PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed Has Become a Gross Money Making Scheme



STDlyMcStudpants
12-13-2015, 05:57 PM
FINALLY I've gotten around to playing Assassin's Creed Syndicate - Working on a review
And I have to say that I'm absolutely disgusted in what it's become.
Long gone are the days that Ubisoft think.. 'What mechanics can we add to take this series to the next level, to make it better?"
Instead they ask - What mechanics can we add to this game that we can monetize?
It's gross.
London feels like a hub world rather than a breathing living world
It's not like the past where events feel like they are unfolding around you, they now feel like they are just waiting for progression like a mobile game. (Confusing sentence I know - I tried my best to put this feeling into words - it's tough.)
Let's look back at May - The Witcher 3 is released....
Fast forward 2 weeks - an exploit is found in the game where you can buy and sell shellfish and then their pearls for insane profit.. CD Projekt Red later patched it...
Their reasoning?
This isn't the way they intended their game to be played.
What does this mean?
They love their product SO MUCH that they are willing to do everything they can to immerse you and give you the greatest experience possible.
They want to give you their vision because they believe their vision is best for what they crafted...
Syndicate has this money making exploit too... except get this.... you can pay for it! LMFAO
The team is so out of love with their product that THEY DONT CARE HOW YOU PLAY IT
They just want your money!
Instead of insisting you take care to collect money in chests, build up your businesses, collect materials - they insist you just pay for it all instead
All of these damn microtransactions and they have THE NERVE to charge for DLC.
Which brings me to HALO 5 - tons of microtransactions - these microtransactions pay for the DLC for EVERYBODY ELSE = free dlc

I know a business needs to make money.. but what if I told you that you could make insane profits off of quality product and marketing alone?
We all know AC3 made bank.. Last of Us made bank... Witcher 3 made bank.... Fallout 4 made bank...
All without being slimy.

If you think we have a leveling system to bring depth to the game, you're fooling yourself.
It's only there because microtransactions can be attach to it!

You may have fooled me with Unity... But it's clear as day now.

All of this microtransaction hub world bull crap is proof that Ubisoft doesn't love Assassin's Creed anymore...
Ubi is just a gold digger pretending to love him for his money!

D.I.D.
12-13-2015, 06:27 PM
Syndicate has this money making exploit too... except get this.... you can pay for it! LMFAO
The team is so out of love with their product that THEY DONT CARE HOW YOU PLAY IT
They just want your money!
Instead of insisting you take care to collect money in chests, build up your businesses, collect materials - they insist you just pay for it all instead




I don't defend everything Ubisoft does by any means, but this is nonsense.

They've been using microtransactions for a while. How did you not see they were designed to make money from Day One? That's the entire point. It's a bit weird to scream "THE SCALES HAVE FALLEN FROM MINE EYES" now.

BUT

They don't insist you buy their DLC. In fact, they crowd the game with so much money and materials that there's no way you'll need to pay. The only reason to pay is to save time doing normal videogame things.

It gets a tiny bit grindy with certain activities, notably Ned's activities, but I was mainly doing those for the sake of completion. But the story doesn't need anything from DLC, and it's easy enough that you can beat the entire game without any upgrades except the essential ones. If they were as fully evil as you say, microtransactions would be a barrier to beating the game, but they're not.

All they've done is to identify a slice of the market - rich but time-starved parents, teenagers in wealthy families, etc - and realised that they'll pay just to save themselves time and effort. Yes, that's cynical, but not in the way you claim. Plus, they appear to be correct.

AdrianJacek
12-13-2015, 07:07 PM
We all know AC3 made bank.. Last of Us made bank... Witcher 3 made bank.... Fallout 4 made bank... All without being slimy.

AC3 was the first game to introduce microtransactions in AC (Erudito Credits in MP). The Last of Us has a crap ton of MP DLCs which weren't even included in the Remastered edition.
https://store.playstation.com/#!/pl-pl/gry/the-last-of-us-remastered/cid=EP9000-CUSA00557_00-THELASTOFUS00000%3AADD-ONS

dxsxhxcx
12-13-2015, 07:12 PM
These are two entirely different situations that shouldn't really be compared..

STDlyMcStudpants
12-13-2015, 07:28 PM
AC3 was the first game to introduce microtransactions in AC (Erudito Credits in MP). The Last of Us has a crap ton of MP DLCs which weren't even included in the Remastered edition.
https://store.playstation.com/#!/pl-pl/gry/the-last-of-us-remastered/cid=EP9000-CUSA00557_00-THELASTOFUS00000%3AADD-ONS

they werent slimy microtransactions though....
Materials and xp boosts - thats slimy :)


I don't defend everything Ubisoft does by any means, but this is nonsense.

They don't insist you buy their DLC. In fact, they crowd the game with so much money and materials that there's no way you'll need to pay. The only reason to pay is to save time doing normal videogame things.


Please reread what i said and then re read this...
They want you to pay to not play the game that you just paid to play LOL
This is no better than free to play mobile games like Farmville or The Simpsons Tapped Out
You're essentially buying jewls so you dont have to wait for a timer. :)

While Witcher 3 is like, oh we have a short cut,,, we need to patch this because we want people to actually play the game that we're so proud of (all of its GOTY reward will reward this)...

If they have an aspect in their game people are willing to pay out to skip - WHY THE HELL IS IT IN YOUR GAME?!

Clearly you need to change how you handle income and materials if you as developers thinks its so unfun that you give people the option to pay to skip it.

whatr_those
12-13-2015, 09:02 PM
It's been that since Brotherhood. lol

VernalBreak
12-13-2015, 09:19 PM
While I did not hate it as much as you I absolutely have to say that syndicate was my least favorite game. Unity was better in combat, graphics, free roam, story, customization, etc. I did feel like these micro transactions were more jammed in your face than unity tho. Unity was the best ac game. Syndicate is definitely the worst now but could be better if they ADD THE ABILITY TO UNEQUIP SKILLS. Right now there is absolutely no challenge in the game; the only combats big enough ti possibly be challenging which CAN NOT be replayed.

D.I.D.
12-13-2015, 09:56 PM
they werent slimy microtransactions though....
Materials and xp boosts - thats slimy :)



Please reread what i said and then re read this...
They want you to pay to not play the game that you just paid to play LOL
This is no better than free to play mobile games like Farmville or The Simpsons Tapped Out
You're essentially buying jewls so you dont have to wait for a timer. :)

While Witcher 3 is like, oh we have a short cut,,, we need to patch this because we want people to actually play the game that we're so proud of (all of its GOTY reward will reward this)...

If they have an aspect in their game people are willing to pay out to skip - WHY THE HELL IS IT IN YOUR GAME?!

Clearly you need to change how you handle income and materials if you as developers thinks its so unfun that you give people the option to pay to skip it.

I did read your post.

It's wrong because the series hopped right over that particular shark the moment they greenlit AC2. From that point on, we have DLC missions that are routinely terrible and, worst of all, "special" missions (to tempt customers into buying expensive collectors' editions of the game) that are offensively bad. Every game from AC2 onwards has done this (and I watched the video for Runaway Train to confirm my suspicions, and... my word).

Compared to that, this is nothing. There are two reasons someone might buy MTX shortcuts in ACS:

1 - They're getting killed too much because they're not very good at the game, and want to unlock better stats
2 - They're lazy completionists

I can't say I have any problem with those people paying extra money if they want to. It's a whole lot more honest than the scalping that's been going on right under your nose for years, with which you had no problem. It's less offensive than the ragged Rogue, which I seem to remember you reviewed very favourably.

I'm not going to say I wouldn't like to see Ubisoft adopt a similar approach to CDPR - that would be great. It's frustrating watching Ubisoft occasionally repair its reputation with good actions only to dash them the next with another slew of bad headlines, and it never had more restorative press for AC than when they gave out free DLC last year. However, I don't see the problem here. I enjoyed so much of the side content. It's something Ubi's been improving dramatically in recent games. As I say, aside from the Ned missions, it felt less grindy than ever to me so I really can't agree with this supposition that Ubi deliberately threw up tasks that were intentional disincentives to their completion, that you'd rather pay than play. You don't even need to do a very high proportion of them to get everything in the game; as usual, there is way more gold, XP and materials than you could possibly need long before the game's end (unless you raced through story). To most players, that in itself is a game-extending bonus that keeps them playing on for hours. Remember - children run up to you in the street and give you bundles of cash and materials in exchange for a button press.

I think they're hitting a good balance here between gameplay we want and extra money the business needs. It's not CDPR sainthood, but it's not EA Satanism either.

crusader_prophet
12-13-2015, 10:19 PM
Since the day Patrice was thrown off and Jade was taken off AC, I stopped expecting my mind blown and think of the games as memorable where it touched me at a personal level. Now I play them because I'm foolishly hopeful. And sort of an addiction.

STDlyMcStudpants
12-13-2015, 11:40 PM
While I did not hate it as much as you I absolutely have to say that syndicate was my least favorite game. Unity was better in combat, graphics, free roam, story, customization, etc. I did feel like these micro transactions were more jammed in your face than unity tho. Unity was the best ac game. Syndicate is definitely the worst now but could be better if they ADD THE ABILITY TO UNEQUIP SKILLS. Right now there is absolutely no challenge in the game; the only combats big enough ti possibly be challenging which CAN NOT be replayed.

I don't hate this game at all...
It's just gross to me that we have to craft our weapons and gear now instead of just buy them at shops with money... crafting in AC3 and AC4 where you have to hunt animals I can get behind... when its there just to be there and there just so happens to be an option to buy materials... you cant tell me this wasnt deliberate slimy BS
That is what gets under my skin...
A leveling system and a coincidental timed xp boost LOL .. no coincidence.. which came first the leveling or the monetization?
Trick question, they came at the same time....
The argument for optional objectives being in game in terms makes a skill tree make 0 sense
Desynced Jacob was not a larper.



I did read your post.

