PDA

View Full Version : My biggest fear about the rumored AC game.



Fatal-Feit
07-31-2016, 01:25 PM
Since it may apparently take place in ancient Egypt and before the Assassins and Templars existed, they have the freedom to do what they want, like alternating from the conventional gameplay features we've come to expect, such as the Hidden Blades and Leap of Faiths. Because of that, I'm afraid they might take it one step further and try to pull a God of War. You know, changing it into another Uncharted/The Last of Us type of game. Something linear and very narrative and set piece driven. I imagine it would allow them the chance to give each aspect a bigger focus, like setting a whole sequence around performing our first Leap of Faith or crafting and using the Hidden Blade for the first time in history, all without having to worry about developing the game around the open world formula. It may also allow them to deliver more 3rd person gameplay in MD without having to worry about players feeling restricted since the whole game is already designed around being linear. Maybe it's a little too soon to jump the gun, but hey, AC3 tried to pull an Arkham and nobody expected GoW of all series to become The Last of Us.

If my concerns are right, I'm going to be pretty disappointed.

Helforsite
07-31-2016, 02:00 PM
Don't really know what you mean by AC3 trying to pull an Arkham, but I do not think they would be stupid enough to make the historic part an linear game and would actually enjoy and prefer the MD to be a linear and very storydriven experience!

Fatal-Feit
07-31-2016, 02:08 PM
Don't really know what you mean by AC3 trying to pull an Arkham

Oh, what I meant was that AC3 designed its missions around being linear and each part focuses only on one aspect with some set pieces thrown in. One part would have you stealth, another would have you parkour, and another would put you in combat... sometimes an assassination turns into a QTE boss battle, etc.

RinoTheBouncer
08-01-2016, 01:33 PM
To be honest, if that happens, I'll be the happiest Assassin in the world.

I feel like Assassin's Creed focuses way too much on massive worlds, pointless collectibles and too many random side-quests that offer nothing in terms of story-telling or even any variety in gameplay style. So an Assassin's Creed game in the style of The Last of Us would be a dream come true for me.

cawatrooper9
08-01-2016, 03:45 PM
I think that's a concerning idea, but I don't see it as very likely.

And I gotta disagree with ya, Rhino. I think part of what makes AC great is the ability to explore open world historical locations. I'd hate to see the core series lose that.

Now, if we got a spinoff game that was more like The Last of Us and focused on either new well crafted characters or characters that we already want more of (cough, Connor, cough) I could get behind that. Heck, I think a Telltale games AC series could be fantastic. The series certainly has enough lore to supplement more story-driven content.

SixKeys
08-01-2016, 07:52 PM
To be honest, if that happens, I'll be the happiest Assassin in the world.

I feel like Assassin's Creed focuses way too much on massive worlds, pointless collectibles and too many random side-quests that offer nothing in terms of story-telling or even any variety in gameplay style. So an Assassin's Creed game in the style of The Last of Us would be a dream come true for me.

What you say is true, AC does focus on the wrong things in an open world experience. The solution is not to make it linear but to cut back on the fluff.

One possibility would be to have a Templar spin-off where the gameplay is linear, to weave the two factions' philosophies into the gameplay. Assassins are all about freedom, going wherever you want and doing what you want (within the Creed's guidelines), Templars are all about control and order, with a very one-track mind. It would be the perfect way to explore two sides of the same coin via gameplay, instead of simply making a Templar game that plays exactly like an assassin game (Rogue).

Ureh
08-01-2016, 08:42 PM
To be honest, if that happens, I'll be the happiest Assassin in the world.

I feel like Assassin's Creed focuses way too much on massive worlds, pointless collectibles and too many random side-quests that offer nothing in terms of story-telling or even any variety in gameplay style. So an Assassin's Creed game in the style of The Last of Us would be a dream come true for me.

