PDA

View Full Version : Would Ubisoft ever take AC to a setting where there is lack of climbing??



Mr.GoodKall
02-09-2016, 05:44 PM
Im just wondering here..... I know that climbing is such a big part of the Assassins Creed experience, but would you still play a AC game that didn't have much climbing in it?

Some of the best time periods that I really want AC to go to are Ancient Egypt, Vikings, Wild West..... and none of these have anything tall to climb (except maybe Egypt, pyramids, tower of Alexandria... )

I know most of the rumors are pointing to Egypt as the next destination for Assassins Creed, which i am VERY FREAKING EXCITED about. But I rarely see anyone bring up a Viking or a western setting, why is that?

I personally would absolutely love if Ubisoft made a RDR type Assassins Creed game. And a Viking setting would also be amazing. I know there isn't much to climb, but if Ubisoft held out settings just because there isn't much to climb, we will be missing out on some of the most amazing time periods..

There are many ancient settings that would be perfect for a AC game that don't have any tall buildings... or building at all for that matter, and i would still love to play them... so my question is, how big of a deal breaker is climbing to you? and would you still play the game??

VestigialLlama4
02-09-2016, 06:09 PM
Im just wondering here..... I know that climbing is such a big part of the Assassins Creed experience, but would you still play a AC game that didn't have much climbing in it?

Technically Assassin's Creed III is that game. As is Black Flag. They are settings without a lot of tall structures and the games are mostly about navigating uneven terrain. Yes there are climbing puzzles and elements and traversal is a major part of the game but on the whole I would say the setting is less of a climb than the Altair and Ezio games.

So if you want a game in environments that are not primarily urban, with limited structures and low-lying buildings, then these two games are your reference points.


But I rarely see anyone bring up a Viking or a western setting, why is that?

Well Western settings have been demanded by a few. As for viking settings, well the problem is that to properly do that game you have to be allied with the Vikings and it would be difficult for an Assassin Brotherhood to be allied with them.


I personally would absolutely love if Ubisoft made a RDR type Assassins Creed game.

Well Rockstar is planning to do a RDR sequel so Ubisoft would feel skeptical about stepping into somebody else's terrain.

Mr.GoodKall
02-09-2016, 08:08 PM
Technically Assassin's Creed III is that game. As is Black Flag.

Well Rockstar is planning to do a RDR sequel so Ubisoft would feel skeptical about stepping into somebody else's terrain.

I know, i mentioned AC3 and BF but then deleted it... i loved them both.. But they were still semi-modern.. 1700s already had tall building to climb.. im talking about 1 story buildings where besides trees and cliffs, there wont be anything to climb..

And so what if RockStar is planning on a sequel? They don't own the Western Genre, i just think that Assassins Creed is a perfect game for a western setting and it would be a huge success..

VestigialLlama4
02-09-2016, 08:34 PM
I know, i mentioned AC3 and BF but then deleted it... i loved them both.. But they were still semi-modern.. 1700s already had tall building to climb.. im talking about 1 story buildings where besides trees and cliffs, there wont be anything to climb..

Well in Boston, you have small settlements that are one-story. The highest points are Church buildings and steeples or courthouses...which by the way is the same as how a real-life Western town would be. The stereotypical vision of the Western Town silhouette was never quite like that. The Homestead in AC3 is essentially a Western Town built around the mansion...but on the East Coast.

In any case, unless the game were to be set entirely in an empty desert and flat, barren land...there will always be something to climb.


And so what if RockStar is planning on a sequel? They don't own the Western Genre,

In theory all Western games made by developers are equal, in practise, Red Dead Redemption is more equal than anyone.

It would be very difficult to do a Western game different from Red Dead Redemption. Maybe if you had an African American hero (as they were far more prominent in the West than people believed...yes Blazing Saddles wasn't inaccurate) or a Native American (but they won't do that...they learned that lesson in Connor about not offending the Aryan race) protagonist, you can tell a story. But a white outlaw in the West, as far as character archetypes go is achieved by John Marston.


i just think that Assassins Creed is a perfect game for a western setting and it would be a huge success..

I actually don't think it's a perfect game for a western setting...because the wild west was always more myth than reality, and there isn't a richness to it that you have with the pirate genre.

And in a way, Syndicate is a kind of Wild West game...I mean jacob and Evie treat London like a Western Town, Starrick is the handlebar moustache tycoon bringing the railroad, Maxwell Roth is your Dutch van der Linde type and Pearl Attaway is the Cattle Baronnes.

I think the Gangs of New York era is better...for one thing more interesting characters (Melville, Whitman, P. T. Barnum, Boss Tweed, Thomas Nast), architecture (the era of the building of the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty). Problem is they did New York twice already.

Mr.GoodKall
02-09-2016, 09:33 PM
that's exactly what a western town was like back in the 1850s... I read a lot of western history... ALOT.. look at the pictures from that time period also..

If that's your argument for western genres than you should apply the same argument to Gangs of NY since it would be identical to syndicate.

its quite easy to do a different western game... different characters, different story= new game. A time period has nothing to do with anything... how many medieval fantasy games are there? they are all the same but diff characters, story makes a new game and people jump on it

LoyalACFan
02-09-2016, 10:21 PM
Aaaand it still boggles my mind why people think the Wild West would be a good idea for this series. Llama already touched on some of the lore issues, but also, AC has absolutely nothing on its track record that illustrates that it would be a good fit mechanically. The horses have always sucked. The gunplay has always FREAKING sucked. And the random events, which would be more necessary than ever to sustain a more barren game environment, have been a running joke among fans. What specifically is it about the Wild West that makes people think it would be a good fit for AC? I'm really asking here, because I don't have a clue. Sorry about the mini-rant, but I just really, really don't get this one.

Anyway, as for the OP, no, I don't think they'll ever take it anywhere that totally negates the free-running mechanic, especially after the widespread negative feedback they received for the smaller buildings of AC3. It would be really interesting to see them develop the naturalistic free-running further (rock climbing was awesome, and tree-climbing showed some real potential) but I don't think they'll stray too far away from the big cities anymore. I have to admit, when I first got to the pseudo-Viking city of Kaer Trolde in The Witcher 3, I pictured being able to climb all over it AC-style, but the problem is that it's based on the fantasy version of Vikings from pop culture. Unless Ubi took some serious creative liberties with the architecture, Viking settlements would bore you to tears.

