugs are unpredictable.

2) When a game is in development for multiple years, it‘s easy for new hardware technology to blaze past you.

3) It'll have some sort of effect on the business side of things. I'm not well versed in this side of development to properly explain it, though.

The heavy bug volume due to the advancement of hardware weighs hard on everyone, developers and testers alike. They end up creating a logistical nightmare. The graphical reports that get spit out by bug databases are watched like the stock market. The worst part by far is what happens when a team can‘t quite keep the bug count under control, which is most of the time. In the end, some bugs actually become "features".

Indeed, there are many factors to consider.

But bugs aside, one of my biggest concern is the lore of the series. Many will agree or disagree with me on my views about the Modern Day story, unfinished character stories, and historical storylines. I can stomach bugs, but when the story suffers, I get very worried, and that's when my vote for a year or 2 break is placed on the table. For example, the Lead Writer for AC Rogue admitted that he wished that he and the team had time to develop Shay's story a bit more, which I agreed, as there were many contradictions here and there, as well as the tone of the story felt a bit rushed. I play the games for the story, so I'm coming from a reader's point of view, hence why I'm either indifferent or slightly passive for new gameplay mechanics. However if there is an interesting mechanic that can be changed up, go for it.

Megas_Doux
11-14-2015, 12:50 AM
The main difference between AC3 and Black Flag is that AC3 is visually, a more beautiful, or rather a more detailed game.




Here we go again, for the old times......No! AC IV has WAY better environments than AC III in terms of sheer beauty and overall design. AC III wins in regards of the in-game models, though.

Regarding the topic. The yearly conveyor belt will go on until is not profitable, as simple as that. AC Revelations was developed within a year or less through and through, for instance.
Unity should have been delayed a year, which leads me to the thing that bothers me the MOST: The fact they have used games as 'tech demos' for the next one. No AC has EVER reached its full potential in story, core mechanics and as an open world thanks to that, however you could add the fatigue factor as well.

Imagine a polished Unity with rural locations, chateaus in the mountains and an overall better and more entertaining sandbox world, in which actually only AC IV is close to other AAA behemoths due to its pirate theme and even then you can feel that many chances were wasted......

PS I don't blame the deveps, but the higher ups instead...

Meowrynn
11-14-2015, 01:15 AM
As Vestigial explained, Farlander and I are game design majors and developers. (Farlander is more big time than I am, with more experience, though). We didn't really make any claims to knowing how AC games are developed, but there are general standards that are shared across all spectrums of game development. We're also not trying to put ourselves above others, the AC expert label is really nothing, lol. Farlander too, especially. He has more experience than myself. Thanks.

Oh Cr@p! MY bad I didn't know you both are actually game developers, I'm new to this forums as you can see so I apologize :). (haha Its one of my dreams but its too late I'm a grown @ss man now LOL) Its great you presented facts, not opinionated and speculations like most people do but real facts, turns out I am enjoying reading thread. after all :D

crusader_prophet
11-14-2015, 01:32 AM
Here we go again, for the old times......No! AC IV has WAY better environments than AC III in terms of sheer beauty and overall design. AC III wins in regards of the in-game models, though.

Regarding the topic. The yearly conveyor belt will go on until is not profitable, as simple as that. AC Revelations was developed within a year or less through and through, for instance.
Unity should have been delayed a year, which leads me to the ut the thing that bothers me the MOST: The fact they have used games as 'tech demos' for the next one. No AC has EVER reached its full potential in story, core mechanics and as an open world thanks to that, however you could add the fatigue factor as well.

Imagine a polished Unity with rural locations, chateaus in the mountains and a overall better and more entertaining sandbox world, in which actually only AC IV is close to other AAA behemoths due to its pirate theme and even then you can feel that many chances were wasted......

What? You speak blasphemy boy! How dare you say AC games did not reach it's full potential? You probably have everyone from this thread form a mob and come after you now. Every AC game has been a gem! Heck you might even get hanged for bringing your subjective opinion in this. Because we don't know facts you know, so you are forbidden from providing feedback and criticism on something you paid 90$ (or equivalent) for.

Megas_Doux
11-14-2015, 02:01 AM
What? You speak blasphemy boy! How dare you say AC games did not reach it's full potential? You probably have everyone from this thread form a mob and come after you now. Every AC game has been a gem! Heck you might even get hanged for bringing your subjective opinion in this. Because we don't know facts you know, so you are forbidden from providing feedback and criticism on something you paid 90$ (or equivalent) for.

I do like to read Farlander and Assassin_M even when I don't agree on everything with them. I understand the fact that there are many misconceptions in regards of game development and I do like the fact they clarify such stuff for us.
However I find curious, to say the least, that while Unity gets TONS of hate for its 'hard' combat -an statement that I find UTTER ridiculous- in Syndicate you are a one man army again. Naval is one of the most praised features in AC III?? There are not one but two heavily naval games following it. I remember that on one of the podcasts/articles about AC III, one developer said that Den defense was set to be on the game, but it was removed because its poor reception in ACR.....

I´m not saying that everything gets done within a year, but there´s been some stuff that has changed within a year.... You know, everybody can agree that annualization brings way more problems that the ones it 'solves': fatigue, removed features, unfinished products technically wise, writers running out of ideas, etc, etc etc.

Look at GTA, sure there are times in which I feel Rockstar doesn't get the criticism it deserves for some sins the have committed, but the do know their product and respect it. GTA has had almost the SAME core directors since 2001. Stories have been way better crafted with the gameplay than ANY AC to date. Their open world is king and the attention to details is legendary, even on some 'small' stuff such as how many easter egss and how immersive those are on their games.

This is an example, but I rather have 5 guys working into something for 5 years than 15 guys working on that same something for two years, for instance. I know there's no such thing as a magic formula in regards to anything let alone games, but rushing everything is definitely NOT the answer.

VestigialLlama4
11-14-2015, 04:07 AM
Here we go again, for the old times......

Great to have you back too. I enjoy the company of people who are dogmatic and refuse to look past their initial impressions too.:cool: I am quite sure this will segue about how I haven't changed my opinions on Unity, so anyway forget this.


AC IV has WAY better environments than AC III in terms of sheer beauty and overall design.

I was comparing specifically the natural environments, you know the Frontier versus the Jungles of Black Flag. The trees of AC3 versus the trees of Black Flag, the changing weather around the landscapes of AC3 and Black Flag(and Rogue)...you know specific things. But anyway forget it.


What? You speak blasphemy boy! How dare you say AC games did not reach it's full potential? You probably have everyone from this thread form a mob and come after you now.

AC not reaching its full potential is pretty much the one thing Megas_Doux and I and most everyone else universally agree on. The thing is AC is such an ambitious series and it's so overflowing with ideas that everyone will want different things. So any AC game is guaranteed to disappoint someone. Even Black Flag is hated by a few numbskulls because people are so weaned on one dimensional games that to them Pirate-Assassin makes less sense than Renaissance Aristocrat-Assassin or Native American Revolutionary Landlord-Assassin.

I wrote elsewhere about the stuff Ubisoft could do with their concept:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1297173-How-many-more-AC-games-do-you-want-need

There is still a whole amount of unrealized potential in AC. Like:

1) Doing a game with one city in multiple eras, they backed out of that with UNITY but it's a dream worth pursuing nonetheless. You play one bloodline, in different parts of history and can change back and forth in time per will, and you can see a city in multiple eras with Animus, so you can conjure and vanish a city timeline with a button-press, much like the cool render-in videos at the start of AC2 when a new part of the map opens up. Or you know what PD originally planned for "The Real AC3", Desmond moving back and forth via bleeding effect and shifting between Altair-Ezio-Himself and maybe Connor.

2) Multiple protagonists, which they are going forward with Syndicate but are basically doing 3:1 Jacob:Evie in terms of split. So until you get a situation where you have multiple factions intersecting and part of the same overall story, there's still a lot to do. Ideally you should have a huge sprawling game where all three of your protagonists have say 7-9 Sequence Amount of Content which criss-cross each other, each person having their own supporting cast and arc villain and the like. It would be closer to how history really is where almost everyone have their own stories and set of problems but exist in the same space and criss-crossed in all sorts of ways. This is of course the logical development of an open world game.

3) In terms of gameplay, they haven't fully gone deeper into social stealth and general stealth, mainly borrowing ideas from other stealth games rather than develop the original concept to the fullest. Until you can ghost a freeroam of an open world completely and get an achievement for it, AC can't say they have fully realized stealth.

4) Create a fully consistent and meaningful historical open world setting, they've come close with some games of course but there's still a distance they need to go in terms of full immersion and entertaining gameplay. It's actually become less immersive in recent games. Like you know picking up accents, modifying body language, shifting outfits and colours to blend in rather than the usual hood stupidity. Also you know weather was introduced in AC3 and then forgotten about. Weather is a real thing and it should be properly introduced and integrated in an open-world.

I always did feel that AC as a concept was really limitless that they could do almost any kind of game and setting. I still feel that but now I am thinking that it will collapse before it fulfills that ambition. These games are expensive to make, consoles are uncertain things and everything changes really fast. It might be we'll get episodic games, it might be you'll have other historical games, it might be a bunch of things and I think the conventional one-protagonist-one-setting-open world that AC has catered in the past has exhausted itself of options and I think the developers know that as well, so if they can't think of something totally different to do then AC will pretty much end in a year or two. All Ubisoft has to do is find a new IP, Far Cry seems to be standing in the wings.

VestigialLlama4
11-14-2015, 04:19 AM
Look at GTA, sure there are times in which I feel Rockstar doesn't get the criticism it deserves for some sins the have committed, but the do know their product and respect it. GTA has had almost the SAME core directors since 2001. Stories have been way better crafted with the gameplay than ANY AC to date. Their open world is king and the attention to details is legendary, even on some 'small' stuff such as how many easter egss and how immersive those are on their games.

The thing is it's unfair to compare GTA with AC because the concept of GTA (and Red Dead Redemption) is very simplistic and pre-determined. Before making a GTA game, Rockstar decide on the American city (and they are explicit about the fact that GTA will always be set in America and I agree with them on that), they then select a handful of movies and TV shows to create a pool of stereotypes and references from which they will borrow and then they make the game. The characters are always the same kind of over-the-top sub-Simpsons caricature i.e. caricature of caricature, and the only ones who are actually somewhat relatable (and even then it's only the recent games that tried this) are the main protagonists. Like GTA 4 is based on stuff like The Wire/The Sopranos with Little Odessa thrown in, GTA V is based on Breaking Bad, Get Shorty and so on.

With such a simple clarity of concept, focusing and polishing the gameplay takes center stage. Before making an AC game, AC think of the setting, time period, architecture, traversal and cast of historical figures and how they fit in. All of that affects the gameplay. Maybe it's the price you pay for having a concept that is complicated and simplistic that the gameplay suffers by comparison. But even then, AC has still achieved a lot and still deserves a lot of respect.