I'm replayed the Last of Us recently and from what I've noticed, despite it being mostly linear, there are quite a few things that distracted me from the main narrative. On the plus side the collectibles are part of scavenging for supplies, so at first it doesn't feel unnatural to be searching for craftables and coincidentally find a comic or a firefly pendant along the way. Imo, the downside is that while there aren't nearly as many collectibles compared to AC games, there are still quite a lot. Some of them serve almost like (audio) diaries which I like but others are almost pointless (except to Trophy hunters). In some ways I thought searching for supplies and collectibles was even more frustrating then the collectibles in AC because the places seem smaller in comparison at first, but that's when you underestimate the size of the maps and start to meticulously search every crag, corner, and cranny. It can be disappointing when you only find supplies, or only find a collectible, or nothing at all - which all kind of lend to that "survivor" atmosphere but at the end of the day it's a game so it can be frustrating to some players that despite all their efforts they failed the complete the checklist (located in the main menu). Another downside to the collectibles, I thought anyway, is that you can potentially miss some of them despite knowing that there is one locked behind a door. Depending on which difficulty you're playing on and your skill level, you might lose out on a handbook or another collectible since you need to choose: should I save the shiv for a clicker or do I want that collectible more? When I start my Grounded difficulty playthrough, I suspect I'll be constantly answering: save it for the Clickers. In which case, does that make collectibles more pointless or should we just consider as part of the survivor atmosphere? There was also Banter: Good thing is you get to talk with the characters a little more which is a big part of TLoU, but I felt like it shared some of the disadvantages of the collectibles. I'd be jogging/running all over the place looking for the scripted button prompt that will initiate a conversation, some of them were way off the beaten path or even in a place that required you to backtrack after a fight. Sadly, I found out at the end of the game that I missed some conversations despite feeling that I was finicky about finding everything.

As for the the limited "variety in gameplay style", I feel like TLoU wasn't any more free when compared to Syndicate gameplay.
1) Both mission structure in each games are quite "linear", enemy placements and patrols are determined. We know where we need to go next, what we need to do (in the case of Syndicate it will have objective markers that can't be removed but TLoU has the "listening ability" which is a less powerful version of EV). How we go through the mission areas are determined by us, do we want to kill everyone or sneak past everyone?
2) Gameplay options are occasionally more limited in TLoU because the player is short on the supplies or facing an intimidating pack of enemies. Which can force them to either stealth through a part, or force them to use tools that they would rather not. I understand this is partially affected by the difficulty setting, player skill, etc.
3) In the situations where I was well-stocked in both games, I can choose how I want to clear out an area or sneak right through it. This gameplay style is very feasible in both games. Do I want to use a throwing dagger to distract that Blighter? Should I use my brick/bottle to distract that clicker? In Syndicate, I can choose to use a smoke bomb to obscure/distract, and in TLoU I can do the same. I can also say that the grenades/molotovs serve similar functions to the voltaic bombs and nitro boxes (the latter only being in certain missions areas where it's appropriate).
4) In TLoU especially on higher difficulty it can limit gameplay style even further because you'll probably rely on stealth and ignoring enemies even more often. Whereas in ACS, players are given to freedom to be stealthy or go nuts with combat.

What I do like about TLoU's gameplay is that you usually aren't overflowing with supplies, your characters aren't invincible, so it can make the gameplay more tense, challenging, and engaging. Whereas in Syndicate, you're supposed to be a confident, budding Assassin who learns to rule the rooftops, shadows, and corners. But it just doesn't really feel like those aspects of TLoU lend to a wider variety of gameplay.

Hopefully I didn't misunderstand your words in any way.

LoyalACFan
08-03-2016, 07:04 AM
But when God of War "pulled a Last of Us," it didn't really sacrifice its core gameplay appeal. It's trying to tell a more mature, humanized story instead of just "me angry god, me smash stuff," but fundamentally it's still a linear action game focused on cinematic melee battles with giant monster thingies. Whereas in AC, the franchise's signature appeal (and, I would argue, the promise it most consistently delivers on) is being able to freely explore scenes from history that have become entrenched in the popular imagination. It would be utter lunacy to scrap the "historical tourism" angle. Some diehard fans might enjoy a more linear, lore-heavy experience, but I think it's safe to say that it isn't what sells these games.

And truth be told, it isn't what I want either. I mean, I want to go into game writing, so I'm all for cleaning up the lore and metanarrative stuff and delivering a story-focused game, but I don't think that's necessarily at odds with having an open world experience :)

Fatal-Feit
08-03-2016, 08:58 AM
But when God of War "pulled a Last of Us," it didn't really sacrifice its core gameplay appeal. It's trying to tell a more mature, humanized story instead of just "me angry god, me smash stuff," but fundamentally it's still a linear action game focused on cinematic melee battles with giant monster thingies. Whereas in AC, the franchise's signature appeal (and, I would argue, the promise it most consistently delivers on) is being able to freely explore scenes from history that have become entrenched in the popular imagination. It would be utter lunacy to scrap the "historical tourism" angle. Some diehard fans might enjoy a more linear, lore-heavy experience, but I think it's safe to say that it isn't what sells these games.