Another problem with Viking games in general though is that the chief iconic activity of a Viking (roaming around in a longboat pillaging your heart out) doesn't actually transfer that well into gameplay. The primary problem is that you don't have cannons; the ship essentially just becomes a battering ram or a glorified fast-travel mechanic. Sure, you could have ship-to-ship boarding, but I think most people would agree that that was the part of AC4 that got old the quickest. Plus, if you're going with the traditional man-powered rowing longboat, you have the issue of speed as well; they can kind of phony up the sailing to make it tolerably fast, but going 50 knots in an oar-powered ship would be tricky to achieve without looking stupid.

SixKeys
02-09-2016, 11:26 PM
If they do, I won't be buying that game.

VestigialLlama4
02-09-2016, 11:45 PM
If that's your argument for western genres than you should apply the same argument to Gangs of NY since it would be identical to syndicate.

Well you are quite right there...I was just pointing out why Ubisoft won't tackle that.


its quite easy to do a different western game...

Should you make a game if it's going to be "quite easy". Isn't art about challenge, daring, ambition? It was a lot harder to do an Assassin's Creed game during the American Revolution and an AC Pirate game and yet Ubisoft did that. It's the easy locations, like Unity and Syndicate that give them trouble.

PedroAntonio2
02-09-2016, 11:59 PM
The gameplay with the horses are a problem in the franchise, a entire game envolving them would be a headache. I never enjoyed Boston, NY, Kingston or Nassau for being small builidings and not a memorable setting like Damascus, Acre, Florence, Venezia, Havana, Paris or London. I would enjoy a Viking or Wild West setting in any game, but in an AC ? I don't know...

Mr.GoodKall
02-10-2016, 12:03 AM
Should you make a game if it's going to be "quite easy".

I didn't mean it in a literal sense, I know how difficult it is to make any video game, not alone a AC game.. All I was saying was that I would love to play a AC2 type style in a Western setting... the side missions, horses, bounty hunts, guns, outdoors, bank robberies.. it would take a lot to tie the story to Templars and all but I just meant a open world AC type in a western setting would be a pretty good game.. look at the success of RDR

MikeFNY
02-10-2016, 09:32 AM
Look at the success of RDR
Remember, Red Dead Redemption had no background when it was released, or the be fair there was Red Dead Revolver, also a Western game.

AC has a background and this background never involved a game entirely based on guns and horses and no buildings to climb.

I'm afraid your suggestion is another cry for help, like many, as a result of the poor state the franchise is currently in. The old formula has become boring, extremely boring and as I said in another thread, Syndicate was a game with two boring assassins who are one big walking cliche and a game where two of the most important features were blatantly copied from Batman and Harry Potter.

Although in a way it made sense.

If the so-called 2017 rumours are true, then I fully understand why they played it safe with Syndicate, the last game before the break. The franchise is in a desperate need of a revamp but I wouldn't go as far as to change it completely, turning it into a game that it should never be like a Western game, an underwater game or a game in space.

Not being disrespectful to your suggestion Gamericious, far from that. But if Western is your cup of tie, I would wait for RDR2 or replay RDR, playing as a bad guy instead of a good guy(or vice-versa). Wanting AC to be what AC never was seems to be the norm lately, as a clear demonstration that the franchise has indeed hit the bottom in respect to innovation.

ze_topazio
02-10-2016, 12:45 PM
Aaaand it still boggles my mind why people think the Wild West would be a good idea for this series. Llama already touched on some of the lore issues, but also, AC has absolutely nothing on its track record that illustrates that it would be a good fit mechanically. The horses have always sucked. The gunplay has always FREAKING sucked. And the random events, which would be more necessary than ever to sustain a more barren game environment, have been a running joke among fans. What specifically is it about the Wild West that makes people think it would be a good fit for AC? I'm really asking here, because I don't have a clue. Sorry about the mini-rant, but I just really, really don't get this one.

Anyway, as for the OP, no, I don't think they'll ever take it anywhere that totally negates the free-running mechanic, especially after the widespread negative feedback they received for the smaller buildings of AC3. It would be really interesting to see them develop the naturalistic free-running further (rock climbing was awesome, and tree-climbing showed some real potential) but I don't think they'll stray too far away from the big cities anymore. I have to admit, when I first got to the pseudo-Viking city of Kaer Trolde in The Witcher 3, I pictured being able to climb all over it AC-style, but the problem is that it's based on the fantasy version of Vikings from pop culture. Unless Ubi took some serious creative liberties with the architecture, Viking settlements would bore you to tears.

Another problem with Viking games in general though is that the chief iconic activity of a Viking (roaming around in a longboat pillaging your heart out) doesn't actually transfer that well into gameplay. The primary problem is that you don't have cannons; the ship essentially just becomes a battering ram or a glorified fast-travel mechanic. Sure, you could have ship-to-ship boarding, but I think most people would agree that that was the part of AC4 that got old the quickest. Plus, if you're going with the traditional man-powered rowing longboat, you have the issue of speed as well; they can kind of phony up the sailing to make it tolerably fast, but going 50 knots in an oar-powered ship would be tricky to achieve without looking stupid.

A Western game I guess it could be similar to AC4/Rogue, a huge area of land with small villages and a couple big cities, could be set in the California Gold Rush, I imagine the Assassins and Templars could be looking for a temple or a piece of eden rumored to be in one of the gold mines or some miner already took it, making it a sort of mystery looking for the man who took it, or maybe the Templars are using the gold to finance their activities and we need to disrupt their schemes, it could work, doesn't mean I want it though.

A Viking game would similar to AC4/Rogue too, a huge area of sea with villages and a couple big cities like London for example conquered by King Canute during the Viking era, just because is set in the Viking era doesn't mean we would have to be a Viking ourselves, the Vikings could be just enemies we have to deal with when traveling, some side missions could deal with protecting villages from their attacks, I mean, I did a lot of pirating in AC4 but I hardly did any in Rogue, I used the ship mostly for transportation, rowing ships weren't the only ships available, there was also wind powered ships and we could use one of those, for fighting, ramming instead of cannon fighting could be interesting to make it different from what we have had before.
But if they want us to be a Viking we could have a story about an Assassin who infiltrates one Viking crew for reasons and is forced to put up with their atrocities for the sake of the mission, creating some drama.

AdrianJacek
02-10-2016, 02:43 PM
Remember, Red Dead Redemption had no background when it was released, or the be fair there was Red Dead Revolver, also a Western game.