It's wrong because the series hopped right over that particular shark the moment they greenlit AC2. From that point on, we have DLC missions that are routinely terrible and, worst of all, "special" missions (to tempt customers into buying expensive collectors' editions of the game) that are offensively bad. Every game from AC2 onwards has done this (and I watched the video for Runaway Train to confirm my suspicions, and... my word).

Compared to that, this is nothing. There are two reasons someone might buy MTX shortcuts in ACS:

1 - They're getting killed too much because they're not very good at the game, and want to unlock better stats
2 - They're lazy completionists

I can't say I have any problem with those people paying extra money if they want to. It's a whole lot more honest than the scalping that's been going on right under your nose for years, with which you had no problem. It's less offensive than the ragged Rogue, which I seem to remember you reviewed very favourably.

IHowever, I don't see the problem here..

Let's be honest, DLC and main game missions in AC have never been good...
They have their hand full of really great missions in everygame, but for the most part they are all more or less the same thing over and over and over...
Assassins Creed is what it is because of the experience it delivers as a whole.. the city.. the lore.....the parquor.... the city is what made collectibles and missions fun....
as far as your points
1 - no one sucks at assassins creed
2 - game saves exist for lazy completionists
my points asside. Just because there is a market and people to take advantage of doesnt make it okay to do.....

Let's look at it this way... We didn't have to get materials before.... We didn't have to level up before...
But now that we do, we have to pay to take it away...
In layman terms - they were added specifically to extend play time and add packs for you to purchase to decrease this deliberate increase.
They were designed to take your money!
Not make the game better :D

My issue isnt other people paying money.. my issue is that the past 2 Assassins Creed games have been designed around monetization
That money came before heart...
Iove did not go into unity... love did not go into Syndicate either.. at least not love for this series....

SixKeys
12-14-2015, 12:20 AM
Lol, 2010 called.

D.I.D.
12-14-2015, 12:23 AM
Let's be honest, DLC and main game missions in AC have never been good...

No, but some notable exceptions (AC2's bonus DLCs weren't good, but the Bonfire/Forli were pretty nice, Da Vinci was decent, Freedom Cry was very good)


1 - no one sucks at assassins creed
2 - game saves exist for lazy completionists

Well they're buying it for some reason :) Given the complaints we see around here about difficulty in Unity and Syndicate, even if it's only 1% of players who find it hard, that's ~100,000 people which is a market worth looking at, but...


my points asside. Just because there is a market and people to take advantage of doesnt make it okay to do.....

... there's the rub. I think it only matters as long as nobody's getting ripped off. I think Unity deserved its knocks because it locked chests behind an app, and put money-avoidable time locks on the app. The way they presented Helix credits at first was, I think, intentionally ambiguous in order to allow as many people as possible to think they were more necessary than they really were. They made it eminently possible for customers to misunderstand their options. Syndicate's much less dubious on that score. I guess as long as they don't flat out tell you, "Everything here can be had in exchange for very little effort from you, and it's going to be mostly fun, and in the end you'll have more crap than you can use" then it's always going to be a little dodgy.


Let's look at it this way... We didn't have to get materials before.... We didn't have to level up before...
But now that we do, we have to pay to take it away...
In layman terms - they were added specifically to extend play time and add packs for you to purchase to decrease this deliberate increase.
They were designed to take your money!
Not make the game better :D

My issue isnt other people paying money.. my issue is that the past 2 Assassins Creed games have been designed around monetization
That money came before heart...
Iove did not go into unity... love did not go into Syndicate either.. at least not love for this series....

Ah, come on. The consultant for MTX didn't have anything to do with the world design, or the animations, or the lighting engine, or the music. Sure, the acquisition system has been adapted to stage-based system in order to allow for MTX, but to say there's no love in Unity or Syndicate isn't right. Before there was ever such a thing as DLC, there were games that required you to get Object Y to craft Object Z, so it's not totally alien. For all its problems, Unity made huge strides to advance the series, both in terms of presentation and design. Let's not start taking blackbox missions for granted as soon as this! And that's just one thing: proper interiors, 1:1 buildings, enemy security that you have to strip down and cannot simply run into and button-mash, Parkour Down, better detection, better (if still mystifyingly incomplete) stealth, crime investigation. Syndicate has taken those things and improved them.

Sesheenku
12-14-2015, 03:54 AM
Syndicate is a step down from Unity but it's just cause the changes it made didn't really help, combat was too easy for example. Waaaay too easy. It needed to split the diff between itself and Unity not go total ham.

Unity brought back proper missions structure, there's the target, they're in there, figure out how to get to them and kill them yourself. That was the only good part in AC1 and it coming back is a damn good thing.

Syndicate kept that much at least.

I never buy DLC. AC2 on PC came with the "dlc" which wasn't really DLC tbh, skipping it leaves a massive gap between sequence 11 and 14 which is disconcerting to say the least.

Probably won't buy any DLC for Unity or Syndicate either, PC one comes with dead kings, dunno about console versions in Unity.

ImaginaryRuins
12-14-2015, 09:02 AM
I never buy DLC. AC2 on PC came with the "dlc" which wasn't really DLC tbh, skipping it leaves a massive gap between sequence 11 and 14 which is disconcerting to say the least.

Probably won't buy any DLC for Unity or Syndicate either, PC one comes with dead kings, dunno about console versions in Unity.

Same here, I never buy DLC in the AC series; in fact I avoid buying any DLC because I do not support the behaviour of spliting main game content to make DLC for extra cash.

Sorrosyss
12-14-2015, 09:20 AM
Entertainment product aims to make money... Shock, horror. :p

The implementation of micro transactions is industry wide alas. Admittedly Unity handled it very badly, by forcing players to buy them to 100% clear in Uplay. However, Syndicate is much more acceptable, and you can fully complete the game without spending an extra penny. I know, because that's what I did.

So long as you can complete a game without having content cut out, I don't have that much of an issue if players with high disposable income want to speed things up for themselves. Ubisoft games have always been decent value for money for me. I spent over 60 hours in Syndicate for example.

If anyone needs a spotlight shined on them it is as always EA and Activision. I mean Battlefront is an absolute shell of a game, that they blatently gutted in half to sell the second half to you as a full game priced season pass. That's the real disgust at the moment, not microtransactions.

ImaginaryRuins
12-14-2015, 09:45 AM
The implementation of micro transactions is industry wide alas. Admittedly Unity handled it very badly, by forcing players to buy them to 100% clear in Uplay. However, Syndicate is much more acceptable, and you can fully complete the game without spending an extra penny. I know, because that's what I did.

Sorry but industry-wide doesn't justify that it is right. If all people take drugs for example, would you say that taking drugs is no problem?

Another thing, indeed you need not spend extra cash in AC Syndicate, but Ubisoft TRIED to make you spend more money. Remember those Helix Glitches and Secrets of London music boxes? There are maps to get them, but you can't use in-game currency to buy the maps. Instead, you need Helix Credits, which require real money to get, unless you play online and spend much more time running around hoping one Helix Credit Glitch would show up. I really cannot approve of this. Ubisoft could have easily made them like beer, posters, pressed flowers, royal letters, letters in the front, and treasure chests, where you can buy maps in the stores in the game, but the company didn't do this.

ACZanius
12-14-2015, 12:38 PM
Since the day Patrice was thrown off and Jade was taken off AC, I stopped expecting my mind blown and think of the games as memorable where it touched me at a personal level. Now I play them because I'm foolishly hopeful. And sort of an addiction.

Thank you for reminding me how i started with AC, Desilets FTW, if he was around it would be different and better!

pacmanate
12-14-2015, 12:58 PM
Since the day Patrice was thrown off and Jade was taken off AC, I stopped expecting my mind blown and think of the games as memorable where it touched me at a personal level. Now I play them because I'm foolishly hopeful. And sort of an addiction.

This is me. I haven't even got all the collectibles/done all the side missions/got 100% in Syndicate yet. In the past I would have done that in 2 weeks after the game released.

Ureh
12-14-2015, 09:36 PM
London feels like a hub world rather than a breathing living world
It's not like the past where events feel like they are unfolding around you, they now feel like they are just waiting for progression like a mobile game. (Confusing sentence I know - I tried my best to put this feeling into words - it's tough.)


Can you give some examples to help us understand?
Are you only referring to Syndicate? What do you mean by "events"? I just started playing Unity less than two months ago and it feels more alive and spontaneous than any other city in the past. I haven't played Syndicate yet, is London a downgrade?

Sure, there are no longer thieves knocking you to the ground or stalkers stabbing you, but a lot of the crowd events add a bit more variety and life to the world. The NPCs now interact with each other in various ways and they feel like they're actually a part of the city rather than just standing in the city. In the older games the NPCs just stood around in circles, or walked in formation. Now they're pouring tea for each other, hugging each other, dancing, cleaning, looting, shouting, have a lot more facial expressions, and way too many other things to list. I'm pretty sure in the older AC games, events (cutscenes, scripted events, etc) didn't unfold until you arrive at a certain checkpoint. We can see the NPCs just standing there waiting for Altair, Ezio, or Connor to enter the zone or interact with them, same with Unity. Uberto Alberti waits for Ezio to enter the Santa Croce before he starts interacting with the guests, Marie Levesque waits for Arno to enter Luxembourg before she greets her guests. As for historical events, I'm kind of glad that they're not as prevalent as before and go back to a supporty role. The huge crowds in Unity remind me of that time in AC1 when you could see the army off in the distance. Please don't tell me that they actually undid all of this in Syndicate.

