PDA

View Full Version : About 2016. ^-^



ERICATHERINE
01-05-2016, 03:32 AM
I personnaly want all these ac games as a remake pack, the one I want the most is ac bloodlines, because I never played it.

On the other hand there is the choice of the book that I would want even more. Let me explain.



The book I'm talking about is a book that would be about the datbase which had acinitiates.com before ubisoft killed the site. The first entri on the timeline was in the years -3000 and the last was when Shaun contacted the initiates. These 2 entries AND every other entries between the two, the site had in the database would be in. In it we would see every thing that happened in the ac universe until the Initiates joined the Assassins.
So which choice would you choose? ^-^

ShoryukenMan
01-05-2016, 03:55 AM
What I really want is the entire Ezio trilogy completely remade from the ground up as one game. But that would never happen. So I voted for my favorite game in the series. Brotherhood remastered for ps4.

SixKeys
01-05-2016, 03:56 AM
Why are all these options limited to PS4? Why not XBone?

ERICATHERINE
01-05-2016, 04:39 AM
Why are all these options limited to PS4? Why not XBone?

Because xbox one will have (if it do not have it already) the compatibility with the ac games from xbox 360. ^-^

LoyalACFan
01-05-2016, 05:04 AM
ROGUE ON PS4!!!!!


Just kidding.



I dunno, I really don't want anything out of this year if the Egypt reboot rumor is true. We're already getting two Chronicles and the movie. Let's just go ahead and break the yearly release cycle completely.

crusader_prophet
01-05-2016, 05:23 AM
ROGUE ON PS4!!!!!


Just kidding.



I dunno, I really don't want anything out of this year if the Egypt reboot rumor is true. We're already getting two Chronicles and the movie. Let's just go ahead and break the yearly release cycle completely.

Amen to both (including the joke, no seriously)

cawatrooper9
01-05-2016, 03:26 PM
I voted Bloodlines, but only because there was wrongfully no Filler Game option.

jellejackhammer
01-05-2016, 03:45 PM
the more i think about it the more i feel empty for the lack of main game this year.
bloodlines would be a nice addition (the only one i didn't play) but even that won't really do it fo me :/
yes i know the wait will be worth it and it's more of a habbit of yearly ac games but still.
filler game?only if it contributes to some story elements.don't want it to feel like a forced game to please the crowd.
your book idea sounds great because atleast when initates was up i had something to get my lore fix without waiting for another year or so.
but then again they can only include what we have seen before on the site itself.

cawatrooper9
01-05-2016, 05:16 PM
the more i think about it the more i feel empty for the lack of main game this year.
bloodlines would be a nice addition (the only one i didn't play) but even that won't really do it fo me :/
yes i know the wait will be worth it and it's more of a habbit of yearly ac games but still.
filler game?only if it contributes to some story elements.don't want it to feel like a forced game to please the crowd.
your book idea sounds great because atleast when initates was up i had something to get my lore fix without waiting for another year or so.
but then again they can only include what we have seen before on the site itself.

Exactly- honestly, as many people (including myself) have pointed out, skipping this year won't at all necessarily mean Empire is going to get more development time. It just means we're missing out on another AC game.

Given how one of the biggest draws to AC is its endless supply of relate-able potential, I see skipping years as a drawback. For instance, Mass Effect is another one of my favorite series, but as awesome as the game is, the series could not survive releasing one game per year. As rich as the lore is for Mass Effect, we can only care about imaginary space drama for so long.

AC is rooted in real history that we can study. It has much more standing power than many other series because of that, regardless of what people complain about.

The only real reason to skip a year would be to placate those whining about series fatigue.

My suggestion, therefore, would be to adhere to an alternating release cycle. That is, with ON years, Ubi could release one big game with a huge production value that advances the MD story and has a huge past story, while OFF years see the release of a smaller, fanservice style game.

For example, here are three possible and mergeable models:

1) Simply releasing a big game with a fully fledged MD and a robust past section with multiple cities in an ON year. An OFF year sees a smaller game with no MD- perhaps an Abstergo Entertainment production.