Seriously, Redemption has no buisness being a Red Dead game. I would say they called it that to make an extra buck on people who liked Revolver, but Revolver was pretty obscure even back in the day so really there was no reason to call it that. It's like if someone bought the right to Halo after the first game and made something completly unrelated. The only connection would be that it's a space opera. The Halo itself could've been some sort of melee weapon instead of a space station.

cawatrooper9
02-10-2016, 04:36 PM
In any case, unless the game were to be set entirely in an empty desert and flat, barren land...there will always be something to climb.

This.

It's already been mentioned a couple of times here that Black Flag didn't have a ton of climbing in it. What people tend to forget is that with the combination of cliff faces and even the masts of ships, Black Flag had some of the most dizzying heights in the series to date.

So yeah, a Wild West game for instance would certainly be a departure from the typical climbing of urban environments in AC. But even there we could have various desert spires, plateaus, Devil's Tower... Plus, I'd imagine trains, horses, minecarts, wagons, telephone lines, and other things would also be important, and could introduce a more horizontal form of parkour.

I don't think it's fair to ever limit a setting because at first glance it seems as if parkour wouldn't be exciting- rather, I'd want Ubisoft to try to accept that challenge, and bring about some new great features to the franchise. That is how we got naval combat, after all.

Mr.GoodKall
02-10-2016, 04:39 PM
A Viking game would similar to AC4/Rogue too, a huge area of sea with villages and a couple big cities like London for example conquered by King Canute during the Viking era, just because is set in the Viking era doesn't mean we would have to be a Viking ourselves, the Vikings could be just enemies we have to deal with when traveling, some side missions could deal with protecting villages from their attacks, I mean, I did a lot of pirating in AC4 but I hardly did any in Rogue, I used the ship mostly for transportation, rowing ships weren't the only ships available, there was also wind powered ships and we could use one of those, for fighting, ramming instead of cannon fighting could be interesting to make it different from what we have had before.
But if they want us to be a Viking we could have a story about an Assassin who infiltrates one Viking crew for reasons and is forced to put up with their atrocities for the sake of the mission, creating some drama.

I Don't know who King Canute is... I read ALOT of Viking history, which is why I would love a AC game in this time period so much, and ive never heard of him... the kings around the time Viking were prospering (800-1100) were King Burghred of Mercia, King Aethelred, King Alfred, King Rollo, King Ekbrt, Olaf, and even Ragnar became king for a while... im sure there were more kings who rules for a short time but those were the notable saxon leaders of that time... and almost all of their ships were rowed at that time, it was later that the wind catcher were creater and they called them Wind-Vipers.

I would like AC to start at the year 866, it was the year of the monks and priests and Christianity. Ubisoft could tie them into a piece of eden... and the Vikings would be raiding the monasteries to find this piece of eden... the assassins could be like Uhtred from the show "The Last Kingdom" it would be a perfect AC story.. its the son of a Earl from this strong hold, and they were raided by the danes (Vikings) and they killed his whole family, and when the kid saw his father murdered, he ran after their leader and tried to kill him, well the Viking leader decided to spare him because he saw the potential in this kid, no one dared to charge a Viking leader back then so he was the only one who was spared in the village, and the kid was raised by the Vikings and became one of them, he was eventually one of the best Viking leaders, but all this time he was planning a revenge on them for his family... im not giving any huge details away for anyone who wants to red the books or watch the show (and by the way, its a true story)

There a lot Ubisoft can do with this time period...

Mr.GoodKall
02-10-2016, 04:44 PM
[QUOTE=cawatrooper9[/QUOTE]

You Sforza bastard! lol I am ceasar Borgia and I am coming for your kingdom! GET READY FOR THE SIEGE hahaha

ze_topazio
02-10-2016, 04:57 PM
I Don't know who King Canute is... I read ALOT of Viking history, which is why I would love a AC game in this time period so much, and ive never heard of him... the kings around the time Viking were prospering (800-1100) were King Burghred of Mercia, King Aethelred, King Alfred, King Rollo, King Ekbrt, Olaf, and even Ragnar became king for a while... im sure there were more kings who rules for a short time but those were the notable saxon leaders of that time... and almost all of their ships were rowed at that time, it was later that the wind catcher were creater and they called them Wind-Vipers.

I would like AC to start at the year 866, it was the year of the monks and priests and Christianity. Ubisoft could tie them into a piece of eden... and the Vikings would be raiding the monasteries to find this piece of eden... the assassins could be like Uhtred from the show "The Last Kingdom" it would be a perfect AC story.. its the son of a Earl from this strong hold, and they were raided by the danes (Vikings) and they killed his whole family, and when the kid saw his father murdered, he ran after their leader and tried to kill him, well the Viking leader decided to spare him because he saw the potential in this kid, no one dared to charge a Viking leader back then so he was the only one who was spared in the village, and the kid was raised by the Vikings and became one of them, he was eventually one of the best Viking leaders, but all this time he was planning a revenge on them for his family... im not giving any huge details away for anyone who wants to red the books or watch the show (and by the way, its a true story)

There a lot Ubisoft can do with this time period...

You don't know who Canute (or Cnut) the great is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

Mr.GoodKall
02-10-2016, 07:17 PM
Aaaand it still boggles my mind why people think the Wild West would be a good idea for this series..

Look what I just found while playing black flag again.... Ubisoft talks about the 3 top settings being a French Rev, Victorian London and the Wild West.. 2 of them were back to back.. so ubisoft them selves are saying a western game would be a hit which I absolutely agree... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ca31CHcUAAARl_V.jpg

VestigialLlama4
02-10-2016, 07:27 PM
That message is meant to be an over-the-top joke, not menat to be taken too seriously.

Remember that alongside the Wild West, they mention the rise of the Mongols and Central Asia, so that should give you an idea that it's not meant to be taken seriously.

Actually...I think a game set in Mongolia during the Rise of the Khans would be interesting.

In any case if you want an AC game set in a Wild West area but in Assassin's Creed style, I think Argentina in the Pampas would be better. Gauchos with their knives would be a better fit.

nukelukespuke34
02-10-2016, 09:12 PM
Something to keep in mind though, is that when they were working on Black Flag (which is where that email came from), they were also working on Unity and Syndicate at the same time, so looking back that was actually a pretty big hint on the next two locations. If we follow that pattern and train of thought, it wouldn't be a surprise to have the wild west as the next setting, and FINALLY an Asian setting after that.

Personally, I hate the idea of a wild west game, while an East Asian game is long overdue. And i really couldn't give less of a rat's behind about ancient Egypt.

Mr.GoodKall
02-10-2016, 09:14 PM
That message is meant to be an over-the-top joke, not menat to be taken too seriously. .