Nickyhaswifi
12-14-2015, 09:40 PM
FINALLY I've gotten around to playing Assassin's Creed Syndicate - Working on a review
And I have to say that I'm absolutely disgusted in what it's become.
Long gone are the days that Ubisoft think.. 'What mechanics can we add to take this series to the next level, to make it better?"
Instead they ask - What mechanics can we add to this game that we can monetize?
It's gross.
London feels like a hub world rather than a breathing living world
It's not like the past where events feel like they are unfolding around you, they now feel like they are just waiting for progression like a mobile game. (Confusing sentence I know - I tried my best to put this feeling into words - it's tough.)
Let's look back at May - The Witcher 3 is released....
Fast forward 2 weeks - an exploit is found in the game where you can buy and sell shellfish and then their pearls for insane profit.. CD Projekt Red later patched it...
Their reasoning?
This isn't the way they intended their game to be played.
What does this mean?
They love their product SO MUCH that they are willing to do everything they can to immerse you and give you the greatest experience possible.
They want to give you their vision because they believe their vision is best for what they crafted...
Syndicate has this money making exploit too... except get this.... you can pay for it! LMFAO
The team is so out of love with their product that THEY DONT CARE HOW YOU PLAY IT
They just want your money!
Instead of insisting you take care to collect money in chests, build up your businesses, collect materials - they insist you just pay for it all instead
All of these damn microtransactions and they have THE NERVE to charge for DLC.
Which brings me to HALO 5 - tons of microtransactions - these microtransactions pay for the DLC for EVERYBODY ELSE = free dlc

I know a business needs to make money.. but what if I told you that you could make insane profits off of quality product and marketing alone?
We all know AC3 made bank.. Last of Us made bank... Witcher 3 made bank.... Fallout 4 made bank...
All without being slimy.

If you think we have a leveling system to bring depth to the game, you're fooling yourself.
It's only there because microtransactions can be attach to it!

You may have fooled me with Unity... But it's clear as day now.

All of this microtransaction hub world bull crap is proof that Ubisoft doesn't love Assassin's Creed anymore...
Ubi is just a gold digger pretending to love him for his money!

Yeah, I saw the video version of this (before you had even played the game) and your comments about the game feeling like a game rather than a living, breathing world didn't make much sense even then. Care to elaborate?

VernalBreak
12-14-2015, 09:43 PM
Entertainment product aims to make money... Shock, horror. :p


This^ Like I said in other posts there were obviously issues but the ultimate fact is that they are ment ti make money. If they did not make money ubi would go out of business.

Farlander1991
12-14-2015, 09:47 PM
Sure, there are no longer thieves knocking you to the ground or stalkers stabbing you, but a lot of the crowd events add a bit more variety and life to the world. The NPCs now interact with each other in various ways and they feel like they're actually a part of the city rather than just standing in the city. In the older games the NPCs just stood around in circles, or walked in formation. Now they're pouring tea for each other, hugging each other, dancing, cleaning, looting, shouting, have a lot more facial expressions, and way too many other things to list. I'm pretty sure in the older AC games, events (cutscenes, scripted events, etc) didn't unfold until you arrive at a certain checkpoint. We can see the NPCs just standing there waiting for Altair, Ezio, or Connor to enter the zone or interact with them, same with Unity. Uberto Alberti waits for Ezio to enter the Santa Croce before he starts interacting with the guests, Marie Levesque waits for Arno to enter Luxembourg before she greets her guests. As for historical events, I'm kind of glad that they're not as prevalent as before and go back to a supporty role. The huge crowds in Unity remind me of that time in AC1 when you could see the army off in the distance. Please don't tell me that they actually undid all of this in Syndicate.

Well, both no and yes. The thing is, there's a LOT less people in Syndicate, closer to pre-Unity games in most places, huge crowds are more localized to places like train stations and market places, but just the streets are less populated. Depending on the street and location, sometimes that looks fine, but sometimes that looks very barren (there's like a huge plaza/intersection somewhere that makes it feel like London is a ghost town because there were barely any people or carriages to fill the location).

All that said, London is VERY alive as much as possible given the crowd density, both in terms of ambiance (animations and what people do and even say, there's tons of detail there) and systems (a lot of crowd events, also some random happenings like during one child liberation mission some random passing by policemen noticed the Blighters, called reinforcements and attacked them, so I freed children while they were fighting and it felt pretty awesome).

I pity that the crowds aren't bigger in London, but it's great and lively. For me, a person who loves the scale of Paris and the crowds (and going back to older games feel very weird because... smaller scale and lesser crowds just doesn't feel the same), I would love to find a way to maybe mod some variable somehow to make crowds bigger, but it's not a disappointment.

Assassin_M
12-14-2015, 10:02 PM
Lol, back to the days of Patrice. When DRM and cutting stuff from the middle of the main game's story to resell was commonplace. What a great time indeed.

Anyway, it's funny. You people who are scoffing at this now were the first to whine and complain about such schemes, but when someone brings it up later, s'all gooood, right? This is why such schemes exist, because people just bend over and take it because eh, what are you gonna do? Jeez, this place.

D.I.D.
12-14-2015, 11:01 PM
Lol, back to the days of Patrice. When DRM and cutting stuff from the middle of the main game's story to resell was commonplace. What a great time indeed.

Anyway, it's funny. You people who are scoffing at this now were the first to whine and complain about such schemes, but when someone brings it up later, s'all gooood, right? This is why such schemes exist, because people just bend over and take it because eh, what are you gonna do? Jeez, this place.

Which people?

crusader_prophet
12-15-2015, 05:53 AM
Lol, back to the days of Patrice. When DRM and cutting stuff from the middle of the main game's story to resell was commonplace. What a great time indeed.

Anyway, it's funny. You people who are scoffing at this now were the first to whine and complain about such schemes, but when someone brings it up later, s'all gooood, right? This is why such schemes exist, because people just bend over and take it because eh, what are you gonna do? Jeez, this place.

Yes there were DLC and cut content, yet the games with just their initial content standalone were strong, compelling, beautiful and memorable. There hasn't been a single game since Revelations that I have been able to personally relate to, and Revelations was because of closure of Altair. Patrice was the reason UbiSoft's milking didn't appear that evident, his passion was enough to mask the greed of the publishers because he didn't let his developers and the project be affected by the shallow money making scheme.They didn't have to feel pressurized of unreasonable deadlines and making "good enough" deliverables.

I think it's best I do not start this discussion, as there are many other threads like this to talk about DLC and the deterioration of AC game quality over time.

Assassin_M
12-15-2015, 07:02 AM
Yes there were DLC and cut content, yet the games with just their initial content standalone were strong, compelling, beautiful and memorable. There hasn't been a single game since Revelations that I have been able to personally relate to, and Revelations was because of closure of Altair. Patrice was the reason UbiSoft's milking didn't appear that evident, his passion was enough to mask the greed of the publishers because he didn't let his developers and the project be affected by the shallow money making scheme.They didn't have to feel pressurized of unreasonable deadlines and making "good enough" deliverables.

I think it's best I do not start this discussion, as there are many other threads like this to talk about DLC and the deterioration of AC game quality over time.
This makes zero sense. "I thought the games were good enough, so it was okay to turn a blind eye to the same greed that's happening now". That's not only nonsensical, it ignores a lot of facts just for convenience. Patrice was just as much a part of what you describe as "new" in the AC series. Tell me this: If Ubisoft didn't "milk" the series or if the publishers and Patrice cared about quality back then, why did they cut stuff from the game because of time constraints? Why not delay it? It wouldn't have been a long delay anyway, the DLCs released eventually in January and February. You're saying Patrice really had no say in the matter? Sure, his voice could be vetoed by the higher ups, but he could have still realistically fought for what he perceived as right, but he didn't. Sorry, man, unless there's concrete proof that Patrice was not okay with Ubisoft's schemes, then he was, obviously, okay with it.

These blind, rainbow-tainted glasses of nostalgia are really doing a number on some people here.

RVSage
12-15-2015, 07:20 AM
I think it's best I do not start this discussion, as there are many other threads like this to talk about DLC and the deterioration of AC game quality over time.

This part I can comment on. deterioration over time? No mate. I cannot agree on this. IF that was the case black flag would never have happened. The series has it's ups and down. That is pretty much it.Already hearing good things about jack the ripper dlc. as well. One bad Unity "does" not make the series loose it's quality. In short I cannot agree the series , looses it's quality over time , because to me is the best AC out there came after Patrice left (i.e Black Flag)

SixKeys
12-15-2015, 07:53 AM
Ever notice how the complaints about greed somehow coincide with whichever game was the person's least favorite in the series? Like "AC3 was good, but I hated Black Flag, that's the point when they started milking the series".

crusader_prophet
12-15-2015, 08:02 AM
This makes zero sense. "I thought the games were good enough, so it was okay to turn a blind eye to the same greed that's happening now". That's not only nonsensical, it ignores a lot of facts just for convenience. Patrice was just as much a part of what you describe as "new" in the AC series. Tell me this: If Ubisoft didn't "milk" the series or if the publishers and Patrice cared about quality back then, why did they cut stuff from the game because of time constraints? Why not delay it? It wouldn't have been a long delay anyway, the DLCs released eventually in January and February. You're saying Patrice really had no say in the matter? Sure, his voice could be vetoed by the higher ups, but he could have still realistically fought for what he perceived as right, but he didn't. Sorry, man, unless there's concrete proof that Patrice was not okay with Ubisoft's schemes, then he was, obviously, okay with it.

These blind, rainbow-tainted glasses of nostalgia are really doing a number on some people here.

I am only turning blindeye (although not sure if that is true because I am completely aware of what they did) because they AC2, AC:B stood strong on their own. I had not even noticed there were DLC until 2013, yet I never felt that the games were hollow filled with mindless activities. Each game had a closure and a cliffhanger with continuity even without the cut content.

And why would I believe that Patrice had something to say in UbiSoft's schemes it when there is no proof out there that he didn't. It works both ways. Look I get it, you want a job in UbiSoft and need to keep them pleased even to the grass roots level, and I get that and I understand.