2) Similar to option #1, but specifically the OFF year would be a game of a spinoff Templar series. That way, it is accessible to fans and casual players alike, explains more on the aims of Abstergo Entertainment, and hopefully expands on the Templar ideology better. Best of all, these games wouldn't be necessary for continuity's sake, so those suffering from series fatigue could take a break.

3) Similar to option #1, but it reuses assets from the previous ON year's game. This could allow for some really interesting things. For instance, if Syndicate was an ON year, then 2016's OFF year could be a WWII game starring Lydia. Reskinning a bit of the already rendered London wouldn't be an incredibly difficult task, I'd imagine- at least, far easier than creating a city from scratch. Furthermore, it could incorporate ideas from Option #2- for instance, an OFF year could sometimes be set during the previous game's ON year setting, allowing the players to basically play the Templar side of things from last year's game.

Just some thoughts- I really think skipping years and halving the amount of content and setting we get is a terrible mistake.

ERICATHERINE
01-05-2016, 05:25 PM
the more i think about it the more i feel empty for the lack of main game this year.
bloodlines would be a nice addition (the only one i didn't play) but even that won't really do it fo me :/
yes i know the wait will be worth it and it's more of a habbit of yearly ac games but still.
filler game?only if it contributes to some story elements.don't want it to feel like a forced game to please the crowd.
your book idea sounds great because atleast when initates was up i had something to get my lore fix without waiting for another year or so.
but then again they can only include what we have seen before on the site itself.

The problem with what ubisoft did to the site (Ahem "major downgrade" ahem) is they puted everything interesting to garbage. At least "the book" would make the fan get what was the most important thing the site had : the database. That way we could get everything important in all the major release from the story of Alta´r to the story that was called surveillance and everything else that was not on the video or the games, on the time. Personnaly, I had the bad luck of starting to read the entire database the same day ubisoft closed the site for "their big upgrade" (Ahem "they lied to us" ahem). ^-^

Bipolar Matt
01-05-2016, 05:34 PM
Honestly...I want them all. :)

Tweak AC1 maybe just a little bit. The PC had a "Director's Cut; include that maybe. And maybe include Bloodlines as an expansion to the game.

Up the combat difficulty/damage dealt in the Ezio trilogy and allow memory replays in AC2.

AC3, Liberation and Rogue to PS4? Yes please.

ze_topazio
01-05-2016, 05:37 PM
You can find the entirety of Initiates and that old Facebook game stories in the AC Wikia.


Bloodlines is a good game, the only problem being its terrible controls thanks to the limited numbers of buttons the PSP has, the game has some cool boss battles, something unique in the series at the time.


Since this could be packed together with the old games they could take the opportunity to remake Discovery in 3D reusing the assets of the old games, it should be easier and cheaper than using the modern engines and there would be no need to build all the visual assets from scratch, maybe... :p

jellejackhammer
01-05-2016, 05:45 PM
Exactly- honestly, as many people (including myself) have pointed out, skipping this year won't at all necessarily mean Empire is going to get more development time. It just means we're missing out on another AC game.

Given how one of the biggest draws to AC is its endless supply of relate-able potential, I see skipping years as a drawback. For instance, Mass Effect is another one of my favorite series, but as awesome as the game is, the series could not survive releasing one game per year. As rich as the lore is for Mass Effect, we can only care about imaginary space drama for so long.

AC is rooted in real history that we can study. It has much more standing power than many other series because of that, regardless of what people complain about.

The only real reason to skip a year would be to placate those whining about series fatigue.

My suggestion, therefore, would be to adhere to an alternating release cycle. That is, with ON years, Ubi could release one big game with a huge production value that advances the MD story and has a huge past story, while OFF years see the release of a smaller, fanservice style game.

For example, here are three possible and mergeable models:

1) Simply releasing a big game with a fully fledged MD and a robust past section with multiple cities in an ON year. An OFF year sees a smaller game with no MD- perhaps an Abstergo Entertainment production.