How is that a joke if 2 of those locations were made into a game already? back to back??

if that was meant to be a "over the top" joke then they woudnlt of made 2 of those locations into games... come on man

LoyalACFan
02-10-2016, 09:28 PM
How is that a joke if 2 of those locations were made into a game already? back to back??

if that was meant to be a "over the top" joke then they woudnlt of made 2 of those locations into games... come on man

Because the lead writer, Darby McDevitt, has stated point blank that the emails were just jokes. There was another one that suggested a hippie game in the Summer of Love. They aren't supposed to be taken literally.

VestigialLlama4
02-10-2016, 09:29 PM
How is that a joke if 2 of those locations were made into a game already? back to back??

As I already told you, Remember that alongside the Wild West, they mention the rise of the Mongols and Central Asia.

So according to your logic, that Wild West and Mongolia game are the next two titles.


...if that was meant to be a "over the top" joke then they woudnlt of made 2 of those locations into games...

Are you aware of something called Sarcasm...or a SarcasticConfession (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SarcasticConfession)

French Revolution and Victorian England were heavily requested fan settings since the start of AC. It's not a hint to anything if they make games in that setting. It's merely a hint that fans asked for it. Just because AC satisfied that with Unity and Syndicate, and not very well...it's no hint that they'll tackle that settings.

Mr.GoodKall
02-10-2016, 09:55 PM
As I already told you, Remember that alongside the Wild West, they mention the rise of the Mongols and Central Asia..

Black flag was 2013 and that's when this "email" came from...

2014 and 2015 were French Rev and Victorian London, as per email, so you're telling me Ubisoft made them games as a joke? because that's what youre trying to prove to me, and so far this is exactly what is happening, so what is there that's telling you that thats a sarcastic joke?

It would be a joke if those last 2 games didn't happen... just like the email said it would....

Mr.GoodKall
02-10-2016, 09:59 PM
Because the lead writer, Darby McDevitt, has stated point blank that the emails were just jokes..

well that's weird because ubisoft did exactly what the email said.. sooo again, this "joke" is more true than a "joke"

LoyalACFan
02-10-2016, 10:52 PM
well that's weird because ubisoft did exactly what the email said.. sooo again, this "joke" is more true than a "joke"

Ugh...

When the emails were written, Syndicate and Unity were already in development. In 2013, it's doubtful that even Yves Guillemot knew where the series would be going after that; there hasn't been an AC game with a 4-year development cycle since AC1. They don't map this sh*t out that many years in advance. The writers like to have a little fun dropping hints and red herrings for us, but there's absolutely no freaking way that they would have been able to leave an accurate clue about a game that hadn't even begun preproduction yet and wouldn't be released for another 3-5 years.

RinoTheBouncer
02-11-2016, 12:58 AM
I'd be open to any setting that serves the story. The mechanics and gameplay and the whole style of the game has changed drastically. I don't think less climbing will damage anything. If a great game is set in Ancient Sumer, Egypt or any country where there aren't many climbable buildings and/or natural structures, I'd take it over any game that has so many buildings, but not a good story or an enjoyable setting.

I loved ACIII so much and it had really wide streets and little things to climb, compared to almost any other AC game. Besides, they could always have some sort of equivalent to the grappling hook which could bridge the gap between the far structures and wide streets.

SixKeys
02-11-2016, 01:09 AM
As I already told you, Remember that alongside the Wild West, they mention the rise of the Mongols and Central Asia.

So according to your logic, that Wild West and Mongolia game are the next two titles.

And that would be impossible....why? Remember that the rumor about Ubi taking a year off and then taking AC to Egypt is still just that, a rumor.

JamesFaith007
02-11-2016, 01:19 AM
I loved ACIII so much and it had really wide streets and little things to climb, compared to almost any other AC game. Besides, they could always have some sort of equivalent to the grappling hook which could bridge the gap between the far structures and wide streets.

Well, don't forget that lack of urban climbing in AC3 was balanced by tree-running in Frontier, so this typical feature of series was still present, just in altered form. But in classical Wild West sceneries outside small cities there would be literally nearly nothing to climb except some rocks and these climbs would mostly only vertical.

I personally think that parkour is essential part of series which can't be sacrifice without too big despite of fans, me included. So even if they come with very good story for some unfitting setting, they should rather use it in form of comic or book where lack of parkour would be less problem then in many hours long video game.

RinoTheBouncer
02-11-2016, 02:07 AM
Well, don't forget that lack of urban climbing in AC3 was balanced by tree-running in Frontier, so this typical feature of series was still present, just in altered form. But in classical Wild West sceneries outside small cities there would be literally nearly nothing to climb except some rocks and these climbs would mostly only vertical.

I personally think that parkour is essential part of series which can't be sacrifice without too big despite of fans, me included. So even if they come with very good story for some unfitting setting, they should rather use it in form of comic or book where lack of parkour would be less problem then in many hours long video game.

I wouldn't want a Wild West setting. I'd rather have a Sumerian, Babylonian or Ancient Egyptian one. There might be big buildings like the palaces and the ziggurats/pyramids, but there are many small houses of the normal citizens and the poor districts, but I'd truly welcome that setting for its historical value and beauty.

Xstantin
02-11-2016, 05:20 AM
I personally think that parkour is essential part of series which can't be sacrifice without too big despite of fans, me included. So even if they come with very good story for some unfitting setting, they should rather use it in form of comic or book where lack of parkour would be less problem then in many hours long video game.

I feel the same way. At least I hope they can feel some areas with construction sites, ruins, columns or something to climb around.

Even with the rope thingy Syndicate was a bit of stepback after Unity imo.

VestigialLlama4
02-11-2016, 05:29 AM
Black flag was 2013 and that's when this "email" came from...

Oh for god's sakes...listen not everything in life has to be taken literally. Stuff like pastische, satire, friendly winks to the audience, teasing etcetera are perfectly valid.

The whole MD emails in BLACK FLAG is an over-the-top parody of Ubisoft, a spoof of game development, some of the crazy fan discussions of the series and the like. You are supposed to approach that with a sense of humor.

I mean Ubisoft explicitly said when they announced Unity and Syndicate that they did it because "fans asked for it". That does not mean they will do all fan suggestions especially since these two games were on the whole poorly recieved compared to their earlier games. Maybe Ubisoft are starting to realize the truth, that things are always better when you don't listen to fans who after all never asked for AC1-AC2-ACR-AC3-Black Flag.