This part I can comment on. deterioration over time? No mate. I cannot agree on this. IF that was the case black flag would never have happened. The series has it's ups and down. That is pretty much it.Already hearing good things about jack the ripper dlc. as well. One bad Unity "does" not make the series loose it's quality. In short I cannot agree the series , looses it's quality over time , because to me is the best AC out there came after Patrice left (i.e Black Flag)

Black Flag is not one of my favorite games. That is where the narrative fell apart to bits and pieces. It had started to show cracks from Revelations, but starting with Black Flag, to me they felt forced AC games that does not fit in the narrative arc.

crusader_prophet
12-15-2015, 08:09 AM
Ever notice how the complaints about greed somehow coincide with whichever game was the person's least favorite in the series? Like "AC3 was good, but I hated Black Flag, that's the point when they started milking the series".

Not sure if you are talking to me, but AC3 was the lowest point in Desmond's storyline for me. It used to be in sync with the gameplay inside the animus, which showed in Desmond learning skills and searching for the artifacts. AC3 is also not my favorite game, your logic does not hold true in this case.

SixKeys
12-15-2015, 08:18 AM
Not sure if you are talking to me, but AC3 was the lowest point in Desmond's storyline for me. It used to be in sync with the gameplay inside the animus, which showed in Desmond learning skills and searching for the artifacts. AC3 is also not my favorite game, your logic does not hold true in this case.

Oh, I agree. I wasn't referring to you specifically, but every time a new game comes out, players flood these forums with threads about how AC games have always been artistic masterpieces except for the latest one which they happened to dislike. As if the series hasn't been milked for the past 5-6 years already. Those people simply don't count those years because they liked the games that were being produced then, so they found it easy to ignore the milking. Introducing multiplayer in ACB? Totally an artistic design choice, nothing to do with trying to broaden the series' appeal. Introducing the concept of Abstergo credits in ACR, an obvious precursor to microtransactions? Totally fine, what a masterpiece. But Syndicate has the same microtransactions as the previous three games before it? Raaahh, this game has single-handedly ruined the artistic integrity of the series!!

Assassin_M
12-15-2015, 08:36 AM
I am only turning blindeye (although not sure if that is true because I am completely aware of what they did) because they AC2, AC:B stood strong on their own. I had not even noticed there were DLC until 2013, yet I never felt that the games were hollow filled with mindless activities. Each game had a closure and a cliffhanger with continuity even without the cut content.
Which as I stated makes no sense. AC II does not stand strong on its own without the DLC (At least the Bonfire of the Vanities) and that's a fact. Without the speech at the end of sequence 13, Ezio's progression is non-existent and there's no arguing that. Liking something is no grounds to excuse a blatantly greedy act.


And why would I believe that Patrice had something to say in UbiSoft's schemes it when there is no proof out there that he didn't. It works both ways.
No, it doesn't. Patrice was an employee of Ubisoft and the creative director behind AC II. THAT is proof enough. It's the default assumption.


Look I get it, you want a job in UbiSoft and need to keep them pleased even to the grass roots level, and I get that and I understand.
What? Did you even read your post before spouting this non-sense? In case you didn't notice, I'm the one calling Ubisoft out and agreeing with OP. You're the fanboy defending your hero to bits through convenient rainbow tinted, nostalgia sun glasses. When you resort to ad-hominem, at least choose your crude accusations wisely.

pacmanate
12-15-2015, 12:25 PM
*feels bad for owning rainbow sunglasses*

AeraLure
12-15-2015, 03:57 PM
Not sure what to say about the money making scheme, I mean look at EA and Star Wars Battlefront. That game is ridiculous on that front. So bad in fact I boycott EA and have done so since before SW Battlefront came out - and for good reason. They just took Battlefront to a level I didn't believe even they could.

As to Syndicate, yes, there are microtransactions possible in game - but I cannot figure out what for. Played through the whole game not needing any of it. There is no need (thankfully) to buy any Helix credits or funds with real cash. The Ubi Club reward items are all very low statted and none of that eq is worth it. The only thing I picked up was an outfit for Evie that I liked, and this is far from the first game that had special DLC outfits.

The main problem with Syndicate is that it's too easy. The difficulty balance was not at all well tested. You're terribly overpowered by the middle of the game and then from then on combat is a breeze, if you even want to enter it, and the lack of difficulty made the second half of the game a little boring. It really should have been harder with a normal, full playthrough only giving you access to around 2/3 of the skills. This way you actually had to choose what skills to get and if something was too hard, side missions could have been done to get some eq to get some further skills. I also think skill points should not have been shared between the two characters. Might have made it better.

There's also too many collectibles just for the sake of having them, and a few trophies are ridiculous - I took pride in driving around not hitting things - why is one trophy requiring running over everything like an idiot for hours?

Some problems with balance and lack of difficulty and a little too much monotony in collectibles and certain trophies, but overall its a fun game and pretty good. Microtransactions at least were totally irrelevant.

cawatrooper9
12-15-2015, 04:06 PM
Yeah, Assassins Creed should be a non-profit charity like every single other video game company. Get it together Ubisoft!

:p


Seriously though, I absolutely adore it when people accuse a business for wanting to make money. Congratulations, you now have a basic understanding of capitalism!

RVSage
12-15-2015, 07:41 PM
Black Flag is not one of my favorite games. That is where the narrative fell apart to bits and pieces. It had started to show cracks from Revelations, but starting with Black Flag, to me they felt forced AC games that does not fit in the narrative arc.

Well If they did not change the traditional narrative in Black Flag, people would have said "Same Old thing" Nothing new. And the narrative fits the time period . And it had pretty much very good first civilization elements. Personally , I loved the introduction of sages, coincides with the concept of avatars. So there you go. I feel the lore of Black Flag was very much ACish. with elements of the era i.e piracy

Mr.Black24
12-15-2015, 07:56 PM
Yeah, Assassins Creed should be a non-profit charity like every single other video game company. Get it together Ubisoft!

:p


Seriously though, I absolutely adore it when people accuse a business for wanting to make money. Congratulations, you now have a basic understanding of capitalism!
Based from what they are saying is that instead of making high quality videogames that they boast so much about, they are just looking for more ways to suck money out of our pockets for half-baked titles.

And thats not good.

I-Like-Pie45
12-15-2015, 08:03 PM
Based from what they are saying is that instead of making high quality videogames that they boast so much about, they are just looking for more ways to suck money out of our pockets for half-baked titles.

And thats not good.

Well, that's basically what every game company does.

cawatrooper9
12-15-2015, 10:12 PM
Based from what they are saying is that instead of making high quality videogames that they boast so much about, they are just looking for more ways to suck money out of our pockets for half-baked titles.

And thats not good.



Well, that's basically what every game company does.

Listen to the Pie, he's a wise bear.

Is Ubisoft making video games for money rather than the love of the art? There's probably some truth to that, but that hardly makes them unique. It's just cool right now to hate on Ubisoft.

Last time I checked, I didn't see Bethesda give Fallout 4 away free to all of their fans, and as mentioned, Battlefront is barely a fraction of a game- you have to buy a season pass or DLC, or you're stuck basically with only the option for online play with just 4 planets (For reference, the Battlefront that came out in 2004 had 16 maps spanning 11 various planets. Of, and for the record, it also had Galactic Conquest mode, Instant Action, and two campaigns in addition to the online multiplayer.)


So, has Assassins Creed become a cash grab? Well, I suppose that all depends on perspective. If you don't like the series anymore, don't buy it. Personally, I feel that I get a ton of enjoyment out of the series, more than justifying my roughly $60.00 purchase each year. But that's subjective, I suppose.

Regardless, it's just immature and naive to whine about Ubisoft. We get it, you read Kotaku, how cultured... :p

I-Like-Pie45
12-15-2015, 10:13 PM
My name is Brian not Pie, I don't know who this Pie people keep mistaking me for is

Mr.Black24
12-15-2015, 11:06 PM
Listen to the Pie, he's a wise bear.

Is Ubisoft making video games for money rather than the love of the art? There's probably some truth to that, but that hardly makes them unique. It's just cool right now to hate on Ubisoft.

Last time I checked, I didn't see Bethesda give Fallout 4 away free to all of their fans, and as mentioned, Battlefront is barely a fraction of a game- you have to buy a season pass or DLC, or you're stuck basically with only the option for online play with just 4 planets (For reference, the Battlefront that came out in 2004 had 16 maps spanning 11 various planets. Of, and for the record, it also had Galactic Conquest mode, Instant Action, and two campaigns in addition to the online multiplayer.)


So, has Assassins Creed become a cash grab? Well, I suppose that all depends on perspective. If you don't like the series anymore, don't buy it. Personally, I feel that I get a ton of enjoyment out of the series, more than justifying my roughly $60.00 purchase each year. But that's subjective, I suppose.

Regardless, it's just immature and naive to whine about Ubisoft. We get it, you read Kotaku, how cultured... :p

First off, just because I said that their products are half baked, doesn't mean they should give them away for free. Just that they need to do much more if they want my money. Having glitchy games, half baked story, and some useless collectables don't merit a good title or $60.

And second, you can eat my ****ing *** for equating me to Kotaku, that website is just as a ****hole of idiots who think they can do journalism.

I hate Luke especially, ****ting down on Connor like he thinks he knows it all: http://kotaku.com/assassins-creeds-connor-who-was-the-worst-is-done-f-1459894621

Because of this ***, he was the forefront of the Connor Haters, destroying any means of Connor coming back. This is the definition of an Ezio Fanboy. **** this guy and **** you too. I seriously have no idea where you have even gotten to that ****ing conclusion. Shows the lackluster "intelligence" you got behind you ****ing thick *** skull.

Assassin_M
12-15-2015, 11:43 PM
Let's all calm down here

cawatrooper9
12-15-2015, 11:57 PM
My name is Brian not Pie, I don't know who this Pie people keep mistaking me for is

My apologies. Stupid auto correct.



First off, just because I said that their products are half baked, doesn't mean they should give them away for free. Just that they need to do much more if they want my money. Having glitchy games, half baked story, and some useless collectables don't merit a good title or $60.

And second, you can eat my ****ing *** for equating me to Kotaku, that website is just as a ****hole of idiots who think they can do journalism.