Assassin_M
11-14-2015, 07:44 AM
Maybe it's the price you pay for having a concept that is complicated and simplistic that the gameplay suffers by comparison.
Add to that the fact that it releases every 5 years.


What? You speak blasphemy boy! How dare you say AC games did not reach it's full potential? You probably have everyone from this thread form a mob and come after you now. Every AC game has been a gem! Heck you might even get hanged for bringing your subjective opinion in this. Because we don't know facts you know, so you are forbidden from providing feedback and criticism on something you paid 90$ (or equivalent) for.

You should be embarrassed because in such a great discussion, your posts are some of the least informative and least beneficial for anyone.


Oh Cr@p! MY bad I didn't know you both are actually game developers, I'm new to this forums as you can see so I apologize :). (haha Its one of my dreams but its too late I'm a grown @ss man now LOL) Its great you presented facts, not opinionated and speculations like most people do but real facts, turns out I am enjoying reading thread. after all :D
No apology needed. I understand that everyone is passionate and I am too, so no harm done. I had classmates who were 40 years old, mate ;)


I agree on that, its just my gripe is that there are many who think the game itself is in good condition just because their game runs, ignoring that the majority is suffering.

Well, those are fanboys and we don't really pay much attention to that :p


As for the hardware, its why I believe that many people, heck even myself included in some way, that they should be given additional time to understand this beast of a game that they just created. I mean of course Unity was a awesome thing, it looks visually amazing, no one can't deny that. But its the fact that they couldn't try to patch up at least the heavy hitting bugs that causes players to glitch out the world, or crash. I don't mind glitches like disappearing NPCS, but when its a glitch that causes people to respawn in a wall, or crash, its something that the developers need to take seriously.
Well, I pointed out how more time is not the magic lamp, it wont suddenly make all the problems go away -- It could actually lead to more problems both business wise and development wise. Unity, and the AC series in general, would have benefited from an extended break or a delay, but I'm just explaining the fact that time is a factor that benefits AND hurts.


This is why I resent business models. I understand you got a game to make, but no one wants to buy a poorly made, or at least a half baked game. In the end, those folks end up losing money and trust from the consumers.

As much as everyone hates them, business models are what make the money go round. AC wouldn't be making as much money if it weren't for this model. As tyrannical as it is (I understand the need for a scapegoat), business is an integral part of developing games.


But bugs aside, one of my biggest concern is the lore of the series. Many will agree or disagree with me on my views about the Modern Day story, unfinished character stories, and historical storylines. I can stomach bugs, but when the story suffers, I get very worried, and that's when my vote for a year or 2 break is placed on the table. For example, the Lead Writer for AC Rogue admitted that he wished that he and the team had time to develop Shay's story a bit more, which I agreed, as there were many contradictions here and there, as well as the tone of the story felt a bit rushed. I play the games for the story, so I'm coming from a reader's point of view, hence why I'm either indifferent or slightly passive for new gameplay mechanics. However if there is an interesting mechanic that can be changed up, go for it.
The series might benefit from giving it more time in that department or maybe it wont. Really, it's all about direction and mindset at this point, I think. On one hand, look at Syndicate. They made a new combat system from the ground up, but they couldn't make a fun boss battle with it. They did some creative things to make it feasible which, I admit, impressed me, but it came nowhere to being as engaging as the boss fights of say Witcher. More time could have given them the chance to try out more things with this system, come up with new and better ideas. Or maybe the system just isn't made for boss fights. More time could no longer be an option here. As I said, the definition of fun doesn't come with the design manuals.



I'm suprised you disagree tbh.
Well, I don't just look at AC IV from one perspective. Though the parkour and combat had minimum work put into them as systems, design still has a lot of substantial work to it. There's also the fact that they added a lot of new systems which people have mentioned here already. Most of these systems have never been seen in any AC game before.


Just to see if we can find some common ground: Do you believe the parkour in AC4 was the result of more than a years work on top of the AC3 system? I mean for an amateur like me the parkour seems identical down to the individual animations. I believe the "parkour devs" moved onto Unity after they were finished with 3.
Likely, yes. I presume the testing stage alone would take quite some time. I know what you're referring to, though and I agree with you. Obviously, parkour system innovation was not a year worth of work. The bulk of that was spent in AC III's development.


When I compare the gameplay jump between AC:R and AC3 vs AC3 and AC4 I think the former is the result of a way longer dev time. There are no core differences between 3 and 4. That 4 was so good was a bloody miracle, which is the result of a excellent writer working together with a clever director (my speculation)!
Well, maybe because you're only looking at the three core pillars? True, AC IV did not work on them as Unity did. What AC IV did is add on top, integrate and polish.

1) They added new gameplay systems on top of existing ones
2) They integrated all the core pillars into the Naval component
3) They polished existing systems like stealth and designed better crafted stealth segments.

If you look at it from this perspective, I think you'll see how substantial it is.

And finally to be clear for anyone who thinks otherwise, I don't in any way support the yearly releases. Neither does Farlander, I'm sure.

VestigialLlama4
11-14-2015, 08:07 AM
Add to that the fact that it releases every 5 years.

The simplicity is a factor for that as well, since Rockstar's particular house style is a easy enough trend to keep, since those are comedy games. The serious games suffer in comparison since a particular style of realism dates fast.


And finally to be clear for anyone who thinks otherwise, I don't in any way support the yearly releases. Neither does Farlander, I'm sure.

I am in two minds about that. I think annualization does have some benefits.

Making a full game set in Istanbul or a full Pirate game over a lengthy development time would be a risky investment for a company, but as an annual game to fill the slot, you can have Revelations and Black Flag as essentially B-Movies to fill in the slot till the next big A-Movie game comes. Black Flag was developed over two years but it was not part of the big plan, Unity and maybe Syndicate was part of the big plan. Then along comes Black Flag and steals the show after Ubisoft Singapore develop the Naval Mechanic.

Without annualization, I doubt we would have had Black Flag, we certainly would not have had Brotherhood and Revelations. Annualization drives developers to make new features to justify the release and this leads to a weakening of the core, although I am not sure if that ought to be blamed on these annualized games rather than stuff like AC2 which after all did not advance what AC1 did. I will say that it's the responsibility of the A-Movie games (AC1-AC2-AC3, Unity) to innovate on the core and set the marker while the B-Movie games can expand on that.

To me annualization made sense in the old model. I.E. AC1-AC3. Where every numbered title was the new protagonist and/or new setting. Now I don't think there's that model anymore. You have Unity and then from there we get Syndicate, and next year I guess it's Japan or since Syndicate is successful we might have an annualized Frye Twins Sequel and then Japan? I am just speculating here.

I think that if you have a long term vision, you can make it work.

Farlander1991
11-14-2015, 12:06 PM
And finally to be clear for anyone who thinks otherwise, I don't in any way support the yearly releases. Neither does Farlander, I'm sure.

I would be fine with annual releases if the core gameplay was top-notch (in all of its areas - social stealth, combat and parkour). Here's the thing, though, it's not, not in AC1, not in Unity (which is the one I think polished the core the most since AC1), and even though I haven't played Syndicate, I presume that not there as well. Doesn't mean that the games still can't be amazing, for example ACIV knows that it doesn't have extremely polished core mechanics (land ones, that is) and accommodates that with its design to still make it engaging, and the resulting overall experience is awesome.

The thing is, with every game Ubi tries to add some secondary mechanics to make the game more interesting or unique, and that's all well and good but the core remains unpolished, and that's a problem.

We all know what amazing worlds Ubi makes. If the core gameplay would've been top-notch, Ubi could just could chunk out every year a game in a new time period and setting with those core mechanics and it would still be engaging. And add to that those secondary mechanics that are unique to the time-period setting to add depth to the experience - it would be awesome. The quality of the game would depend more on the story and mission design from that point.

But the core has been faulty (some times more, some times less) ever since AC1, which is why when it comes to annual releases each year games can be really hit and miss among the populace. Even though I don't think that there's any truly bad game in the AC series, there's average at worst. But that's not what AC should be, AC should be just good at its worst :p

VestigialLlama4
11-14-2015, 12:38 PM
I would be fine with annual releases if the core gameplay was top-notch (in all of its areas - social stealth, combat and parkour). Here's the thing, though, it's not, not in AC1, not in Unity (which is the one I think polished the core the most since AC1), and even though I haven't played Syndicate, I presume that not there as well. Doesn't mean that the games still can't be amazing, for example ACIV knows that it doesn't have extremely polished core mechanics (land ones, that is) and accommodates that with its design to still make it engaging, and the resulting overall experience is awesome.

The thing is, with every game Ubi tries to add some secondary mechanics to make the game more interesting or unique, and that's all well and good but the core remains unpolished, and that's a problem.

We all know what amazing worlds Ubi makes. If the core gameplay would've been top-notch, Ubi could just could chunk out every year a game in a new time period and setting with those core mechanics and it would still be engaging. And add to that those secondary mechanics that are unique to the time-period setting to add depth to the experience - it would be awesome. The quality of the game would depend more on the story and mission design from that point.

But the core has been faulty (some times more, some times less) ever since AC1, which is why when it comes to annual releases each year games can be really hit and miss among the populace. Even though I don't think that there's any truly bad game in the AC series, there's average at worst. But that's not what AC should be, AC should be just good at its worst :p

This I agree with totally.

Sushiglutton
11-14-2015, 12:42 PM
Well, maybe because you're only looking at the three core pillars? True, AC IV did not work on them as Unity did. What AC IV did is add on top, integrate and polish.

1) They added new gameplay systems on top of existing ones
2) They integrated all the core pillars into the Naval component
3) They polished existing systems like stealth and designed better crafted stealth segments.

If you look at it from this perspective, I think you'll see how substantial it is.

And finally to be clear for anyone who thinks otherwise, I don't in any way support the yearly releases. Neither does Farlander, I'm sure.


It seems like we basically agree? My main point was that the 2-4 years development cycle description could be missleading as some aspects of the games are developed for that long, but others are not. If I understand you correctly you agree with that. If we use 3 -> 4 as an example you agree that the three core pillars (and imo naval too, which I believe was developed by the Shanghai team for both games, making it likely they just kept going from where they were) did not receive more than a year of work on top of the AC3 systems. Then you list a few other aspects you believe did. I agree with that if you include planning etc.


I also wanna say that there are some very impressive achievements in AC4 like the boarding, seemless sailing to islands and climbing around the rig of a Man Of War. I just think that if the team had 2-4 real years they would have for example made sure to design a better combat system. Especially since combat is more important to 4 than 3 because of the boarding.

pacmanate
11-14-2015, 05:25 PM
It seems like we basically agree? My main point was that the 2-4 years development cycle description could be missleading as some aspects of the games are developed for that long, but others are not.

Exactly what I said earlier on in the thread. Yearly releases hurt:

1. Modern Day progression/style by being different in AC4, Unity and Syndicate
2. Amount of new features
3. Continuity

Having 3 AC games in development at the same time, how is that a good idea? You have 3 different projects of the same game running parallel between studios. It has shown in Rogue, Unity and Syndicate that yearly releases hurt the games.