2) Similar to option #1, but specifically the OFF year would be a game of a spinoff Templar series. That way, it is accessible to fans and casual players alike, explains more on the aims of Abstergo Entertainment, and hopefully expands on the Templar ideology better. Best of all, these games wouldn't be necessary for continuity's sake, so those suffering from series fatigue could take a break.

3) Similar to option #1, but it reuses assets from the previous ON year's game. This could allow for some really interesting things. For instance, if Syndicate was an ON year, then 2016's OFF year could be a WWII game starring Lydia. Reskinning a bit of the already rendered London wouldn't be an incredibly difficult task, I'd imagine- at least, far easier than creating a city from scratch. Furthermore, it could incorporate ideas from Option #2- for instance, an OFF year could sometimes be set during the previous game's ON year setting, allowing the players to basically play the Templar side of things from last year's game.

Just some thoughts- I really think skipping years and halving the amount of content and setting we get is a terrible mistake.

interesting idea's HOWEVER when talking about off years,it's a controversial concept.
revelations is to alot of people ranked rather low on the list of better ac games.(sometimes it's rank goes up by a few shots though) and rogue was obviously a OFF game that didn't end well in people's eyes.if you make that concept a actuall release strategy then it will be answered with alot of vocal negativity.
will there be a crowd?ofcourse! and OFF games don't have to be products like rogue and to some extend revelations,but the mindset of the "casual" fanbase will be turnt off by that idea if they begin to see all this as a waiting product that has a allready sour backround.sales will be hurt no doubt,and devotion from ubi could begin to become smaller aswell.TBH there is a bigger chance that they make those OFF games into chronicles made by a different and smaller studio so the cost stays smaller aswell.losses wont be that much noticible and backlash from fans will be smaller to because it is a different kind of theme as a whole.so in either way stopping yearly releases could do more damage then what we have now. and you can't expect most people to be happy without a ac game in one way or another.

TO_M
01-05-2016, 05:48 PM
I voted Bloodlines, but only because there was wrongfully no Filler Game option.

If by Filler Game you mean an entry similar to Rogue, then no thanks. Rogue is a steaming pile of youknowwhat and it's the perfect example of how Ubi milks this franchise to the utmost extreme.

ERICATHERINE
01-05-2016, 05:54 PM
You can find the entirety of Initiates and that old Facebook game stories in the AC Wikia.

How do I find this? All I can seem to find is the story of Desmond and surveillance. :confused:

Ureh
01-05-2016, 08:06 PM
How do I find this? All I can seem to find is the story of Desmond and surveillance. :confused:

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassin's_Creed:_Initiates

It's all there in that link. You have to click on the numbered tabs above each section.

cawatrooper9
01-05-2016, 08:21 PM
If by Filler Game you mean an entry similar to Rogue, then no thanks. Rogue is a steaming pile of youknowwhat and it's the perfect example of how Ubi milks this franchise to the utmost extreme.
The don't play it. The game that I'm envisioning wouldn't have many ties to the overarching MD story (not that many do these days anyway) and would basically serve as fanservice.

A lot of people liked Rogue. A lot of critics and review sites even thought that it was far superior to Unity. So you're welcome to pretend that it's just "Ubi milking the franchise", but realize that your opinion is subjective, thanks.

TO_M
01-05-2016, 10:23 PM
The don't play it. The game that I'm envisioning wouldn't have many ties to the overarching MD story (not that many do these days anyway) and would basically serve as fanservice.

A lot of people liked Rogue. A lot of critics and review sites even thought that it was far superior to Unity. So you're welcome to pretend that it's just "Ubi milking the franchise", but realize that your opinion is subjective, thanks.

I won't play it, I haven't even played Syndicate (yet) since I'm not satisfied with the direction the gameplay/story is being taken and because of my annoyance with the annualization. Hopefully it won't come to that and this year will be AC free.

I just don't understand why anyone would be willing to pay full price for an obvious "filler" game. That gives the impression (In my subjective opinion, of course) that you're willing to pay good money for anything as long as it has the AC brand slapped on it, even if it's an obvious low effort production.