I hate Luke especially, ****ting down on Connor like he thinks he knows it all: http://kotaku.com/assassins-creeds-connor-who-was-the-worst-is-done-f-1459894621

Because of this ***, he was the forefront of the Connor Haters, destroying any means of Connor coming back. This is the definition of an Ezio Fanboy. **** this guy and **** you too. I seriously have no idea where you have even gotten to that ****ing conclusion. Shows the lackluster "intelligence" you got behind you ****ing thick *** skull.

My apologies here as well. It was kind of misleading, in that I quoted you in my previous post, but I wasn't really speaking specifically to you, rather using you as an example to address the general aura of negativity surrounding people's perception of Ubisoft.

As for the rest of your post (and rest assured, I now am in fact addressing you directly Mr.Black24), I suggest we take Assassin_M's advice and calm down. Clearly there was a misunderstanding here, and I apologize for having offended you. No need to put the auto-censors through any more strain.

I-Like-Pie45
12-16-2015, 12:14 AM
First off, just because I said that their products are half baked, doesn't mean they should give them away for free. Just that they need to do much more if they want my money. Having glitchy games, half baked story, and some useless collectables don't merit a good title or $60.

well, that's basically every bethesda and rockstar game but you don't see people complaining about them

Mr.Black24
12-16-2015, 03:03 AM
My apologies here as well. It was kind of misleading, in that I quoted you in my previous post, but I wasn't really speaking specifically to you, rather using you as an example to address the general aura of negativity surrounding people's perception of Ubisoft. But thats my point right there, look at Unity for example. Half baked story, incredibly glitchy, and gameplay elements that really don't add to the experience. yet they aggressively push microtransactions on the players, wanting more money from a broken game. Arno and Elise's story could have worked out well if it didn't suffer so much from low writing quality. Arno and Elise are complex characters, but this time you have to actually dig so much more deeper to find that. At least with Connor, we had two sections, the main and side missions, to help explain more about thier character.


As for the rest of your post (and rest assured, I now am in fact addressing you directly Mr.Black24), I suggest we take Assassin_M's advice and calm down. Clearly there was a misunderstanding here, and I apologize for having offended you. No need to put the auto-censors through any more strain. True, true. But man, the drama is brewing so much now, now with Ubisoft's insistence with Connor's erasure from the series, the situation with the lore. Its like as if someone just wants to start something. As if there needs to be more conflict on how to make the series "great again."

I feel like we are slowly devolving into the Sonic Fandom. It terrifies me so.

I still hate Kotaku, and that ******* "journalist" Luke Penttet, or whatever his name is. Ruined any chance of Connor ever coming back indeed. It borderlines on bullying, if you read the article, saying that its funny that the Connor fans are upset that their "white canvas" isn't returning. Is it really a sin to want more of a character and for that character to has respectable recognition? I mean we get a respectable authentic non stereotypical native american character in the longest time of videogame history since Prey, and everyone ****s on him for not being funny or a ladies man. Sorry he wants to protect his village, cultural identity, homestead, and fight the Templar threat are so much to worry about and he cares to help out rather than go to a pub and bang some prostitutes or something stupid like that.

Good grief.....



well, that's basically every bethesda and rockstar game but you don't see people complaining about them Well, from what I've seen from their fandoms, they actually make the game more interesting and fun. There is always gifs of comical glitches that show up all the time. I guess as long as it works well, its a pass. Like I said though, that's from me, as an outsider's point of view. I can't speak on behalf of everyone after all.


Let's all calm down here Yeah my bad.

I-Like-Pie45
12-16-2015, 03:40 AM
rockstar is actually more devious than ubisoft when it comes to milking their customers

just look at gta online and the shark cards

Assassin_M
12-16-2015, 03:52 AM
rockstar is actually more devious than ubisoft when it comes to milking their customers

just look at gta online and the shark cards
Man, they told people that they're likely not gonna bring GTA V to PC. It made people actually start petitions that had thousands of supporters. All this just to suck every penny possible from the last gen releases. Now, they're saying they wont make a single player DLC because GTA Online took over. Lololololo

I-Like-Pie45
12-16-2015, 05:03 AM
Man, they told people that they're likely not gonna bring GTA V to PC. It made people actually start petitions that had thousands of supporters. All this just to suck every penny possible from the last gen releases. Now, they're saying they wont make a single player DLC because GTA Online took over. Lololololo
And now that RS is no longer updating GTA Online on last gen, it's almost like they want their player base to buy new current gen GTA5s if they want to keep getting new content for GTA Online along with all other stuff like updated music stations...

Sesheenku
12-16-2015, 06:36 AM
>Triple A market dearsl

RVSage
12-16-2015, 06:52 AM
well, that's basically every bethesda and rockstar game but you don't see people complaining about them

Bingoooo

cawatrooper9
12-16-2015, 03:40 PM
rockstar is actually more devious than ubisoft when it comes to milking their customers

just look at gta online and the shark cards

Exactly- but guess what? When we get a new GTA game in the next 3-4ish years (assuming trends are followed), people will have completely forgotten about this, and flock to buy yet another game full of broken promises. All because GTA games have this perfect combination of nostalgia and infrequent release dates.

That's yet another reason why I can't take the anti-annualization crowd seriously. GTA took about 6.5 years between IV and V... and still, the game persisted with error and delays. The only difference is that it's a lot easier to forget about minor annoyances in 6.5 years than 1 (as all video game annoyances are minor, let's face it- the stakes are always ridiculously low when you really think about it).

STDlyMcStudpants
12-17-2015, 06:42 PM
To Assassins Ms point... if we accept this... the games and experience will never get better.. its important to be critical of the things you love!

Everyone that is pointing out that a business needs to make money..
If you read past the title, you will find that I too realize this.
I 1 BILLION % support DLC , MP micro transactions... free to play micro transactions...
Of course you dont have to spend an extra penny to beat the game... thats the selling point of free to play games...
Only difference is we spent $60.. not $0
It doesnt make it okay that its possible to do it all for free
These microtrsactions are intrusive to the single player campaign.
Without them, we could just buy weapons instead of 'craft' them
If crafting wasnt put in there to hinder your SP experience, please tell me why we can buy materials with real life money but not in game money.
Check and point.
CD Projekt Red made a great profit with a SP experience.. and their DLC will sell too because they are doing it right.
They are using the games main engine to create a completely new experience... not just unlock a few new tailing missions...
The past $10 dlc gave me 20 hours.. introduced amazing new characters and worlds....
Quality content is not as easy as microtransactions,,, but its better for the consumer and gaming environment in general
Theres 2 games in the last 2 years that have upped the standard of games...
The Last of us with environment and story telling
The Witcher 3 with open world.
If franchises want to stay in their comfortable bubble and resort to lazy means of making money rather than just make a product were willing to pay $100 for and sell it for $60.. theyre going to suffer
I bought the witcher 3 Season Pass, Last of Us season pass and AC3 season pass because the main game was so good that I wanted more... that i wanted to reward the developers for delivering what i considered to be a great experience and I had no issue doing it.
If they are going to come up with new systems solely to attach micro transactions to them... thats when i have a problem

raytrek79
12-17-2015, 07:03 PM
I think London lacked the eye for detail we seen in Paris, but I have never actually been to London or Paris. Ubisoft certainly needs to stop trying to entertain and get back to education as the original AC games. Now it is all about knowing the AC universe, it used to be about knowing real history.

I think making money is a primary goal for any production company, realistically they are not a charity or government grant program, they are private sector. Unfortunately we see with a lot of commercial enterprise that the product adapts to what tests well with the consumer, what we call Artistic License is far too subject to popular opinion, the game becomes what the audience wants not what the vision of the creators want.

It may sound like a good thing for the games to become what the audience want but the typical consumer is pretty superficial, that works against real fans.

JimmySaysUDie
12-18-2015, 09:02 PM
Lol, people on here trying to compare GTA...LET ALONE Fallout 4 to ANY Ubisoft project lol. You do know The Division is a going to be a piece of **** and no where comparable to Fallout right? And they have been "working" on that for like 3 years, So how in the hell is the money grabbing, annualized piece of ****ing garbage that Assassins Creed has turned into going to even be able to have increased sales year over year, let alone be considered a great game each year?

All you fanboys on here that think AC is going places are delusional. Stop drinking the cool aid and realize that Ubisoft is putting their **** in your *** for no other reason then your own stupidity for continuing to buy their pre orders of below average games.

cawatrooper9
12-18-2015, 10:02 PM
Lol, people on here trying to compare GTA...LET ALONE Fallout 4 to ANY Ubisoft project lol. You do know The Division is a going to be a piece of **** and no where comparable to Fallout right? And they have been "working" on that for like 3 years, So how in the hell is the money grabbing, annualized piece of ****ing garbage that Assassins Creed has turned into going to even be able to have increased sales year over year, let alone be considered a great game each year?

All you fanboys on here that think AC is going places are delusional. Stop drinking the cool aid and realize that Ubisoft is putting their **** in your *** for no other reason then your own stupidity for continuing to buy their pre orders of below average games.

I see a lot of opinions there, but nothing to back them up...

dimbismp
12-18-2015, 11:14 PM
Guys,the annualisation is slowly killing the series.I thinl almost everyone agrees with this.
I have nothing to say about the microtrasanctions,as this is an industry problem.Many other companies do it,so i won't blame Ubi.

However,as i said,annualisation is the main problem.I used to believe that "It's ok,each game had 3-4 years of development etc".Well,this is not true for many reasons,like:
A)It's not exactly 3-4 years,because some studios work for almost every AC non-stop
B)There is no time for Ubi to listen to fans' feedback.If we make a complaint now,Ubi's reaction will come 2-3 years later etc
C)Thereis no room for narrative innovation either,asthe overrarching plot is almost gone,each story is indepedent etc
D)We fans get fatigued.I mean,point me to one man who is really excited about AC right now...Back in the time,there were speculation threads everywhere etc

Now,some of you said that "People remember to hate on Ubi when the last game is one of their least favourite".Well,that's not entirely true.I liked ACS,but here i am,complaining about the situation.