2014 and 2015 were French Rev and Victorian London, as per email, so you're telling me Ubisoft made them games as a joke? because that's what youre trying to prove to me, and so far this is exactly what is happening, so what is there that's telling you that thats a sarcastic joke?

Well consider what happened to Unity, in retrospect it does seem like a joke. Unity did make Ubisoft the punchline and laughing stock of the industry after all.


It would be a joke if those last 2 games didn't happen... just like the email said it would....

There is a trope...it's called Correlation does not equal Causation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation). It's a common logical fallacy.


And that would be impossible....why? Remember that the rumor about Ubi taking a year off and then taking AC to Egypt is still just that, a rumor.

We both know in our hearts and minds that Ubisoft will never make a game about the Mongols or the Wild West. Especially not Ubisoft in its Unity-phase of conservatism. It is no longer the same company that made these games. These days they want to avoid rocking the boat too much, they are in panic, they keep changing and altering the lore to the point that it no longer makes sense to follow it and they look at the relative success of Syndicate and from this point on, the no-drama approach will be what they take.

SixKeys
02-11-2016, 05:41 AM
We both know in our hearts and minds that Ubisoft will never make a game about the Mongols or the Wild West. Especially not Ubisoft in its Unity-phase of conservatism. It is no longer the same company that made these games. These days they want to avoid rocking the boat too much, they are in panic, they keep changing and altering the lore to the point that it no longer makes sense to follow it and they look at the relative success of Syndicate and from this point on, the no-drama approach will be what they take.

Wild West actually sounds like a perfectly plausible place for Ubi to take the series. AC is already a historical GTA, they might as well copy RDR while they're at it. They could reuse assets like the hunting/bait mechanic from AC3, RDR's "deadeye" bullet-time gimmick, all kinds of horse-based activities and of course, mini-games like poker and checkers. Not saying they should, but I can certainly believe they would, if only to compete with Rockstar since they still haven't announced RDR 2.

VestigialLlama4
02-11-2016, 06:35 AM
Wild West actually sounds like a perfectly plausible place for Ubi to take the series. AC is already a historical GTA, they might as well copy RDR while they're at it.

AC is historical GTA only because its an open-world game, which makes it as akin to GTA as Saints Row, Mafia and other people in that genre since GTA 3 launched the flagship. Fundamentally the games are totally different from GTA and other games...there are actual rules against killing civilians, and more than that you can climb every building on site whereas GTA games are entirely on roads. AC changed the sandbox, it's no longer about run around like a lunatic, its about immerse yourself in your surroundings and climb every building in sight, observe crowd behaviour and so on. Now that kind of stuff is there in Rockstar games too but fundamentally the games are driven by the realization that fans will just blaze through it.

Heck when Syndicate came out, some people complain about how driving carriages and running over stuff and shooting horses goes against the Creed, which only proves once again the level of thought that Patrice Desilets put into the games.


They could reuse assets like the hunting/bait mechanic from AC3, RDR's "deadeye" bullet-time gimmick, all kinds of horse-based activities and of course, mini-games like poker and checkers. Not saying they should, but I can certainly believe they would, if only to compete with Rockstar since they still haven't announced RDR 2.

Ubisoft won't do that because nothing will tarnish its reputation than trying to hijack Rockstar's thunder. It will seem to the rest of the industry as a very dirty trick indeed...they can't put out a competent product so they are going to steal from the real innovators of the industry. There's a huge difference between a little independent company putting out a Western game and a big AAA company putting out a Western game to score cheap brownie points among fans. I mean RED DEAD REDEMPTION came out years ago, but you don't see a slew of Western titles because companies respect Rockstar's achievement and don't want to step on that.

And lest people think that ubisoft don't care about reputation, only profits, well if that were true we would be seeing a Connor trilogy since AC3 made profits, we would not be seeing any Unity apologies and the like. Profits are important yes, but reputation and prestige do count for something too. And yes Rockstar haven't announced RDR 2 but it's definitely in development and will probably be their first Next-Gen title (GTA V was made on last-gen consoles). The only way Ubisoft can avoid comparisons with Rockstar is if they do something realistic, like if they had a Hispanic/Native American/African-American protagonist or a transgender and sexual outsider (Jesse James was famous for being a male prostitute early in his career).

But they simply won't do that, not after Connor. And if you want to a White Outlaw fantasy, than Red Dead Redemption is the ultimate game. Because fundamentally the Wild West is a myth, the realistic events that give rise to that legend is a lot rarer than people behave. Films overexaggerate like nobody's business.

"I love the West. I read a lot about the West, and I'm shocked, I'm ashamed that in pictures they have not made the true story of the winning of the West — comprising 90 percent foreigners, 100 percent laborers, nothing to do with guns. Streets, mountains, roads, bridges, streams, forests — that's the winning of the West to me. Hard! Tremendous, tremendous fight. But we have, as you know [instead], cowboys and indians and all that."

--> Samuel Fuller.

LoyalACFan
02-11-2016, 06:35 AM
Wild West actually sounds like a perfectly plausible place for Ubi to take the series. AC is already a historical GTA, they might as well copy RDR while they're at it. They could reuse assets like the hunting/bait mechanic from AC3, RDR's "deadeye" bullet-time gimmick, all kinds of horse-based activities and of course, mini-games like poker and checkers. Not saying they should, but I can certainly believe they would, if only to compete with Rockstar since they still haven't announced RDR 2.

Don't encourage them... The day they announce Assassin's Creed: Buckaroo is the day I build a bonfire out of my AC merch.

VestigialLlama4
02-11-2016, 06:49 AM
Don't encourage them... The day they announce Assassin's Creed: Buckaroo is the day I build a bonfire out of my AC merch.

We know for a fact, LoyalACFan that you will be there on Day 1, just like all of us.

I just don't think Ubisoft will do Red Dead Redemption for the same reasons I don't think Ubisoft will make a superhero game.

Don't get me wrong there are stuff you can make games about that seem like Westerns but aren't really. But all of that is too much a risk, too much of a challenge for commercial audiences and Ubisoft in its current phase does not want to challenge that. Like making a game about the fact that Jesse James was a racist slaveowner falsely made into a hero by neo-confederates, or the politics of the hispanic exiles in Texas and other places. These are all interesting stories but dealing with them would require ubisoft to radically challenge what people think of as Westerns.

I mean AC3 was upsetting to some people of the population because it radically challenged how people experienced the American Revolution...it made the story of America's founding into a story of failure. That's why people complained about Connor's story was too dour, stoic and depressing because obviously if he had been white it would have felt more successful.