And I'm guessing (again my subjective opinion) that Rogue fared better with the critics because Unity was filled with bugs/glitches at the start while Rogue operated smoothly on the last-gen systems.

cawatrooper9
01-05-2016, 10:40 PM
I won't play it, I haven't even played Syndicate (yet) since I'm not satisfied with the direction the gameplay/story is being taken and because of my annoyance with the annualization. Hopefully it won't come to that and this year will be AC free.

I just don't understand why anyone would be willing to pay full price for an obvious "filler" game. That gives the impression (In my subjective opinion, of course) that you're willing to pay good money for anything as long as it has the AC brand slapped on it, even if it's an obvious low effort production.


First of all, price is certainly a negotiable item. Would it be 60 USD? Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd buy it because I support the franchise and it interests me- though I suppose your claim that I'd be "willing to pay good money for anything as long as it has the AC brand slapped on it, even if it's an obvious low effort production" is presumptuous and false, considering there are plenty of things AC related that I would not buy.

I believe that the franchise has potential in its historical focus, and I wouldn't like to see the games' releases be halved. Again, what I'm proposing wouldn't be related to the overarching story, so you wouldn't be missing anything. You have literally nothing at stake here, so I'm not sure why you're so aggressively campaigning against this idea.


And I'm guessing (again my subjective opinion) that Rogue fared better with the critics because Unity was filled with bugs/glitches at the start while Rogue operated smoothly on the last-gen systems.
Gameplay and story were often quoted as being better than Unity, too. Many critics just figured it was an all around better game.

Though I suppose some of that might have been bandwagon hatred for the series coming into play.

ERICATHERINE
01-05-2016, 11:27 PM
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassin's_Creed:_Initiates

It's all there in that link. You have to click on the numbered tabs above each section.

But it start at september first 2012. The database that would be in the book would be just like the one of the site. So, it would start at the years -3000. :confused:

ShoryukenMan
01-05-2016, 11:47 PM
I said it before, I'll say it again.

I'd very much be satisfied with a filler game that wrapped up the Connor/Shay/Arno (mostly Connor and Shay) storyline. It doesn't need any MD at all and I'm a huge supporter of MD. Reuse all the assets you need and just give us a good fan service game, and I'm good.

ajl992015
01-05-2016, 11:59 PM
I can see them doing something like the uncharted nathan drake collection with ezio, all three games but they would change it a little to make to flow as one huge game.

pacmanate
01-06-2016, 07:02 PM
They will bring out something for sure. I have a feeling an AC2 remastering WITH those sneaky 2 sequences included in the game this time.

ze_topazio
01-06-2016, 07:44 PM
They will bring out something for sure. I have a feeling an AC2 remastering WITH those sneaky 2 sequences included in the game this time.

They already did that once.

http://img.gamefaqs.net/box/7/5/6/153756_front.jpg

TO_M
01-07-2016, 12:35 AM
First of all, price is certainly a negotiable item. Would it be 60 USD? Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd buy it because I support the franchise and it interests me- though I suppose your claim that I'd be "willing to pay good money for anything as long as it has the AC brand slapped on it, even if it's an obvious low effort production" is presumptuous and false, considering there are plenty of things AC related that I would not buy.

I believe that the franchise has potential in its historical focus, and I wouldn't like to see the games' releases be halved. Again, what I'm proposing wouldn't be related to the overarching story, so you wouldn't be missing anything. You have literally nothing at stake here, so I'm not sure why you're so aggressively campaigning against this idea.


Gameplay and story were often quoted as being better than Unity, too. Many critics just figured it was an all around better game.

Though I suppose some of that might have been bandwagon hatred for the series coming into play.

I'd wager that such a filler game wouldn't cost less than the average game that is sold these days, and if Ubisoft for some reason would charge less, then that would be a good indicator of the lower quality of the filler game.
Ok, maybe I should have been more specific in that you'd buy any 3d major platform (so no handheld games) game with the AC brand slapped on it (and I wasn't referring to you specifically, but to people who want filler games).