And truth be told, it isn't what I want either. I mean, I want to go into game writing, so I'm all for cleaning up the lore and metanarrative stuff and delivering a story-focused game, but I don't think that's necessarily at odds with having an open world experience :)

Well, previous The God of War games had a story, but narrative was never at the forefront. It was always simple and tried to give players a reason to hate our enemies and want to murder them. The core gameplay appeal, or the experience the game in general, was being an angry man who hacked his way through monsters and murdered Gods in gruesome, barbaric ways for 90% of the experience, not occasional moments. It was a puzzle platformer with hack and slashing that allowed players to feel God-like and bash monsters' head in by bashing buttons with no thoughts- that's even how hardcore people refer to the games as. It doesn't matter if many people found it tasteless and unappealing, it was still why the series was popular and Kratos became iconic. Not to say that the game they presented didn't look amazing for what it was, but a lot of the hardcore fans are pretty surprised at the change. The developers themselves have admitted to changing everything for a more narrative focused experience in articles. I actually think that between GoW and AC, AC would be the series that made the shift, as for all its open-world aspects, it doesn't do a good job of carrying the open-world elements. I see a lot of people asking for mechanics and features that makes them more linear and fans tend to praise it when it's at its most linear. i.e MD (the parts when you can parkour and assassinate as Desmond), catacombs, etc.

Farlander1991
08-03-2016, 09:07 AM
Well, previous The God of War games had a story, but narrative was never at the forefront.

But it doesn't matter what's at the forefront. Games are a symbiosis of interactivity and narrative, even ones that you'd think don't have a story at all like Civilization or Pirates! or FTL. Successful symbiosis of all the elements is what creates a great experience and therefore a great game. If God of War previously did it one way (despite me playing ****tons of games, GoW is something that I haven't played so I can't judge the series at all), but then the next one will do something in a different way, what's going to matter is how it all fits together and what experience does it provide rather than if there's a bigger or lesser focus on narrative.


people tend to praise it when it's at its most linear. i.e MD, catacombs, etc.

Fundamentally disagree here, as you're forgetting about black boxes, Borgia Towers, London liberation missions, plantations, forts, and many of other praised open-world content that mass audience really enjoys.

LoyalACFan
08-03-2016, 10:29 AM
I see a lot of people asking for mechanics and features that makes them more linear and fans tend to praise it when it's at its most linear. i.e MD (the parts when you can parkour and assassinate as Desmond), catacombs, etc.

The opinions on these forums aren't a good representation of the mass audience though. Here, you're only interacting with a handful of die-hard fans who care enough about the series to discuss it regularly online. Modern day, for instance, is FAR more popular on these forums than it is on the broad scale (and even here, it's still controversial). Reading reviews (both professional and informal) is a much better indication of where the majority falls, and like Farlander said, open-world exploration and activities are almost always high on their lists. Catacombs are popular, sure, but they comprised about thirty minutes of gameplay out of AC2's 20+ hour journey and paid off with some awesome fan service and great armor; I don't think it's fair to say that people's high opinion of the catacomb missions indicate a widespread desire to move more toward linearity.

Fatal-Feit
08-03-2016, 11:17 AM
But it doesn't matter what's at the forefront. Games are a symbiosis of interactivity and narrative, even ones that you'd think don't have a story at all like Civilization or Pirates! or FTL. Successful symbiosis of all the elements is what creates a great experience and therefore a great game. If God of War previously did it one way (despite me playing ****tons of games, GoW is something that I haven't played so I can't judge the series at all), but then the next one will do something in a different way, what's going to matter is how it all fits together and what experience does it provide rather than if there's a bigger or lesser focus on narrative.

If you read my post in its entirely, I still praised the new one because I acknowledged that it still looked good for the changes it has made. What I said wasn't arguing that the story was redundant, what I argued is that it wasn't what carried the games forward for fans because LoyalACFan said that the new GoW didn't lose its core gameplay appeal -to which it did because it focused a lot more on presenting its story than platforming, puzzle solving, and oh yes, hacking monsters. The narrative helped encourage players and gave them some context for what they do, but I doubt anyone picked up GoW mostly for its narrative. Heck, the most praised and successful GoW, GoW3, had the least compelling story of the trilogy. I'm not going to spoil anything, but the only shed of characterization was at the very end for that one.