MikeFNY
02-11-2016, 09:50 AM
I feel the same way. At least I hope they can feel some areas with construction sites, ruins, columns or something to climb around.

Even with the rope thingy Syndicate was a bit of stepback after Unity imo.

I agree, after all lack of climbing automatically means:

1. No leap of faith
2. No viewpoints
3. No air assassination
4. No double air assassination
5. No ledge assassination

That's a pretty long list of removed features if you ask me ...

cawatrooper9
02-11-2016, 04:11 PM
It's certainly not likely that we'll get a Mongol or Wild West game this year, but it's kind of arrogant to claim that we for sure won't. Remember, at the release of 2014's Unity we could have just as well concluded that the reference to Jack the Ripper and Victorian London was also "just a joke", and that would have been just as justified at the time. I think both sides are reading way too hard into this.

Mr.GoodKall
02-11-2016, 04:34 PM
Ubisoft won't do that.......

Why do you keep saying that??? How do you know what Ubisoft will or will not do? Do you work for them?? do you know them better than everyone else??? I was a die heard AC fan from day one also, AC1 was one of the best games I ever played and AC2 WAS the best game I ever played... I have beat all of them, I read all the books, buy AC figurines, read Dev posts, Tweet them also, it doesn't make you a bigger fan then me so stop acting like you know them anymore then we do...

Ubisoft is not in a business to make friends, they are in a business to make money, and whatever makes them money, they sure as hell will look at seriously... wild west is a very popular setting and if they think they can make profit, they will go there.. and not just because you don't want it to go there..

Mr.GoodKall
02-11-2016, 04:42 PM
I tweeted Darby Mcdevitt about this, he very well knew French rev and Victorian were back to back... it doesn't mean Wild West is next, but he does agree that wild west would sell....

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ca31CHcUAAARl_V.jpg

VestigialLlama4
02-11-2016, 05:19 PM
It's certainly not likely that we'll get a Mongol or Wild West game this year, but it's kind of arrogant to claim that we for sure won't...

It's better to err on the side of lowered expectations. Just from a practical and pragmatic perspective it's impossible that they will make this game, not at this precarious stage when so many balls are in the air. They have these disappointing Chronicles games which ubisoft have themselves lost faith in, they have the movie coming up, which is a huge risk. You have the conservatism in Unity and Syndicate.


Why do you keep saying that??? How do you know what Ubisoft will or will not do? Do you work for them?? do you know them better than everyone else??? I was a die heard AC fan from day one also, AC1 was one of the best games I ever played and AC2 WAS the best game I ever played... I have beat all of them, I read all the books, buy AC figurines, read Dev posts, Tweet them also, it doesn't make you a bigger fan then me so stop acting like you know them anymore then we do...

It's not about being a bigger fan or anything, it's about understanding the process of development.

Try and understand that games are expensive to make. The way Ubisoft makes games is that there's one big game and they use the assets of that game for the next few annual titles, until they feel comfortable to make a next leap when they put out a big game with more assets for the next slew of titles. This way they can reduce costs of production and maximize investment and also cultivate a slew of annual releases.

So after AC1, they streamlined its gameplay, built new assets for AC2, and then they recycled that for ACB and then they recycled that for ACR. Their mastery of this method of production is such that they made Revelations in the span of 11 months, one whole new city/new traversal with some gameplay made in less than a year. Then Assassin's Creed III came along, and built the next set of assets for the next putative cycle. They reused AC3 assets for Black Flag, and then again for Rogue. Then Unity was the next big game and assets for Unity was reused in Syndicate.

For Ubisoft to make a setting as radically different as a Wild West setting in terms of gameplay and approach is to ask Ubisoft to risk a lot of eggs on one game, whose assets might not provide anything to salvage and reuse in the game that follows. Ubisoft is not just thinking of the next title but the title after that.


wild west is a very popular setting and if they think they can make profit, they will go there.. and not just because you don't want it to go there..

Look Nintendo games are popular as well why doesn't everyone imitate Mario or Zelda? Just because Red Dead Redemption was popular, it didn't mean there were a slew of Western imitators either among developers. Why is that do you think?

In the case of Red Dead Redemption the answer is that it was a very expensive to game to make, and for other developers to step into the market and make another Western was to compete with Rockstar in terms of investment and asset development, which in most cases was prohibitive.

cawatrooper9
02-11-2016, 06:16 PM
It's better to err on the side of lowered expectations. Just from a practical and pragmatic perspective it's impossible that they will make this game, not at this precarious stage when so many balls are in the air. They have these disappointing Chronicles games which ubisoft have themselves lost faith in, they have the movie coming up, which is a huge risk. You have the conservatism in Unity and Syndicate.


Those are good points, and they're certainly worth considering. However, what I'm saying is that unless you can tell me right now beyond reasonable doubt that you know what the next game is (or that you know that Ubisoft has outright said that they absolutely will not be covering a setting) then you can hardly say what is a "joke" and what isn't.

Hindsight is 20/20, so it's easy to say that they always meant to make a French Revolution or Victorian game back in 2013. We have them now, that's pretty decent proof.
And again, I agree that it seems unlikely that we'll get one of the mentioned settings this year. But these are the forums- it's great to be opinionated, but making unsubstantiated claims and trying to pass them off as absolute is kind of the opposite of opening up a dialogue about an issue.

VestigialLlama4
02-11-2016, 06:42 PM
Those are good points, and they're certainly worth considering. However, what I'm saying is that unless you can tell me right now beyond reasonable doubt that you know what the next game is (or that you know that Ubisoft has outright said that they absolutely will not be covering a setting) then you can hardly say what is a "joke" and what isn't.

With that kind of thinking, we persist in the illusion that this is the same Ubisoft and the same brand team that was there since AC1 or that they have the same philosophy as they started as they do now. The truth is that the games have changed, radically changed from how people envisioned it at the start and Unity and Syndicate are pretty radical, I would even say extreme departures from what was the main ethos of these games.

By accepting that, and trying to understand how hard these games are to make, we can appreciate the issues involve a lot more than what will be a cool AC setting. That is all I am saying.

Hindsight is 20/20, so it's easy to say that they always meant to make a French Revolution or Victorian game back in 2013. We have them now, that's pretty decent proof.