What you call supporting the franchise, I call enabling it. However I can understand that this probably due to our different opinions on the effects of annualization on the AC franchise.
I'm campaigning against this (It's not my intention to be aggresive btw, so I apologize if I come off that way) because as I said earlier I'm heavily against annualization, and having Ubi produce these "filler" games in between the "major" releases would keep the annualization of AC intact.

cawatrooper9
01-07-2016, 05:50 PM
I'd wager that such a filler game wouldn't cost less than the average game that is sold these days, and if Ubisoft for some reason would charge less, then that would be a good indicator of the lower quality of the filler game.

I've tried to find numbers on this, but like most gaming companies, productions costs aren't public. However, simple logic dictates that reusing resources would mean that costs would be much lower- and certainly not at the expense of quality. Anyone who thinks that Black Flag is better than ACIII (which seems to be a good majority of people who have played both games) would have to concede this.



Ok, maybe I should have been more specific in that you'd buy any 3d major platform (so no handheld games) game with the AC brand slapped on it (and I wasn't referring to you specifically, but to people who want filler games).

As long as it looked like a good game, sure. I should specify that I've not been thorougly disappointed by an AC game yet- Unity came the closest, but Rogue was just good enough to renew my faith in the series- and Syndicate was fantastic enough to justify that for me. Sure, the series has had its ups and downs, but I've never regretted buying a single game, not even Unity.


What you call supporting the franchise, I call enabling it. However I can understand that this probably due to our different opinions on the effects of annualization on the AC franchise.
I'm campaigning against this (It's not my intention to be aggresive btw, so I apologize if I come off that way) because as I said earlier I'm heavily against annualization, and having Ubi produce these "filler" games in between the "major" releases would keep the annualization of AC intact.
But that basically reduces your argument down to "I'm mad that AC releases games every year, and I don't want people to have them because I personally don't want them."
There's no reason for you to be opposed to this if it doesn't affect the "ON" years, and isn't related to the overall plot. You're basically just throwing a spoiled fit.

TO_M
01-07-2016, 06:09 PM
I've tried to find numbers on this, but like most gaming companies, productions costs aren't public. However, simple logic dictates that reusing resources would mean that costs would be much lower- and certainly not at the expense of quality. Anyone who thinks that Black Flag is better than ACIII (which seems to be a good majority of people who have played both games) would have to concede this.


As long as it looked like a good game, sure. I should specify that I've not been thorougly disappointed by an AC game yet- Unity came the closest, but Rogue was just good enough to renew my faith in the series- and Syndicate was fantastic enough to justify that for me. Sure, the series has had its ups and downs, but I've never regretted buying a single game, not even Unity.

But that basically reduces your argument down to "I'm mad that AC releases games every year, and I don't want people to have them because I personally don't want them."
There's no reason for you to be opposed to this if it doesn't affect the "ON" years, and isn't related to the overall plot. You're basically just throwing a spoiled fit.

For me AC3 was a major dissapointment in the series, which Black Flag managed to restore a bit, but after Unity I decided that I wouldn't blindly spend my money on the next entry. And I even liked Unity, but I just thought/think that Ubi can do so much better. Syndicate didn't excite me at all, and from what I've seen (like the MD) I am glad that I decided to skip this year.

No it doesn't, my argument is that the annual releases of AC have a negative efect on the quality of the games, not because I personally don't want to have to buy an AC every year or something like that. Whether or not the annualization actually has a negative effect on the game quality is another issue entirely, and perhaps we will find out in 2017 if the rumours are true.

And I'm not "basically throwing a spoiled fit", I've said it times and times before (here and other threads) that I think the annual releases are a bad thing for the AC games, and imo every resource that is to be spent on the "filler" game instead of the major release will/could dectract from the main game. So i'm not "trying to keep AC from other people" just because I personally don't like it.
BTW, I could argue that you're the one who is throwing a spoiled fit, arguing that Ubisoft NEEDS to keep releasing yearly AC's just because you have the urge/desire to play a new one each year, because you're too impatient to wait a bit longer.