1. Rogue was a complete copy paste of Black Flag, a complete cash in
2. Unity had imo the worst combat system and story, worst performance, most glitches to date
3. Syndicate continues the poor AI trend, NPC textures took a hit and also very similar to Unity. Just with added carriages and a rope launcher.


And there is another problem with Yearly releases. They seem like reskins. Black Flag and Rogue, Unity and Syndicate.

If Ubi would stop being cash cows, take a year out, put all teams focusing on AC to focus on ONE AC instead of 3 at the same time, there would be more ideas packed into a game instead of 1 or 2 additions every year.

AC Syndicate is the first AC game I have not touched since I finished the story. I have no intention for the first time to do side missions or collect everything.

That formula is TIRED. Collectibles spamming the map is NOT fun and does not enhance a players exploration. It's cluttered and a mass.
The side missions don't even have cutscenes, its just dialogue and "go here". They are very low budget and again, filler.

crusader_prophet
11-14-2015, 06:37 PM
You should be embarrassed because in such a great discussion, your posts are some of the least informative and least beneficial for anyone.

Oh yeah I am very embarrassed by what a snob says to me or thinks he/she knows over the internet. Because I don't try to pretend to be a self-glorifying erudite and validate my knowledge level on every post I make on an internet forum.

Assassin_M
11-14-2015, 07:14 PM
It seems like we basically agree? My main point was that the 2-4 years development cycle description could be missleading as some aspects of the games are developed for that long, but others are not. If I understand you correctly you agree with that. If we use 3 -> 4 as an example you agree that the three core pillars (and imo naval too, which I believe was developed by the Shanghai team for both games, making it likely they just kept going from where they were) did not receive more than a year of work on top of the AC3 systems. Then you list a few other aspects you believe did. I agree with that if you include planning etc.


I also wanna say that there are some very impressive achievements in AC4 like the boarding, seemless sailing to islands and climbing around the rig of a Man Of War. I just think that if the team had 2-4 real years they would have for example made sure to design a better combat system. Especially since combat is more important to 4 than 3 because of the boarding.

These two posts:


I would be fine with annual releases if the core gameplay was top-notch (in all of its areas - social stealth, combat and parkour). Here's the thing, though, it's not, not in AC1, not in Unity (which is the one I think polished the core the most since AC1), and even though I haven't played Syndicate, I presume that not there as well. Doesn't mean that the games still can't be amazing, for example ACIV knows that it doesn't have extremely polished core mechanics (land ones, that is) and accommodates that with its design to still make it engaging, and the resulting overall experience is awesome.

The thing is, with every game Ubi tries to add some secondary mechanics to make the game more interesting or unique, and that's all well and good but the core remains unpolished, and that's a problem.

We all know what amazing worlds Ubi makes. If the core gameplay would've been top-notch, Ubi could just could chunk out every year a game in a new time period and setting with those core mechanics and it would still be engaging. And add to that those secondary mechanics that are unique to the time-period setting to add depth to the experience - it would be awesome. The quality of the game would depend more on the story and mission design from that point.

But the core has been faulty (some times more, some times less) ever since AC1, which is why when it comes to annual releases each year games can be really hit and miss among the populace.



I am in two minds about that. I think annualization does have some benefits.

Making a full game set in Istanbul or a full Pirate game over a lengthy development time would be a risky investment for a company, but as an annual game to fill the slot, you can have Revelations and Black Flag as essentially B-Movies to fill in the slot till the next big A-Movie game comes. Black Flag was developed over two years but it was not part of the big plan, Unity and maybe Syndicate was part of the big plan. Then along comes Black Flag and steals the show after Ubisoft Singapore develop the Naval Mechanic.

Without annualization, I doubt we would have had Black Flag, we certainly would not have had Brotherhood and Revelations. Annualization drives developers to make new features to justify the release and this leads to a weakening of the core, although I am not sure if that ought to be blamed on these annualized games rather than stuff like AC2 which after all did not advance what AC1 did. I will say that it's the responsibility of the A-Movie games (AC1-AC2-AC3, Unity) to innovate on the core and set the marker while the B-Movie games can expand on that.


Represent my stance perfectly. I remember talking about it before. The yearly releases FORCES Ubisoft to add secondary system instead of polishing the core mechanics and pillars because they need to justify the yearly releases. AC IV took more than one year because of its secondary systems, while only working around the design for the core pillars.

crusader_prophet
11-14-2015, 07:26 PM
Exactly what I said earlier on in the thread. Yearly releases hurt:

1. Modern Day progression/style by being different in AC4, Unity and Syndicate
2. Amount of new features
3. Continuity

Having 3 AC games in development at the same time, how is that a good idea? You have 3 different projects of the same game running parallel between studios. It has shown in Rogue, Unity and Syndicate that yearly releases hurt the games.

1. Rogue was a complete copy paste of Black Flag, a complete cash in
2. Unity had imo the worst combat system and story, worst performance, most glitches to date
3. Syndicate continues the poor AI trend, NPC textures took a hit and also very similar to Unity. Just with added carriages and a rope launcher.


And there is another problem with Yearly releases. They seem like reskins. Black Flag and Rogue, Unity and Syndicate.

If Ubi would stop being cash cows, take a year out, put all teams focusing on AC to focus on ONE AC instead of 3 at the same time, there would be more ideas packed into a game instead of 1 or 2 additions every year.

AC Syndicate is the first AC game I have not touched since I finished the story. I have no intention for the first time to do side missions or collect everything.

That formula is TIRED. Collectibles spamming the map is NOT fun and does not enhance a players exploration. It's cluttered and a mass.
The side missions don't even have cutscenes, its just dialogue and "go here". They are very low budget and again, filler.

And that formula is not even subtle. You can see that across most open world games by UbiSoft - FarCry, AC, Watch Dogs. Even I bet Wildlands Recon will have the same formula. Side missions and unlimited pointless collectibles without tie in to main narrative or impact to the game itself. if UbiSoft needs an example, they can look at Mass Effect 2 how side missions and DLC and collectibles can make an impact on the narrative and gameplay. The ShadowBroker DLC is one of the best DLCs I have ever played. The loyalty missions had stories (unlike releasing gang strongholds, templar hunts, etc with no story or character development) and they had impact on final mission. If you didn't upgrade Normandy you will lose your team mates. And I can just keep going...

Mr.Black24
11-15-2015, 04:44 AM
Well, those are fanboys and we don't really pay much attention to that :p
Fanboys, damm it....


Well, I pointed out how more time is not the magic lamp, it wont suddenly make all the problems go away -- It could actually lead to more problems both business wise and development wise. Unity, and the AC series in general, would have benefited from an extended break or a delay, but I'm just explaining the fact that time is a factor that benefits AND hurts. No doubt, I am aware of this. Simply that seeing how the results of annualization in, will it really be so bad to try to take a break and see what happens when they have more chances in strengthening game mechanic concepts and story? That is pretty much the general idea of why a big portion of the fanbase wants a break, it ain't no cure-it-all, but why not take the chance in making things better? I mean that is one of the rules of business after all: one cannot take the safe route forever.

Plus it goes against Ubisoft's boasts about "taking risks". So how about it, Ubisoft, take the risk that you say you are willing to do, and stop annualization for the time being!:rolleyes:



As much as everyone hates them, business models are what make the money go round. AC wouldn't be making as much money if it weren't for this model. As tyrannical as it is (I understand the need for a scapegoat), business is an integral part of developing games.

If the model hurts you from earning more money and consumer faith, which would have resulted in more money, then its not a good model.
Of course I have to wait until the PC release of Syndicate, so I don't know what is improved or devolved in the gameplay and lore of the series currently.

Although I caught wind that Connor was excluded from a Kenway Family talk.....Ubisoft hates Connor, its already proven. :(


The series might benefit from giving it more time in that department or maybe it wont. Really, it's all about direction and mindset at this point, I think. On one hand, look at Syndicate. They made a new combat system from the ground up, but they couldn't make a fun boss battle with it. They did some creative things to make it feasible which, I admit, impressed me, but it came nowhere to being as engaging as the boss fights of say Witcher. More time could have given them the chance to try out more things with this system, come up with new and better ideas. Or maybe the system just isn't made for boss fights. More time could no longer be an option here. As I said, the definition of fun doesn't come with the design manuals.

Its not concrete, but the chance is still there. Look at the Naval gameplay of AC3, it was an amazing trait of the game that many had praised to death. It was further pushed in AC4, and some would say perfected. Its a real jump from AC3, that's for sure. They looked at what they had, and built more plus more shine to the gameplay, and it worked out in the end. Time was shortened due to the fact that there was a base to work on, in addition to the new lessons they've learned from building it during AC3's development.

The boss battles, I believe is something that should be explored more. While I haven't played Syndicate yet, the boss battles in Unity were quite fun and fresh. Fighting Bellec and trying to sneak up on Germain was actually riveting, had a cinematic feel even. It has potential, and its something I want Ubisoft to divulge and polish more on. I have hope that they can do a amazingly drastic jump like the Naval gameplay from AC3 to AC4.



And finally to be clear for anyone who thinks otherwise, I don't in any way support the yearly releases. Neither does Farlander, I'm sure.:D

RVSage
11-15-2015, 09:51 AM
No one supports yearly releases. Including me.. But,The very point of AC franchise development from Ubi's perspective, is to have "as many games as possible", "to explore as many historic locations as possible". I do not if this is right or wrong. It seems exciting when you get to experience different eras across games , but at what cost? To me this will be a grey area.

My point, the dual studio of Quebec and Montreal would finally give this series more time indirectly (Even if they continue to give early releases).


I am just not that fine, with people being outrightly negative about it, Not picking or pointing for instance, people say no AC game is as good as some game X and so on. That is like such a unfair, one sided statement, the truth is some AC games like AC2, and ACBF were so well received. (BF is just 2 years old) people forget it.

It's just like they say, you do good things many people forget, do something bad, people just keep poking you. I have ranted enough about Unity , it's horrible story line and so on , but does it define the series? surely no.

To me AC is not perfect. And has never been perfect, It boils down to personal taste too. For instance, there are statements in this very forum like," Bethesda gets pass with "Bugs" because they make great games and "Ubi" doesn't" . That is one "unfair" and hypocritical statement right there. I am not a fan of double standards



I am a Software dev, I have respect for game devs and I have admiration for artisits(I am not good at art) as I understand how hard their job is, the annualization is a business issue not a dev issue.
AC Universe has given some striking world designs, it is beautiful. It takes a lot of effort to make. I always appreciate it. But I do know that does not amount to everything

AC has great potential, with the movie out next, I really hope they kick back with a great plot. As far annualization is concerned, it is up to the Ubi as a whole finally. If they think they can deliver something enjoyable, in tight constraints so be it, It is their choice, but more often than not, it has not gone good. But has it never gone good? It has gone really good in at least a couple of times. You and I can't make that decision for them. If we don't like their products we can stop buying them or ask them to fix a defective product. But we can never dictate to them, what they need to do. Because, they know better than you and me.