See my objection to that kind of thinking is that those emails in Black Flag were artistic works, it was done to convey a certain style, it was done to parody the series and it was definitely not intended to actually "spoil" the series in any way or hint at future installments. Even if Darby McDevitt clearly knew that Ubisoft were making those games, it was a rhetorical gesture known as the Sarcastic Confession, as in We Know-That-You-Know-That-We-Know-That-You-Want-These-Settings, so Darby is free to refer to it and it would still be a surprise to audiences. It's a clever gag...and our response on coming back to it, should be "that clever b--tard has his joke on Ubisoft marketing and the fans".

I mean Black Flag's MD is full of jokes, like the Marketing Videos of Connor essentially accusing anti-Connor fans of being racist whiteboys but done in a hilarious witty way ("the correct balance to tell the true story of America"), then the game mocks Black Flag's own advertising campaign by literally making fun of trailers and how the game promoted Edward as this perv and playboy.

I mean read that email chain where they discuss settings like the American Civil War (Melanie Lemay has an ancestor in that era), another guy wants to dig up memories of Einstein, a third guy thinks of a modern day setting which Garneau shuts down by pointing out that coding memories with people driving cars will be taxing (which doesn't make sense now that they have coded people driving around carriages). Indeed the fact that the email with these settings hints comes from what can be called the Stop-Having-Fun-Guy at Abstergo is itself telling as to what Darby McDevitt thinks of people using those uncreative settings.


And again, I agree that it seems unlikely that we'll get one of the mentioned settings this year. But these are the forums- it's great to be opinionated, but making unsubstantiated claims and trying to pass them off as absolute is kind of the opposite of opening up a dialogue about an issue.

Basic empirical evidence has to count for something, and in any case I am no authority figure. It's just my posts that's all. I am just questioning how this guy looks at stuff literally.

cawatrooper9
02-11-2016, 07:43 PM
Ah my friend, nothing is true, everything is permitted.

Or rather, "To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic."


So Ubisoft, like you, is not completely beholden to their past. To hold a view as pessimistic (and not only pessimistic, but naively absolute) is simply illogical. We cannot look at the past and say with any certainty what is absolutely to occur. We can only say what has already happened.

VestigialLlama4
02-11-2016, 08:00 PM
So Ubisoft, like you, is not completely beholden to their past. To hold a view as pessimistic (and not only pessimistic, but naively absolute) is simply illogical. We cannot look at the past and say with any certainty what is absolutely to occur.

To paraphrase Machiavelli in BROTHERHOOD, "I merely describe Ubisoft the way it is." This isn't absolute truth, this is empirical truth, i.e. based on a vast range of observations, careful judgment of the distinct qualities of Unity and Syndicate in relation to games that came before.

In real life, when people fall into patterns it's very hard for them to get out, they relapse all the time, they forget their tiny epiphanies, fall into bad habits and never make an effort to change. That happens time and time again. Most of the times when you work in a scattershot fashion you will find it very hard to get out of that. Ubisoft has made radical changes to the games and its done serious damage to it with Unity, not in glitches or poor launch but aesthetically. The kind of thinking that went into that game is not something you snap out of.

Don't imagine Ubisoft as a major corporation with a vision. Think of it as a patient under observation in a Behavioural experiment. It reacts to stimulus energetically in the fashion of mice in labs or dogs in Pavlov's experiments. They are waiting for the positive stimulus and are grubby for sweet cheese and shocks in anyway, whether its people making jokes at their expense, their fear of people making fun of French accents, the whole Nightmare Face thing, forces them to drastically rethink stuff, rather than you know double down stick to your guns and simply improve the product.

Mr.GoodKall
02-11-2016, 09:53 PM
For Ubisoft to make a setting as radically different as a Wild West setting in terms of gameplay and approach is to ask Ubisoft to risk a lot of eggs on one game Listen, I totally understand what you are saying, but with the huge decline of assassins creed fan base these recent years, you don't think Ubisoft would take a chance on something completely new to save the franchise? Since whatever they thought Unity and Syndicate would be, wasn't working out..

They shouldn't of changed Unity and Syndicate this much, and should of stayed with what was working at the time.. I didn't see the need to change AC the way they did, I saw very few problems with the game, but now I see a lot. I will always buy AC games because its my favorite series and I still enjoy them very much, but I had a lot more fun playing the older games than I do the newer once..

If this Egypt trilogy is true, I will be very glad, but I hope they go back to the hidden tombs, double blades.. .the basics that got them this popularity in the first place..


PS: Ubisoft just confirmed there wont be a Assassins Creed in 2016!
http://blog.ubi.com/a-message-from-the-assassins-creed-team/

Jessigirl2013
02-11-2016, 11:14 PM
I can imagine DLC sections to be like that, but a main AC game with no climbing .... I doubt it.:rolleyes:

It would be nice to have a DLC like that.:rolleyes:

JamesFaith007
02-11-2016, 11:51 PM
Listen, I totally understand what you are saying, but with the huge decline of assassins creed fan base these recent years, you don't think Ubisoft would take a chance on something completely new to save the franchise? Since whatever they thought Unity and Syndicate would be, wasn't working out..

....

If this Egypt trilogy is true, I will be very glad, but I hope they go back to the hidden tombs, double blades.. .the basics that got them this popularity in the first place..
http://blog.ubi.com/a-message-from-the-assassins-creed-team/

You understand that parkour and city climbing is that "basics that got them this popularity in the first place"?

Many people start with series because they were attracted by two things - parkour and history tourism. Sacrifice one of these thing and you can bet that you lost huge part of fanbase because whole game situated in mostly unclimbable setting would be same unattractive like Call of Duty adventure without weapons or 3D Tomb raider shooter for them.

cawatrooper9
02-12-2016, 12:00 AM
You understand that parkour and city climbing is that "basics that got them this popularity in the first place"?

Many people start with series because they were attracted by two things - parkour and history tourism. Sacrifice one of these thing and you can bet that you lost huge part of fanbase because whole game situated in mostly unclimbable setting would be same unattractive like Call of Duty adventure without weapons or 3D Tomb raider shooter for them.

This kind of thinking doesn't really open up doors for exciting new things, though. Assassins Creed is more than hidden blades. It's more than historical tourism. And yes, it's more than parkour. Reimagining how AC could be different doesn't need to be taken as an assault on the series.

Mr.GoodKall
02-12-2016, 12:10 AM
You understand that parkour and city climbing is that "basics that got them this popularity in the first place"?.

what attracts me to the franchise is not parkour... far from it

its totally different from other games because of its historical story lines... I love to re-live the history, partake in crucial historical events, that is why AC is my fav game, not because of climbing or parkour....