ERICATHERINE
01-07-2016, 06:13 PM
Is it normal, that I don't have any options when writing comment? For exemple, if I want to put something like this ":(", I don't have another choice than selecthing "go advance". Also, I can't put spoiler tags or video or do anything else than write. So, is that normal? :(

cawatrooper9
01-07-2016, 06:18 PM
For me AC3 was a major dissapointment in the series, which Black Flag managed to restore a bit, but after Unity I decided that I wouldn't blindly spend my money on the next entry. And I even liked Unity, but I just thought/think that Ubi can do so much better. Syndicate didn't excite me at all, and from what I've seen (like the MD) I am glad that I decided to skip this year.

Syndicate was regarded as a pretty big success for the franchise for the year following Unity. It's fine if it's not your cup of tea (no pun intended), but don't pretend as if the franchise is hurting so bad after it. Syndicate garnered AC a lot of favor back after Unity's disappointment.


No it doesn't, my argument is that the annual releases of AC have a negative efect on the quality of the games, not because I personally don't want to have to buy an AC every year or something like that. Whether or not the annualization actually has a negative effect on the game quality is another issue entirely, and perhaps we will find out in 2017 if the rumours are true.
And my argument explicitly states that these filler games would be produced outside of the other studios cycle. I've stated multiple times that in my hypothetical scenario that these filler games would not affect the quality of the other games (despite the fact that annualization hurting game quality itself is a fallacious argument that demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the development process anyway). So, either you're ignoring that, or quality isn't that big of a deal to you at all.


And I'm not "basically throwing a spoiled fit", I've said it times and times before (here and other threads) that I think the annual releases are a bad thing for the AC games, and imo every resource that is to be spent on the "filler" game instead of the major release will/could dectract from the main game. So i'm not "trying to keep AC from other people" just because I personally don't like it.
BTW, I could argue that you're the one who is throwing a spoiled fit, arguing that Ubisoft NEEDS to keep releasing yearly AC's just because you have the urge/desire to play a new one each year, because you're too impatient to wait a bit longer.
Not quite. If Ubisoft decided to take a year off because they deemed it necessary then yeah I'd be disappointed, but I'd figure it was best for the game so I'd come to terms with it. As of now, it seems that they're just trying to appease fans that have a lack of knowledge of the fact that the development cycle isn't annual anyway.

Again, you're arguing that AC shouldn't release filler games even if they wouldn't affect the quality of other games. That's throwing a fit, sir, because it in no way affects you, yet you're still trying to dictate things that would affect others.



Is it normal, that I don't have any options when writing comment? For exemple, if I want to put something like this ":(", I don't have another choice than selecthing "go advance". Also, I can't put spoiler tags or video or do anything else than write. So, is that normal? :(

I don't think so. I have video options and stuff right now.

ERICATHERINE
01-07-2016, 06:29 PM
I don't think so. I have video options and stuff right now.

Ok, now it's crazy. I only see front, size and the arrow for color, but all the other options are their while being invisible. Selecting one of them is the only way I have to know which blue square is which option. :confused:

TO_M
01-07-2016, 06:43 PM
Syndicate was regarded as a pretty big success for the franchise for the year following Unity. It's fine if it's not your cup of tea (no pun intended), but don't pretend as if the franchise is hurting so bad after it. Syndicate garnered AC a lot of favor back after Unity's disappointment.

And my argument explicitly states that these filler games would be produced outside of the other studios cycle. I've stated multiple times that in my hypothetical scenario that these filler games would not affect the quality of the other games (despite the fact that annualization hurting game quality itself is a fallacious argument that demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the development process anyway). So, either you're ignoring that, or quality isn't that big of a deal to you at all.


Not quite. If Ubisoft decided to take a year off because they deemed it necessary then yeah I'd be disappointed, but I'd figure it was best for the game so I'd come to terms with it. As of now, it seems that they're just trying to appease fans that have a lack of knowledge of the fact that the development cycle isn't annual anyway.

Again, you're arguing that AC shouldn't release filler games even if they wouldn't affect the quality of other games. That's throwing a fit, sir, because it in no way affects you, yet you're still trying to dictate things that would affect others..

