PDA

View Full Version : Could Origins be the best selling AC?



strigoi1958
08-23-2017, 12:57 AM
Every time there is a new clip and one of you point out a feature or a nice touch at a certain time point in the game, I look and I find it hard to think of a previous game as good. I rate all AC games 89/ 100 and above so to me they are all great but Origins seems to already be surpassing my expectations AND that is even before we have discovered all the things yet to be revealed while playing the game.

The lack of physical copies will initially hold back sales, as will the loss of marketing from the vendors of physical sales.... but I still think it could go on to be the best selling AC game. Just a gut feeling (nobody quote the Ranger reply about Torvins gut :) )

What say you?

No it will never beat AC4 BF or Yes if it lives up to the promise of what we have seen...

ModernWaffle
08-23-2017, 01:14 AM
Maybe, but I'm going to say no due to a few points:

-Unlikely to surpass AC3 hype / sales
-Looks like Origins has split the fanbase a bit and will probably continue to do this when it comes out like AC3 and Unity (though probably not as extreme as either)
-High expectations are building which could lead to disappointment (compare with Black Flag which was surrounded by scepticism and which allowed for a pleasant surprise/surge in sales after release)
-Franchise fatigue, regardless of reviews some people might see it as another AAA annual release that's just a copy/paste of previous entries

Edit: Also if you look at the sales for Rogue-Syndicate, they're quite a bit lower than AC3/Black Flag)

strigoi1958
08-23-2017, 01:28 AM
All good points to think it might not beat 3 or BF over the coming years... (don't forget AC3 has been selling for 5 years :) )

I posted all the sales figures in another thread when discussing ac games sales passing 100 million but it is a good point.

Megas_Doux
08-23-2017, 01:53 AM
That's just impossible!

AC III had what's probably the best and biggest marketing campaign that Ubi has EVER put and by a huge margin. AC III was ALL over the place from youtube adds to TV spots during prime time. Dozens of articles on almost daily basis in sites like IGN, Gametrailers, etc, etc etc..Plus there was the end of the Desmond story and the point media exhaustion with the franchise was just beginning. The hype was IMMENSE!!!!!!


AC IV is hailed, and not by few, as ¨"the best pirate game ever". Ubisoft hit the jackpot with the still kinda basic but SUPER fun sailing mechanics. It's truly hard not only for Origins but for others in the future to surpass a game that MANY bought and enjoyed it DESPITE of it being an AC game. That is with all its shortcomings in the likes of dumb AI/stealth, laughable combat and such.

I read somewhere that Ubi expected the sales to be ¨not high" for the franchise standards

WendysBrioche
08-23-2017, 06:15 AM
Hard to say.

I mean for one it's Egypt, most people are loving Bayek, and the one year hiatus has given people breathing space to want to come back to it again.

But a lot of people are complaining, myself guilty as well. Hopefully the negativity wont stop people from picking up the game.

It's looking to be among the most worthwhile and fullfilling entries in the series as of late. The look of the game itself should be enough to draw people in. But with people who are more cynical when it comes to games, they don't care about graphics or artwork. For them it's more of a gameplay stimulating effect that keeps them in, and that's a much harder market to please.

I'm thankful more people appreciate the artwork in video games these days. There were points in the last couple decades where people didn't care or appreciate how nice landscapes in games, or even the real world looked.

ohoni
08-23-2017, 07:57 AM
I think it's likely. I mean, basically it's in the same position as Mass Effect Andromeda was in. It's part of a popular franchise that took some time off, and now it's back and prettier than ever, showing off some really gorgeous terrain and some. . . present character animations, promising improved exploration and a new combat system. So, will it do as well as Andromeda did under similar circumstances? Only time will tell.

strigoi1958
08-23-2017, 10:57 AM
@Megas_Doux I'm not sure it is impossible for a few reasons..... I'm sure AC2 fans thought it would never be outsold ;)

BF IS an awesome game, (it had no shortcomings for me) but it's been around 4 years, its sales have been boosted by being discounted and put in bundles.

So in 4 years time, Origins may have been in sales. The next 2 games might almost be like a trilogy and people will buy Origins because the enjoy the Rome game or the Greek game. Origins might be seen like AC1 as it will almost be the new beginning game for the next generation of fans, who will buy it just for that reason.

When more 4k TV's are sold people will appreciate the better graphics of Origins.

I'm sure Ubi are expecting initial sales to be low because of the point I mentioned regarding physical copies, but I also expect good reviews and that will bring in more sales over the next 4 years.



@WendysBrioche

As you already know, I really appreciate great screenshots from the threads in the old PC section, but I do consider myself to be a gameplay only person. The only thing in AC games I have not really enjoyed is pointless collectables... I didn't mind the shanties in BF because it gave us more songs while sailing. But I've enjoyed the gameplay in all the games and Origins has already shown glimpses of things that are better than previous games to me.

And you are right about Egypt, Bayek and the extended break, all things that will make people curious.... if the MD is a big surprise I'd expect people to light up the internet with glowing reviews, but on gameplay alone, I'm already more than impressed. :)

It's going to be interesting over the next 4 years :)

AnimusLover
08-23-2017, 03:11 PM
But with people who are more cynical when it comes to games, they don't care about graphics or artwork. For them it's more of a gameplay stimulating effect that keeps them in, and that's a much harder market to please.

I'm thankful more people appreciate the artwork in video games these days. There were points in the last couple decades where people didn't care or appreciate how nice landscapes in games, or even the real world looked.

It's not unreasonable to ask that a game is actually fun to play. Back in the day, all we had was blocky little 2D pixels, back when people didn't care about graphics but about just getting the highest score. Are we going to hold games like Tetris, Pacman, Super Mario 64 against their fans? No. Because gaming is primarily is about gameplay, it's what separates it from other entertainment mediums. So what if some don't care about graphics?
Of course, today graphics are important depending on the what type of game it is but gameplay is also very important and, believe it or not ,it is possible to pull off BOTH (Witcher 3, Uncharted 4, Horizon Zero Dawn, The Phantom Pain)
Graphics are accentuated by gameplay otherwise it's like looking like a beautiful painting.

SofaJockey
08-23-2017, 03:50 PM
I think it's likely. I mean, basically it's in the same position as Mass Effect Andromeda was in. It's part of a popular franchise that took some time off, and now it's back and prettier than ever, showing off some really gorgeous terrain and some. . . present character animations, promising improved exploration and a new combat system. So, will it do as well as Andromeda did under similar circumstances? Only time will tell.

By all accounts Mass Effect Andromeda did a grudging 'ok' but it's likely killed the Mass Effect franchise for another 5 years or so.

I think Ubisoft will want the game to do much better than Syndicate after its break, though October is pretty crowded...

cawatrooper9
08-23-2017, 04:03 PM
I agree that it's gonna be tough to top ACIII.

I say this as a person who is well aware of the fact that it will never happen- but, if Ubisoft were to include some significant MD announcements (I'm talking, third person action scenes) then I could see this game generating a ton more organic interest.

Also (and this is important)- no strict embargoes could do wonder for this game's sales. Don't make gamers wonder about the quality of this game. If you're confident in the product (and I think they should be), show it off before release.

Sushiglutton
08-23-2017, 04:04 PM
I don't see why not. Setting is fantastic, honestly what upcoming game this fall is even close? Gameplay improvements may give the game a longer tail if word goes around of it being the best AC gameplay-wise.

crusader_prophet
08-23-2017, 05:18 PM
I think it will be a relatively widely appreciated video game (8.5 - 9.5/10). It is not going to redefine any genres or set any trends. But, it will be a reversal of the declining slope of the AC franchise. It will be point of inflexion forward which the next few games will draw financial advantage. Financially, it is not going to outperform AC3 or BF at launch, but over time it will probably be one the leggiest entries in the series if not at par with Black Flag.

cawatrooper9
08-23-2017, 06:20 PM
I think it will be a relatively widely appreciated video game (8.5 - 9.5/10). It is not going to redefine any genres or set any trends. But, it will be a reversal of the declining slope of the AC franchise. It will be point of inflexion forward which the next few games will draw financial advantage. Financially, it is not going to outperform AC3 or BF at launch, but over time it will probably be one the leggiest entries in the series if not at par with Black Flag.


That's a good point, I could see it very similar to Black Flag- moderately successful launch with a strong presence in sales over the next year or so. This is definitely a "proving" moment for the series again.

crusader_prophet
08-23-2017, 06:46 PM
That's a good point, I could see it very similar to Black Flag- moderately successful launch with a strong presence in sales over the next year or so. This is definitely a "proving" moment for the series again.

I think I should have edited my post to say that, it might just set a standard for the industry in terms of recreating a setting (location and time period) for which there aren't much visual confirmations out there, mostly based on archeological theories and ruins.

ohoni
08-23-2017, 10:26 PM
That's a good point, I could see it very similar to Black Flag- moderately successful launch with a strong presence in sales over the next year or so. This is definitely a "proving" moment for the series again.

That would really depend on how much effort they put into fixing it post-launch. If they just "fire and forget" then I doubt it will have the tail that Black Flag did. It's important to keep in mind that Black Flag did not succeed because it was a great Assassin's Creed game, it succeeded because it was a great pirate game. Origins is not at all a pirate game, great or otherwise, so it can't count on that audience bump. There is no reason at all to compare it to Black Flag, aside from it having the same dev studio.

WendysBrioche
08-23-2017, 10:36 PM
It's not unreasonable to ask that a game is actually fun to play. Back in the day, all we had was blocky little 2D pixels, back when people didn't care about graphics but about just getting the highest score. Are we going to hold games like Tetris, Pacman, Super Mario 64 against their fans? No. Because gaming is primarily is about gameplay, it's what separates it from other entertainment mediums. So what if some don't care about graphics?
Of course, today graphics are important depending on the what type of game it is but gameplay is also very important and, believe it or not ,it is possible to pull off BOTH (Witcher 3, Uncharted 4, Horizon Zero Dawn, The Phantom Pain)
Graphics are accentuated by gameplay otherwise it's like looking like a beautiful painting.

I definitely agree with you on this point AnimusL.

Gameplay is always really important.

That said though, I don't feel like Origins is lacking in either department.

The game is beautiful, I personally find the graphics superior to most open worlds out there right now, I wouldn't expect an AC game right now to look any better. Origins exceeds my expectations.

It looks just as good and better than Syndicate and Unity as far as I'm concerned.

I have no doubt the gameplay is going to be fun in this game for sure. I've had tons of fun in the previous games, and this game is by far not going to be any exception. From the brilliant cities, to the nature environments, and the tombs, I'm definitely excited.

Now I've griped about a few of the combat animations, but I do really appreciate where they're going with the hit boxed combat. Though I have my opinion of preferring the movie like combat, it's nothing that spoils the game for me at all. And the finisher moves are still delivering on that end.

But as far as that negative opinion, negativity can have a really bad effect in regards to games. AC has had it's fair share of this, and plenty more than was due or called for, but I've also been on the Battlefront forums a lot as well, and the opinions people are giving to that game are so unfair.

I mean DICE made 5 dlc seasons free of charge, and people claiming to be "true fans" of Star Wars are still threatening to "boycott" the game.

I'm just sitting here like, get real. If a developer takes the time to make everything look nice, and especially as generous as DICE has been about making special character skins for requested heroes, working on Clone Wars Prequel content, and you say you're still going to boycott the game when that much passion is pouring into it, and they're making it free, my personal opinion is you don't really care about Star Wars or whatever IP, if you did, you'd be more than happy to show your support.

And that's essentially my attitude about AC. I'm always going to buy these games cause it's a series I care about. I always tend to find it off putting when it's said, don't like it, don't buy it, or even worse when people threaten to boycott great series out there.

Megas_Doux
08-24-2017, 03:48 AM
Don't get me wrong here folks.. I want AC Origins to be a blast in very conceivable way as much as you do..I know we are the hardcore ones and such.. But the BEST selling game in the franchise???? The hype got the best of you....

It needs to be a true masterpiece from story, gameplay and performance in order of being able to overcome the fatigue and plain HATE not only for AC itself but for Ubisoft as a whole and thus taking that spot which, as of now, belongs to probably AC IV and AC III at launch. I remember this time of the year in 2012; threads being made by dozens on daily basis spawning up to hundreds of posts with ease in. Take a look at this:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/665546-PAX-East-2012-official-Details!!

91 pages in less than two weeks for "demo" that never happened.....


With with Black Flag even though the hyped was low the mere pirate theme attracted a crowd that, otherwise, would've NEVER sailed in the AC ship to begin with. Plus the game was pretty solid -my personal favorite in the franchise by a long shot- and it has aged well.

Oh and then 2014 happened and Ubi became the second most hated gaming company in the world -fair or not- second to EA. Unity is probably the most panned launch of a AAA title in recent years only behind Arkham Knight in PC -guess who bought those two, at release- and don't get me started on the Watch Dogs downgrade fiasco. The Division and For Honor were great in the theory but ended up not matching the hype.


As I said above, I would be the happiest man here if the game is such a crowning achievement that is able to beat all those odds to become a huge success in every area.. The thing is that, talking strictly about sales, and based on what I perceive out there. I just don't see it....

WendysBrioche
08-24-2017, 03:54 AM
I remember this time of the year in 2012; threads being made by dozens on daily basis spawning up to hundreds of posts with ease in. Take a look at this:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/665546-PAX-East-2012-official-Details!!

91 pages in less than two weeks for "demo" that never happened.....

As I said, I would be the happiest man here if the game is such a crowning achievement that is able to beat all those odds but I just don't see it.

Damn. I didn't even remember how active these forums used to be back in the day....

What the heck happened?

Journey95
08-26-2017, 10:50 PM
If its really as good as it looks, I hope it is. But like others have said it wont be easy, the last two games killed the reputation of the series basically.

This definitely looks like a revamp of the series which was sorely needed.

Journey95
08-26-2017, 10:51 PM
That's just impossible!

AC III had what's probably the best and biggest marketing campaign that Ubi has EVER put and by a huge margin. AC III was ALL over the place from youtube adds to TV spots during prime time. Dozens of articles on almost daily basis in sites like IGN, Gametrailers, etc, etc etc..Plus there was the end of the Desmond story and the point media exhaustion with the franchise was just beginning. The hype was IMMENSE!!!!!!


AC IV is hailed, and not by few, as ¨"the best pirate game ever". Ubisoft hit the jackpot with the still kinda basic but SUPER fun sailing mechanics. It's truly hard not only for Origins but for others in the future to surpass a game that MANY bought and enjoyed it DESPITE of it being an AC game. That is with all its shortcomings in the likes of dumb AI/stealth, laughable combat and such.

I read somewhere that Ubi expected the sales to be ¨not high" for the franchise standards

And its good that they aren't hyping it as much as AC3. While it did have the biggest hype for an AC yet it also failed to deliver for a lot of people and is the most divisive game alongside Unity.

So I would rather have a game that has less hype and doesn't sell as much but actually be great and well received.

Journey95
08-26-2017, 10:52 PM
Damn. I didn't even remember how active these forums used to be back in the day....

What the heck happened?


Yeah quite surprised to see that. This forum is dead these days. At least the AC reddit fanbase is very active

Megas_Doux
08-27-2017, 12:17 AM
Damn. I didn't even remember how active these forums used to be back in the day....

What the heck happened?


1) That marketing campaign was excellent and was EVERYWHERE. You know, Superb trailers, adds that spawned from youtube to even TV during prime time, tonts of articles, interviews, etc, etc..Ubi has never done anything like it again.

2) AC III didn't live up to the hype from its core, to its new stuff and story. Speaking of which, to many of them the modern arc was as, if not, MORE important than the historic one. And to them Desmond's fate was not properly solved, let alone continued, so to speak.

3) Fatigue! Ezio's trilogy might be revered (mostly AC II) in the halls of gaming greatness these days by the "general" fan base and respected by non fans but I can assure Revelations wasn't exactly loved when it came out. By that time we already knew this franchise had gone annual and ACR felt -which it truly was- a quick cash grab portable game that turned into a full AAA title .Believe it or not, MANY were tired of the mechanics, tired of the setting and even tired of EZIO!!!!!!!

It was like seeing an old washed out opening band with those same old songs while the main "new hot act" was waiting in the backstage. Only for that "new hot act" to disappoint that sold out stadium....

You know, that's what the hype is about, the company's hype but YOUR hype also. Many view AC III as the last chance this franchise had. AC III was "set" and "had" to resolve the laughable AI/stealth, the lame/repetitive sides quests and one the man army, unbalanced and thus boring combat while closing Desmond's saga with the highest note possible.....And you know it didn't, it ended up being the same old AC with some fails and some cool stuff. So they were gone....

3) AC IV being an unexpected success despite its usual shortcomings -combat, AI, etc- and the premise of Unity's "back to roots" concept brought some new life -and feuds- to these forums. "No more ships, two floor buildings cities and rural nonsense" They said.. "The big, vertical and dense urban environments are back. I mean, look at those crowds and 1:1 landmarks for f&$&··$% sake. What better setting for a great plot that The French Revolution .This game is gonna be awesome!!!!!"

And then Unity's launch happened......

4) Adding insult to injury, Syndicate was a working but certainly maimed version of Unity with lesser textures -although superior lightning- smaller crowds, fewer interiors, bare bone customization, and a way, WAY worse combat. All of that with an even more rather "meh" story and characters.

5) Another reason is that with the massive advent of social media or places with more "liberty" these secluded forums became less visited. This is not exclusive to AC, in fact.


Yeah quite surprised to see that. This forum is dead these days. At least the AC reddit fanbase is very active

I've tried reddit but I dislike its format.

ohoni
08-27-2017, 05:13 AM
3) Fatigue! Ezio's trilogy might be revered (mostly AC II) in the halls of gaming greatness these days by the "general" fan base and respected by non fans but I can assure Revelations wasn't exactly loved when it came out. By that time we already knew this franchise had gone annual and ACR felt -which it truly was- a quick cash grab portable game that turned into a full AAA title .Believe it or not, MANY were tired of the mechanics, tired of the setting and even tired of EZIO!!!!!!!

I don't think I was "fatigued" by Revelations so much as I was "disappointed." At that time, Brotherhood was the peak of the franchise (and in some ways still is), because of its "brotherhood" mechanic and refinements over the previous game's mechanics. Being limited to Rome was a bit disappointing after the variety of open Italy, but if you're going to be limited to someplace, Rome isn't that bad a place to start.

In contrast, Revelations felt like a downgrade. Constantinople felt much smaller, and aside from Haggia Sophia, which barely played a role in things, there wasn't much of interest to it. The new mechanics (grenades and ziplines, if I remember), were not particularly exciting, and the brotherhood functionality was actually worse, with less control over the organization, less use of the abilities, and that horrible tower defense game (yet another case of them trying to copycat other games and making the product worse as a result). Also the "modern day" portion was pretty weak sauce, just a bunch of random minigames. So I don't think Revelations was in any way "doomed" to the reaction it received, it wasn't "fatigue" that hurt it, it was that they just didn't deliver a product worthy of previous entries. This was a precursor of things to come, of course.

GhostAssassinLT
08-27-2017, 12:49 PM
Well, I just hope they don't pull another GR:W out of their hat... Lovely landscape, but crappy gameplay and ****ty content...

strigoi1958
08-27-2017, 12:54 PM
There are some people on here with razor sharp wit who are great for posting a meme or remark that really makes my day.... and there are people who are passionate about all different aspects of AC, there are some extremely knowledgeable people who are well versed in AC or history or geography... and there are people who post well thought out and concise remarks that really make me think and artist who post their amazing work.... those are the people who keep me coming back to add my own (somewhat meandering) posts ;)

but I'm sure the mild pessimism that flows through the forum at times doesn't help keep people coming back ;) I'm not having a go at Megas_Doux but I'm just using your last post as an observation, so please forgive me.

Here we have someone who has made 4,360 posts so undoubtedly a great fan of AC ... and then posts, 6 points (two of them are numbered 3 ;) ) that say how bad AC is :confused:. I don't understand.


Maybe my previous perception of the console forum is right.

I used to think the console forum had a small core of people who were frustrated by the lack of an MD playable protagonist and 1st Civ story line, and it led to an (unspoken) mutual support group who would pick tiny holes at unimportant things in the game.... not out of hatred or spite but simply because... what they feel the game is lacking to make it great has manifested into looking for reasons to get other to join their call for the devs to totally re-evaluate the game in the hope that MD/ 1st Civ etc will come back bigger and better.....

I understand that totally... but it is not good for the atmosphere in the forum. Positive action is far more productive than a negative approach. If the historical side had dwindled and MD/1st Civ had dominated the series, I could spend months dissecting the MD, 1st Civ ridiculing it but I wouldn't ... I'd spend time reminding people of the historical games awesome good points.

Yes social media has played its part, I see CM's and other fans on FB, Twitter, Instagram, YT and Twitch... plus there are fan made forums and sites and web pages. But like games... forums should be fun as well as relevant. Once AC:O is released I think more fans will come... whether they stay or not depends upon whether the forum can return to a fun place again.

Megas_Doux
08-27-2017, 04:07 PM
I don't think I was "fatigued" by Revelations so much as I was "disappointed." At that time, Brotherhood was the peak of the franchise (and in some ways still is), because of its "brotherhood" mechanic and refinements over the previous game's mechanics. Being limited to Rome was a bit disappointing after the variety of open Italy, but if you're going to be limited to someplace, Rome isn't that bad a place to start.

.

Not that I disagree -I like Revelations way more than Brotherhood despite all your valid points, though- in fact I think what you and I said is complementary. I mention fatigue because by early 2011 we already knew that whatever Ubi had stored for AC III was scheduled to happen in 2012 and a huge quantity of people who posted here back in the day had nothing but "AC III" in their minds and the revamp and the grand conclusion for the Desmond Saga that had been hyped to be even since 2010....

Nobody expected ACR and when it was announced and then released many were like "that was meh, but at least AC III is coming"....




Here we have someone who has made 4,360 posts so undoubtedly a great fan of AC ... and then posts, 6 points (two of them are numbered 3 ;) ) that say how bad AC is :confused:. I don't understand.




Nah don't Worry!

I'll speak for myself but I'm SURE I'm not alone in this one: I'm a HUGE fan but at the same time my fandom doesn't prevent from acknowledging the fact that after 10 years and 10 games on what's supposed to be an stealth oriented franchise the AI is that of early 2000's AAA games.Or what about combat???

You know, I certainly believe that AC has the potential to be in the same the levels of excellence seen in GTA or Uncharted. Yet that potential is hindered by the likes of Annualization and some other shady practices for instance.I cannot and I''l never defend that fact a game was released with that many problems as Unity just because I'm a huge fan.




But like games... forums should be fun as well as relevant. Once AC:O is released I think more fans will come... whether they stay or not depends upon whether the forum can return to a fun place again.

I think is the way of life, things come to and end. At least is not that I call the 2013-2014 "protagonist wars" lol.

VestigialLlama4
08-27-2017, 05:22 PM
You know, I certainly believe that AC has the potential to be in the same the levels of excellence seen in GTA or Uncharted.

Look, even if the franchise had solved its issues, combat and other stuff, Assassin's Creed would never be respected in the same way GTA or Uncharted are, for the reason is that the concept is esoteric and non-American. If AC was set entirely in Modern America and had a white protagonist doing parkour and fighting corporations then AC would be respected...instead you know the first game had you as Altair, the second game was set in Italy, the third game has an America with a Native hero (and so "not really american" as far as the gaming crowd is concerned).

Grand Theft Auto and Uncharted are games with a lot of flaws and problems too, and the criticisms about the gags, missions and stuff repeating themselves are no less true to them than AC. Yes, GTA doesn't do annualization, but you know after a five year wait they drop GTAV which is graphically a major step-up but in terms of missions but is still pretty repetitive. Uncharted are all linear games with wonderful story presentation but basically the story is a pile of cliches taken from old hollywood movies, Indiana Jones and Fast and Furious (it's about "family").

BLACK FLAG which was an annualized game, and it showed more innovation, style and wit than any of the GTA games, and Red Dead Redemption. So rather than whine about how Ubisoft and AC will never be part of "the cool crowd" (and remember only white straight men are allowed to be cool in that crowd), focus on what AC has done, and did do well.


As for ORIGINS, no it won't be the best-seller of the games, at least not from the start. But if it turns out to be good and satisfying, then it might do the trick. Also remember, that BLACK FLAG and AC3 had the advantage of releasing on the PS3 and XBOX 360 consoles at a time when they were fairly cheap and still cutting edge, that means a lot of built-in demographic existed whereas now Ubisoft only have PS4/PS4Pro and this new Xbone this falll. So it's a much smaller market than before.

AnimusLover
08-27-2017, 09:09 PM
BLACK FLAG which was an annualized game, and it showed more innovation, style and wit than any of the GTA games, and Red Dead Redemption.

I'm honestly speechless. Each to his own but wow, just... wow. Red Dead Redemption is a masterpiece. The sense of discovery and wonder in between objectives made the world feel truly alive. The whole campaign was so dynamic and epic, and to say that BF was more innovative is laughable. Black Flag is fun but it's about as generic as a sandbox could get. It's too checklisty and the main campaign is bland, predictable and poorly paced. It's also perhaps the most conformist AC game with the most whitest, most American (even though Edward is not American, he is in outlook/concept/theme), most macho protagonist of the series. So the fact that you would use BF as an example of the series at its peak, considering everything else you go on to say is quite funny.


As for ORIGINS, no it won't be the best-seller of the games, at least not from the start. But if it turns out to be good and satisfying, then it might do the trick.

Oh, so you're admitting that the casual gamer just wants to play a good game regardless of whether it fits that in-crowd white American male mould. Thanks, glad we agree. ;)


Look, even if the franchise had solved its issues, combat and other stuff, Assassin's Creed would never be respected in the same way GTA or Uncharted are, for the reason is that the concept is esoteric and non-American. If AC was set entirely in Modern America and had a white protagonist doing parkour and fighting corporations then AC would be respected...instead you know the first game had you as Altair, the second game was set in Italy, the third game has an America with a Native hero (and so "not really american" as far as the gaming crowd is concerned). So rather than whine about how Ubisoft and AC will never be part of "the cool crowd" (and remember only white straight men are allowed to be cool in that crowd), focus on what AC has done, and did do well.

I'm sorry dude but this comes across as nothing but a flimsy excuse. You're looking outward, trying to see what other games do that make them popular rather than acknowledging its the things that AC gets wrong that makes it off putting for a lot of people. Whilst it can be argued that Assassin's Creed initially went against the grain (more on that later), are you really going to turn around and say that GTA and Uncharted only over-achieve because of the modern white American male factor and not because they are brilliantly crafted games in their own right? Is that what you think separates them from a game like Assassin's Creed? There are many GTA and Uncharted clones that fit that mould (Assassin's Creed amongst them but again, more on that in a bit). None of them even come close critically because they're just not as good.

I don't subscribe to the notion that AC is somehow this rare oddity catering to a niche market. For a game that's history based, it amazes me how Ubisoft have managed to make literally all of their main game protagonists white and male (Conor was half white and about a quarter of the game we played as a full white lead). Origins will be the game's first true protagonist that breaks this formula but even then Bayek, a Nubian medjay, voiced by a black man is very white looking. The devs could not bring themselves to give him black features, even going as far as to lighten his skin and eyes on the promo pictures. The majority of gamers would not have cared either way but it just goes to show that Ubisoft focus on the wrong things. Their entire game catalogue of late feels like a board room pitch of different trendy things cobbled together by so-called marketing experts, rather than a fresh, unique experience in itself. Whilst AC1 was far out at the time, Altair is still a white man with an American accent assassinating Arabic looking and sounding people. Ubisoft even had English accents in Paris, and it's considered by many to be the worst Assassin's Creed. Let's not even get started on the pro monarchy nonsense in Syndicate. I'm surprised Evie and Jacob didn't bend down and kiss Queen V's feet lol. AC could not be any more slavish to that mould if it tried. And to put things in perspective, GTA actually had a full black protagonist - not a half black protagonist - but a full one and its considered to be the best entry in the franchise, second only to GTAV.

The reason why AC has fallen out of the public's favour is because the games are lazy, repetitive, ill made and unpolished. I'm sorry but it's true. They are enjoyable pieces of entertainment, perfect for a casual to pass the time but they are not the award winning, game changing, record breaking masterpieces we want them to be. Not with their short development cycle and lack of innovation. They have been copying other games for years now whilst, ironically, other games have been copying their brand with better results. Horizon Zero Dawn is literally an Assassin's Creed greatest hits and yet the critics and fans raved about it. It also features a female lead. Yeah. Last of Us will have its female lead in the form of Ellie and Uncharted Lost Legacy follows two badass women of colour - and everybody's loving it. Mafia 3 featured a half black dude fighting racists and despite its poor criticial reception it's the highest selling of the franchise. And is it any coincidence that another annually released franchise has also seen a decline in sales and loss of respect. By that, of course I mean COD. This is a game dedicated to showing white Americans killing various brown people and is now seen as a joke by the gaming audience. It too suffers from similar symptoms of repetitiveness and lack of innovation.


Grand Theft Auto and Uncharted are games with a lot of flaws and problems too, and the criticisms about the gags, missions and stuff repeating themselves are no less true to them than AC. Yes, GTA doesn't do annualization, but you know after a five year wait they drop GTAV which is graphically a major step-up but in terms of missions but is still pretty repetitive. Uncharted are all linear games with wonderful story presentation but basically the story is a pile of cliches taken from old hollywood movies, Indiana Jones and Fast and Furious (it's about "family").

Yes, but their strengths far outweigh their flaws, as with any good game. GTAV has heists, restaurants, strip clubs, pool, darts, random encounters. All this stuff makes the world feel living, breathing. It's not afraid to take you off the "beaten path". Uncharted has engaging characters and you are right it is an Indiana Jones knock off... except, it's better because it allows you to BE Indiana Jones. It allows you to participate in his experiences. It's like playing a really well made movie.

My post is going on too long so I'll end it with this: in one of Ash's early interviews for Origins, somebody asked him if he thinks Origins will be game of the year material. In response to the question he proceeded to talk about sales. Says it all really.

VestigialLlama4
08-27-2017, 10:13 PM
I'm honestly speechless.

The length of your post proves otherwise.


are you really going to turn around and say that GTA and Uncharted only over-achieve because of the modern white American male factor and not because they are brilliantly crafted games in their own right?

More or less, yes. Grand Theft Auto as a franchise is largely a simple formula, "Take a bunch of popular American crime movies and crime TV Shows" and make an open world game based on that, and fill it with puerile, childish gags. ''Uncharted'' the formula is a Hollywood blockbuster take on linear action-adventure tropes with good level design and so on.

Thanks to that concept, developers, shareholders, and marketers can make decisions to improve and polish that experience because its saleable, wheras Ubisoft and AC are much more hampered. Like I remember there was a discussion about Accents on these forums...well the thing is those are creative choices and worries that GTA and Uncharted don't have to deal with because of the simplicity and marketability of their concept and demographic, whereas AC has to more or less start from scratch and think carefully about the accent issue every game they make.


The reason why AC has fallen out of the public's favour is because the games are lazy, repetitive, ill made and unpolished

Well Bioshock and GTA and even RDR is also lazy and repetitive but people don't call them out for it because it is done in a way that makes them feel comfortable.

strigoi1958
08-27-2017, 10:27 PM
You know, I certainly believe that AC has the potential to be in the same the levels of excellence seen in GTA or Uncharted.


I'd love Ubi to make a game like GTA.... where I meet up with friends, do daily objectives, missions, heists, mini games like the golf and tennis, earn money buy thing, and play user created content..... live in a virtual world that people are buying into 4 years later :) If they did... a game set in the prohibition would be good. Building up a moonshine empire, running liquor into towns, shootouts with police and the FBI... fighting rivals and buy better vehicles, equipment buildings weapons. Bribing or outrunning the cops..... Ubi has great cities in games and great landscapes like Far Cry and Wildlands.... they could do it easily.

AnimusLover
08-28-2017, 12:04 AM
More or less, yes. Grand Theft Auto as a franchise is largely a simple formula, "Take a bunch of popular American crime movies and crime TV Shows" and make an open world game based on that, and fill it with puerile, childish gags. ''Uncharted'' the formula is a Hollywood blockbuster take on linear action-adventure tropes with good level design and so on.

Thanks to that concept, developers, shareholders, and marketers can make decisions to improve and polish that experience because its saleable, wheras Ubisoft and AC are much more hampered. Like I remember there was a discussion about Accents on these forums...well the thing is those are creative choices and worries that GTA and Uncharted don't have to deal with because of the simplicity and marketability of their concept and demographic, whereas AC has to more or less start from scratch and think carefully about the accent issue every game they make.

Again, more excuses for Ubisoft's failures with this franchise, and you haven't really addressed any of my points regarding how other developers seem to be gradually moving away from this (Hellblade? LostLegacy? Horzion Zero Dawn?) One of the things that GTA and LostLegacy does so well is that they they take that American aesthetic and incorporate things that are alien to it via their non white male protagonists. Even Niko in GTAIV is a representation of a lot of Americans worst fear: an Eastern European immigrant running an illegal operation in his backyard. And he has an accent. You think Naughty Dog and R* don't think about that sort of thing during development? Well they do. And they make the choice they feel is best for the game, hence why it always ends up being the right one. What's Ubisoft's excuse? With Unity, the developers made the wrong choices for the sake of conforming to the norm (no female co op characters, killing off the strong female lead and giving everyone English accents). It backfired. Horribly.

Ubisoft has had more opportunities than any other developer to break this formula with AC because of the game's very premise. It's not a hindrance at all. No one will throw out ridiculous claims like "forced diversity" provided you go to the places where otherness isn't so other.No one will complain about an Indian accent in an Indian setting. Not like Lost Legacy which stands every risk of being slapped with the SJW tag, especially as its based on a franchise with a pre-established all American white male hero. Lost Legacy was originally a DLC but development was going so well they decided to make it into a full game.

It feels like every other franchise is moving forward whilst Ubisoft is stuck in 2009. They're completely out of touch and that's why they find it hard to deliver. They understand what's popular but don't understand why. Even their Ezio knock-offs never compare to him because Ezio had depth. He wasn't just a charismatic womaniser. He was flawed yet thoughtful. Ubisoft deducing his popularity was simply down to being charismatic is superficial insulting and makes me think their creation of him was a fluke.

If Ubisoft had more trust in the gaming community like these other developers do, they wouldn't have to agonise over something as silly as accents. The fact of the matter is, Naughty and R* can make their games comfortably because they've earned it. They've built brand loyalty through consistently strong titles.


Well Bioshock and GTA and even RDR is also lazy and repetitive but people don't call them out for it because it is done in a way that makes them feel comfortable.

Agree about Bioshock but to say RDR and GTA - two games which have much more varied content than any AC game ever, and longer development cycles and more delays in order to ensure the game is just right - are "lazy and repetitive" is so disgenuous it makes your argument lose any credibility it had.

AnimusLover
08-28-2017, 12:08 AM
I'd love Ubi to make a game like GTA.... where I meet up with friends, do daily objectives, missions, heists, mini games like the golf and tennis, earn money buy thing, and play user created content..... live in a virtual world that people are buying into 4 years later :) If they did... a game set in the prohibition would be good. Building up a moonshine empire, running liquor into towns, shootouts with police and the FBI... fighting rivals and buy better vehicles, equipment buildings weapons. Bribing or outrunning the cops..... Ubi has great cities in games and great landscapes like Far Cry and Wildlands.... they could do it easily.

Sarcasm? I can't tell.

VestigialLlama4
08-28-2017, 01:40 AM
You think Naughty Dog and R* don't think about that sort of thing during development?

When most of the action is about contemporary white male Americans there's not a lot to think. The concept is so generic and dry that it doesn't need explanation.


No one will complain about an Indian accent in an Indian setting. Not like Lost Legacy which stands every risk of being slapped with the SJW tag, especially as its based on a franchise with a pre-established all American white male hero. Lost Legacy was originally a DLC but development was going so well they decided to make it into a full game.

Lost Legacy is still a standalone and not a full game (since it's about 6 hours which makes it about the size of DLC and maybe shorter than some), and the protagonist is Half-Indian Half-Australian whose accent sounds foreign, whose pronunciations of Indian words are pretty bad and the main bad guy is a full Indian separatist...and the whole detail and stuff there about South India is laughable to my Indian friends. It's basically TEMPLE OF DOOM but without the obvious offensive racism and orientalism, now it's more subtle and insidious. You still have the stereotypes of elephants and monkeys in the game.


If Ubisoft had more trust in the gaming community like these other developers do, they wouldn't have to agonise over something as silly as accents. The fact of the matter is, Naughty and R* can make their games comfortably because they've earned it. They've built brand loyalty through consistently strong titles.

And most of that is because their franchises are based on more common elements and characters and tropes than others. GTA is based on the Tarantinto/Guy Ritchie Formula, Uncharted is based on the same Nathan Drake-Indiana Jones spoof. And it's a very good spoof but that's what it is. And the gameplay of Uncharted is based on the Third Person Action gameplay in earlier Sony titles, like check out the PS2 Exclusive Bond Game, EVERYTHING OR NOTHING, you have the same cover mechanic, the same third person combat and melee that Uncharted has.

In the case of AC, AC1 is set in the Crusades and has Altair, the second game Ezio is set in the Renaissance and has another character, the later games have multiple characters in different eras. So it's a lot more to think about, a lot more to process. Every new AC game is starting from ground zero, making new supporting characters, and so on.


...but to say RDR and GTA - two games which have much more varied content than any AC game ever,

Red Dead Redemption has shootouts, gun duels, and cattle rustling, and treasure hunts. That's about all the activities it has. The rest is usual Open World Collectibles. Black Flag has naval combat, you have diving, you have collectible ship shanties, and that's just off the top.

And you know Pirates > Cowboys.

strigoi1958
08-28-2017, 02:36 AM
Sarcasm? I can't tell.

No... I have over 1200 hours in GTA V with a few friends from this forum... never liked the childish element in the online sessions but friend only sessions doing everything available is great.

Journey95
08-28-2017, 04:11 AM
Look, even if the franchise had solved its issues, combat and other stuff, Assassin's Creed would never be respected in the same way GTA or Uncharted are, for the reason is that the concept is esoteric and non-American. If AC was set entirely in Modern America and had a white protagonist doing parkour and fighting corporations then AC would be respected...instead you know the first game had you as Altair, the second game was set in Italy, the third game has an America with a Native hero (and so "not really american" as far as the gaming crowd is concerned).

Grand Theft Auto and Uncharted are games with a lot of flaws and problems too, and the criticisms about the gags, missions and stuff repeating themselves are no less true to them than AC. Yes, GTA doesn't do annualization, but you know after a five year wait they drop GTAV which is graphically a major step-up but in terms of missions but is still pretty repetitive. Uncharted are all linear games with wonderful story presentation but basically the story is a pile of cliches taken from old hollywood movies, Indiana Jones and Fast and Furious (it's about "family").

BLACK FLAG which was an annualized game, and it showed more innovation, style and wit than any of the GTA games, and Red Dead Redemption. So rather than whine about how Ubisoft and AC will never be part of "the cool crowd" (and remember only white straight men are allowed to be cool in that crowd), focus on what AC has done, and did do well.


As for ORIGINS, no it won't be the best-seller of the games, at least not from the start. But if it turns out to be good and satisfying, then it might do the trick. Also remember, that BLACK FLAG and AC3 had the advantage of releasing on the PS3 and XBOX 360 consoles at a time when they were fairly cheap and still cutting edge, that means a lot of built-in demographic existed whereas now Ubisoft only have PS4/PS4Pro and this new Xbone this falll. So it's a much smaller market than before.

This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while. Apart from Connor (who ended up sucking anyway) this series has played it very safe with protagonists. Altair is basically an American in AC1 with that awful voice (only in Revelations did he get an appropriate one). Then we get Ezio who is the classic badass womanizer (not a criticism, he is my favourite protagonist).

Then after Connor failed Ubisoft basically restricted themsevles to the same archtype. Only Edward was successful, Arno and Jacob are ****.


The series gets plenty of justified hate. Apart from a few truly great games, its been an uninspired mess.

ohoni
08-28-2017, 05:47 AM
Well Bioshock and GTA and even RDR is also lazy and repetitive but people don't call them out for it because it is done in a way that makes them feel comfortable.

Nope.

RinoTheBouncer
08-28-2017, 04:24 PM
Well based on my E3 and Gamescom experiences with it, I think it's absolutely amazing so far, presenting the best world and setting to date and encouraging exploration of large areas and various cities instead of one detailed and overcrowded city. But I'll still be patient with my judgment as I want the game to present great historical and modern day stories. If it does, then it's definitely gonna be on par with the Ezio trilogy for me.

AnimusLover
08-30-2017, 05:05 PM
When most of the action is about contemporary white male Americans there's not a lot to think. The concept is so generic and dry that it doesn't need explanation.

Yes, but I've just proven that such developers have strayed away from contemporary white American male driven narratives on several occasions which you refuse to acknowledge because it dismantles your entire argument. Ubisoft has not with their AC franchise. They lose their nerve at the last minute before doing the conventional thing.


Lost Legacy is still a standalone and not a full game (since it's about 6 hours which makes it about the size of DLC and maybe shorter than some),

It's actually around 12 hours and yes, it is classed as a full game. It's longer than any of the AC DLCs, that's for sure, with strong character development. Chloe feels like a real person as opposed to Aveline who is stereotypical and bland.


and the protagonist is Half-Indian Half-Australian whose accent sounds foreign, whose pronunciations of Indian words are pretty bad and the main bad guy is a full Indian separatist...and the whole detail and stuff there about South India is laughable to my Indian friends. It's basically TEMPLE OF DOOM but without the obvious offensive racism and orientalism, now it's more subtle and insidious. You still have the stereotypes of elephants and monkeys in the game.

At least Naughty Dog was trying. What other games depicting a half Indian woman in an Indian setting even comes close? Your point is that Uncharted is very white, male and American and yet your very description of Lost Legacy does not contain these factors. You also, again, fail to acknowledge all the other games that I have brought up:

Mafia III
GTA San Andreas
GTAIV
Horizon Zero Dawn
Hellblade

I'm just going to keep repeating them until you stop conveniently leaving them out in order to strengthen your excuse for why Assassin's Creed is no longer respected by the public. To say that AC has it harder because it "doesn't follow the white American male outline like other triple A games" is factually incorrect and disingenous.


And most of that is because their franchises are based on more common elements and characters and tropes than others. GTA is based on the Tarantinto/Guy Ritchie Formula, Uncharted is based on the same Nathan Drake-Indiana Jones spoof. And it's a very good spoof but that's what it is. And the gameplay of Uncharted is based on the Third Person Action gameplay in earlier Sony titles, like check out the PS2 Exclusive Bond Game, EVERYTHING OR NOTHING, you have the same cover mechanic, the same third person combat and melee that Uncharted has.

And? They subvert their genres with some of their protagonists. Mafia III plays more like blaxploitation piece than it does a traditional Mafia game.


In the case of AC, AC1 is set in the Crusades and has Altair, the second game Ezio is set in the Renaissance and has another character, the later games have multiple characters in different eras. So it's a lot more to think about, a lot more to process. Every new AC game is starting from ground zero, making new supporting characters, and so on.

Um, you mean like every GTA? And maybe if Ubisoft actually spent more time on their games "starting from ground zero" wouldn't be an issue. Uncharted is a third person linear game that has featured mainly the same protagonist and supporting characters and yet the last entry took 5 years. They wanted to go out with a bang and utilise the next gen hardware properly. In contrast, AC fans got Unity. Says it all.


Red Dead Redemption has shootouts, gun duels, and cattle rustling, and treasure hunts. That's about all the activities it has. The rest is usual Open World Collectibles.

It also has great, memorable, well acted characters, in game cinemas with humourous, well crafted mini stories, poker, Liar's Dice, random encounters, side quests, hunting but yeah, let's forget all that and pretend that it's only liked because it's white, male and American.


Black Flag has naval combat, you have diving, you have collectible ship shanties, and that's just off the top.

Black Flag is the second most dumbed down AC after Syndicate. It's fun but hollow. The sea shanties and treasure digging were the only fun collectibles - the first being rewarding and the second being a fun, challenging way of obtaining. The other collectibles were your typical padding.


And you know Pirates > Cowboys.

Yeah, both very, very dude bro concepts and yet you lambasted Red Dead and not Black Flag. The difference is Red Dead has some actual substance and political subtext. Black Flag is just pandering.

AnimusLover
08-30-2017, 05:07 PM
This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while. Apart from Connor (who ended up sucking anyway) this series has played it very safe with protagonists. Altair is basically an American in AC1 with that awful voice (only in Revelations did he get an appropriate one). Then we get Ezio who is the classic badass womanizer (not a criticism, he is my favourite protagonist).

Then after Connor failed Ubisoft basically restricted themsevles to the same archtype. Only Edward was successful, Arno and Jacob are ****.


The series gets plenty of justified hate. Apart from a few truly great games, its been an uninspired mess.

Thank you.

And the thing is, if you're a developer who creates a game which requires you to deal with different cultures, races, religions, genders and you're worried that you have to make it as white and as American as possible for "balance" then you are not fit to be working on such a franchise. You should hand it over to someone who doesn't treat their audiences like primitive, regressive beasts. Especially when there are developers out there who DO successfully do what you do even when they have no narrative oligation to.

DanonMight
08-31-2017, 12:23 PM
I have all AC games nicely and neatly presented on my shelf in physical boxes (collecting is my hobby). I never gave any AC more than 8/10, yeah they are good games but nothing excellent, nothing fresh, its just ok to play It once a year or two if you liked the series and its overall "historical accuracy". I guess it must feel exactly same as someone buying Call of Duty every year, except that CoD is mostly multiplayer game.
I do have a feeling though that this might be best AC so far, especially considering they did put much more time in development and i can already see some nice changes going on in game mechanics.
i wouldn't say it will be best selling game from the series as previous parts divided community a bit so i wouldn't hope for staggering amount of preorders. Maybe after the game is reviewed with good marks more people will buy the game.

Megas_Doux
09-02-2017, 05:50 PM
Grand Theft Auto and Uncharted are games with a lot of flaws and problems too, and the criticisms about the gags, missions and stuff repeating themselves are no less true to them than AC. Yes, GTA doesn't do annualization, but you know after a five year wait they drop GTAV which is graphically a major step-up but in terms of missions but is still pretty repetitive. Uncharted are all linear games with wonderful story presentation but basically the story is a pile of cliches taken from old hollywood movies, Indiana Jones and Fast and Furious (it's about "family").



The thing with Uncharted and GTA games is that, when you play them as a fan, you feel that the whole possible potential was achieved. Yes, Uncharted is hollywood-esque rather cliche Burger kind of game. But by Zeus what a burger!!!!!

In terms of what Uncharted is -a third person shooter action-adventure game with some stealth- nobody comes close, period. Microsoft tried to compete with their exclusive Quantum break -it failed- and their "half" exclusive rise of the Tomb raider and Uncharted ended up on top. The acting, action sequences and graphics are top notch!!!!

Now with GTA, what else can be said of it??? You may not like the concept, but again if you are fan, every GTA game since 3 has fully delivered. There's no main mechanic that feels underdeveloped let alone severely lacking. The stories, for what they are about, always nail it and as an open world of its kind, hats off.......

Now let's compare AC with them:

Sure is a game that theoretically -although I do believe it- has a deeper range of mechanics and thus I believe is more complicated to make it deliver at its full potential than the other two, but let's dissect it a bit here:

-Stories???? Hits and misses.
- Combat???? A running gag in the industry. I had fun with AC I, AC III and Unity for different reasons, but my point remains.
-Stealth???? An even bigger joke than the previous point. I've played games released in 2001 way better in that regard.
-Its open world activities and such???? Hits and misses again. AC IV was pretty good, but on the other hand we've had chores in the likes of Unity.
-Navigation/parkour???? My least of concerns animations issues aside in Origins. Never a had problem in any of its iterations.





BLACK FLAG which was an annualized game, and it showed more innovation, style and wit than any of the GTA games, and Red Dead Redemption. So rather than whine about how Ubisoft and AC will never be part of "the cool crowd" (and remember only white straight men are allowed to be cool in that crowd), focus on what AC has done, and did do well.

.

AC IV is MY favorite AC game despite the usual franchise shortcomings. Edward is my favorite protagonist to date and I like his story quite a bit. But again we are talking about execution here and Red Dead's off AC charts, mostly in the story department.

AC has always relied in the "historical tourism" but even that gets old after a while.

VestigialLlama4
09-02-2017, 11:37 PM
The thing with Uncharted and GTA games is that, when you play them as a fan, you feel that the whole possible potential was achieved. Yes, Uncharted is hollywood-esque rather cliche Burger kind of game. But by Zeus what a burger!!!!!

The unfortunate part is that GTA and Uncharted have a huge in-built fanbase. They can just focus on them as a market, whereas Assassin's Creed has to keep searching for new players and gamers all the time because it cannot depend on its fanbase, or at least not really. So simply put a game like GTA-IV, which had a weak cliche'd story, forgettable characters and kind of lazy mechanics and somehow it works. And in the case of GTA-V, it started out well but the story ultimately doesn't have a proper conclusion and proper ending...and it kind of goes soft on the characters and aside from Trevor, neither of the characters were memorable.

All I am saying is that asking Ubisoft to be like Rockstar or Naughty Dog is kind of beside the point. Part of the reason Rockstar and Naughty Dog do so well is that their concept is so inherently marketable and profitable that they don't have the pressures that Ubisoft would have to. Because if those companies had a concept like AC it's not likely to be better and in fact it will probably be worse.


In terms of what Uncharted is -a third person shooter action-adventure game with some stealth- nobody comes close, period. Microsoft tried to compete with their exclusive Quantum break -it failed- and their "half" exclusive rise of the Tomb raider and Uncharted ended up on top. The acting, action sequences and graphics are top notch!!!!

I actually think the two Tomb Raider games are better than Uncharted. After all UNCHARTED 4 and especially Lost Legacy borrowed a lot from it, (as does Origins). That's why you suddenly have a climbing and rope tool for Drake and Chloe after UNCHARTED 4. Uncharted primarily work well in their level design and they create a lot of excellent levels (which is my primary aesthetic criteria for a game...more than gameplay and story, whether it has a level or two that is worth something on its own).


- Combat???? A running gag in the industry. I had fun with AC I, AC III and Unity for different reasons, but my point remains.

Well if you compare like-to-like. AC doesn't have pistol combat, which GTA/RDR/Uncharted does. And in terms of gun combat, GTA games aren't considered quality third-person shooters. I remember the cover mechanic in the GTA4 trilogy as being really cumbersome, and even before that, San Andreas was pretty weak in combat...what made the games work was the huge crazy set-piece missions and the crazy cast. GTA5 borrowed the shooting mechanics of Max Payne and it became better. Red Dead Redemption had pretty good gun mechanics for its time and is better, and I like the horse mechanics of RDR better than the AC games in any titles...Uncharted likewise had solid but passable combat mechanics...unlike the CD Tomb Raider games and sequels which is really good third person shooters.

In the case of the AC Games for the earlier era is Witcher I and Witcher II, and the combat in those games were awful compared to AC. Witcher III is obviously leaps and bounds better as are the Arkham Games. And you know in the case of having a vehicle transporter...Jackdaw > Batmobile, although I love the Batmobile.


-Stealth???? An even bigger joke than the previous point.

Well for me best stealth games would be Dishonored, Mark of the Ninja, Arkham games, so on that yeah AC is different but again since most of the AC Games involves assassinating people in social stealth contexts rather than say sneaking in a warehouse in broad daylight and so on. So it's not really the same situation and parameters. Harvey Smith, developer of Dishonored, pointed out that Social Stealth is almost an entirely separate game.


AC IV is MY favorite AC game despite the usual franchise shortcomings. Edward is my favorite protagonist to date and I like his story quite a bit. But again we are talking about execution here and Red Dead's off AC charts, mostly in the story department.

I disagree. I mean in Red Dead Redemption, John Martson, his wife and kid are good characters but everyone else is a moron or an idiot. Compare Governor Torres and Woodes Roges or Hornigold to the Sheriff Bad guy in RDR or Dutch Van Der Linde...and AC Is just better. And you know you have absolutely racist portrayals of Mexicans in RDR compared to how AC fairly portrays indigineous and minority rebels. And as I said before, Pirates > Cowboys.


AC has always relied in the "historical tourism" but even that gets old after a while.

Considering that nobody else does it, I doubt that very much. And you know the settings themselves play a huge part in why these games sell. Like Syndicate wasn't a well liked or entirely successul game but it appealed to Victorian enthusiasts who wanted a London of that time, so it sold well. BLACK FLAG won people because it was, and still is, THE Pirate game.

AnimusLover
09-03-2017, 03:38 AM
The unfortunate part is that GTA and Uncharted have a huge in-built fanbase. They can just focus on them as a market, whereas Assassin's Creed has to keep searching for new players and gamers all the time because it cannot depend on its fanbase, or at least not really.

And why is that exactly?


All I am saying is that asking Ubisoft to be like Rockstar or Naughty Dog is kind of beside the point. Part of the reason Rockstar and Naughty Dog do so well is that their concept is so inherently marketable and profitable that they don't have the pressures that Ubisoft would have to.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that nobody wants to free run through beautiful, sprawling ancient cities lol If it wasn't for the 'historical playground' aspect no one would care - Assassin's Creed is a brand that gets by purely on its concept. It's the content people take issue with.


Because if those companies had a concept like AC it's not likely to be better and in fact it will probably be worse.

Maybe not Naughty Dog but Red Dead Redemption proves what R* could do if they took it the extra step and allowed free running.


I actually think the two Tomb Raider games are better than Uncharted. After all Uncharted 4 and especially Lost Legacy borrowed a lot from it, (as does Origins). That's why you suddenly have a climbing and rope tool for Drake and Chloe after Uncharted 4. Uncharted primarily work well in their level design and they create a lot of excellent levels (which is my primary aesthetic criteria for a game...more than gameplay and story, whether it has a level or two that is worth something on its own).

Would agree that the level design for Uncharted is where the game excels and would also agree that Tomb Raider heavily influenced it. I actually think Tomb Raider 2013 was better. ROTTR was a disappointing slog.


In the case of the AC Games for the earlier era is Witcher I and Witcher II, and the combat in those games were awful compared to AC. Witcher III is obviously leaps and bounds better as are the Arkham Games. And you know in the case of having a vehicle transporter...Jackdaw > Batmobile, although I love the Batmobile.

Witcher 3's combat is ruined by a dodgy camera and Geralt moving like a crazy person, I don't understand why people like it so much lol.


Well for me best stealth games would be Dishonored

You're joking, surely. i mean Dishonoured 2 has excellent level design and play-your-way exploration but this is a game where the enemies develop sudden amnesia after spotting you. Kind of like...


, Mark of the Ninja, Arkham games, so on that yeah AC is different but again since most of the AC Games involves assassinating people in social stealth contexts rather than say sneaking in a warehouse in broad daylight and so on. So it's not really the same situation and parameters. Harvey Smith, developer of Dishonored, pointed out that Social Stealth is almost an entirely separate game.

Let's be honest, AC hasn't implemented social stealth properly for a long time.


I disagree. I mean in Red Dead Redemption, John Martson, his wife and kid are good characters but everyone else is a moron or an idiot. Compare Governor Torres and Woodes Roges or Hornigold to the Sheriff Bad guy in RDR or Dutch Van Der Linde...and AC Is just better. And you know you have absolutely racist portrayals of Mexicans in RDR compared to how AC fairly portrays indigineous and minority rebels. And as I said before, Pirates > Cowboys.

Yeah but the characters in RDR are supposed to be silly caricatures. None of the POC in the AC games - all of which are being played straight - have ever been represented respectfully, apart from Achilles.


Considering that nobody else does it, I doubt that very much. And you know the settings themselves play a huge part in why these games sell. Like Syndicate wasn't a well liked or entirely successul game but it appealed to Victorian enthusiasts who wanted a London of that time, so it sold well. BLACK FLAG won people because it was, and still is, THE Pirate game.

Agreed. The historical settings are the only thing that keeps me hanging on.

IsAZebraACat
09-03-2017, 03:47 AM
Yes, and it looks like it could also surpass GR: Wildlands for most trivial complaints about a good Ubisoft game ever.

VestigialLlama4
09-03-2017, 07:54 AM
Maybe not Naughty Dog but Red Dead Redemption proves what R* could do if they took it the extra step and allowed free running.

Considering Red Dead Redemption doesn't have Free-Running, I have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. It's pretty impossible for Rockstar games to create an open world for free-running based on GTA and RDR. I mean the whole point of parkour and free-running in AC is that you can climb any structure, any building, and reach any height across the map, by foot and by hand.

You. Cannot. Do. That. In. Either. GTA. Or. RDR.

Most of the open world is sculpted specifically for vehicle travel, either cars, horses, carriages and so on. The parts of the game where you can actually go and explore on foot such as the treasure hunt scenes or so on are pretty clunky and linear. I mean the on-foot walking controls, especially in the earlier GTA games where you had a run/sprint/stop and heave was famously aggravating. GTA SA introduced a RPG mechanic where you had to go to gym, or eat to increase your sprint skills, but even then it was annoying. The games also had Waist-High Fences and other annoyances, stuff which AC usually gets around and avoids. The map in RDR is a cluster of different Western Movie backdrops strapped next to each other...and its texture and detail is weak and not organic looking because unlike the GTA games it's not based or patterned on any real place.


You're joking, surely. i mean Dishonoured 2 has excellent level design and play-your-way exploration but this is a game where the enemies develop sudden amnesia after spotting you.

That's not my experience playing it nor is it of most. It was Game of the Year on several websites. Unless you can be specific...


Let's be honest, AC hasn't implemented social stealth properly for a long time.

If you mean social stealth in terms of hiding among crowds, or blending among any groups of people and so on, the basics are there until Black Flag. You also had complex crowd-manipulation features in Revelations. The real problem is UNITY, where most of the missions actually took place in the interiors and not the exteriors, like the Assassination missions happened in special stealth rooms with only a couple of exceptions. The real problem is that UNITY and Syndicate didn't develop and build on it properly and effectively, because to do social stealth properly you need a better story or more social detail than the flat worlds they made in those two games.

But in either case that is beside the point...the fact is the challenges of making an AC game are unique because the concept is unique and demanding. That's what I mean, that's what my point is. Saying that the stealth in Phantom Pain and Dishonored is better and more satisfying mechanically is fair, but I think people are confusing themselves if they say AC should be like Phantom Pain if they are not able to understand that there's a huge difference between games in historical settings where you often target civilians in various centers of activity (as in AC1-Black Flag) as opposed to a game where you are infiltrating miltiary bases in Afghanistan where you don't have any civilians whatsoever. Same with Dishonored, and with Batman:Arkham which after it left Asylum came up with bizarre plots to get the civilians out of the city time and time again....

In most of these games, in most stealth games, you are more or less someone in a warehouse sneaking around multiple rooms and so on. In AC1, you had to strike your targets publicly in broad daylight and then disappear within the crowd...that more or less makes it different or apart from the other games. In AC2, likewise your assassinations were often public (like Alberti at the art gallery, and then the Doge at Carnivale)...in AC3, you have to assassinate a guy in a parley and sneak up on a hill through the trees, and later someone on a Battlefield.

In the best AC games, the stealth happens outdoors, in the open and in the bright sunlight...so that's a different set of parameters than say Thief with its famous shadow-meter.

LoyalACFan
09-03-2017, 01:28 PM
In most of these games, in most stealth games, you are more or less someone in a warehouse sneaking around multiple rooms and so on. In AC1, you had to strike your targets publicly in broad daylight and then disappear within the crowd...that more or less makes it different or apart from the other games. In AC2, likewise your assassinations were often public (like Alberti at the art gallery, and then the Doge at Carnivale)...in AC3, you have to assassinate a guy in a parley and sneak up on a hill through the trees, and later someone on a Battlefield.

In the best AC games, the stealth happens outdoors, in the open and in the bright sunlight...so that's a different set of parameters than say Thief with its famous shadow-meter.

But I think AnimusLover's point is that these features literally haven't been improved upon since freaking AC2. Social stealth was revolutionary when it was advertised at E3 in AC1, and though it turned out to be pretty limited in the first game, AC2 blew the lid off the idea and made it a really workable foundation for a stealth game. But then they just completely stopped iterating on it. Social stealth remained essentially the exact same (barring cosmetic changes) from AC2 all the way through Rogue, except the crowds gradually thinned out so much in the Americas saga that it became sort of a legacy mechanic. Then Unity came along, and though they had enormous potential with the crowded streets of Paris, you said it yourself; almost all of the assassination/infiltration missions take place inside, away from civilians. Even more so in Syndicate; blending is essentially replaced with the absurd and overpowered Kidnap mechanic, because crowds literally never congregate around your mission zones.

And now, in Origins, social stealth is gone completely. I have no doubt that Origins will be a good game, maybe even a great one, but it barely resembles the franchise I first fell in love with. Rather than a stealth game that also allows for open fighting, it's a fighting game that also allows for stealth. Just watch any gameplay video they've released for it so far; combat has obviously been their main focus, and the stealth is just your bog-standard sneak & stab fare with a silent ranged weapon. It just doesn't feel like AC, at least to me.

AnimusLover
09-03-2017, 01:59 PM
Yes, and it looks like it could also surpass GR: Wildlands for most trivial complaints about a good Ubisoft game ever.

You mean like dumb AI, repetitiveness, gimmicky recon drone, pointless open world?
I doubt it.

AnimusLover
09-03-2017, 02:44 PM
Considering Red Dead Redemption doesn't have Free-Running, I have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. It's pretty impossible for Rockstar games to create an open world for free-running based on GTA and RDR. I mean the whole point of parkour and free-running in AC is that you can climb any structure, any building, and reach any height across the map, by foot and by hand.

You. Cannot. Do. That. In. Either. GTA. Or. RDR.

Most of the open world is sculpted specifically for vehicle travel, either cars, horses, carriages and so on. The parts of the game where you can actually go and explore on foot such as the treasure hunt scenes or so on are pretty clunky and linear. I mean the on-foot walking controls, especially in the earlier GTA games where you had a run/sprint/stop and heave was famously aggravating. GTA SA introduced a RPG mechanic where you had to go to gym, or eat to increase your sprint skills, but even then it was annoying. The games also had Waist-High Fences and other annoyances, stuff which AC usually gets around and avoids. The map in RDR is a cluster of different Western Movie backdrops strapped next to each other...and its texture and detail is weak and not organic looking because unlike the GTA games it's not based or patterned on any real place.

You wrote all of that... and I wasn't even referring to RDR or GTA lol. When I said "if they took the extra step" I meant If they were to make another historical open world game. I was saying that RDR proved they can make an authentic feeling, immersive historical world. So I have no doubt that R* could knock the free running out of the park with another historical piece if they put their mind to it.


That's not my experience playing it nor is it of most. It was Game of the Year on several websites. Unless you can be specific...

I'm not saying that Dishonoured 2 isn't a good game, it's a great game (well, it has one major flaw which almost ruins it but I won't go into that).
But it's a crap stealth game.
I managed to play non lethally and not be spotted, earning me the achievement (took several reloads) and wish I had just gone in guns blazing instead, like I did when I first played the demo.
For one, most of the weapons, upgrades and cool magic rewards open combat and killing, making it the way more fun option.
It's hard to tell when you're in cover as it's really inconsistent. Sometimes a table will obscure an enemy's view, sometimes it won't. A good stealth game has basic AI "rules", it's how the player is able to plan your path of movement.
When you are spotted and you manage to evade pursuing enemies they give up searching almost instantly.
When an unconcious body is found the enemy AI doesn't wake them up.
When a door is unlocked or something has changed the enemy doesn't get suspicious.
Getting spotted has no consequences because you can technically just sprint your way to your objective without ever getting shot. I could go on and on.

As for the rest of your post, LoyalACfan basically beat me to it. You said social stealth is yet another factor that proves AC can't be held to the same standards as other popular titles but from ACIII they pretty much abandoned it so really that limitation is no longer there.

VestigialLlama4
09-03-2017, 06:28 PM
But I think AnimusLover's point is that these features literally haven't been improved upon since freaking AC2. Social stealth was revolutionary when it was advertised at E3 in AC1,

My point is that it's irrelevant as a point of comparison to GTA and Uncharted...because it's a field entirely different from the rest of the competition. Surely the development and underdevelopment of social stealth doesn't mean that it should disappear altogether or that it should never have been implemented to start with.


But then they just completely stopped iterating on it.

That's not quite true. Like in Revelations you had the bomb-mechanic whereby you could manipulate entire factions of the crowd against each other and if you played it right you could go extended stretches of the game moving and killing and scavenging without directly stabbing someone entirely by crowd manipulation.

AC3 introduced the whistle, and allowed you to blend among any group rather than just a designated pack of crowds or a faction of moving courtesans or whatever. Are these developments complete, no they are not, but it's not evidence to say they stopped iterating entirely.


Then Unity came along, and though they had enormous potential with the crowded streets of Paris, you said it yourself; almost all of the assassination/infiltration missions take place inside, away from civilians. Even more so in Syndicate; blending is essentially replaced with the absurd and overpowered Kidnap mechanic, because crowds literally never congregate around your mission zones.

Yeah, I am not a fan of either games. But Animus Lover is not attacking the weaker games, he's attacking the entire series and I don't think that's fair. .


And now, in Origins, social stealth is gone completely. I have no doubt that Origins will be a good game, maybe even a great one, but it barely resembles the franchise I first fell in love with. Rather than a stealth game that also allows for open fighting, it's a fighting game that also allows for stealth. Just watch any gameplay video they've released for it so far; combat has obviously been their main focus, and the stealth is just your bog-standard sneak & stab fare with a silent ranged weapon. It just doesn't feel like AC, at least to me.

Well, right now the marketing is focused on the combat, and we haven't yet seen the city-stuff. We haven't seen Alexandria and Kyrene so let's give them some benefit of the doubt. And in any case the concept of social stealth, has the word social in it...you have to play off the society that exists there...an Ancient World setting is not going to give you the same experience as other eras.


I was saying that RDR proved they can make an authentic feeling, immersive historical world.

Red Dead Redemption is a video game theme park of western movie cliches, nothing more and nothing less, what it absolutely is not is "an authentic historical world".

None of GTA's games are "authentic" at least not since San Andreas. San Andreas did kind of try to evoke the LA Riots and other events, but GTA-IV is an open-world crime game set in a gentrified New York, GTA V is a game set in contemporary Los Angeles without any of its legendary famous traffic and so on and so forth.

sarbazevije
09-04-2017, 11:45 AM
Well, I just hope they don't pull another GR:W out of their hat... Lovely landscape, but crappy gameplay and ****ty content...
Oh trust me my friend it WILL. Have a look at the thread I stared before the release of Wildlands. At the time people said I'm being a pessimistic ****. Now look at what happened to that game! People who sold the game after a couple of weeks said I was correct to not be a cog in the well-oiled hype machine.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1452463-Why-GR-W-is-a-rebadged-Far-Cry-or-Watch-Dogs-or-Assassin-s-Creed-or-The-Division?highlight=sarbazevijE