JamesFaith007
02-12-2016, 12:14 AM
This kind of thinking doesn't really open up doors for exciting new things, though. Assassins Creed is more than hidden blades. It's more than historical tourism. And yes, it's more than parkour. Reimagining how AC could be different doesn't need to be taken as an assault on the series.

There is always border where reimagining of long time series turns in crippling and for me this border is parkour and historical tourism because when I ask or when I'm asked what is AC, definition always started with these elements. First Civilization and Modern day come as second.

I already saw few series destroyed by this attitude like original X-Com (strategy turned to fly simulator and 3D shooter ended in 11 years long coma) or Commandos.

Rugterwyper32
02-12-2016, 12:15 AM
This kind of thinking doesn't really open up doors for exciting new things, though. Assassins Creed is more than hidden blades. It's more than historical tourism. And yes, it's more than parkour. Reimagining how AC could be different doesn't need to be taken as an assault on the series.

Well, there needs to be a balance there. It's more than that, sure, but they're key components that have been there since the start and part of what got a good bit of the fanbase into the series. If you end up trying out too much new and reimagining goes too far, you end up like the Sonic the Hedgehog series. An utterly splintered fanbase and a series with an identity so confused that even the developers don't know how to go back to the basics and claim that a going "back to the basics" is going back to the first reimagining rather than the origin. Frankly, I prefer a series more on the safe side with more polishing of the basics with new on top rather than a full on change. Frankly, I would be very skeptical of a game that left any of those aspects behind. And admittedly, they're a big part of why I'm with the series so there's that too.

Mr.GoodKall
02-12-2016, 12:16 AM
I said this earlier, if Ubisoft was to take AC to the Viking age, the year 866, it was the year of the monks and priests and Christianity. Ubisoft could tie them into a piece of eden... and the Vikings would be raiding the monasteries to find this piece of eden...

The assassins could be like Uhtred from the show/books "The Last Kingdom" it would be a perfect AC story.. its the son of a Earl from this stronghold, and they were raided by the Danes (Vikings) and they killed his whole family, and when the kid saw his father murdered, he ran after their leader and tried to kill him, well the Viking leader decided to spare him because he saw the potential in this kid, since no one dared to charge a Viking leader back then so he was the only one who was spared in the village.

The boy was then raised by the Vikings and became one of them, he was eventually one of the best Viking leaders, but all this time he was planning a revenge on them for his family... im not giving any huge details away for anyone who wants to read the books or watch the show (and by the way, its a true story)

Who wouldn't want to play a game like that? It could be a great story, and I wouldn't care much about climbing... Ubi already has the boat sailing part down, they can perfect the horses since now it will be such a big part of the game...

My point is, they can take any setting of any time line, and make it a great game without parkour

JamesFaith007
02-12-2016, 12:22 AM
what attracts me to the franchise is not parkour... far from it

its totally different from other games because of its historical story lines... I love to re-live the history, partake in crucial historical events, that is why AC is my fav game, not because of climbing or parkour....

I spoke in general.

In my case history was first too and parkour came later in AC2 but I also know that for many people was parkour first impulse why they chose tried it. And city parkour differed it from other games too because before AC there were closest only Tombraider and Prince of Persia where setting was visibly unnatural and prepared for only one way of movement.

VestigialLlama4
02-12-2016, 04:32 AM
Listen, I totally understand what you are saying, but with the huge decline of assassins creed fan base these recent years...

What huge decline in their fanbase? There is no huge decline on the fanbase of Assassin's Creed. This is purely rhetorical flight of fancy. A bunch of fanboy complaints on the internet elevated to a constituency.

Look, take a look around at these boards...see some of the older posters (SixKeys, Megas_Doux, Assassin_M, Farlander) and others. They are here since the beginning. So despite their complaints or issues with the games, they have stuck around. The same is true for many of the other internet commissars. AC games still sell incredibly well. They are surefire successes. Even UNITY was a commercial success and Syndicate while suffering from poor pre-Order sales has that magical "positive word-of-mouth" going for it.

Do you think an AC movie would even be possible if there was such a thing as "huge decline of AC fanbase".


They shouldn't of changed Unity and Syndicate this much, and should of stayed with what was working at the time.. I didn't see the need to change AC the way they did, I saw very few problems with the game, but now I see a lot.

You do understand that it's hypocritical of you to ask Ubisoft to "stay with what was working" and then ask them to do something as drastic as make a Wild West game/Viking game/Mongolia game.

The original philosophy of AC was change and innovation, do settings nobody had ever seen before, done before. If AC didn't change we'd probably still be in The Crusades, which I know would be okay with some people, you would never have gone to the Renaissance. If AC didn't change, we'd never have them going to America in AC3, we'd never have Black Flag...and that is probably okay with even more people. It is Ubisoft's ability to change and grow that is what allows AC to stay fresh because each new entry is different enough that it attracts new fans.

Unity and Syndicate are drastic reversals precisely because both games come out of Ubisoft's desire to "stay with what was working" or more precisely "stay with what they thought was working" so you have Ezioclones/you have Brotherhood-style systemic gameplay at the expense of immersive storytelling, throwing away historical backgrounds because people supposedly didn't care for it...a lot of short-sighted market-driven thinking went into those games. Ubisoft are still trapped in that mindset and it will take a while for them to get out of it.

cawatrooper9
02-12-2016, 03:14 PM
There is always border where reimagining of long time series turns in crippling and for me this border is parkour and historical tourism because when I ask or when I'm asked what is AC, definition always started with these elements. First Civilization and Modern day come as second.


That's great, and I respect that. However, unless you're a dev, it doesn't really mean anything in the long run.

Mr.GoodKall
02-12-2016, 04:26 PM
What huge decline in their fanbase? There is no huge decline.

Your crazy bro... first you say Wild West is a bad setting and would never sell, and tell me Darby said it as a joke, and doesn't believe it would sell, then I tweet him and agrees that Wild West would sell.... YOURE WRONG!

Than you say AC hasn't lost any fans, but here they are canceling the game.... YOURE WRONG AGAIN... stop acting like your the AC Einstein over here please


That's great, and I respect that. However, unless you're a dev, it doesn't really mean anything in the long run.

EXACTLY lol

Jessigirl2013
02-12-2016, 07:36 PM
I tweeted Darby Mcdevitt about this, he very well knew French rev and Victorian were back to back... it doesn't mean Wild West is next, but he does agree that wild west would sell....

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ca31CHcUAAARl_V.jpg

Haha.. I always find it funny how we don't realise the predictions.:rolleyes: