PDA

View Full Version : A yearly sequel to AC. Good or Bad? What's your opinion?



adarwinter
06-14-2010, 09:10 AM
I've seen discussions about this matter in other threads but felt like a dedicated thread to hear ppl's opinion is in place.

UBISOFT might take the "A half sequel every 12-18 months" approach to the AC franchise which will produce sequels with smaller progresses between them rather than go for full sequels every 2-3 years which will have more significant improvements to them and might even a new game engine or leaps of design.
It might look more like what activision is doing with its "Call of duty" franchise.

Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion and why?

I will begin with my own point of view -

I started the comparison to COD so I will follow with elaboration and contradictions-
The COD series in its SP campaign is a linear shooter type of series which is built on cinematic linear moments in a corridor-shooter type of game. The NEW aspects of every iterations of a COD game are the new cinematic set pieces. Not much more than that. The gameplay doesn’t have anywhere to evolve since any deviation from the 10 year old formula will take away from what COD is.
Even though treyarch and IW have been leapfrogging their games, the COD games have remained the same for that reason.

AC is, at least for now, a SP experience first and foremost and one that takes place in an open world. Open world (sand-box) games are games where there is a lot of room for new mechanics and new ideas added to the existing mechanics can always be implemented to enrich the experience and it is a time\money constraint that usually limits what additional mechanics are added with every sequel.

In MY opinion a 12-18 months sequel to AC will produce many products that look the same and play the same… mostly. There WILL be changes and evolutions but these will be small and may or may not be substantial, but as a whole – every new game might be a more refined version of its predecessors.
I think that of all games the AC franchise is something I will be happy to get a semi-sequel to as long as ubisoft cater to what is wrongs with the older AC games.
I look at GTAIV and its episodes – the episodes introduce some small new gameplay mechanics and new story to the same game world. It worked well as an episodic DLC but was never enough as a full game(which, of course, it wasn’t )– it took place in the same city, used al the old mechanics of driving and shooting and the gameplay formula was the same. The episodes didn’t fix what was wrong with GTAIV and while added new mechanics to the episodes it also took away from of the older ones.

If semi-sequels to AC will show up yearly they should do the following to be considered a good move on UBI’s behalf in MY book:

• New locations that have the roughly same size as AC1 and AC2. Not just small new towns. If AC:B is doing this or not with Rome is yet to be known.
• Improvements to all existing game mechanics with better combat (no longer relying on counters or holding “block” as an invulnerability button. No more dumb AIs that are easy to lose in a chase that are just too shy to swing a sword), better escaping mechanics and more refined parkour.
• Rebalancing of the game’s foundations – better balancing of money, health, medicine, weapons, enemies etc.
• A good story that not only connects old episodes with the ones that will come afterwards but also stand on their own.
• New mechanics to the game. blending in crowds, buying new equipments (in AC2), The ability to use horses in Rome, recruit new assassins, playing as a group, MULTIPLAYER (in ACB) etc – all these are a fine example of adding new mechanics.


If UBI will do the above but produce games on the same engine with the same graphics and basic ideas of gameplay – I wouldn’t mind getting a yearly addition of AC.
I am sure the new MP will be innovative yet flawed and I am also sure that it will give UBI new ways to improve on yet another aspect of the game every year or so.
Many of you believe that frequent sequels is a bad move and this might be the case with COD and other linear games, but I believe in the potential of the sequels of AC for the reasons above.

Please feel free to state your opinions about the matter.

czSpy007
06-14-2010, 09:22 AM
Im all for it. I was an avid fan of the franchise when it was just a teaser before the PS3 came out. I wasnt thrilled with the way the gameplay was on the first one, but the second blew me away. I think if they build on the second one, tweak the fight mechanics and add new places... the story is strong enough to keep me entertained for sure!

albertwesker22
06-14-2010, 09:33 AM
I agree. A yearly addition will age the series really fast. I imagine after the third side game, sales will come right down. Then the story will be drained of all its blood.

Murcuseo
06-14-2010, 10:14 AM
Speculation is pointless, a lot of people will have had a bad experience with another game or company that has done the same thing so their opinion will be one sided.

Noone can tell if it will be a good or bad thing at the moment, its a long term question and you're looking for a short term answer.

It might age the series quickly, it might not, it might take away from the story telling and gameplay, it might not. there's far to many variables to discuss on a forum...

My opinion: Wait and see!

BK-110
06-14-2010, 10:33 AM
If they make many games exploring many different time periods, then I'm all for it. I don't want to many games with the same characters and time periods, though...

wanderer77
06-14-2010, 10:38 AM
for SP it will have to wait and see how well they pull it off. but for MP for sure they need to let it age, they cannot throw out half assed multiplayer games for AC, or any other title, without truly letting it test and age, and let players find glitches and bugs and any other broken game mechanics before working on hte next MP title. hopefully they wont make AC: brotherhood 2011 and 2012 edition. if its MP they have to let it age at least 5 yrs.

i just dont like poorly designed, rushed games. if i will pay money for it, let it be a good investment.

sameer_monier
06-14-2010, 10:39 AM
here is what i think, sequel every year for AC & SC is a great move, but it should not be a sequel

just like AC:B it is not a sequel but a side sequel, so UBI is supposed to give the side sequel to other studios to work on every year, while having a major studio working on the true sequel (Montrial, Tornedo, ....etc) as long as a true sequel takes (2 or 3 years)

that way every year we will have something refreshing and new, while every 2 or 3 years we will have a blast

TJByrum2
06-14-2010, 11:11 AM
I'd prefer one every year. Maybe... that way I could get each one (C-Mas rocks).

I HATE it when two games of the same series come out in the same year.

lilbacchant
06-14-2010, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by BK-110:
If they make many games exploring many different time periods, then I'm all for it. I don't want to many games with the same characters and time periods, though...

Ditto.

The related history and varied settings are an integral part to what makes AC so compelling. Wrap-up the world-ending cataclysm plot in AC3, and let us continue exploring historical periods thru the eyes of assassins in their age-old fight against the templars in future games.

Keep modern day protagonists around for cohesion to the ongoing assassin/templar conflict, but each game should primarily be ONE new ancestor assassin in a new historical place and time. (I'm a little washy on AC:B being Ezio again ...)

If they keep up this trend, and take more steps forward vs. backward in the gameplay, it's hard to see how it could get stale -- even w/ yearly installments.

adarwinter
06-14-2010, 12:12 PM
I agree that there should be different periods for every iteration and of course it could have been wonderful if one studio will create the expantion while another will create sequels but the reality is probably not one that will allow such a thing exactly. who knows how much money and faith UBI has in the AC IP.

the half sequels will probably be in the same time periods the last game was. this way no new assets needs to be made to it saves time and money.
sequels in other time periods that DO need new models, textures, animations etc will take years (2, 3) to produce.

so i assume that if UBI really wants to pop up a new AC game every 12-18 months than they will HAVE to seperate the game into 2 studios so there WILL be a full sequel every 2 or 3 years with a new time period or what not made by one stupid while semi sequels will be made in between.

i dont mind ACB being in italy with ezio. it wasnt the time period and hero that bothered me but the lack of balance and challenge and the fact there is nothing to do once the story is done. no random side mission, not fun activities to do outside story missions and side missions...
these gripes i have can be easily fixed in a half-sequel. i have some faith in UBI on that but im worried that they believe that the balance of AC2 was good thus doesnt need an upgrade.

i hope they are not that blind...

lilbacchant
06-14-2010, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by adarwinter:
I agree that there should be different periods for every iteration and of course it could have been wonderful if one studio will create the expantion while another will create sequels but the reality is probably not one that will allow such a thing exactly. who knows how much money and faith UBI has in the AC IP.

the half sequels will probably be in the same time periods the last game was. this way no new assets needs to be made to it saves time and money.
sequels in other time periods that DO need new models, textures, animations etc will take years (2, 3) to produce.

so i assume that if UBI really wants to pop up a new AC game every 12-18 months than they will HAVE to seperate the game into 2 studios so there WILL be a full sequel every 2 or 3 years with a new time period or what not made by one stupid while semi sequels will be made in between.

i dont mind ACB being in italy with ezio. it wasnt the time period and hero that bothered me but the lack of balance and challenge and the fact there is nothing to do once the story is done. no random side mission, not fun activities to do outside story missions and side missions...
these gripes i have can be easily fixed in a half-sequel. i have some faith in UBI on that but im worried that they believe that the balance of AC2 was good thus doesnt need an upgrade.

i hope they are not that blind...

Good points. If annual products mean following this trend:

Core story game --> Semi-sequel set in same location/ancestor --> another core game or another semi-sequel --> etc.

Well, they'd better be prepared for a lighter ship because it won't take long for the rats (i.e., gamers) to start jumping ship. That trend points to "core games" being unfinished to ensure room for a semi-sequel (we, as gamers, experience enough of this w/ DLC and expansions, thank you very much).

Otoh, if an annual trend just means dedicating two or studios to increase the pace of a popular franchise, it could be done w/out getting stale (assuming there is enough cohesion between the two studios to keep the storyline consistent).

Azugo
06-14-2010, 07:39 PM
Bad.

I think they should finish off AC3 before doing any spin-offs.