AC games are the definition of "mass production games".There's little artistic soul left in them.Sure,there are bright exceptions,but for every AC4,there are many mediocre,or "ok" games.I mean,are you content with "just good"?Do you want to play AC just to play it and have some fun?Because i don't.I want AC to blow me away,to make me say "Damn,this is a masterpiece".It is better to have 5 masterpieces than 2 masterpieces,5 ok games and another 3 crap ones.

Right now,AC lacks both narratively and gameplay-wise.And as long as brilliant games like TW3 or MGSV are released,then these problems become more and more obvious:
-Horrible AI
This is a problem from Day 1.But Ubi still refuses to fix it.People say"ACS may have horrible AI,but AC2 has too,so no big problem".Well,this is 2015,9 games have been released,and i expected that the basic problems would have been solved by now.I mean,play MGSV and after that play any AC game...For example,guards see dead bodies,then they search for a minute,but suddenly everything is fine.There is not much to say here.
Extremely easy combat
First of all combat should be a little hard,just for the sake of it.I am playing a video game,i am not watching a movie.I do jot want Dark Souls levels of difficulty,but you get what i want to say.Secondly,the easy levels of combat completely break stealth.Even if you get spotted,you can kill everyone.
Filler type side missions
ACS kinda improved,but there is still a problem.Just look games like Witcher 3 and see the difference.
Uninteresting narrative
After 9 games,i loved only one story and i liked like another 2-3.The others are either "meh" or just bad.Maybe i made a wrong impression about the AC narrative,but i expected different,better things.
I expected the assassins to question their actions.I expectedthe Templars to be the different side of the same coin,rather than cartoonish villains.I expected the games to makes us think about society,about the human nature.


I am just really fatigued with the franchise.Maybe i just need a break.Come Spring,a new AC will be revealed and i most probably become hyped again.AC is my drug:i do not like it anymore,i just play it because i feel obligated

KingL0c4l
12-30-2015, 07:30 AM
I'm so glad I waited to invest in this series. I understand the OP, I could care less for these last few games because it feels so far from what I seen from the original Ac. Even though the similarities are close, those games are literally world's apart. It seems the Templar have cut the assassin's out and switched the money making scheme for their own evil.

Don't take me too serious on that last statement.

Individually the dlc has to be $10 or more, right? So they should be banking $80 or more. Not including what those boxed sets cost.

In a world where everyone is rushing around, no one really has time to slow down, so the games come out every year because it's believed to be good company practice. I'm sure some of each on top is applauding my efforts and laughing at the same time. The first because I didn't get sucked in their scheme. And that last part, probably because I'm not making money like them. But that's not too important.

As for what's important to the series, I don't know. Or maybe I do. And just keeping it to myself. Who knows. I'm just excited for the movie. And a remake of the first Ac. (Like that's ever going to happen.) Untill then, I'm waiting for those discounts.

Ps. To the OP, Rage On

Civona
12-30-2015, 08:44 PM
I agree that microtransactions to get more money probably harm/affect the design of the game on some level, but I don't think I'd say it means the devs dont like the game they're making.

And I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'feels like a hub world waiting for progression'. That could describe the structure of every old assassin's creed game. That doesn't mean your complaints are invalid, but perhaps that they're coming more from being tired of assassin's creed than anything specific syndicate did newly wrong.

Lots of things that are "just the way assassin's creed has always been" are bad and should be changed. Some of those things are cool and should stay the same. And some of them don't matter much either way and could be made more impactful and interesting. I think that's what we should focus on.

So, maybe Assassin's Creed games should move away from the feeling of there being obvious progression-gating things, and also of making it feel less like nothing is happening unless you've triggered a mission: perhaps allowing you to start missions simply by going places and doing things, stumbling onto an objective in the open world much like in bethesda RPGs. That seems to be what the OP would prefer to the very AC thing of "trigger the mission to spawn all the enemies at the normally-empty place"

Defalt221
01-01-2016, 11:15 AM
Indeed I believe so!

AC games no longer have a heart in them. Parkour no longer feels EPIC (at least not like they way it did when we first climbed a tower in AC1). Side missions are basically, go to X point, trigger scripted event, kill a bunch of dudes or target. Mission complete. I hoped that with detective mode, we could at least track our targets by analyzing clues to our own will. But no.

joelsantos24
01-01-2016, 12:10 PM
I don't defend everything Ubisoft does by any means, but this is nonsense.

They've been using microtransactions for a while. How did you not see they were designed to make money from Day One? That's the entire point. It's a bit weird to scream "THE SCALES HAVE FALLEN FROM MINE EYES" now.

BUT

They don't insist you buy their DLC. In fact, they crowd the game with so much money and materials that there's no way you'll need to pay. The only reason to pay is to save time doing normal videogame things.

It gets a tiny bit grindy with certain activities, notably Ned's activities, but I was mainly doing those for the sake of completion. But the story doesn't need anything from DLC, and it's easy enough that you can beat the entire game without any upgrades except the essential ones. If they were as fully evil as you say, microtransactions would be a barrier to beating the game, but they're not.

All they've done is to identify a slice of the market - rich but time-starved parents, teenagers in wealthy families, etc - and realised that they'll pay just to save themselves time and effort. Yes, that's cynical, but not in the way you claim. Plus, they appear to be correct.
Well, yes, Ubisoft is indeed a business company and therefore they are in the business of making money. On the other hand, many anonymous fans (including some not so anonymous) shamefully claim that Ubisoft is the one company that truly listens to fans, and sometimes they even dare say it in public. Well, they are not. Generally speaking that is, because most of you implored for a Victorian London-set AC game, and they actually gave it to you.

In the spectrum of the AC series, Syndicate is a (nearly) complete disgrace, in my humble opinion. I absolutely loved Unity, but the story of the game suffered, a consideration which is arguably unanimous. In Syndicate, however, the story is just pathetic, and the word insipid does not even give it justice. Additionally, from destroying the cornerstone trademark symbol of the Assassin Brotherhood (the hood), while turning it into a mere accessory, to the inclusion of a dual protagonist system, not just wrong in my opinion, but also with two exasperating central characters (one of them being an attention deficit disorder comedian), the list of unfortunate choices/errors is nearly endless.

I have absolutely no issue with micro transactions, although, as the resource is merely optional. On the other hand, I would be lying if I said they are beneficial to the gaming industry, or that they are doing more good than bad. Most of the game items in AC, are (and have been) worth a small fortune in in-game currency, and I believe that is the central issue of the matter. There is something terribly wrong with a game, when you are forced to play a monetary activity 5-8 times just to put together the amount of currency to buy a weapon or unlock a miserable upgrade. As for the AC series itself, the central issue is that Ubisoft is literally milking a money-cow. AC has unfortunately become the new FIFA, as Ubisoft has become the new EA. You have what you asked for, and you get what you deserve.

MikeFNY
01-01-2016, 03:10 PM
Indeed I believe so!

AC games no longer have a heart in them. Parkour no longer feels EPIC (at least not like they way it did when we first climbed a tower in AC1). Side missions are basically, go to X point, trigger scripted event, kill a bunch of dudes or target. Mission complete. I hoped that with detective mode, we could at least track our targets by analyzing clues to our own will. But no.

Repetitiveness yes. I feel the same about parkour, it's no longer special, but then again, that's why the rope launcher was introduced. The Ubisoft people are not stupid, they know that even the most emblematic feature of the game is no longer as epic and special as it was before.

J_Ninja_92
01-02-2016, 06:53 PM
Ninjas are assassins. Samurai are not: Samurai were like guards and on the look out for Ninjas who were typically hired to kill certain people (i.e. Assassins). So if Ubisoft is to follow their trend of being historical (at all) give us ninjas in Japan. Further, the whole game play from the beginning of the franchise (the very first game) has been ninja like: I mean, who wasn't reminded of ninjas while playing the very first game? The fact they we jump and climb just about anything, hide in the shadows and kill silently is all ninja-esk: we better be a ninja in the next game. I mean hoods are iconic for both assassins creed and ninjas! Let's go Ubisoft!

Megas_Doux
01-02-2016, 07:02 PM
In terms of what the OP wrote, I disagree on what he said about London. London is a true masterpiece through and through..... The key thing here is annualization, as simple as that!!!!!!! For it causes rushing performance wise, lack of a GOOD story -AC was never a powerhouse story wise, though- and overall exhaustion.

I mean, AC has ALWAYS had the same errors/ weaknesses. In fact, it has improved some its core mechanics, not that they are great today, but I dare you to replay AC II now and you will get what I say.*

What's different is that in 2010 the exhaustion was not even on the same levels it is today.






In the spectrum of the AC series, Syndicate is a (nearly) complete disgrace, in my humble opinion. I absolutely loved Unity, but the story of the game suffered, a consideration which is arguably unanimous. In Syndicate, however, the story is just pathetic, and the word insipid does not even give it justice. Additionally, from destroying the cornerstone trademark symbol of the Assassin Brotherhood (the hood), while turning it into a mere accessory, to the inclusion of a dual protagonist system, not just wrong in my opinion,.

I disagree with those two points there:

1 I, respectfully, find the whole hood complaint thing as nothing but plain overreacting. But that's just me.....

2 What's wrong with the idea -not the execution- of having dual protagonists?


* The star of AC was its " GTA on historical times" more that anything else, including navigation and the sense of mystery/conspiracies.... The stealth mechanics were poor to the point MG2: Sons of Liberty feels like a game released a decade after. The collectibles were as bad as they are now: 300 chests???? 100 feathers to ONE cape???????

The battle of Forli and The Bonfire of Vanities being CUT from the main game is, up to this date, the most greedy thing they've ever done. In fact, I should make a thread about how horribly AC II has aged......

