PDA

View Full Version : Mentors Guild Community Discussion - Annualized Releases



SixKeys
05-21-2018, 05:26 PM
MAKING SURE THE FANS ARE HEARDAs part of a set of new Community Initiatives, as explained in our earlier post (https://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1883358-Mentors-Guild-Community-Initiatives-update), we'd like to give opportunities to the community to give more direct feedback, and will now host weekly discussion on specific topics that relate the Assassin's Creed Franchise. These community discussions will take place on the Official Ubisoft Forums, the AC subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/) and on the Mentors Guild Twitter (https://twitter.com/MentorsGuild). These discussions will be open for 1 week. The threads and responses will be shared directly with the Assassin's Creed Community Development team, who will then pass that info on to concerned parties within Ubisoft itself.


While the Mentors get opportunities to speak directly with the creators of Assassin’s Creed and frequently communicate with the Community Development Team, this is not the case for every fan. We want to change that. We want fans to have their voices heard directly, in the same ways the Mentors do. These activities are a step towards meeting this goal. If you want Ubisoft to see what you have to say, this is the place to do it. These discussions are meant to allow for honest and raw feedback directly from the community. The best way to ensure your voice is heard is to be constructive - be critical of the process, not the people. Be specific with your criticisms and suggest tangible solutions and improvements. We hope you participate and we hope this is a successful way of getting the fan’s voices truly heard.

THIS WEEK'S TOPICTopic: Annualized Releases


Info: While the Assassin's Creed Franchise has not always had an annualized release of Major AAA console games, it has for a large majority of the franchise. After the year long pause between Assassin's Creed: Origins and Assassin's Creed: Syndicate, it is still unclear if the franchise will return to an annualized release this year, or if it will wait until after 2018. Although there has been no new title announced for the Assassin's Creed franchise, the franchise is likely to continue.


QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:-Do you prefer annualized releases, non-annualized releases, or a mix of the two?


-Would you like Assassin's Creed to return in 2018? Why or why not?


-When do you want the next Assassin's Creed game to release? (Season and Year)


-What are the positive and negative aspects of an annualized release?


-What are the positive and negative aspects of a non-annualized release?


-Do you think Ubisoft can maintain releasing high-quality games in an annualized schedule? Why or why not?



REMEMBER: The best way to ensure your voice is heard is to be constructive - be critical of the process, not the people. Be specific with your criticisms and suggest tangible solutions and improvements.

MageAquarius20
05-21-2018, 07:12 PM
NO ANNULIZATION. This type of biusness thinking ruined AC and will continue to ruin it, if they werenīt this impatient. Good games need time and one year is not enough.

The next assassins creed should have been realeased 2019 or 2020 and not this year.

MnemonicSyntax
05-21-2018, 08:38 PM
You do realize that even though the games are released annually doesn't mean they were worked on for one year?

More than one studio works on Assassin's Creed and if the next one came out tomorrow that it's been in progress for more than a year, if not two or even three?

This is a common misconception with Assassin's Creed and it shouldn't be spread around like gospel.

As for myself:

ACO gve me what I want in an AC game by way of content. It's less about repetitive missions and actual side quests instead. Some of the basis of those quests are repetitive but the story behind them were rich and fulfilling. I loved Bayek learning about the importance of moving on from the loss of his son and relating that to others that lost their children or loved ones.

I'm all for yearly releases if it continues that footing that Origins found. :)

MstrTarvos
05-21-2018, 08:53 PM
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:

-Do you prefer annualized releases, non-annualized releases, or a mix of the two?
I would prefer Non-Annualized releases.


-Would you like Assassin's Creed to return in 2018?
No
Why or why not? I think that the extra time spent in development can only help the game be better.


-When do you want the next Assassin's Creed game to release? (Season and Year)
Fall of 2019


-What are the positive and negative aspects of an annualized release?
I really can’t comment on this since I came to the francise at the end of the previous annual release cycle, so all my games were fully patched.


-What are the positive and negative aspects of a non-annualized release?
Positive –
Game can benefit from longer development cycle and be better and more stable at release.
Spreads the expense of buying the game over a longer time frame.

Negative –
There is a longer time when you have to wait for the next game.



-Do you think Ubisoft can maintain releasing high-quality games in an annualized schedule?
No
Why or why not?
Personally I think that the developers would feel too rushed to maintain the quality. I realize that the development cycle is something on the order of 4 years for a game, but the extra time can’t hurt the game.

MageAquarius20
05-21-2018, 09:27 PM
You do realize that even though the games are released annually doesn't mean they were worked on for one year?

More than one studio works on Assassin's Creed and if the next one came out tomorrow that it's been in progress for more than a year, if not two or even three?


The AC franshise has no longer the ability to be this well cohensive and well thought. Rougue, Liberation and Unity were no unique games by any stretch and had side missions as well, so Origins is not diffrent from that. barely any AC felt repetitive as your Job was to kill people from the shadows and liberate the oprressed, the earlier Games were abput the focus on the story and didnīt needed it at first, but due to gamers asking more(which is no crime) we got more and more.

Annulization ruined a lot of potential and didnīt allowed any game to be new and fresh enough, for all of them were pretty medicore and felt i-have-already seenish.


This is a common misconception with Assassin's Creed and it shouldn't be spread around like gospel.

Not really, the only game that took more than one year development is the untold story of the first civilization we will get some years afterwards. Most people were happy that the devs took one year more to develop a new game and even Patrice diselets(founder of the AC franshie) said annulization is bad, and it is. God of War didnīt do it(it took the game 5 years to be made and itīs better than Origins


As for myself:

ACO gve me what I want in an AC game by way of content. It's less about repetitive missions and actual side quests instead. Some of the basis of those quests are repetitive but the story behind them were rich and fulfilling. I loved Bayek learning about the importance of moving on from the loss of his son and relating that to others that lost their children or loved ones.

I'm all for yearly releases if it continues that footing that Origins found.

AC Origins was above Unity, Syndicate, Black flag and Rougue, which is an achievement, but these games were pretty low to medicore.Itīs story is ok as an character driven one, as a story, itīs pretty bad and didnīt even fulfil what it promised to do: How the Assassins were born! Bayek never understood the Truth of his faith, never really made any good philosophical contribution to the series and his character development was a bit sloppy as the main Antagonists didnīt even made him question his motives as they were too evil to make him doubt about anything. He, like Ezio, killed them and got what he wanted because they were evil templars with no other reason than being evil, instead of being a organization that wants a save Humanity like in the first game.

It gave me only 30% of what i wanted and i am dissapointed by the fact that due to it being first, the Origin of the brotherhood despite there no great explaination as to why and secound, the shallow new modern day story with an apathetic Heoroine. Finally it isnīt as deep as it could have been like the 1st game, due to being less story driven.

I could go on for ours, but i find it better making a post why AC Origins is ok as an AC game.

RinoTheBouncer
05-21-2018, 09:48 PM
Greetings everyone,
Thanks for the opportunity. I'd like to dedicate this article to the development team. It features a detailed description of the things that I'd personally like to see changed, kept or altered: http://thecodex.network/codex/the-journey-onward/

Thank you for your consideration.

And to answer the topic-related questions, here are my answers:

Originally Posted by SixKeys Go to original post (https://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/showthread.php?p=13497498#post13497498)
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:

1. Do you prefer annualized releases, non-annualized releases, or a mix of the two?


2. Would you like Assassin's Creed to return in 2018? Why or why not?


3. When do you want the next Assassin's Creed game to release? (Season and Year)


4. What are the positive and negative aspects of an annualized release?


5. What are the positive and negative aspects of a non-annualized release?


6. Do you think Ubisoft can maintain releasing high-quality games in an annualized schedule? Why or why not?




1. A little bit of both. I think it all depends on the continuity of the games and the ability to re-use assets and to follow a cohesive story. Assassin's Creed games are often developed by different teams, so the one year gap didn't only just benefit Origins, but all the games currently in development. But I personally wouldn't mind waiting as long as possible to get an Assassin's Creed experience that embodies all the elements that make Assassin's Creed what it is, which are present day, history, the meta story of the First Civ and the engaging settings, historical tourism, original settings..etc. so if that takes a year, two or five, I'm pretty fine with that. It's always about how fulfilling each experience is and the vision behind each game and the sense of continuity and connectivity between them.

2. I'd like that if the game is thematically and narratively linked to Origins, like say Greece or Rome. If it's also set in BCE times and it emphasizes on the origins of the brotherhood in a different regions in BCE times. It would help keep people in touch with the next chapter with the origins of the brotherhood and the episodic feel of the present day and historical story. But if the next game is a drastically different topic and set in an era where resources from Origins cannot be reused, then I'd say take more time till next year or even after that.

3. Fall 2018

4. The positive part is that if the games bring back the episodic feel of the Desmond Saga with big cliffhangers and twists, then players won't really have a very long time to wait for the next adventure. The negative part is that the franchise may suffer fatigue, not to mention the devs not having enough time to take fan feedback into consideration for the next game, because by the time one game is out and fans have something to say about it, the next game will have already be in its final stages, which makes feedback implementation quite difficult.

5. already mentioned in 4.

6. Not always. It depends o the length of the development cycle, the vision for each product and the ability to continue a story in one game into the other and how to implement feedback from fans in the next game. The quality of the games aren't always linked to the time they take to be made. Origins got a one year break yet it also did not bring any satisfactory lore exploration and meta-story progress. So it has to do with both the time and the creative decisions behind each game and the games as part of a franchise, not just a one off release dedicated more to newcomers than longtime fans.

MnemonicSyntax
05-21-2018, 10:33 PM
The AC franshise has no longer the ability to be this well cohensive and well thought.

What?


Rougue, Liberation and Unity were no unique games by any stretch and had side missions as well, so Origins is not diffrent from that.

And their side missions were just there. They didn't really create an impact. Unity's were a step in the right direction, but that was mostly to do with the murder mysteries. Anything story driven is a plus. Side missions like in Syndicate where you just free children or buggy races were just things you did. They didn't hold any sort of depth behind them (not that I minded personally because I role play these characters so wanting to help children makes sense).


barely any AC felt repetitive as your Job was to kill people from the shadows and liberate the oprressed,

If you do something over and over again, it's repetitive at it's very definition. It doesn't matter if it meshes with the story or that's the basis of your character. Repetition isn't a bad thing again, if there is something of substance behind it.


the earlier Games were abput the focus on the story and didnīt needed it at first, but due to gamers asking more(which is no crime) we got more and more.

The most common complaint is that AC1 felt repetitive. How many stalls can you destroy before a timer (what?) expires? What about flags? That needs a timer too?



Annulization ruined a lot of potential and didnīt allowed any game to be new and fresh enough, for all of them were pretty medicore and felt i-have-already seenish.

But you just said that the purpose of an Assassin is to kill from the shadows and liberate the people. Every single Assassin's Creed has been the basis of that. Annualization has nothing to do with that, because even Origins has that mantra.




Not really, the only game that took more than one year development is the untold story of the first civilization we will get some years afterwards. Most people were happy that the devs took one year more to develop a new game and even Patrice diselets(founder of the AC franshie) said annulization is bad, and it is. God of War didnīt do it(it took the game 5 years to be made and itīs better than Origins

Most people? Source?

None of this still changes my point that just because a new game is released every year, doesn't mean it was only worked on for a year.

For the record, GoW was announced in Dec. 2014 in early development. That's three and a half years, not five, which is about the going rate for most AC games. As for "better",. that's relative. I don't agree.




AC Origins was above Unity, Syndicate, Black flag and Rougue, which is an achievement, but these games were pretty low to medicore.Itīs story is ok as an character driven one, as a story, itīs pretty bad and didnīt even fulfil what it promised to do: How the Assassins were born! Bayek never understood the Truth of his faith, never really made any good philosophical contribution to the series and his character development was a bit sloppy as the main Antagonists didnīt even made him question his motives as they were too evil to make him doubt about anything.

Did you rush through the side content? There were several times Bayek felt remorse about his actions and wondered if he was doing the right thing in regards to revenge. He even questioned Aya about continuing killing "The Snake" on more than one occasion.

And we got the birth of the "Assassins." Just not Assassin's proper because it wasn't what we were expecting. We didn't get the full story, but we got enough. We saw how Aya realizing the "Brotherhood" is bigger than the two of them, bigger than their love and Bayek begrudgingly agreed.


He, like Ezio, killed them and got what he wanted because they were evil templars with no other reason than being evil, instead of being a organization that wants a save Humanity like in the first game.

The Templars in Ezios times still wanted to lead. The concept of "Peace through tyranny" was quite present for Ezio. Bayek didn't kill "The Snake" because they were evil as much as he was told to, and then ended up being betrayed by the person who ordered it.


It gave me only 30% of what i wanted and i am dissapointed by the fact that due to it being first, the Origin of the brotherhood despite there no great explaination as to why and secound, the shallow new modern day story with an apathetic Heoroine. Finally it isnīt as deep as it could have been like the 1st game, due to being less story driven.

It did explain it. It just wasn't direct and hand-holding. The modern day wasn't as much as shallow as it was a primer, a reiteration of what we already knew. And if anything, Layla was far from apathetic. I love her desire to work for Abstergo but then end up being completely betrayed and used, which makes her basically side with the Assassin's. It's a unique angle that really isn't all that surprising coming from Abstergo, and yet provided familiarization to fans of the series and shows new players what kind of organization Abstergo is.

The 1st game isn't even that deep. It doesn't open up until the end of 2 going into Brotherhood. It's a very one-sided story of Altair. We don't find out much about Desmond until Brotherhood/Revs/3 and more about Altair in Revs.



I could go on for ours, but i find it better making a post why AC Origins is ok as an AC game.

Except none of this has really explained why it shouldn't be annualized, especially if the game is worked on for longer than a year (about 2 1/2 to 3 years on average) and by multiple studios.

joshoolhorst
05-22-2018, 08:45 PM
No Annualized releases please.

I want developers to have enough time to fix bugs glitches and crashes which I still have with Origins after launch. I am happy with a game each two years or three even I still feel so warmed out on the yearly release cycle we had back in 2014 and 15. (releasing two main games in 2014 and in eleven month's Syndicate felt really to much for me)

BananaBlighter
05-22-2018, 11:21 PM
I haven't been on these forums in a while, but I just decided to pop in and it's nice to see what the Mentors Guild are doing. I just want to know, are these questions that the devs have asked you to discuss, or did you guys choose them yourselves? Anyways here are some of my thoughts:

1) I think a mix of the two would be ideal. If AC games are going to be releasing in trilogies or 'sets' that use similar gameplay mechanics, then it makes sense to take a year off between sets, but within each set I don't mind if the games come out yearly. Of course I don't want annual releases if consecutive games are going to be extremely similar (e.g. AC4 and Rogue), but change on the level of Unity to Syndicate is fine by me. I also have no problem with waiting 1.5 years for each AC game, though I think Ubi want to keep releasing them during Autumn (Fall).

2) I wouldn't mind an AC in 2018. The thing is though that I kinda hope they spend some more time reworking some of the core gameplay mechanics, just like they decided to do with the combat in Origins. ACO was a great game, and it did a lot of things very well (the world was breathtaking), but it's the core gameplay mechanics that are going to make it into the next game, and that's where Origins really disappointed me. The stealth was a drastic downgrade from Unity and Syndicate, and I would say that parkour-wise, Origins is easily the worst in the series. It's a shame, because alongside the historical tourism, those are the two things that draw me to AC (especially the parkour), and I have little care for Origins' new combat (it's not bad, but being a stealth guy, I'm not really bothered by it). I'd love it if the devs could take some more time to revolutionise the parkour and/or stealth for the next game.

3) If the next game does try to rework some of the core gameplay, then I'd say take as long as necessary. I honestly wouldn't mind waiting until 2020 for a game that's going to blow me away with its parkour and stealth gameplay. That said, if they're keeping what they have in Origins, I'm going to be honest, I probably won't end up enjoying that game too much either, so I'd want them to get it out of the way as fast as possible (Autumn 2018). It's really about the direction they choose to take. If we don't get a new AC game this year though, it'd be nice to get a remaster for AC3 instead.

4) Positives are that I satisfy my AC addiction regularly. I know people say quality over quantity, but it's also really nice that in the space of 10 years we've been able to get so many great AC games with such a huge variety of settings. AC is AC, so I really do love them all, even though there are some I definitely love more than others. An obvious negative is the quality. The same number of teams working to make 5 games in 10 years will make better games that those same teams making 8 games in 10 years. Another huge problem is that we do not get time to feedback about the previous game in time to make changes for the next. For example, if a new AC is really going to be releasing this year, there is now way the devs will be able to rework the parkour system if people (such as myself) complained about Origins' parkour. There's also the reverse of the addiction argument, which is that some people will experience franchise fatigue.

5) Basically the opposite of the previous point. Positives are that you have time to act on feedback from the previous game, you can generally make higher quality games (assuming the same no. people working for the same amount of time, which I know isn't realistic), and avoid people developing franchise fatigue developing. Negatives are that we don't get to explore such a wide variety of settings because overall less games are released (assuming each new game explores a new setting), and some people have an AC addiction that needs to be satisfied.

6) I think that to keep AC games at a good standard, Ubi should take periodic breaks, because a fully annualised schedule will not allow for consistent quality. Of course the quality also depends on how many teams are working on the games. I just think that a year off every now and then will be good to give more time to collect feedback and rework the AC vision, including their approach to the story and core gameplay.

Also Rino mentioned an important point, which is that, regardless of the development time, the initial creative vision is important in deciding whether someone will like the game or not. In his case, this point was in reference to how recent games have not developed the lore, and that no amount of development time can correct this creative decision (at least that's my interpretation of it). I also have my own views about how AC should be handled, and so if the creative vision of the next AC does not align with that view, I am going to be disappointed no matter how long that game spends in development. The problem is that this is of course subjective. For example, despite the year off and hence higher production quality, Origins disappointed me with its focus on combat and heavy RPG systems, instead of stealth and parkour. However, other people prefer the RPG direction AC is taking and are more concerned with combat than parkour and stealth.

MageAquarius20
05-23-2018, 12:49 AM
What?

I already told you what you said, look at my first comment


And their side missions were just there. They didn't really create an impact. Unity's were a step in the right direction, but that was mostly to do with the murder mysteries. Anything story driven is a plus. Side missions like in Syndicate where you just free children or buggy races were just things you did. They didn't hold any sort of depth behind them (not that I minded personally because I role play these characters so wanting to help children makes sense).


How is it any diffrent from other side missions in Origins? The side missions in Origins didnīt give enough influence on the plot at all and serve to add simple stories to keep the viewer interested. They donīt give nessesarly any new development to Bayek as those missions never influence the Main game except from a game play perspective. You donīt need to kill Septimius in the duat again to complete the story, you donīt need to bring Praxilla together with the one other guy to finish off Flavius, most of them are just there to make the game more interesting and they admittently did. They are not that diffrent to be honest, except that they add a little bit into the flawed plot.


If you do something over and over again, it's repetitive at it's very definition. It doesn't matter if it meshes with the story or that's the basis of your character. Repetition isn't a bad thing again, if there is something of substance behind it. The most common complaint is that AC1 felt repetitive. How many stalls can you destroy before a timer (what?) expires? What about flags? That needs a timer too?


The only ones that felt repetitive were the ones that never use new game mechanics and just compied the formula of a existing one with no innovation. AC 1 didnīt felt reppetitive as each mission was diffrent from each other and the story was more than interesting enough to keep the viewer interested, which cannot be said for Origins. AC 1 is a game that is mostly played for the plot, not the gameplay itself, itīs like a visional novel. Personally i like that they add new stuff in it, but they seem today much more focus on gameplay than the plot, which is the main issues with the newer games in this franshise.


But you just said that the purpose of an Assassin is to kill from the shadows and liberate the people. Every single Assassin's Creed has been the basis of that. Annualization has nothing to do with that, because even Origins has that mantra.

AC Rougue was about a immature child, that didnīt even tried to talk to people, due to being more buisy holding a moral high ground he never had, which resulted in the Templars gaining more power, because one guy couldnīt understand whatīs going on. AC Unity is actually anti-french revolutuion that depicted the masses as hysterial masses rather than opressed people. Arno only cared about Elise, everything else was non-existent. So, not every game has it. Itīs only loosely based on this idea, but each game executed it way diffrently than others and not with succesful results. How you show a story is important, not what you intend what you did. Context matters, not just the point.


Most people? Source?

None of this still changes my point that just because a new game is released every year, doesn't mean it was only worked on for a year.

The sales and hype for the game speak more than loud enough for it.

Yet still, the quality of these games are low, due to people rushing in one year. If they instead wait 2-3 years, we would have much more people excited about these games and Origins is proof of that, besides, not annulizing games gives also more time to development.


For the record, GoW was announced in Dec. 2014 in early development. That's three and a half years, not five, which is about the going rate for most AC games. As for "better",. that's relative. I don't agree.


Again, the game is still much better developed than Unity, due to no annulization rushing for release, which ruined itīs expectations as well as actually taking time to make the game, instead of just making a repetitive gameplay and a non-innovative storyline.

GoW is surperior in all objective criteria to Revenge 4 ( which is the plot of AC origins) because:

It has a better, MUCH BETTR developed story than Origins, no matter how you want to make Origins look good

has better graphics

has a better weapon system

better features( quality and not quantity)

better protagonist and side characters( Mimir was better than Hephzifa and Aya combined) and finally, much higher ratings.

You can disagree, itīs still not accurate.


Did you rush through the side content? There were several times Bayek felt remorse about his actions and wondered if he was doing the right thing in regards to revenge. He even questioned Aya about continuing killing "The Snake" on more than one occasion.

And we got the birth of the "Assassins." Just not Assassin's proper because it wasn't what we were expecting. We didn't get the full story, but we got enough. We saw how Aya realizing the "Brotherhood" is bigger than the two of them, bigger than their love and Bayek begrudgingly agreed.

I played EVERY side quest in the game and completed all of them, so i know what i am talking about. Bayek barely expressed remorse for his actions, he was very satisfied with killing the members of the Order and the way he showed "remorse" is just dishonest as most of his victims were too evil in order to feel bad about it. In the end, he felt release from killing them, made more obvious by Khemuīs reapearence in the Corridor section with Cyrene Borgia. Itīs not about that you show emotions, but how you actually do it. Altair showed an honest and real apology towards malik in a sincere way, simple stebacksa nd then returning to the old Habbit. Bayek really didnīt questioned it and was in all the moments, where it mattered more than convicne it was just, even with Suphia and Khalisetīs death, his sympathy was quite low, due to being made too unreasonable in order to be taken seriously, heck i laughed at the death of Rudjekīs. It were just some minor doubts like if you sure to drink water or not, nothing convincing. Look at Connor for actual doubts, he actually questioned his own deeds and not because of some minor moments of weakness.

We got nothing, we got little to no clue about the Origins of the Brotherhood, beacuse no one focused on doing it PROPERLY AND IN A WELL ORGANIZED MANNER. Bayek just founded them on this franshiseīs overdonebasis : Vengeance against all murderers, not based on principle, but based on own personal hatred against murderors, no Nothing is true and everythign is permitted, no ensuring Humanityīs Freedom, like what all ACīs are supposed to be about. He never learned about the truht of the first civ, never told us in a constructive way what the creed is about(which is why we got gamilat, who is shallow as hell). the whole point of the plot was to explain as to how the Brotherhood came to be and we got nothing, but a revenge story, where our main hero got nothing from it, but a new hobby to replace his Medjay job. His plot had nothing to do with the Assassins or Templars, just personal matters that have no tide to the whole AC Cosmos as much as it pretends to have.

Even if it had stuff in it, it was way too amateurish handled in order to be taken seriously like the Hidden blade and killing innocents, becasue Bayek never killed innocent peole or saw innocent people killed by well intentions, he had the whole no innocent murder stuff from the beginning.

I mean look at that dialougue of the game, itīs as atrocious as a bad fanfic like the whole final battle with Septimius, who didnīt even murder Khemu. Instead of a dialougue on the Corrupt nature of rulers, like why Ceaser and Cleo sided with the Templars, we have a flat revenge act that was already fulfiled by Bayek.


The Templars in Ezios times still wanted to lead. The concept of "Peace through tyranny" was quite present for Ezio. Bayek didn't kill "The Snake" because they were evil as much as he was told to, and then ended up being betrayed by the person who ordered it.

The whole peace with "Tyranny" was a lie, all they wanted is power. We saw no logic behind the borgais other than power, they all believed themselves to be higher than god and had no moral basis like the templars in the first AC or Revelations, 3, or 4. That wouldnīt be bad at all, if it werenīt for the fact that they over did it like in Rougue, AC 3, Syndicate and Unity( Aita only cares about Juno and to him the french revolution was just a means to an end, what he wanted was to see her rule her above all becasue, he like Arno, would do anything to please his girl). Bayek was not betrayed by anyone except Cleopatra and his quest started, long before he met her in the beginning From the very start, what he wanted was to kill the Order of the Ancients because they were first, the murders of his boi and secound, Evil-doers,who ruined egypt. Cleo was pretty much not needed for this Job, as he could tracked them without Cleo, on top of the fact that he doesnīt even care about her at all, all he wanted was to kill Khemu and return to his old life, but Aya got with him in one of the most crunchie dialougues of the game the idea to found the "brotherhood", because why not? the devs of this game have no idea as to how to make a character important without making him the creator of everything. Itīs like with making a new hero and fearing that they could not make him interesting, so they shoved him with incredible feats far beyong others, so that he feels important and interesting, which he never needed to. The creation of the Brotherhood was forced for already mentioned reasons.

It did explain it. It just wasn't direct and hand-holding. The modern day wasn't as much as shallow as it was a primer, a reiteration of what we already knew. And if anything, Layla was far from apathetic. I love her desire to work for Abstergo but then end up being completely betrayed and used, which makes her basically side with the Assassin's. It's a unique angle that really isn't all that surprising coming from Abstergo, and yet provided familiarization to fans of the series and shows new players what kind of organization Abstergo is.

The 1st game isn't even that deep. It doesn't open up until the end of 2 going into Brotherhood. It's a very one-sided story of Altair. We don't find out much about Desmond until Brotherhood/Revs/3 and more about Altair in Revs.

No it didnīt, it gave the viewers nothing of value other than wasted potential like choosing Ptolmaic eygpt instead of Bronze age egypt because they believe the only importan period in Egypt history is itīs downfall as well as the fact that they DIDN`T CARED FOR EGYPT AT ALL, as they even admitted that they were more intested in the cliche fall of the Repblic storyline than Eygpt, which they failed to do, as th whole Roman arc in the plot came way too late in order to be taken seriously.

AC 1 might not be the best game( which i might argue is), but it has a way more interesting plotline than Revenge 5 had. It didnīt had terrible dialogue hidden behind anectotes, didnīt made forgettable villians( Septimus is only remembered because of his Boss fights than his bland Character), WAS ABOUT THE ASSASSINS VS TEMPLARs with GOOD world and character building to understand the factions better instead of a bland revenge plot. The fact alone, that you needed to mention simple stuff that wasnīt in the game you defend shows that itīs a medicore plot and nothing that could match AC 3 or AC 4. It had the potential to put the franshise back on itīs feet, but it didnīt and only made a story driven by vengeance with Bayek, contrary to what you stated, didnīt regretted doing it. Thatīs why Altair is still the true OG Assassin in our Heart,for he is a much more powerful and better written character than Bayek.

You can like the game, but donīt pretend itīs groundbreaking, itīs a Character driven story in a story driven franshise.

If you want me to go for hours why i stay to my points, why not?

JWRK
05-24-2018, 07:57 AM
Regarding development time, all the bad Assassin's Creed suffer from feature bloat/creep, and long development times make this problem worse, not better.

But as others said, dev time does not necessarily correlate with time between releases.

The franchise should remain annualized to keep the excitement going. With the two year gap I was pretty un-hyped before Origins, and I cannot be the only one.

MageAquarius20
05-26-2018, 11:43 AM
Actually it does JWRK, due to Annulization, most games declined in terms of quality and the games after Blag flag are prove of that.

Long development times most likey garantee you making better games than being rushed to do it, GoW and Witcher 3 are a counter argument to your statement.

The franshise should stop returning to thier terrible idea of Annulization or ****tyfication of Games. Itīs better for us to wait for some time, so that he hype would be bigger foir the game contrary to your opinion, that only the minority of the AC famdon shares. People were more hyped for Oriigns than they were for Unity and Syndicate combined, so your argument falls flatter than flatbread.

Swailing
05-26-2018, 01:35 PM
I could grow to like annualised releases if every game is a two-parter.

Under the current system, we've recently had some pretty impressive expansions with Jack the Ripper and Hidden Ones/Curse of the Pharaohs. It's been very impressive work, but I'd the expansions are still limited by their position as support to the main title. Also, as DLC, the company knows from the start that only a small chunk of the initial game's customers will ever play it. With that in mind, I have to applaud Ubisoft for putting in so much effort into these expansions, but it's tantalising to think what else we might have seen had these expansions been full games with more time, attention, and budget. Although it didn't sell as well as hoped, perhaps due to Unity, Syndicate's Victorian setting whet the appetite of a lot of people who weren't fans of the series — unsurprising, considering how popular Victorian England is as a setting for all kinds of popular fiction. The topic of Jack the Ripper is a special draw in itself, and maybe a full 1888 London AC that eventually turned into a Jack story could have been a bigger hit.

We can argue about whether or not Brotherhood outdid ACII (in my opinion, it did), but the point is that the game intended to beat it. All kinds of things were improved and new systems were added. Recent games have shown how interesting it can be to retread the same environments in a different time period, or to temporarily go outside of the world we knew. With a lot of the world structure in place already, I'd love to see what the team could do with such a good springboard.

SixKeys
05-29-2018, 07:30 PM
Thanks for participating, everyone! Next community discussion topic will be up soon and the feedback from this one will be sent to the team. :)

cawatrooper9
05-29-2018, 07:52 PM
Here's a link to this week's discussion thread (https://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1886900-Mentors-Guild-Community-Discussion-RPG-Elements?p=13508527#post13508527).

Also, if you'd like to see the results of last week's Twitter poll on the topic, you can find them here (https://twitter.com/MentorsGuild/status/999982261796855813).