Fundamentally disagree here, as you're forgetting about black boxes, Borgia Towers, London liberation missions, plantations, forts, and many of other praised open-world content that mass audience really enjoys.


The opinions on these forums aren't a good representation of the mass audience though. Here, you're only interacting with a handful of die-hard fans who care enough about the series to discuss it regularly online. Modern day, for instance, is FAR more popular on these forums than it is on the broad scale (and even here, it's still controversial). Reading reviews (both professional and informal) is a much better indication of where the majority falls, and like Farlander said, open-world exploration and activities are almost always high on their lists. Catacombs are popular, sure, but they comprised about thirty minutes of gameplay out of AC2's 20+ hour journey and paid off with some awesome fan service and great armor; I don't think it's fair to say that people's high opinion of the catacomb missions indicate a widespread desire to move more toward linearity.

Honestly, I think you guys are right. I'm probably focusing on the linear parts because of recent threads I've participated in or read from both here and the sub.

Regarding the MD though, the basis of my opinion was not really from the forum (I don't visit here as much as I used), but the sub (which has more than thrice the activity here) and AC's popular Youtubers and the face of their fans such as Loomer, Lazerzz, UbiCentral, and Animus Island.

I still agree that it's mostly the hardcore fans, but MD is incredibly popular on the sub. Like, SUPER popular. People complain and make a thread about that every other day. I believe the past few days have had more than a few threads dedicated to it. Every now and then, we get someone posting for the first time to say that they're disappointed about it, to which a hurdle of fans agree with them. There was a fan recently, who made the ridiculous assumption that Ubisoft lied about it being popular and that post got a lot of likes. I did noticed that M chimed in and argued with people there. lol

pacmanate
08-03-2016, 11:48 AM
To be honest, if that happens, I'll be the happiest Assassin in the world.

I feel like Assassin's Creed focuses way too much on massive worlds, pointless collectibles and too many random side-quests that offer nothing in terms of story-telling or even any variety in gameplay style. So an Assassin's Creed game in the style of The Last of Us would be a dream come true for me.

We've talked about this before.

A better story doesn't come from a linear experience, it comes from the writers.

Red Dead Redemption, Witcher 3, GTAV = All have great open world experiences and great open world stories because of the WRITERS.

If the writing is bad, it doesn't matter if it's a linear or open world game. The writers don't "focus" on the open world or collectibles, that's not their job. Same goes vice versa, the people building the world don't write the script.

Farlander1991
08-03-2016, 12:06 PM
If you read my post in its entirely

I did read it in its entirety :) my point was that bigger focus on narrative does not mean less visceral combat experience and no other things that people would expect from a GoW game. We can't really judge until everybody sees the final product in its entirety.


I still agree that it's mostly the hardcore fans, but MD is incredibly popular on the sub. Like, SUPER popular. People complain and make a thread about that every other day. I believe the past few days have had more than a few threads dedicated to it. Every now and then, we get someone posting for the first time to say that they're disappointed about it, to which a hurdle of fans agree with them. There was a fan recently, who made the ridiculous assumption that Ubisoft lied about it being popular and that post got a lot of likes. I did noticed that M chimed in and argued with people there. lol

Well, let's say 80% of the sub considers MD the most important thing ever, but it's important to note that the sub is 0.5% of the player base of an AC game (50.000 players out of average 10 million players that an AC game has), so it's a bit less impressive in comparison :rolleyes:

Eurostar7x
08-09-2016, 04:19 AM
I have a feeling Desmond's son and the mother of his son will make an appearance in the new game. They have already been caught by Abstergo, and i think the mother probably has EVE DNA that she passed down to Desmond's son. I am already hyped for the new AC game and it hasnt even been teased yet. LOL

We were led to believe Desmond was going to be the greatest Assassin ever, but i think his son is destined to be the greatest Assassin. He's only 10 years old according to AC Syndicate though.

LoyalACFan
08-09-2016, 06:04 AM
I have a feeling Desmond's son and the mother of his son will make an appearance in the new game. They have already been caught by Abstergo, and i think the mother probably has EVE DNA that she passed down to Desmond's son. I am already hyped for the new AC game and it hasnt even been teased yet. LOL

We were led to believe Desmond was going to be the greatest Assassin ever, but i think his son is destined to be the greatest Assassin. He's only 10 years old according to AC Syndicate though.

The writers made the kid as old as he could possibly be, though. Desmond was apparently only 17/18 when he fathered him, so they couldn't go back much farther than that (especially because Desmond was with the Assassins until he was 16, and apparently neither he nor the Brotherhood knew nothing about the kid).