MikeFNY
01-02-2016, 07:28 PM
2 What's wrong with the idea -not the execution- of having dual protagonists?
I find this a very interesting question because indeed, there is nothing wrong about the idea of having two protagonists but the execution, in Syndicate, was very poor, I would call it a disaster.

The game did not require two protagonists. Every mission, every side mission could have been completed with either one or the other. So why have two assassins? They never worked together and when they did in the final mission it was the game automatically switching characters for you.

I believe that the idea of Jacob having an objective and Evie having a complete different one was a cop-out by Ubisoft in order not to have the two working in tandem.

But I like the idea and if you ask me how it should be executed, well, I would refer to GTA 5 where you can switch characters, in real time, and plan accordingly.

I wet my lips at the prospect of placing one assassin at the top of a building, one below, air assassinate an enemy with the one at the top of the building and switch to the other to kill a second enemy from a haystack maybe.

Or else having two guards in two different places, placing both assassins above them so as to air assassinate the first, switch character and air assassinate the second, all in a matter of seconds.

You know what I'm trying to say, the options would be endless.

Clearly this would lead to problems, such as fair enough, you air assassinate the first enemy, switch to the second assassin and then what? Will the first assassin stay put in plain sight? Will he run away? Will he climb back?

Although who knows, maybe you could instruct the "after switch" action, like indeed, go back up. If this action is empty the assassin will stays put and you would use such action when planning your moves, if it's not empty s/he will do exactly what your instructions say after you switch.

Megas_Doux
01-02-2016, 07:34 PM
I find this a very interesting question because indeed, there is nothing wrong about the idea of having two protagonists but the execution, in Syndicate, was very poor, I would call it a disaster.

But I like the idea and if you ask me how it should be executed, well, I would refer to GTA 5 where you can switch characters, in real time, and plan accordingly.



I like that idea, the thing is there were no cellphones in 1868 and before haha. But I thing the concept in itself has potential, a lot potential. However you need a STRONG story to begin with, a strong story that did NOT exist even in "the golden age" of the franchise.

MikeFNY
01-02-2016, 07:39 PM
I like that idea, the thing is there were no cellphones in 1868 and before haha. But I thing the concept in itself has potential, a lot potential. However you need a STRONG story to begin with, a strong story that did NOT exist even in "the golden age" of the franchise.

No, I didn't mean direct communication between the two, I meant the switch a la GTA where the map zooms out and in, if I remember correctly.

Picture this, you're controlling an assassin and instruct him to "climb back up" after a switch is made.

You air assassinate an enemy with him, switch to the other assassin where if the first assassin is in plain sight you see him climb back up just as you instructed :)

It's very, very similar to how you could call assassins in AC2, Brotherhood and AC:R only that you're the one doing the planning.

SixKeys
01-02-2016, 08:21 PM
No, I didn't mean direct communication between the two, I meant the switch a la GTA where the map zooms out and in, if I remember correctly.

Picture this, you're controlling an assassin and instruct him to "climb back up" after a switch is made.

You air assassinate an enemy with him, switch to the other assassin where if the first assassin is in plain sight you see him climb back up just as you instructed :)

It's very, very similar to how you could call assassins in AC2, Brotherhood and AC:R only that you're the one doing the planning.

It's a cool idea, but the AI in these games has always left something to be desired, to put it kindly. It's already hard enough to prevent your Rooks from ****ing up a carefully planned mission (or even a non-planned one: whenever I ride shotgun in cargo deliveries, the idiots keep crashing into walls and stop driving for some reason), let alone switching from a playable character to AI-controlled on the fly.

It would work much better as two-player co-op thing, where you had defined roles - one as the leader, the other as a recruit, both with their own capabilities. Imagine being the leader and having Eagle Vision (like in ACR, where it shows guards' patrol paths as well) while your recruit does not. Your recruit would depend on you to give good instructions so you could avoid guards and find the best infiltration routes. OTOH, you yourself would be limited in combat techniques. You could only carry a hidden blade while your partner gets the full arsenal. They kind of tried this in Unity with each player having different skills. "The Tournament" was an amazing mission if you had four players with good communication skills: one of us would pop on a disguise and walk into the restricted area to steal the documents while another player would use Eagle Vision to show them where the guards are. Obtaining all the documents without alerting any guards was immensely satisfying. In the final combat portion you had to carefully coordinate to protect the person with healing skills and ration your caches. It was a really well designed mission that perfectly encapsulated all the core pillars of AC. Unfortunately, like so much in Unity, the mission had a lot of problems where players would often freeze or get booted from the servers, forcing the whole group to restart. But if they polished the co-op aspect a little more in another game, we could have similar experiences.

dxsxhxcx
01-02-2016, 10:24 PM
No, I didn't mean direct communication between the two, I meant the switch a la GTA where the map zooms out and in, if I remember correctly.

Picture this, you're controlling an assassin and instruct him to "climb back up" after a switch is made.

You air assassinate an enemy with him, switch to the other assassin where if the first assassin is in plain sight you see him climb back up just as you instructed :)

It's very, very similar to how you could call assassins in AC2, Brotherhood and AC:R only that you're the one doing the planning.

This looks like an easy/cool thing to do on paper, but I doubt it would work that well in practice, I also believe that whatever we would need to do to "instruct" the NPC to follow a specific order would take away the momentum of the scene.

As said by SixKeys, the AI in AC sucks, so a lot of work would need to be done here to make this work properly, something I doubt Ubisoft is interested in doing...

joelsantos24
01-03-2016, 06:21 PM
(,,,) I disagree with those two points there:

1 I, respectfully, find the whole hood complaint thing as nothing but plain overreacting. But that's just me.....

2 What's wrong with the idea -not the execution- of having dual protagonists? (...)
Great, as opinions differ.

But as for the two points:

1. I find it stupid, because you don't need top hats to be able to blend with the crowd, especially as there were many characters (as well as NPC's) throughout the game that didn't wore hats at all. In the time era of Unity, for instance, men also wore hats, and that didn't keep the Assassins from all wearing their hoods, and it certainly didn't turn them more conspicuous. And so, in Syndicate, this was nothing more than a development choice, and as such, it was just wrong.
2. Everything, from the concept to the execution. Most players won't like one character or the other, and moreover, they like it even less when they're forced to actually play with the least enjoyed (or most despised) character. Focusing on one sole protagonist, erases the issue.

Megas_Doux
01-03-2016, 06:49 PM
Great, as opinions differ.

But as for the two points:

1. I find it stupid, because you don't need top hats to be able to blend with the crowd, especially as there were many characters (as well as NPC's) throughout the game that didn't wore hats at all. In the time era of Unity, for instance, men also wore hats, and that didn't keep the Assassins from all wearing their hoods, and it certainly didn't turn them more conspicuous. And so, in Syndicate, this was nothing more than a development choice, and as such, it was just wrong.
2. Everything, from the concept to the execution. Most players won't like one character or the other, and moreover, they like it even less when they're forced to actually play with the least enjoyed (or most despised) character. Focusing on one sole protagonist, erases the issue.


1) I know realism and video games don't necessary have to match, but a hooded guy walking in the middle of any city post 1500's, well.......Too bad that social stealth has been gone since AC3, although people react if you crouch in Syndicate.....Visually wise, I genuinely dig the hat on Jacob, mostly on his maximum dracula outfit. In regards of Evie, I also prefer her without the hood.
I do understand the whole freedom thing and that's why despite the fact I don't consider this hood issue to be more than a small piece of fabric -there's WAY more things that desperately to be fixed ASAP in this franchise- I wouldn't mind having a toggle option.

2) The problem is not the concept, GTA V kinda proves you wrong, but the execution and the overall story. In GTA V you have this greatly crafted story in which the THREE characters work well together and a mission design that just makes things even better. Result????? One of the best games ever!!!!!!!

If the story is weak, it doesn't matter whether we have 3, 2 or even one protagonist. I mean, there's only one main playable character in Unity and we all know how that game went story wise......

joelsantos24
01-03-2016, 07:44 PM
Yes, people react if you crouch in Syndicate, the same way they react in the same parameters in Unity. The crouching is conspicuous, not the hoods themselves. Until people understand this, the discussion will be endless. And I don't bloody care about GTA, I care about AC. Plus, having more than one protagonist doesn't make a game better on itself. Quality makes a game better, the same way it's lack of makes it worse.

MikeFNY
01-03-2016, 08:09 PM
I don't bloody care about GTA, I care about AC. Plus, having more than one protagonist doesn't make a game better on itself. Quality makes a game better, the same way it's lack of makes it worse.

You talk sense Joel, but I'm afraid you have to understand that from now on AC will ALWAYS be about two (or more) protagonists.

By adding a second, female protagonist Ubisoft opened Pandora's box.

What would happen if they go back to one, male protagonist in the next game? Exactly, all hell will break loose.

The options will be three from now on:

a. Syndicate-like, two assassins, two set of different missions, no direct interaction between the two.
b. Fallout-like, you choose at the start of the game if you want to be male or female
c. Unity-like, coop, which is what I suggested but as others correctly pointed out, it would be very difficult to develop

For sure is that I just can't see Ubisoft going back to the roots.

joelsantos24
01-03-2016, 08:36 PM
You talk sense Joel, but I'm afraid you have to understand that from now on AC will ALWAYS be about two (or more) protagonists.(...)I stopped here, since it wouldn't make sense for me to go any further. Your point is absolutely nonsensical, as well as completely unfounded. Wanting the future games to have more than one protagonist, is one thing, however, claiming that there will be more than one protagonist, is just preposterous, to say the least.

Megas_Doux
01-03-2016, 08:45 PM
Yes, people react if you crouch in Syndicate, the same way they react in the same parameters in Unity. The crouching is conspicuous, not the hoods themselves. Until people understand this, the discussion will be endless. And I don't bloody care about GTA, I care about AC. Plus, having more than one protagonist doesn't make a game better on itself. Quality makes a game better, the same way it's lack of makes it worse.