Syndicate might have reviewed better than Unity but I've also seen quite some reviews/player impressions which described it as mediocre/bland and decent at best. So it isn't like the franchise is at it's peak atm as well.

I'm not saying that stopping annualization and then changing nothing else in the development/production process will atuomatically fix/improve the game quality, there are a lot of factors involved, but I think that in order for Ubisoft to really reach the peaks of what AC can do, stopping annualization is a good beginning.

How do you know that Ubisoft is trying to appease the fans with the rumoured 2016 break? They haven't even said anything on the matter, I could argue that they're taking a year off because they finally realized that annualization was ruining the franchise. But since Ubi hasn't offically confirmed the rumours or elaborated on the 2016 break, anything said on the reasoning behind this rumoured move is just pure conjecture.

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm arguing against these filler games because I think that they will affect the quality of the other games. You're the one who theorizes that they will not. I am arguing against your hypothetical situation.

But at this point I think it's best to agree to disagree since we both have vastly different views on the subject matter.

cawatrooper9
01-07-2016, 06:50 PM
Syndicate might have reviewed better than Unity but I've also seen quite some reviews/player impressions which described it as mediocre/bland and decent at best. So it isn't like the franchise is at it's peak atm as well.


Yeah, I'm sure some people weren't as big of fans. I'll let the scores speak for themselves, though.

And for the record, you haven't even played Syndicate, correct?


I'm not saying that stopping annualization and then changing nothing else in the development/production process will atuomatically fix/improve the game quality, there are a lot of factors involved, but I think that in order for Ubisoft to really reach the peaks of what AC can do, stopping annualization is a good beginning.

How do you know that Ubisoft is trying to appease the fans with the rumoured 2016 break? They haven't even said anything on the matter, I could argue that they're taking a year off because they finally realized that annualization was ruining the franchise. But since Ubi hasn't offically confirmed the rumours or elaborated on the 2016 break, anything said on the reasoning behind this rumoured move is just pure conjecture.
Well yeah, like you said, technically Ubisoft hasn't said anything about the Empire rumor at all... other than the fact that they're not going to confirm anything as of now. But I find it funny that you'd make an argument against annualization in one paragraph, then act as if Ubisoft exists in a vacuum. They do hear fan complaints and suggestions. This is merely a case of the masses demanding something that they don't really understand.


You're putting words in my mouth. I'm arguing against these filler games because I think that they will affect the quality of the other games. You're the one who theorizes that they will not. I am arguing against your hypothetical situation.
Right, but that's not what we're discussing. It's fine if you want to add an addendum that if they would affect the quality of other games you wouldn't want them, but that is never what you said. You've been against them regardless, completely unopen to any other discussion on the matter. Of course, you could clarify that position, if you'd like, because there are ways that these filler games could be done that would not in fact infringe on other games quality.



But at this point I think it's best to agree to disagree since we both have vastly different views on the subject matter.
If that's what you want to do.

itsamea-mario
01-07-2016, 06:56 PM
I want a better world.

ze_topazio
01-07-2016, 07:10 PM
I want a better world.

Are you a beauty pageant contestant?

itsamea-mario
01-07-2016, 07:13 PM
Are you a beauty pageant contestant?

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/675084172977942536/qs7OKd3l_400x400.jpg

ERICATHERINE
01-08-2016, 12:25 AM
Good. I can comment how I want again. My options are back to normal. ^-^

MrHandsss
01-08-2016, 03:39 AM
all i want is for modern day to matter and be fun again. I don't want to be a nameless "initiate" or pretending to be playing as another person playing a game at home and I don't want to be a nameless/faceless floating ipad either.

Say what you will about Desmond, but these games were so much more interesting back when he was alive due to a whole layer of depth that's been missing since Ubisoft stupidly killed him off and decided that we no longer needed a person's ancestor to see someone's memories. Desmond had a character arc. We watched him evolve and grow into slowly becoming a true assassin over the course of his games. He started off being helpless, only able to do basic interactions. Next, he trained in a warehouse and fought off some attackers. After that, he was needed in the field to locate a new base and an apple. His last journey saw him doing MANY things in environments with other people, going against Daniel Cross (the man responsible for the decline of the Assassins) and his longtime foe Vidic.