But there's no reason they can't just jump ahead to 2025 or something in the next game, and let the kid grow into an adult in the interim. After all, AC1 came out in 2007 and was set in 2012. If they do that, though, I hope they just set it at some indeterminate point in the future rather than trying to do another "countdown" thing across several games. They really set themselves up for failure with that in the Desmond trilogy; AC3 could have been amaaaazing if it had been delayed a year, but it *had* to come out before the 2012 'prophecy' thing happened in real life.

Personally though, I hope they have us play as his ex, the mother, instead of doing another time-jump 'chosen-one' prophecy thing. I'm getting a little sick of always playing as 'the chosen one' tbh.

MikeFNY
08-09-2016, 10:10 AM
Well, let's say 80% of the sub considers MD the most important thing ever, but it's important to note that the sub is 0.5% of the player base of an AC game (50.000 players out of average 10 million players that an AC game has), so it's a bit less impressive in comparison :rolleyes:

Exactly, we tend to assume that what we read in forums is what the players want but in reality, forums and such are always a small percentage of those who actually play the game.

Having said that, now that I'm playing AC3, I realised - or better confirmed - how much I loved the MD, I mean let's face it, ultimately that was the concept of the game, someone stepping into the animus to relive his ancestors' memories in order to find something in the MD so as to fight a cause in the MD.

The writers made an outrageous mistake in killing Desmond off and by the way, no, you don't fix that problem by bringing him back to life or saying that he has a son who will take over.

Desmond is dead, don't treat me like a fool by replacing him with his father or ghost, or son or dog or whatever, he's gone, you don't cancel out a mistake by making another.

The way the MD was designed in AC3 was brilliant, it took only a small percentage of the game and if, at any point in time, you wanted to go there, you could by choosing a menu option. Those who don't give a damn about it could have easily ignored it.

That's how it should, the MD should be bigger in the next game but with the option to ignore a big part of it if you're not interested.

Eurostar7x
08-09-2016, 05:05 PM
I dont think Desmond si dead, and Subject 16 is probably not gone either. Well physically they are dead, but not digitally.

John Standish and Juno had a conversation in Black Flag and Juno said that Clay and Desmond are "among those who will not leave" and that they will live in bliss in The Grey. Juno is currently in The Grey and she's manipulating people to find her a body so she can get out of The Grey.

Remember when Clay was "deleted" and saved Desmond? I dont think he was deleted, because The Grey is the entire digital network. Clay can go anywhere he wants in the digital realm.

At the end of Black Flag when Desmond touched the sphere what i think it did was open The Grey and at the same time was sucked into it so his consciousness left his body. Whether or not his body can still function, i dont know but i think Abstergo ended up cutting him into pieces right?

If he was to come back it would be in a different body unless the Ankh can do something crazy like go back in time or something.

Mr.Black24
08-10-2016, 04:55 AM
A better story doesn't come from a linear experience, it comes from the writers.


Bingo!!!! People seem to forget that they are both different entities, though yes they can intertwine, but are still solo "beings" if I may.

If anything, if I remember correctly, one of the devs said that they want to solely focus on gameplay only. I have no idea if this statement is true or not, but what I fear is the team forsaking the lore of the series. Its acceptable in games like Doom or God of War because thier world's lore is simple but strong enough to understand and get to the point of things, all built around the gameplay. Assassin's Creed is more complex than that. The series' lore is so huge that its around the expansive levels of other media such as Starcraft and Harry Potter. I mean we got encyclopedias of the series already, why burn it all? There is so much of so many things, that just cutting it clean and moving on to something else before we even got started is what I don't want. I just don't want to explore something interesting in the new game just to forget it and never revisit it again like a few certain characters and objects.

cawatrooper9
08-10-2016, 02:25 PM
If anything, if I remember correctly, one of the devs said that they want to solely focus on gameplay only.

I don't know if this is what you're referring to, but I know that Amancio made comments about focusing on gameplay. I don't specifically remember him saying they'd "solely" focus on it, but it's possible.

Anyway, look at Unity. From a gameplay perspective, it's not terrible, not now that the patches have fixed the bulk of it. From a story and lore perspective... it leaves a lot to be desired.

Gameplay and story should go hand in hand. As Farlander points out in a recent article, narrative theming in gameplay is possible, and a good example in the series is Black Flag.