You said it yourself, quality DOESN'T rely on how many protagonists there are, but how they are used.... Unity and Syndicate have been weak/mediocre story wise and the former has only one protagonist, whereas the latter has two. Then you might not care about GTA whatsoever, which is fine, there's nohing wrong with that. What it IS wrong is saying that "most players won't like one character or the other", something on which GTA V proved you wrong, both financially and critically. Even in AC III in which some liked Connor, others liked Haytham...

Bottom line, the idea in itself is NOT bad for it has TONS of potential both story and gameplay wise -to me- but the execution didn't fully deliver in Syndicate.

joelsantos24
01-03-2016, 08:58 PM
You said it yourself, quality DOESN'T rely on how many protagonists there are, but how they are used.... Unity and Syndicate have been weak/mediocre story wise and the former has only one protagonist, whereas the latter has two. Then you might not care about GTA whatsoever, which is fine, there's nohing wrong with that. What it IS wrong is saying that "most players won't like one character or the other", something on which GTA V proved you wrong, both financially and critically. Even in AC III in which some liked Connor, others liked Haytham...

Bottom line, the idea in itself is NOT bad for it has TONS of potential both story and gameplay wise -to me- but the execution didn't fully deliver in Syndicate.
First, GTA proves nothing. Second, my point was exactly the fact that most players will most likely favor one of the protagonists for the other. And yes, much like AC3, where many (including myself) preferred Connor to Haytham. This division comes from creating different protagonists and then forcing players to play with them all. The only way to approach this, is to eliminate the issue by eliminating the additional protagonists and going back to the conventional one-protagonist system.

Megas_Doux
01-03-2016, 10:27 PM
First, GTA proves nothing.

It proves -and so does the old school Resident Evil games, also- that you can create a pretty good story/game in which players don't have that feel of overwhelming by switching to one protagonist to another. Besides, what's wrong with liking one protagonist over another?????????? What's the issue??????? I mean, it's not like we have one GREAT character while the other is just ok or worse, general consensus is that BOTH are equally ok at best, or even worse.......

By that same 'logic' adding more that one outfit, location, weapon or way to complete a mission is "an issue" because players will like one(s) above the others :confused:


The only way to approach this, is to eliminate the issue by eliminating the additional protagonists and going back to the conventional one-protagonist system.

You know what?????

You convinced me, having two protagonists was the main reason of Syndicate's rather mediocre/just ok story, nothing more than that. That's also why EVERYBODY, on the other hand, despite its technical problems, ended up loving Unity's story. You know, I will scream it out.... Ubi you fools!!!!!!!! Why there's not at least one Arno sequel in the making?????? Don't you see the thousands if not MILLIONS of fans almost knocking out your HQ's doors demanding to have him back- alone, obviously- for a trilogy????????

Sarcasm off.

I'm almost done with this, if you want believe the quantity of protagonists alone single handedly can make the game better or worse just because, that's up to you. I think Ubi has struggled in the recent past in the story department whether there's one protagonist or two. That's because coming up with stories worthy of AAA games annually has proven impossible for the writers, not that I entirely blame the writers, though.

Poor developers, in fact. They are killed for repeating things to death, but when they try something different, they are also killed for "not following the traditions" either hoods, quantity of protagonists,etc, etc, etc.

SixKeys
01-03-2016, 10:41 PM
You talk sense Joel, but I'm afraid you have to understand that from now on AC will ALWAYS be about two (or more) protagonists.

By adding a second, female protagonist Ubisoft opened Pandora's box.

What would happen if they go back to one, male protagonist in the next game? Exactly, all hell will break loose.

The options will be three from now on:

a. Syndicate-like, two assassins, two set of different missions, no direct interaction between the two.
b. Fallout-like, you choose at the start of the game if you want to be male or female
c. Unity-like, coop, which is what I suggested but as others correctly pointed out, it would be very difficult to develop

For sure is that I just can't see Ubisoft going back to the roots.

Yeah! Just like how after AC3 had us play as both Haytham and Connor, every subsequent game always had two protagonists. ...Except for, y'know, Liberation, AC4, Freedom Cry, Rogue and Unity.

We've played as Shao Jun and Aveline and all hell didn't break loose when they went back to male protags. The problem with Unity was that the devs explained the co-op feature poorly, so it looked like they had created four unique co-op characters and not bothered with any female ones, when in fact all four players were technically Arno. Then they made comments that sounded like the worst excuse ever (women are too hard to animate) and didn't immediately clarify their statement. It was badly handled by the PR department, pure and simple. That's why when rumors of Syndicate started to swirl, it seemed like damage control to suddenly have a playable female character. But the game was in production well before Unity.

Contrary to popular belief, women aren't irrational harpies who scream and get offended every time they have to play as a man. We'd just like a little more representation, is all, and for Ubisoft not to treat their customers like idiots with silly excuses like "but animating women is haaarrddd!". Having a playable female character is great because it's so rare. That doesn't mean we want to get rid of all male protagonists forever.



By that same 'logic' adding more that one outfit, location, weapon or way to complete a mission is "an issue" because players will like one(s) above the others http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/confused.png

Lol, right? Everybody's fine with adding new gameplay features up until you start talking about inclusivity. Just because they did it in one game doesn't mean they'll keep it forever. The rope dart was retired after AC4 (or Rogue?), bombs were retired after ACR, notoriety meter was retired after AC3 etc.

RA503
01-03-2016, 11:14 PM
I think that a good thing ubisoft can do is substitute all his employers by underpaid chinese gamer design,produce games is a expansive thing because north american employers is too high paid...

will be better for the consumers...

MikeFNY
01-04-2016, 08:42 AM
I stopped here, since it wouldn't make sense for me to go any further. Your point is absolutely nonsensical, as well as completely unfounded. Wanting the future games to have more than one protagonist, is one thing, however, claiming that there will be more than one protagonist, is just preposterous, to say the least.

Easy Joel, we're on the same boat here, I was purely referring to the political aspect of our society which lately has become more important than art and creativity.



Yeah! Just like how after AC3 had us play as both Haytham and Connor, every subsequent game always had two protagonists. ...Except for, y'know, Liberation, AC4, Freedom Cry, Rogue and Unity.

Then they made comments that sounded like the worst excuse ever (women are too hard to animate) and didn't immediately clarify their statement. It was badly handled by the PR department, pure and simple. That's why when rumors of Syndicate started to swirl, it seemed like damage control to suddenly have a playable female character. But the game was in production well before Unity.

I'm afraid we're going to repeat ourselves here; there wasn't a public outcry demanding two protagonists before AC3 came out but there was before Syndicate. You actually summarised the problem to perfection there, some asked for a female protagonist and for some strange reason Ubisoft came up with a silly reply back in the days of Unity.

A year later they did add a female protagonist - which yes, based on the clues there are out there it was damage control - and if they remove her next year you know more than I do that the reaction will be, "So first you mistaken us for idiots saying that it was too hard to develop, then you did it just to make us happy and not because you really wanted to do it and now you dropped her. Why?"

Or you sincerely think that if it actually happens everyone will stay quiet and no toys will be thrown out of the pram? You do realise people have opened a petition because a ...... hood, was removed?


Contrary to popular belief, women aren't irrational harpies who scream and get offended every time they have to play as a man. We'd just like a little more representation, is all, and for Ubisoft not to treat their customers like idiots with silly excuses like "but animating women is haaarrddd!". Having a playable female character is great because it's so rare. That doesn't mean we want to get rid of all male protagonists forever.

Yes ok, we agree, but the point here is not the female protagonist, it's the second-added protagonist and politics. I played "Syberia" back in the days of PC gaming and I played "The Longest Journey", all featuring female protagonists. Had they been a series where after 5-6 games a male protagonist or a second female protagonist was added, I would have felt as equally disappointed as I was with Syndicate.

Why? Because of the winning formula.

It's all about the formula and what works for each and every one of us. AC always had a winning formula and here I agree with Joel, in that there was no need to add a second protagonist, male, female or angel.

joelsantos24
01-04-2016, 02:33 PM
(...)

I'm almost done with this, if you want believe the quantity of protagonists alone single handedly can make the game better or worse just because, that's up to you. (...)
No, I don't believe the number of protagonists influence, exclusively, the quality of a game. Exclusively, that is.


Easy Joel, we're on the same boat here, I was purely referring to the political aspect of our society which lately has become more important than art and creativity.
I just disagree.



"So first you mistaken us for idiots saying that it was too hard to develop, then you did it just to make us happy and not because you really wanted to do it and now you dropped her. Why?"

Or you sincerely think that if it actually happens everyone will stay quiet and no toys will be thrown out of the pram? You do realise people have opened a petition because a ...... hood, was removed?
Nobody will care if the female protagonist is dropped and Ubisoft goes back to the conventional one-proganonist system. Why? Because that's normal. There is no logical reason for them to add a second protagonist, it being a female character, then remove the second protagonist and choose a male protagonist once again, and therefore cause a civil revolution. There have been several important female characters in the series: you played with Jun, Aveline, Élise was a prominent figure in Unity, and now you played with the Frye woman. So, going back to one male protagonist would cause a revolution? Please, lets be serious.

MikeFNY
01-04-2016, 02:37 PM
I just disagree.

Which you are more than entitled to :)


Nobody will care if the female protagonist is dropped and Ubisoft goes back to the conventional one-proganonist system. Why? Because that's normal. There is no logical reason for them to add a second protagonist, it being a female character, then remove the second protagonist and choose a male protagonist once again, and therefore cause a civil revolution. There have been several important female characters in the series: you played with Jun, Aveline, Élise was a prominent figure in Unity, and now you played with the Frye woman. So, going back to one male protagonist would cause a revolution? Please, lets be serious.

I hope you're right there mate, I sincerely do.

joelsantos24
01-04-2016, 02:53 PM
Obviously, I'm not entirely sure it will happen, but I'm confident it will.