Black Flag tried a new thing. It showed the calm following the chaos at the end of III and it was interesting. Rogue sort've retread this approach, but had a unique twist due to the nature of the game.

Unity accomplished absolutely nothing which makes it feel as if there was no reason to replay Arno's memories at all. Syndicate seems a bit better and I actually feel a lot more invested in what I'm doing (I've only just began sequence 9) but already I've seen so much thanks to the characters actually doing things and even the return of others, some very important. (I've already played the WWI part) I just wish instead of watching Shaun and Rebecca having their adventures through a fake tv screen, I got to once again be playing alongside those characters. Not as a floating ipad watching them NOT be assassins, but as an assassin like them, trying to save the world from the threat in front of it and using the past to help do that.

Obviously the past is very important for each game, but I'm sick of hearing people say we should drop the present or not care about it. Without that, we're just replaying events that already happened. The in-universe tension lies in the present and that's what we need. So take the time to make a sequel, but please also give us another named character to be and care about. I don't play these games to play as myself. I don't want to be a nameless and unimportant cog in a machine. Figure it out. Find someone, maybe this "eve" you've hinted at for so long and let us play as their various ancestors across history. That'd be so damn easy and perfect. Hell, if you want to pull another Syndicate with multiple protagonists, you can.

ERICATHERINE
01-08-2016, 03:25 PM
all i want is for modern day to matter and be fun again. I don't want to be a nameless "initiate" or pretending to be playing as another person playing a game at home and I don't want to be a nameless/faceless floating ipad either.

Say what you will about Desmond, but these games were so much more interesting back when he was alive due to a whole layer of depth that's been missing since Ubisoft stupidly killed him off and decided that we no longer needed a person's ancestor to see someone's memories. Desmond had a character arc. We watched him evolve and grow into slowly becoming a true assassin over the course of his games. He started off being helpless, only able to do basic interactions. Next, he trained in a warehouse and fought off some attackers. After that, he was needed in the field to locate a new base and an apple. His last journey saw him doing MANY things in environments with other people, going against Daniel Cross (the man responsible for the decline of the Assassins) and his longtime foe Vidic.

Black Flag tried a new thing. It showed the calm following the chaos at the end of III and it was interesting. Rogue sort've retread this approach, but had a unique twist due to the nature of the game.

Unity accomplished absolutely nothing which makes it feel as if there was no reason to replay Arno's memories at all. Syndicate seems a bit better and I actually feel a lot more invested in what I'm doing (I've only just began sequence 9) but already I've seen so much thanks to the characters actually doing things and even the return of others, some very important. (I've already played the WWI part) I just wish instead of watching Shaun and Rebecca having their adventures through a fake tv screen, I got to once again be playing alongside those characters. Not as a floating ipad watching them NOT be assassins, but as an assassin like them, trying to save the world from the threat in front of it and using the past to help do that.

Obviously the past is very important for each game, but I'm sick of hearing people say we should drop the present or not care about it. Without that, we're just replaying events that already happened. The in-universe tension lies in the present and that's what we need. So take the time to make a sequel, but please also give us another named character to be and care about. I don't play these games to play as myself. I don't want to be a nameless and unimportant cog in a machine. Figure it out. Find someone, maybe this "eve" you've hinted at for so long and let us play as their various ancestors across history. That'd be so damn easy and perfect. Hell, if you want to pull another Syndicate with multiple protagonists, you can.

You said out loud what I think since I've played black flag. Don't get me wrong, I like every game and every md, but I prefered much more PLAYING as Desmond in the md than doing what we do since black flag, may it be being a floating tablet or just watching. So, I 100% agree. ^-^

Jolterx
01-09-2016, 02:31 AM
I just want a remaster of all of the games that aren't already on PS4 and XB1.