SixKeys
08-12-2016, 04:27 AM
But there's no reason they can't just jump ahead to 2025 or something in the next game, and let the kid grow into an adult in the interim. After all, AC1 came out in 2007 and was set in 2012. If they do that, though, I hope they just set it at some indeterminate point in the future rather than trying to do another "countdown" thing across several games. They really set themselves up for failure with that in the Desmond trilogy; AC3 could have been amaaaazing if it had been delayed a year, but it *had* to come out before the 2012 'prophecy' thing happened in real life.

The countdown only became a problem because they changed their original plan from a trilogy to five games. They could pull it off with better planning in the future. Having a countdown to some big event would be great for building a proper arc. MD has been flailing recently precisely because Juno doesn't seem to have any real plans or be in any kind of a hurry.

cawatrooper9
08-12-2016, 02:39 PM
The countdown only became a problem because they changed their original plan from a trilogy to five games. They could pull it off with better planning in the future. Having a countdown to some big event would be great for building a proper arc. MD has been flailing recently precisely because Juno doesn't seem to have any real plans or be in any kind of a hurry.

That's true.

I still stand by what I've been saying. 2013-2015 in Assassins Creed has been a sort of transitionary period for the series.

To use a topical example, imagine a gymnast on a balance beam. They do a flip, and it's actually pretty impressive (AC1-3), but they have a pretty rough landing (AC3's ending). They wobble for a bit (AC4-S), then take a moment to regain their composure (2016). Now, they're ready to try another big stunt- this time more cautious, but also more aware.

LoyalACFan
08-12-2016, 05:32 PM
The countdown only became a problem because they changed their original plan from a trilogy to five games. They could pull it off with better planning in the future. Having a countdown to some big event would be great for building a proper arc. MD has been flailing recently precisely because Juno doesn't seem to have any real plans or be in any kind of a hurry.

I agree that it was the fault of ACB and ACR that AC3 was lackluster, but I think we're being unrealistic if we expect that something of that nature will never happen again. At the end of the day, AC is essentially Ubi's failsafe card; if they're looking at a financial year that'll likely be a bit thin, you can bet they'll trot out a quick AC sequel to pad things out. Which I've come to accept, honestly, but I don't want them shooting themselves in the foot again by setting up a conclusion to a multi-year arc half a decade in advance. It's a really shaky way to tell a story in an industry this fast-moving and volatile.


That's true.

I still stand by what I've been saying. 2013-2015 in Assassins Creed has been a sort of transitionary period for the series.

To use a topical example, imagine a gymnast on a balance beam. They do a flip, and it's actually pretty impressive (AC1-3), but they have a pretty rough landing (AC3's ending). They wobble for a bit (AC4-S), then take a moment to regain their composure (2016). Now, they're ready to try another big stunt- this time more cautious, but also more aware.

Somebody's been watching the Olympics :rolleyes::p

Sorrosyss
08-12-2016, 07:43 PM
Assassin's Creed: a Telltale Game

(Ezio will remember this)

No but seriously, I came to the series because of an interest in open world games, I hope that never changes. One of the reasons I disliked the 2D Chronicles games - but whatever. Since AC3 ended my biggest gripe with the series has been the narrative. I mean yes, it does tie in a lot with the Isu and the modern day, and I have severely missed those elements, but there has been a focus on areas that really shouldn't have been centred on. Story is my biggest draw to the series, but I suspect that is not the case for everyone. It can't hurt to try and improve on that aspect though, with rival games getting such praise in that area.

In example, when I think of Unity and Syndicate's side missions, I just remember how repetitive they were. One of the aspects that other games (such as Witcher 3) have done well is ensuring side content is engaging and fits to a similar narrative quality as the main story missions. The frustrating thing is AC has done that previously (Templar Hunts in Black Flag come to mind), but now we get 700 collectibles and numerous non-engaging repetitive side quests - purely to tick off some kind of quantity quota. I'd happily welcome a cut in side missions if they had more variety, and some narrative depth to those that remained.

As others have said, fundamentally they don't need to change things too much. I think the formula still works, and I enjoy it still. I know Watch Dogs 2 will follow the exact same formula and I'm excited for that too. All I'd like to see is a little more effort made to the storytelling. The only thing that needs to be sacrificed is tedium. Everything else, combat, collectibles, stealth - they've all been fairly similar throughout the franchise - it's just a matter of fine tuning at this point. But if you fundamentally change the basis of the game, you may as well either rebrand or create a standalone spinoff.