In short, nothing is perfect, What is good to you, is ordinary to others, what is bad to you , might be decent to others. AC can never satisfy every individual's need.

RaggedTyper
11-15-2015, 11:41 AM
That's the time they already take.

It's amazing how many people refuse to accept that. It's not about how many years fans think it needs, it's about how many years it takes. I wonder if the OP knows that Unity was in development for 3-4 years? Yet it was still unfinished. You can't put a number on a dev cycle - no work is ever truly finished as there is always more you could have done.

Sorrosyss
11-15-2015, 12:58 PM
The whole development process revolves around the yearly cycle now. All budgeting as well. If they were to take a year out now it would be a big financial hit, and Ubisoft didn't have very good financials this year as it is.

Syndicate is quite buggy, but it was still a solid game. As others have said, they may be annual releases but a lot of them have many years of development. I believe Brotherhood and Revelations had shorter cycles, but they were still great games in my opinion.

By adding Quebec into the mix, it sounds like they are taking steps to give Montreal more time to develop their title. By alternating the studios each year, it will logically give them both more time to develop their work. In theory we should be seeing a jump in quality going forwards.

With the film releasing next year, there is no way they won't have a game out to milk the new interest in the franchise. By all accounts they are working on something involving multiplayer, so hopefully it will be a substantial release from Montreal. I guess we'll see.

Ichrukia56
11-15-2015, 01:15 PM
" By all accounts they are working on something involving multiplayer, so hopefully it will be a substantial release from Montreal. I guess we'll see."
@Sorrosyss where did you hear that?

KittyRino
11-15-2015, 01:24 PM
Ubisoft should realy pause AC game for 5 years that would be fair since Prince of Persia is been paused now for 5 years.
In that time Ubisoft should make a new Prince of Persia game and great one like the POP warriror within & new beyond good and evil game.
Every year there is a new AC game and I think Ubisoft should pause it already just for 5 years and then make new ac game rising sun that would be clever,...
But next year only thing what I want to see is new POP game and new beyond good and evil game.

AC needs a break after all ubisoft always say think bigger,wich is so ridiculous from that company THAT makes same game every single year.

Sorrosyss
11-15-2015, 01:26 PM
May 2015
Guillemot hinted that Ubisoft does have plans for multiplayer Assassin's Creed in the future, but said the company isn't ready to reveal them.
"We don't know and we can't say yet — er, we know, but we can't say yet about what will happen next," said Guillemot.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/12/8593953/assassins-creed-syndicate-no-multiplayer

VestigialLlama4
11-15-2015, 02:18 PM
May 2015
Guillemot hinted that Ubisoft does have plans for multiplayer Assassin's Creed in the future, but said the company isn't ready to reveal them.
"We don't know and we can't say yet — er, we know, but we can't say yet about what will happen next," said Guillemot.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/12/8593953/assassins-creed-syndicate-no-multiplayer

I despise multiplayer on basic principle and am not happy that assets are going in this direction.

VoXngola
11-15-2015, 03:24 PM
I despise multiplayer on basic principle and am not happy that assets are going in this direction.
You and me both.

RVSage
11-15-2015, 06:31 PM
I despise multiplayer on basic principle and am not happy that assets are going in this direction.

I guess for honor is a more refined multiplayer spin off coming from AC and taking inspiration from classic shooters . (Uses Anvil Next). I would expect AC to be multiplayer free, here on

Farlander1991
11-15-2015, 07:08 PM
I was always (well, after ACR to be precise) of the opinion that the multiplayer mode of ACB-AC4 must be a separate title, possibly F2P. I think that's some very good multiplayer they have (certainly very unique in the multiplayer space), and the fact that:
a) With each new game the player base got separated one more time
b) Because the multiplayer team had to move to the next project's multiplayer, some things may have been left unfixed
Doesn't do anything good.

So one title, regularly updated with maps and avatars of different eras, that has all the modes (some modes right now are unique to one or two games), a whole player base for those who like this, would be beneficial for everyone - Ubisoft, the multi player base which would have their own thing, and the pure single player base which wouldn't have to pay every time for content they don't really care about.

ze_topazio
11-15-2015, 07:18 PM
I have been in favor of an "Assassin's Creed Online" for quite some time.

crusader_prophet
11-15-2015, 07:54 PM
I have been in favor of an "Assassin's Creed Online" for quite some time.

I wouldn't mind a return of the co-op gameplay from Unity, but this time with no bugs or endless connectivity issues, an option for matchmaking, more useful rewards. Because I thought the co-op mode from Unity was unique compared to other ones out there. Infiltrating a castle with my friends where coordination, strategy and team work is imperative to beat the Templars and retrieve ancient artifacts for assassin order? Sign me up please!

Reptilis91
11-15-2015, 09:03 PM
With the addition of Quebec, I feel like things might change for the better. The games do get developed in 2-4 years (Brotherhood and Revelations being the exceptions), but ideas tend to really suffocate when you're working on a schedule like AC's. I reckon we'll see one more game from Quebec next year and then we'll move back to Montreal with a multi-location AC ala AC III and Black Flag.

Nope, Montreal is already coming back next year.

And apparently there is less involvement of -at least- the french "AC" studios. Annecy will help a little, but they are mainly focused on The Division, and Montpellier is working on an unrevealed project. Good news IMO. The more you develop your game worldwide, the more problems you might face.

Actually they are planning on opening a fifth studio in France, and one in Russia. I guess Ubisoft is still hungry.

VoXngola
11-15-2015, 09:25 PM
So 2 cooks less. Good.

VestigialLlama4
11-15-2015, 09:35 PM
Nope, Montreal is already coming back next year.

And apparently there is less involvement of -at least- the french "AC" studios. Annecy will help a little, but they are mainly focused on The Division, and Montpellier is working on an unrevealed project. Good news IMO. The more you develop your game worldwide, the more problems you might face.

Well the Naval Mechanic was developed by Ubisoft Singapore, the Tombs were also done by...was it the same studio? I am starting to think Ubisoft Singapore should be given a project to head on its own.

Farlander1991
11-15-2015, 09:41 PM
Well the Naval Mechanic was developed by Ubisoft Singapore, the Tombs were also done by...was it the same studio? I am starting to think Ubisoft Singapore should be given a project to head on its own.

Yeah, Tombs in AC2 was Montreal's first collaboration with Singapore in terms of AC. And if you see a linear-level (not necessarily tomb) in a non-open world separate area I think chances are it was done by Singapore, they've done quite a lot of this stuff for AC.

Assassin_M
11-15-2015, 09:48 PM
Nope, Montreal is already coming back next year.

And apparently there is less involvement of -at least- the french "AC" studios. Annecy will help a little, but they are mainly focused on The Division, and Montpellier is working on an unrevealed project. Good news IMO. The more you develop your game worldwide, the more problems you might face.

Actually they are planning on opening a fifth studio in France, and one in Russia. I guess Ubisoft is still hungry.
Where is this info coming from?

BananaBlighter
11-15-2015, 09:57 PM
Where is this info coming from?

Apparently he/she knows someone.


Well the Naval Mechanic was developed by Ubisoft Singapore, the Tombs were also done by...was it the same studio? I am starting to think Ubisoft Singapore should be given a project to head on its own.

And they also did the Thames in Syndicate (if I remember correctly) which is probably the most fun part of London.

ze_topazio
11-15-2015, 10:01 PM
Where is this info coming from?

You missed this convo M, reptilis91 knowledge is legit.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1315747-When-Will-AC-2016-Leak?p=11136808&viewfull=1#post11136808

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1315747-When-Will-AC-2016-Leak?p=11137084&viewfull=1#post11137084

Assassin_M
11-15-2015, 10:03 PM
Apparently he/she knows someone.
Do they? Why are they talking about it so openly like this? If I had someone telling me stuff, I wouldn't talk about it openly like this, unless I don't want anymore info from that source. How can the source keep supplying him knowing that he'll just spill it out?


You missed this convo M, reptilis91 knowledge is legit.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1315747-When-Will-AC-2016-Leak?p=11136808&viewfull=1#post11136808

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1315747-When-Will-AC-2016-Leak?p=11137084&viewfull=1#post11137084

Seems very vague, to be honest.

BananaBlighter
11-15-2015, 10:15 PM
Do they? Why are they talking about it so openly like this? If I had someone telling me stuff, I wouldn't talk about it openly like this, unless I don't want anymore info from that source. How can the source keep supplying him knowing that he'll just spill it out?



Seems very vague, to be honest.


Honestly when you look at how accurate the info reptilis91 gave about Syndicate was, there's no doubting he/she knows what they're talking about.

Assassin_M
11-15-2015, 10:28 PM
Honestly when you look at how accurate the info reptilis91 gave about Syndicate was, there's no doubting he/she knows what they're talking about.
Eh, it seems like stuff either guessed based on solid facts or something from the various gameplay videos released in that time frame. (One video had a music boxes collectible). Not to mention that according to the post, he knew that the modern day was only gonna be cutscenes, but if anyone remembers, he made a thread later being pretty angry about it when Pelland confirmed in an interview that it'll not be playable. But.....he already knew, so why the sudden fervor? He even said that "We all knew", so by his admission, it wasn't exactly secret info.

Also, just to put it out there, I have sources too. I'm not willing to discuss things, though, because it's ethical to keep quiet about things that could get other people in trouble. According to my sources, some of what Reptilis says is wrong.

ze_topazio
11-15-2015, 10:33 PM
Eh, it seems like stuff either guessed based on solid facts or something from the various gameplay videos released in that time frame. (One video had a music boxes collectible). Not to mention that according to the post, he knew that the modern day was only gonna be cutscenes, but if anyone remembers, he made a thread later being pretty angry about it when Pelland confirmed in an interview that it'll not be playable. But.....he already knew, so why the sudden fervor? He even said that "We all knew", so by his admission, it wasn't exactly secret info.

Also, just to put it out there, I have sources too. I'm not willing to discuss things, though, because it's ethical to keep quiet about things that could get other people in trouble. According to my sources, some of what Reptilis says is wrong.

http://40.media.tumblr.com/6b072c97bbb74a3dd91b68566181abf2/tumblr_mws3fcM8Ne1r6l5jbo1_1280.jpg

BananaBlighter
11-15-2015, 10:38 PM
Eh, it seems like stuff either guessed based on solid facts or something from the various gameplay videos released in that time frame. (One video had a music boxes collectible). Not to mention that according to the post, he knew that the modern day was only gonna be cutscenes, but if anyone remembers, he made a thread later being pretty angry about it when Pelland confirmed in an interview that it'll not be playable. But.....he already knew, so why the sudden fervor? He even said that "We all knew", so by his admission, it wasn't exactly secret info.

Also, just to put it out there, I have sources too. I'm not willing to discuss things, though, because it's ethical to keep quiet about things that could get other people in trouble. According to my sources, some of what Reptilis says is wrong.

Well knowing the final boss fight sucked is pretty accurate. And how would seeing a music box lead him to knowing 32 would unlock an outfit? I dunno, it's all very weird. Especially now that you bring up what you know contradicts what he's saying. I agree that you should keep quiet, though I can't say I'm not jealous of all these people who know stuff I don't.

pacmanate
11-15-2015, 10:44 PM
You guys didn't know M had Ubisoft Beetchs? I swear he mentioned this before.

Then again about 80% of this forum nowadays is completely different to when i came here years ago

Assassin_M
11-15-2015, 10:44 PM
Well knowing the final boss fight sucked is pretty accurate. And how would seeing a music box lead him to knowing 32 would unlock an outfit? I dunno, it's all very weird. Especially now that you bring up what you know contradicts what he's saying. I agree that you should keep quiet, though I can't say I'm not jealous of all these people who know stuff I don't.
Come now, when has an AC boss fight NOT sucked? :rolleyes: But yeah, the number's pretty accurate, but think about it: That's just one thing against all the others.

I think that jealousy is precisely why someone would openly talk about all the stuff "they know". I mean, he goes to some lengths to "prove" that he's not lying by quoting his post, telling us to specifically pay attention to the date. Seems to me that he's just throwing bones to purposely get people to beg him for hints or info. I gotta admit, it must feel nice. I bet he receives tons of PMs every time he posts that he knows people. And he probably ignores all of them.


http://40.media.tumblr.com/6b072c97bbb74a3dd91b68566181abf2/tumblr_mws3fcM8Ne1r6l5jbo1_1280.jpg
Hey hey hey....hey...like I said...not gonna take about anything. Just don't want info some people may not want to be out to be spread about like this, it can lead to trouble. :p

Assassin_M
11-15-2015, 10:46 PM
You guys didn't know M had Ubisoft Beetchs? I swear he mentioned this before.

Then again about 80% of this forum nowadays is completely different to when i came here years ago
I think Ze is the only one who was around when I mentioned it. Maybe not even him.

I-Like-Pie45
11-15-2015, 10:47 PM
That means you and SixKeys sold out man. Just like all the punks. :(

BananaBlighter
11-15-2015, 10:56 PM
Come now, when has an AC boss fight NOT sucked? :rolleyes: But yeah, the number's pretty accurate, but think about it: That's just one thing against all the others.

I think that jealousy is precisely why someone would openly talk about all the stuff "they know". I mean, he goes to some lengths to "prove" that he's not lying by quoting his post, telling us to specifically pay attention to the date. Seems to me that he's just throwing bones to purposely get people to beg him for hints or info. I gotta admit, it must feel nice. I bet he receives tons of PMs every time he posts that he knows people. And he probably ignores all of them.


Hey hey hey....hey...like I said...not gonna take about anything. Just don't want info some people may not want to be out to be spread about like this, it can lead to trouble. :p

True, though this time it seemed especially lame. All the reviewers talked about it. Though now that I think about it, some stuff, like Starrick wearing a cape, could have easily been guessed.

pacmanate
11-15-2015, 11:19 PM
Come now, when has an AC boss fight NOT sucked? :rolleyes:

8 years later.... still can't get it right.

crusader_prophet
11-15-2015, 11:39 PM
8 years later.... still can't get it right.

Or they don't care to get it right.

Assassin_M
11-15-2015, 11:43 PM
Or they don't care to get it right.
My snobbish advice to you: It's better to be informed than opinionated.

Ichrukia56
11-15-2015, 11:44 PM
"Come now, when has an AC boss fight NOT sucked?"
@ Assassin_M AC 1, AC 2 and ACB i mean come on i have a fist fight with the pope in the Vaticaion for christ sakes and listen to him brate god how is that not awseome :)

Assassin_M
11-15-2015, 11:49 PM
@ Assassin_M AC 1
Compare it to other games' boss fights like Witcher. Al-Mualim was a good fight, but it's a good fight among terrible ones, so not a great scale.


AC 2 i mean come on i have a fist fight with the pope in the Vaticaion for christ sakes and listen to him brate god how is that not awseome :)
I'm thinking more gameplay-wise. Really, spamming the punch button and occasional counter and then mash quick time event. Before that, you had to fight a staff. Technically, it was broken, there was no trick even to make it fun.


and ACB
mash mash mash, kick, mash mash, quick time event. Not exactly spectacular.

crusader_prophet
11-15-2015, 11:59 PM
My snobbish advice to you: It's better to be informed than opinionated.

Sigh...wish I knew you in real life. I guess the best I can do here online is ignore.

Assassin_M
11-16-2015, 12:07 AM
Sigh...wish I knew you in real life. I guess the best I can do here online is ignore.
Haha, oooohhhh, what would you have done if you knew me in real life? Beat me up? Get a grip.

crusader_prophet
11-16-2015, 12:07 AM
Nope, Montreal is already coming back next year.

And apparently there is less involvement of -at least- the french "AC" studios. Annecy will help a little, but they are mainly focused on The Division, and Montpellier is working on an unrevealed project. Good news IMO. The more you develop your game worldwide, the more problems you might face.

Actually they are planning on opening a fifth studio in France, and one in Russia. I guess Ubisoft is still hungry.

Didn't Annecy help in making Revelations? I might be wrong though. So I guess the break gave Montreal more time to work on their current AC project. That's good to hear.

On the side note, I hope you don't get into trouble. Watch your back. And don't mind the jealousy of the snob, most insecure people are like that.

Assassin_M
11-16-2015, 12:10 AM
On the side note, I hope you don't get into trouble. Watch your back.
Lol, they wont send the FBI to his house, genius. He wont get into trouble, it's the person supplying him with info.


And don't mind the jealousy of the snob, most insecure people are like that.
It's better to be informed than opinionated. Even if the information comes from someone superior.

crusader_prophet
11-16-2015, 12:15 AM
Haha, oooohhhh, what would you have done if you knew me in real life? Beat me up? Get a grip.

Snob, attention seeking, constant validation, jealous...how insecure are you?

And beat you up? Hmm, that could be one solution. But I had something else in mind. Chuck it, you ain't worth it. Now take the fanboy back-alley and move along.

Assassin_M
11-16-2015, 12:22 AM
Snob, attention seeking, constant validation, jealous...how insecure are you?

And beat you up? Hmm, that could be one solution. But I had something else in mind. Chuck it, you ain't worth it. Now take the fanboy back-alley and move along.
I knew I was too good for you to ignore. If I was insecure, i'd stick to my faulty opinions instead of trying to be informed. I mean, it's always more comfortable being in bliss than being wrong.

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk178/Lava200/snob.jpg

Don't be defensive, dude. Vulgarity is no substitute for wit.

jellejackhammer
11-16-2015, 12:22 AM
i know that i'm in the minority with this but i don't think that a multiplayer mode like unity's should be adored,at least not in the game itself.
co op in unity gave me a sour impression and did not feel ac to me at all and not only because of the bugs and stuff but also because it might be focused on to much.
a online game world could work if it doesn't include a story mode like the games we have now.to much rambo's ruining missions and people fighting for who gets to kill the target.
maybe just a set of stand alone missions like gta online with the assasination contracts would be a better option and a social hub for meetups.
i would hate if MD would continue in the online game world,i feel that's a thing for the main games only.
i don't think that a ac game could be worse without a multiplayer mode,i think it could be worse if it included one.
it would detract to much from the open world,story,atmosphere and gameplay.
ac brotherhood's multiplayer was far better in that aspect because it was a SECONDARY thing and they knew that ac is more of a solo experience.

Farlander1991
11-16-2015, 12:22 AM
Didn't Annecy help in making Revelations?

Annecy was working on the multiplayer portion of ACB-AC4. If they did get a hand in single-player, it was just some support but nothing huge.

Assassin_M
11-16-2015, 12:29 AM
Annecy was working on the multiplayer portion of ACB-AC4. If they did get a hand in single-player, it was just some support but nothing huge.
http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk178/Lava200/snob.jpg

crusader_prophet
11-16-2015, 12:30 AM
i know that i'm in the minority with this but i don't think that a multiplayer mode like unity's should be adored,at least not in the game itself.
co op in unity gave me a sour impression and did not feel ac to me at all and not only because of the bugs and stuff but also because it might be focused on to much.
a online game world could work if it doesn't include a story mode like the games we have now.to much rambo's ruining missions and people fighting for who gets to kill the target.
maybe just a set of stand alone missions like gta online with the assasination contracts would be a better option and a social hub for meetups.
i would hate if MD would continue in the online game world,i feel that's a thing for the main games only.
i don't think that a ac game could be worse without a multiplayer mode,i think it could be worse if it included one.
it would detract to much from the open world,story,atmosphere and gameplay.
ac brotherhood's multiplayer was far better in that aspect because it was a SECONDARY thing and they knew that ac is more of a solo experience.

I didn't enjoy the co-op mode in Unity as well because it was frustrating to get disconnected and not be able to play with friends. But I thought the idea was neat and unique in comparison to other games, I felt like it wasn't that polished.

The co-op should have been optional experience but at the same time integrated with the story mode and separate raid/heist missions. By that I mean I should be able to play the story missions by myself if I want to or with friends, have that choice. Also there should be matchmaking. I think the co-op mode in Destiny is great and it gives you a good experience in terms of enjoying the story missions with friends.
PvP is gone from AC and that does not bother me at all.

crusader_prophet
11-16-2015, 12:31 AM
Annecy was working on the multiplayer portion of ACB-AC4. If they did get a hand in single-player, it was just some support but nothing huge.

Ah I see.

Assassin_M
11-16-2015, 12:33 AM
Ah I see.
Don't double post, you can edit your original post to add your reply.

Farlander1991
11-16-2015, 12:36 AM
Speaking of co-op, when I first heard of it and that in our game we're always Arno but for others a different Assassin (which, honestly, is a good idea that makes sense), I thought that the other characters would be our Assassin side-kicks that participate in the main story. And the co-op missions were our assignments together with them. I think that would be a pretty neat connection between the modes.

Namikaze_17
11-16-2015, 12:37 AM
M has no chill.

Assassin_M
11-16-2015, 12:41 AM
M has no chill.
I'm dank, bro.

crusader_prophet
11-16-2015, 12:46 AM
Speaking of co-op, when I first heard of it and that in our game we're always Arno but for others a different Assassin (which, honestly, is a good idea that makes sense), I thought that the other characters would be our Assassin side-kicks that participate in the main story. And the co-op missions were our assignments together with them. I think that would be a pretty neat connection between the modes.

While picking up missions from NPC's I always see Jacob and Evie together, and then after the cut-scene it's the character of your choice. To me that felt like a missed opportunity (but nothing critical). It would have been pretty cool to have your sibling as an AI driven character. There could have been opportunities for in-mission dialogues between each other and see both of their point-of-view on a single agenda. But that probably would have lengthened the development cycle quite a bit, to ensure that depending on my style of playing the AI adheres to it and does not break my cover if I am being stealthy or just hit the X button by mistake.

ze_topazio
11-16-2015, 12:47 AM
I think Ze is the only one who was around when I mentioned it. Maybe not even him.

I don't seem to have any recollection of such event, but at the same time I don't feel like that is new information to me, but I find hard to believe I would forgot such thing, so most likely I was not around.

harsab
11-16-2015, 12:48 AM
M please tell us more, i'm dying for some new info about the next AC lol

Voidrek
11-16-2015, 01:00 AM
I was always (well, after ACR to be precise) of the opinion that the multiplayer mode of ACB-AC4 must be a separate title, possibly F2P. I think that's some very good multiplayer they have (certainly very unique in the multiplayer space), and the fact that:
a) With each new game the player base got separated one more time
b) Because the multiplayer team had to move to the next project's multiplayer, some things may have been left unfixed
Doesn't do anything good.

So one title, regularly updated with maps and avatars of different eras, that has all the modes (some modes right now are unique to one or two games), a whole player base for those who like this, would be beneficial for everyone - Ubisoft, the multi player base which would have their own thing, and the pure single player base which wouldn't have to pay every time for content they don't really care about.

Man, I really hope that is the direction they go. I was always a fan of the competitive multiplayer and there is nothing else quite like it, so really hoping they bring it back.

I like your idea about having one stand alone game that gets updated over time, rather than creating a brand new MP game with each new single player AC. This will keep the player pool strong, rather than constantly splitting them up.

We will see, I guess.

strigoi1958
11-16-2015, 01:07 AM
Wow, I've been over in the PC section trying to avoid spoilers (even though you guys are very good) and I thought I'd see what I've been missing... turns out nothing... same negative bunch running down AC and saying how their opinion would save Ubisoft all AC fans and undoubtedly the Universe ( well no point limiting peoples egos to a mere billion dollar company ;) )

Keep up the good work M and Cawatrooper... don't get drawn into the dark side. ;)

I used to be an advocate of combining the forums as there already is a lot of pc players posting on here but I've changed my mind we need segregating... into 2 groups, the positives and the negatives...

the positives can post threads about the movie and the great features of ac games, the things they like, miss, wish for. Posts about locations, protagonists, outfits, lore and story line and things that make them laugh while sharing some constructive feedback and personal choice. Discuss history and geography and aspects of gameplay....

The negatives can just have 1 thread that's titled, "Break the yearly release, end AC until I want it back" and can keep each other company in there ;)

Mr.Black24
11-16-2015, 03:04 AM
Wow, I've been over in the PC section trying to avoid spoilers (even though you guys are very good) and I thought I'd see what I've been missing... turns out nothing... same negative bunch running down AC and saying how their opinion would save Ubisoft all AC fans and undoubtedly the Universe ( well no point limiting peoples egos to a mere billion dollar company ;) )

Keep up the good work M and Cawatrooper... don't get drawn into the dark side. ;)

I used to be an advocate of combining the forums as there already is a lot of pc players posting on here but I've changed my mind we need segregating... into 2 groups, the positives and the negatives...

the positives can post threads about the movie and the great features of ac games, the things they like, miss, wish for. Posts about locations, protagonists, outfits, lore and story line and things that make them laugh while sharing some constructive feedback and personal choice. Discuss history and geography and aspects of gameplay....

The negatives can just have 1 thread that's titled, "Break the yearly release, end AC until I want it back" and can keep each other company in there ;)
One one hand I get the joke, so Lulz!

On the other, ideas on the protagonists, the lore, storyline, ect, itself causes division, sometimes negative ones. For example, I want a Connor sequel, I don't think his story is complete at all. Some disagree with me, and while those are mature in the discussion, others downright turn it into flame war. Modern Day is another factor that can cause a flame war. Make it go away! No make it more playable! No it destroys "immersion" or whatever the hell that means.:rolleyes:

On a related note I found on tumblr:



what she says:i'm fine.
what she means:i played 4 ****in games thinking that by the end of it desmond miles would be this unstoppable badass assassin who would single handedly save the world and turn the tide against abstergo - i thought i would get an amazing modern game where we get to jump off skyscrapers and infiltrate businesses and government buildings in abstergo's pocket and walk around hacking computers and stabbing people and then taking a nap in the animus so we could play as anscestors but noooOOOOooooooOooOoO they had to go and ****in kill him like i didn't just spend the last 4 games getting emotionally invested in a sarcastic piece of **** bartender i cAN'T BELI E VE




Source:ysgramur (http://ysgramur.tumblr.com/post/130678547180/what-she-says-im-fine-what-she-means-i-played)

strigoi1958
11-16-2015, 05:07 AM
there can be disagreement and mutual respect without negativity. Being positive and upbeat about what we want or would like to return is great and gets lots of interaction... being negative, loathing ubisoft or anyone who isn't in pain is detrimental to any solution and just rips at the seams of the community. :( (maybe that is what some people want.. a sort of revenge on Ubisoft by trying to destabilise the community or get people to leave as though each was a small victory ... although it might not be a conscious act) I can understand people being involved in one part of the game that is not as vital to me because... that is what makes AC so good... it connects with so many different people in different ways. So I can wholeheartedly understand and get behind a fellow AC fan who puts forward suggestion or wishes or just vents their pain... but I cannot support anyone who thinks they need to try to upset others because they are upset. I doubt a month goes by without a thread with a similar title and it is fuelled by the same people. I think it is just a knee jerk reaction. Unfortunately, misery loves company.

I'm definitely flawed and I make some howling mistakes on here, so I know I'm not always right and can gracefully lose without the need to start name calling or flaming but I know what you mean... I put it down to their conviction and appreciation of AC so it doesn't bother me.
I love the interaction and the feeling of belonging and I really enjoy reading some very well written posts... they often make me realise the small amount of knowledge I have.... but the constant negativity of some make me wish these threads were only allowed to emerge once per year.

As for the tumblr quote I can support that even though I don't personally want "watch dogs" as part of an AC game... they are supposed to be about accessing memories and memories are in the past. The immersion breaking is when I'm running around the frontier doing homestead missions for 10 hours then I am forced to leave what I was engrossed or immersed in doing to be in a stadium in Brazil or an office... it's something I'd rather waited until the end or I could skip. I don't mind as they appeal to others, same with the 1st CIV etc...

But if I tried to devalue MD/ 1st CIV that would be negative... especially if I made a thread every few weeks. I feel peoples frustration but picking holes is not healthy.

Also I'm a HUGE Connor fan. I know those of us who really loved AC3 are in a minority but I would love a return to that story :)

pacmanate
11-16-2015, 11:54 AM
there can be disagreement and mutual respect without negativity. Being positive and upbeat about what we want or would like to return is great and gets lots of interaction... being negative, loathing ubisoft or anyone who isn't in pain is detrimental to any solution and just rips at the seams of the community. :( (maybe that is what some people want.. a sort of revenge on Ubisoft by trying to destabilise the community or get people to leave as though each was a small victory ...

That's the biggest pile of crap I've ever read. So because I'm negative I'm trying to rip at the seams of the community? I want revenge on Ubisoft (lol what?) AND I want people to leave?

Wow, you really opened my eyes.

1. 8 Years of AC Boss fights sucking
2. Combat either slow and boring, or too easy
3. Past 2 games have had a lot of glitches
4. Performance issues in the past 2 years
5. Sub Par stories
6. Ubisoft still thinks littering the map with 500 chests is fun for the player
7. Reused assets every year makes cities look like reskins until the "reboot" (AC2-ACR, AC3-AC Rogue, ACU - ACS)
8. Low budget side quests with no cutscenes and just dialogue
9. Modern Day changing 3 times over the past 3 years.
10. Lack of new features per new entry, about 1 or 2. Then you get one or 2 that come back renamed as "new" such as whistle and carry bodies
11. Stealth features pretty non existent until Unity where you can crouch. Yet even in Syndicate, you can't move around a corner crouched.
12. AI is still 2007 worthy. It's just terrible. kill someone, guard investigates, forgets after a short while

And I think that's my full list of "negativity" which in my opinion is well justified because these are things that make me want to quit my FAVOURITE franchise.

Have you ever wondered why we are negative? Because we CARE. I absolutely LOVE Assassin's Creed. There was a time I would always recommended it (Pre AC4). But now, I just can't. The rich lore that was in the games, the mystery, the modern day threat giving more relevance to why we were looking through memories. All of that has gone. And I'm going to be honest, Desmond's Saga all have good stories for me. Stories I could recommend to people to get them hooked.

But now years of the game quality staying the same, features being removed and added seemingly randomly between games, the reused assets making games look like reskins, the lack of lore, the still crap AI, the poor pay off endings.

That is why I am "negative". Because I want CHANGE. If everyone just kept talking about positives, then Ubisoft would never know what fans want, they would never know what fans want to be improved in a Franchise that they actually like.

strigoi1958
11-16-2015, 12:46 PM
1. you complain some things change and complain some things haven't changed... how are Ubisoft supposed to know what to do if there are 10 million buyers with similar and opposing views ? ;)
2. I said not a conscious act... sometimes when people feel unhappy they try to make happy people unhappy rather than make themselves happy and I see that a lot over here. I doubt they do it deliberately but it is tiring, boring and gets rolled out regularly just to allow some people to vent.
3. All those points are subjective... they are how YOU feel about the games... it doesn't make that true for everyone AND as I said they can be raised in a positive way without all the "I'm going to pick holes in what you all like until you feel as miserable as me" threads.
4. I didn't say talk about the positives I said talk in a positive way. There's a difference between concern and constructive criticism and repeated meme or spite threads. They usually boil down to "I don't care if others enjoy the games I want Ubisoft to stop everyone else playing until the game is up to MY personal standard"
5. I don't want anyone to leave but if it gets to a point where all someone can do is constantly pour scorn over a video game ( and it IS just a video game) then instead of people saying I don't buy/ play / recommend AC games but I'm still going to come here and complain.... then that person needs to find something that makes them happy and spend time doing that... if not... come here and all the negative people can have their own section. :)

If people want support they should approach it in a positive way... not deride what others like.

Meowrynn
11-16-2015, 02:36 PM
That is why I am "negative". Because I want CHANGE. If everyone just kept talking about positives, then Ubisoft would never know what fans want, they would never know what fans want to be improved in a Franchise that they actually like.

aaaand where did that got you eh? what result did your "negativity" accomplish? 2 freaking years after the release of ac4 did they even listened on what you want to change? No? because negativity will not change a thing not one single thing and mind you in here we call it RANT. your'e just venting.. making other loyal fans to hate the franchise too. If you really want change then go to the suggestion thread.

m4r-k7
11-16-2015, 03:07 PM
Have you ever wondered why we are negative? Because we CARE. I absolutely LOVE Assassin's Creed. There was a time I would always recommended it (Pre AC4). But now, I just can't. The rich lore that was in the games, the mystery, the modern day threat giving more relevance to why we were looking through memories. All of that has gone. And I'm going to be honest, Desmond's Saga all have good stories for me. Stories I could recommend to people to get them hooked.

But now years of the game quality staying the same, features being removed and added seemingly randomly between games, the reused assets making games look like reskins, the lack of lore, the still crap AI, the poor pay off endings.

That is why I am "negative". Because I want CHANGE. If everyone just kept talking about positives, then Ubisoft would never know what fans want, they would never know what fans want to be improved in a Franchise that they actually like.

This is exactly how I feel.

cawatrooper9
11-16-2015, 03:21 PM
Relevant. So, I've been playing through the entire series now, and for the first time ever I'm doing it with all the story DLC so far (minus Lost Archives, because screw that business). This means that I've added the AC2 DLC, the Da Vinci Disappearance (brand new to my collection), and The Tyranny of King Washington and Dead Kings (have played both before, but not as part of a larger series playthrough).

I just finished AC2 on Saturday, and boy was I surprised by how much I liked the DLC! Vanilla, I'd say the game has one of my least favorite stories- but with the DLC, it quickly hops up into the top five, if not higher. The additional memories really help with the awkward pacing of the end of AC2, and do a lot to flush out Ezio's character, as well as plug up a lot of plot holes in the original story.

Wait, what was that? Plot holes? Could it be possible that a game in the series, before annualization, was released so early that they had to release chunks of it as DLC later?


Of course, I'd heard that memory sequences 12 and 13 were built into the story, but I never knew how necessary they were. Looking back, I'm kind of amazed that AC2 got released the way that it had, and that people had somehow loved the game. Not only were 12 and 13 necessary for story and character development, but sequence 13 actually ended up being my favorite in the entire game by a longshot (which is a surprise, because going into it I was much more excited for the Battle of Forli).

Speaking of which, look at the game. There's an entire city and section of map (Forli and Romagna) that is almost not at all utilized in the game before DLC- the only time you even have to go into the city is to get two or three Codex Pages. Then, Caterina is introduced, but that plot literally goes nowhere without the DLC... until Brotherhood, in which case the game assumes you HAVE bought the DLC (because, after all, it was supposed the be the original game).



So yeah, ending annualization won't fix anything. I rest my case.

jellejackhammer
11-16-2015, 03:34 PM
i bought the ac 2 game of the year edition years ago and always thought that the 2 sequenses were in the standard game aswell...
i mean leaving out a vital piece of the story as dlc is a move i'll never understand. atleast not in the days when ubi wasn't annualizing the games yet...

cawatrooper9
11-16-2015, 03:52 PM
i bought the ac 2 game of the year edition years ago and always thought that the 2 sequenses were in the standard game aswell...
i mean leaving out a vital piece of the story as dlc is a move i'll never understand. atleast not in the days when ubi wasn't annualizing the games yet...

I actually didn't know they sold a version with all the DLC. Honestly, that's the only way it should be sold.

And yeah, that's exactly my point. Annualization is NOT the issue here.

dxsxhxcx
11-16-2015, 04:31 PM
3. All those points are subjective... they are how YOU feel about the games... it doesn't make that true for everyone AND as I said they can be raised in a positive way without all the "I'm going to pick holes in what you all like until you feel as miserable as me" threads.

if I'm not wrong this isn't the first time you use this line, but what do you expect him/her to write? Of course that's how he/she feel about the game (isn't it obvious?). I don't think it's necessary to acknowledge every single person that may disagree with our opinion every time we decide to express it, assuming that's what you're looking for.



4. I didn't say talk about the positives I said talk in a positive way. There's a difference between concern and constructive criticism and repeated meme or spite threads. They usually boil down to "I don't care if others enjoy the games I want Ubisoft to stop everyone else playing until the game is up to MY personal standard"

How do we do that then? Because I fail to see the negativity you talk about in Pacmanate's post, unless you're talking about the things he/she doesn't like, what obviously must be seen as a negative side of the game by him/her.

Maybe you think that we should also talk about the good side of the game while giving our feedback? I think this is pointless, if I'm not "complaining" (for lack of a better word) about something, people should read between the lines and assume that what isn't being adressed is good enough as it is.

pacmanate
11-16-2015, 04:52 PM
Uh. Did you even read the massive part at the end where I said I loved the franchise?

Also when did I say my viewpoints aren't my opinion? Or subjective?

You are way too defensive. Lets write a list:

1.Calling me out for being "negative", no, I'm saying what I think sucks now and needs to change because I care and don't want the franchise stale for me.
2. Not picking holes in anyones favourite anything, again my opinions.
3. Saying Im riping at the seams of the community
4. Telling us any "negativity" is trying to "get back" at Ubisoft. Yes, I hate Ubisoft, they don't buy me KFC, how dare they. I must get back at them! Seriously?
5. "I cannot support anyone who thinks they need to try to upset others because they are upset" - We don't do this at all. Again making stuff up.
6. "If people want support they should approach it in a positive way... not deride what others like." - Yet again, we don't.

You do realise your arguments are totally unjustified at the "haters". You're basically saying "If you aren't positive, you are deriding what everyone else likes, you should have your own section". Which, yes, you have said.

Do you see any of the "negative" people saying that? Saying that all the "positive" people should have their own section? That the positive people are suck ups?

No, we don't.

Honestly you are just way too defensive. You talk about things being our opinions yet lots of what you said are accusations (We want to rip the community, we go into every thread and moan) and opinions (You should have your own section).

Now look at who is unjustified. Not one person who has said something they don't like tells the people that like the game to go away or that their opinion isn't good enough. Your whole "I like it and you don't, so stop talking" is again, unjustified. It doesn't work like that.

I don't know if you have noticed but anyone that has something "bad" to say about AC has been here for a while because they care for the franchise. I for one have been a fan since 2007 and have been on the forums regularly for over 5 years now.

So don't tell me I'm riping the community or should stop saying negative things because the only reason I say them is because I want change.

[QUOTE=Meowrynn;11146007]aaaand where did that got you eh? what result did your "negativity" accomplish? 2 freaking years after the release of ac4 did they even listened on what you want to change? No? because negativity will not change a thing not one single thing and mind you in here we call it RANT. your'e just venting.. making other loyal fans to hate the franchise too. If you really want change then go to the suggestion thread.

Are you 12? Saying something you want changed or you don't think is that good is negativity? Wanting your favourite franchise to not become stale for yourself is negativity? Wanting AC to thrive like it use to is negativity? wow.

strigoi1958
11-16-2015, 09:15 PM
It is funny how all the people who write a long list about the things they hate about ac and say they don't buy or play or recommend ac to others or threaten to leave ... Post they love the game. They don't... They liked it and now they don't... The rational thing is to move on or accept it is what it is.

pacmanate
11-16-2015, 09:41 PM
It is funny how all the people who write a long list about the things they hate about ac and say they don't buy or play or recommend ac to others or threaten to leave ... Post they love the game. They don't... They liked it and now they don't... The rational thing is to move on or accept it is what it is.

So now you're telling me what I like.

Fact: I love the franchise
Fact: I think the franchise needs a lot of evolving

Farlander1991
11-16-2015, 09:54 PM
It is funny how all the people who write a long list about the things they hate about ac and say they don't buy or play or recommend ac to others or threaten to leave ... Post they love the game. They don't... They liked it and now they don't... The rational thing is to move on or accept it is what it is.

I'm sorry, but you seem to lack comprehension that you can criticize things you love and enjoy.

BananaBlighter
11-16-2015, 10:39 PM
Of course you can criticize something you love. Are you telling me your parents never criticized you? They do it (probably) because they love you and want you to be the best you can be. You can say they are being selfish and controlling but most of the time they're trying to make you a better person.

Meowrynn
11-17-2015, 12:40 AM
Are you 12? Saying something you want changed or you don't think is that good is negativity? Wanting your favourite franchise to not become stale for yourself is negativity? Wanting AC to thrive like it use to is negativity? wow.[/COLOR]

LOL you stated in your earlier post that your negative because you want change. lol wut? you just ate what you said. your'e too aggressive. my point is what did that accomplish? did the framchise change all its mechanics around to suit your needs? there is constructive criticism. you don't need to be offensive to say the truth..

crusader_prophet
11-17-2015, 01:14 AM
It is funny how all the people who write a long list about the things they hate about ac and say they don't buy or play or recommend ac to others or threaten to leave ... Post they love the game. They don't... They liked it and now they don't... The rational thing is to move on or accept it is what it is.

What do you mean? Most people who post in the discussion threads ARE people who love the franchise. Why would they otherwise even bother to spend their time ranting about something they hate from core or indifferent? That just does not make sense. I have played all the games and I will keep playing them, as long as I love them. But that does not necessarily translate into that I will support things that I don't like or changed, that will just be me being blind and encouraging mediocrity that will slowly creep into the entire franchise.

Farlander1991
11-17-2015, 01:40 AM
Speaking of loving and criticizing the series, I've been with AC ever since it was first announced. The only way you can be with AC earlier than that is if you were an AC dev. The point is, though, this is not about 'oh look how cool I am bla-bla', it's about me caring about the series since before it was even released. And AC actually means a lot to my life as well, while the first game didn't really change my view of the world, it helped me to express how I view the world itself. It's a very important series to me and my life. I think I'll play every AC game that will ever be released.

All that said, it would be foolish of me to ignore the numerous flaws AC, in my mind (and, not just in mine), has. The counter in AC1 that breaks an otherwise amazing combat system, that wasn't fixed in any form in any game until Unity, where it also wasn't exactly perfect and Syndicate doesn't seem to improve on things. The promise of social stealth that stays stagnant ever since AC1, where social stealth is more thematic in nature rather than an actual system (gameplay-wise a blend crowd is no different than a bush, and the point that AC1 tries to make, of being inconspicuous as long as you act like the system, truly is realized only in multiplayer albeit in a bit more abstract form). The mess that is the modern day that doesn't seem it knows where it wants to go ever since the second game. The uneven historical storylines. The fact that after 8 years, the series still doesn't have its core mechanics polished. More than that, as a game developer myself I can't just let it all go unnoticed, else will repeat the same flaws. And I can't recommend every AC game, just some of them.

AC will always be special to me. And I'm sure I'll enjoy Syndicate as well (waiting till it's released on PC), it looks like a good game. But AC can be truly great. And yes, there are people who are negative just for the sake of whining, but most people here have arguments for their criticism, why they like or don't like something, and if you enjoy everything, that's great! Nothing is true, everything is permitted, isn't this what we're all about? There's no one truth? But if others have another truth, then it's as valid as yours. And you know what, if those criticisms will be heard, and changed, chances are high that nothing will change for the worse for you if you already like everything as it is, so it's not like this should even matter to you that much.

strigoi1958
11-17-2015, 04:58 AM
I'm sorry, but you seem to lack comprehension that you can criticize things you love and enjoy.

Then I'm sorry because by your logic, you lack the comprehension I can criticize the people who constantly criticize the things I love and enjoy... ;)

I can understand criticism.. but I also recognise spite when it is written with such regular monotony. If people LOVE it then they are finding too many faults... LOVE is blind so we forgive the little things.... AND if you say they're BIG things then it's not a LOVE of AC it's a LOVE of an Idyll of AC so no matter what.. it will never be good enough for them.

I don't expect everyone to like what I like and naturally I don't like things that others like.... but I don't **** off what others like over and over and over again.

I started gaming 30 years ago and my first Ubi game was 25 years ago when most here were at school. So people saying they were here in 2007 doesn't mean anything to me.... ;)

@Crusader_prophet who decides when it is mediocre for ALL ac fans ? My guess is nobody... we can only decide it is mediocre for ourself. We can say we're disenchanted we can state why (not every few weeks) and find something new... but we don't need to hang around and moan that it must be mediocre for everyone else..

Sushiglutton
11-17-2015, 11:23 AM
I actually sort of agree with Stigoi's point that the rational thing is to move on. But I think he/she is missing one piece of the equation and that's the social aspect. I still hang around the forums because there are a bunch of intelligent people here that I think it's fun to discuss with (admittely I'm mostly ****posting these days lol). This forum is much less hostile than most of the interwebz ('negativity' and 'hostility' are different).

I don't have much hope of Ubi delivering a fantastic AC game in the near future (but it's obv possible). The audience they seem to target and the busines model are huge obstacles. But I do love the IP and won't give up just yet :p.

pacmanate
11-17-2015, 12:49 PM
Then I'm sorry because by your logic, you lack the comprehension I can criticize the people who constantly criticize the things I love and enjoy... ;)


Nope. That's where you are wrong.

You criticize the PEOPLE who want change. I criticize the GAME.

You've said I people who say "negative" things should get their own forum, are trying to get back at Ubisoft, rip the community and so many other things.

Yet not ONCE have I criticized a PERSON for their opinions.

I give you my opinions, you're attacking the PERSON.

That is not right. If anything YOU are ripping the community apart because you go as far as to accuse members of these things because they don't like what you like.

I've never bashed anyone for liking AC games. If someone loves a feature, that's great, I never put them down for it.

You constantly attack a "negative" persons views yet I have not once attacked your VIEWS nor YOU as a person.

dxsxhxcx
11-17-2015, 01:01 PM
Then I'm sorry because by your logic, you lack the comprehension I can criticize the people who constantly criticize the things I love and enjoy... ;)

I can understand criticism.. but I also recognise spite when it is written with such regular monotony. If people LOVE it then they are finding too many faults... LOVE is blind so we forgive the little things.... AND if you say they're BIG things then it's not a LOVE of AC it's a LOVE of an Idyll of AC so no matter what.. it will never be good enough for them.

I don't expect everyone to like what I like and naturally I don't like things that others like.... but I don't **** off what others like over and over and over again.

I started gaming 30 years ago and my first Ubi game was 25 years ago when most here were at school. So people saying they were here in 2007 doesn't mean anything to me.... ;)

@Crusader_prophet who decides when it is mediocre for ALL ac fans ? My guess is nobody... we can only decide it is mediocre for ourself. We can say we're disenchanted we can state why (not every few weeks.. REALLY? Help me find the rule that says that I can't post my opinion whenever I want as long as I follow the Forum rules) and find something new... but we don't need to hang around and moan that it must be mediocre for everyone else..

the things is, you aren't even doing that, and IMO you shouldn't do that, if you have a problem with someone's OPINION, you present your points to why you agree/disagree with it (the opinion), that's how a healthy discussion begins, what you're doing is trying to invalidate people's opinions because you disagree with them and are tired of seeing them posted here, if you have a problem with that, you should take it to the mods and let them decide if what we are doing is breaking any rules and let then do their job if that's the case, otherwise, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"..

Mr_Shade
11-17-2015, 01:04 PM
Things are getting heated guys...


Lets step back a little and not get personal please :)

Farlander1991
11-17-2015, 01:26 PM
I actually sort of agree with Stigoi's point that the rational thing is to move on. But I think he/she is missing one piece of the equation and that's the social aspect. I still hang around the forums because there are a bunch of intelligent people here that I think it's fun to discuss with (admittely I'm mostly ****posting these days lol). This forum is much less hostile than most of the interwebz ('negativity' and 'hostility' are different).

I don't have much hope of Ubi delivering a fantastic AC game in the near future (but it's obv possible). The audience they seem to target and the busines model are huge obstacles. But I do love the IP and won't give up just yet :p.

We were not talking about the people who gave up on the series or feel fatigued, though. We're talking about people who love it and are still invested in it. I mean, you yourself for example talk a lot about icons filling up map - that's opinion that you shouldn't keep to yourself, but apparently it is something that should be ignored and you just need to move on.

Strigoi says 'love is when you look past flaws' which is correct, but love is also when you're willing to address systemic problems. Bugs are flaws, popping textures, that one useless character in a story, etc. We all look past that. But then there are systemic consistent problems like the ones Pac and others pointed out. Saying you are too negative and should move on if you don't like it, in our love analogies, is like saying if you're a husband and your pregnant wife smokes every day you shouldn't address that because you love her. And then baby (sequels) have health problems. If there's only somehow you could've addressed that there's an issue... This is a an exagerration, but still.

I guess it's nice to know though that if AC in quality ever becomes like Ride to Hell: Retribution, there's one person for whom everything will be awesome.

strigoi1958
11-17-2015, 01:46 PM
No I'm not telling you what to like... If i was i would tell you you're too defensive for putting your point forward ;

Fact i love ac franchise.

Fact i dont think everyone wants what i want ac to be so i don't constantly post the same posts.

Farlander1991
11-17-2015, 01:55 PM
Fact i dont think everyone wants what i want ac to be so i don't constantly post the same posts.

You constantly post the same posts about people being too negative and if they'd really love AC they'd be different and the like :p

So by your own logic, if you don't like what other people post, shouldn't you move on? :p

(hope it's clear with the smileys that I'm not actually trying to be vitriolic here though it may look like it)

pacmanate
11-17-2015, 05:45 PM
No I'm not telling you what to like... If i was i would tell you you're too defensive for putting your point forward ;

Fact i love ac franchise.

Fact i dont think everyone wants what i want ac to be so i don't constantly post the same posts.

Fact #1 - Awesome, me too.
Fact #2 - I don't think everyone wants what I want. They were my opinions. No I don't constantly post the same things.

As I said before, you're the one attacking the person (me) for my opinions, you're making accusations. I did not do that to you. If you want to post your opinions, be my guest. That's what forums are for. Discussions. Not "I don't like what you're saying, I'm going to hate on you".

And FYI,just made more accusations with your second "fact", seeing as I never once stated that my opinions were what everyone wants. Its what I want. And again, I don't constantly post the same things.

ACZanius
11-17-2015, 05:45 PM
Noticed same pattern with Strigoi invading threads and saying same thing over and over "arghhh it's your opinion ahh negative ahh" no hate to fella at all, have to agree with @Farlander1991 that even if quality becomes as "Ride to Hell: Retribution" some people will keep saying "combat is brilliant" "story is amazing" "i love the copy paste animations" or whatever, i was on a massive crusade against AC with criticizing force because of what hell of a let down ACU was, story wise historical one and modern day (almost non-existent) but Syndicate really won me back, it was not a filler and a great game, progressed modern day in an epic way unlike Rogue or Unity or even Black Flag (just modern day story wise regarding BF), from what we know up to date i would take Patrice original plan any day, how Desmond was to become the ultimate Assassin etc etc now everything ended in poor way and everything is dragging but i have to adapt and i loved what Syndicate did with MD.


But really find it weird how some people aka delusional fanboys not excluding strigoi but just in general will defend the game to death despite it's obvious flaws :nonchalance:

cawatrooper9
11-17-2015, 05:54 PM
i was on a massive crusade against AC with criticizing force because of what hell of a let down ACU was, story wise historical one and modern day (almost non-existent) but Syndicate really won me back, it was not a filler and a great game, progressed modern day in an epic way unlike Rogue or Unity or even Black Flag (just modern day story wise regarding BF),


And that's the thing- I would've totally understood a discussion like this last year after the Unity fiasco- and even then, I thought Unity got a worse reputation than it deserved, though it was by far a low point in the series.

However, this year, Syndicate did a lot of things right. In fact, it's a pretty good game! I get that people want their favorite series to be as good as possible, but as I've previously demonstrated, annualization is not the issue here.

Farlander1991
11-17-2015, 06:27 PM
However, this year, Syndicate did a lot of things right. In fact, it's a pretty good game! I get that people want their favorite series to be as good as possible, but as I've previously demonstrated, annualization is not the issue here.

Yeah, we have two fan favorites among the AC players: AC2 and AC4 (I think it's fair to say that these two are the ones that dominate the 'top' positions), one was annualized, and one wasn't. Both share some similar things in terms of their downsides: the combat system wasn't particularly improved since the previous installment and was pretty sluggish (AC4 combat can be unresponsive and AC2 combat in comparison to AC1 can be really sluggish), they both advanced some stealth systems (AC2 made all crowds blendable, AC4 updated bushes and suc) but neither really made a big leap in social stealth systems.

Annualization is certainly an issue for some cases, but not every problem comes from it, and not every problem is avoidable without annualization.

RVSage
11-17-2015, 06:44 PM
Yeah, we have two fan favorites among the AC players: AC2 and AC4 (I think it's fair to say that these two are the ones that dominate the 'top' positions), one was annualized, and one wasn't. Both share some similar things in terms of their downsides: the combat system wasn't particularly improved since the previous installment and was pretty sluggish (AC4 combat can be unresponsive and AC2 combat in comparison to AC1 can be really sluggish), they both advanced some stealth systems (AC2 made all crowds blendable, AC4 updated bushes and suc) but neither really made a big leap in social stealth systems.

Annualization is certainly an issue for some cases, but not every problem comes from it, and not every problem is avoidable without annualization.

Precisely, couldn't agree more

crusader_prophet
11-17-2015, 10:11 PM
who decides when it is mediocre for ALL ac fans ? My guess is nobody... we can only decide it is mediocre for ourself. We can say we're disenchanted we can state why (not every few weeks) and find something new... but we don't need to hang around and moan that it must be mediocre for everyone else..

Sorry, I did not intend to mean that it felt mediocre to ALL AC fans, I meant it felt mediocre to me. And that is why I keep moaning that AC can do better. I don't have facts to support or negate that is the best the developers could do. Considering the vastness of a company like UbiSoft I am sure great engineers and artists are seeking and have jobs there. So when i compare some of their products with other games that I have loved (in my opinion) I see a lot of lost potential and hint of pure capitalism in production. I can empathize with you being disappointed with us ranting all the time, but you shouldn't tell us to go away because if I am complaining the reason is because I won't quit until I see things improved because I do LOVE AC franchise. If I came here once and forget about it, then either I am busy or don't love or care about AC enough. For me it is the first one always when I am inactive in the forums.