PDA

View Full Version : Skyrim Revelations



AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 04:40 AM
Ahh I remember the days when playing Assassins Creed(1) made me me feel like playing Oblivion, and playing Oblivion made me feel like playing Assassins Creed, at the time, in my eyes the two games were equal.

Probably not equal in any definite sense, but, to me they felt equal. Both were as much fun as the other.

Look at how far we've come. I've been watching a lot of Skyrim feeds lately, and, it seems, Ubisoft have let all of us down. Gone are the days when these series were remotely comparable.

What Bethesda have done in 3 years is magnificent, I only wish that ubisoft had the the same respect for their fans that Bethesda has, that is to be a games company that puts substance over style and artistry and creativity over profit.

What we've seen in ACB and (it appears) in ACR is nothing more than desire to bolster yearly profits rather than a commitment to build a reputation as a quality studio and ensure a committed fanbase for years to come.

This seems, to me, to be quite short sighted and, in the long run, detrimental to the company as a whole.

Ubisoft, if you respect and understand your long term Assassins Creed fans and want to build your fan base rather than have to constantly renew it, please realise that to make a DECENT video game, it takes more than 1 year!

Two years is fine(judging by AC2) but one year is FAR too short to create a deep, satisfying experience.

Profits may skew a little higher but you owe it to yourselves and to your long term fans to create a quality experience to make Ubisoft a name revered in the annals of gaming and not just another, flash in the pan game company.

AC1 and AC2 were brilliant in my opinion, but, from the perspective of a lot of long term fans you really dropped the ball with ACB and in my opinion this is only due to the short production/development time. I haven't played Revelations yet but my expectations, compared to my expectations for ACB are not even remotely comparable.

Please dont continue to let us long term fans down. We're on the same team, you give us the respect we deserve and your long term success will be assured.

SlimeDynamiteD
11-04-2011, 04:49 AM
Even though Ubisoft probably won't admit it, it's not going very good with the studio.

They have to make these profits to keep running, and the Assassin's Creed franchise is one of their best-sellers, therefore they HAVE to keep selling these.

Bethesda, however, is doing great.
It's been bigger than ever, they're coming out with great games like Rage, Skyrim, Fallout, Prey and Brink.

Therefore they get more money and are able to do more things than Ubisoft, ofcourse the time does also count, Oblivion was released in 2006, so they had 5 years to create Skyrim.

Assassin's Creed releases once a year and therefore has much less time to create the next Assassin's Creed game.

roostersrule2
11-04-2011, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
Ahh I remember the days when playing Assassins Creed(1) made me me feel like playing Oblivion, and playing Oblivion made me feel like playing Assassins Creed, at the time, in my eyes the two games were equal.

Probably not equal in any definite sense, but, to me they felt equal. Both were as much fun as the other.

Look at how far we've come. I've been watching a lot of Skyrim feeds lately, and, it seems, Ubisoft have let all of us down. Gone are the days when these series were remotely comparable.

What Bethesda have done in 3 years is magnificent, I only wish that ubisoft had the the same respect for their fans that Bethesda has, that is to be a games company that puts substance over style and artistry and creativity over profit.

What we've seen in ACB and (it appears) in ACR is nothing more than desire to bolster yearly profits rather than a commitment to build a reputation as a quality studio and ensure a committed fanbase for years to come.

This seems, to me, to be quite short sighted and, in the long run, detrimental to the company as a whole.

Ubisoft, if you respect and understand your long term Assassins Creed fans and want to build your fan base rather than have to constantly renew it, please realise that to make a DECENT video game, it takes more than 1 year!

Two years is fine(judging by AC2) but one year is FAR too short to create a deep, satisfying experience.

Profits may skew a little higher but you owe it to yourselves and to your long term fans to create a quality experience to make Ubisoft a name revered in the annals of gaming and not just another, flash in the pan game company.

AC1 and AC2 were brilliant in my opinion, but, from the perspective of a lot of long term fans you really dropped the ball with ACB and in my opinion this is only due to the short production/development time. I haven't played Revelations yet but my expectations, compared to my expectations for ACB are not even remotely comparable.

Please dont continue to let us long term fans down. We're on the same team, you give us the respect we deserve and your long term success will be assured. Ubisoft do a game in more then one year as AC3 has been worked on since AC2 (I think) came out. Also revelations probably started development in around September last year maybe and it's the same for brotherhood, but after AC3 their going to slow down release times. As we won't see AC4 or an AC3 expansion until like 2014 and we will probably get a big DLC in the meantime to keep us sane.

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
Even though Ubisoft probably won't admit it, it's not going very good with the studio.

They have to make these profits to keep running, and the Assassin's Creed franchise is one of their best-sellers, therefore they HAVE to keep selling these.

Bethesda, however, is doing great.
It's been bigger than ever, they're coming out with great games like Rage, Skyrim, Fallout, Prey and Brink.

Therefore they get more money and are able to do more things than Ubisoft, ofcourse the time does also count, Oblivion was released in 2006, so they had 5 years to create Skyrim.

Assassin's Creed releases once a year and therefore has much less time to create the next Assassin's Creed game.

You do make some very good points. At the same time though you confirm some of mine. If Ubi had a more "forward thinking" strategy rather than "Hey, this is selling! lets flog it!!" approach maybe they could still be winners in the long term.

Yearly profits are nice but, as far as i see it, a company needs to look past it's yearly cycle.

If they're in financial woe I'm sure that based on the success of the AC franchise alone they could secure the funds needed to make long term change and still reap the rewards. Bear in mind though they did amass over 1 BILLION dollars in revenue the other year.

SlimeDynamiteD
11-04-2011, 05:29 AM
I agree, but when a company needs this yearly profits to keep running I'd say, keep milking it out until you can change that.

Chronomancy
11-04-2011, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
Ahh I remember the days when playing Assassins Creed(1) made me me feel like playing Oblivion, and playing Oblivion made me feel like playing Assassins Creed, at the time, in my eyes the two games were equal.

Probably not equal in any definite sense, but, to me they felt equal. Both were as much fun as the other.

Look at how far we've come. I've been watching a lot of Skyrim feeds lately, and, it seems, Ubisoft have let all of us down. Gone are the days when these series were remotely comparable.

What Bethesda have done in 3 years is magnificent, I only wish that ubisoft had the the same respect for their fans that Bethesda has, that is to be a games company that puts substance over style and artistry and creativity over profit.

What we've seen in ACB and (it appears) in ACR is nothing more than desire to bolster yearly profits rather than a commitment to build a reputation as a quality studio and ensure a committed fanbase for years to come.

This seems, to me, to be quite short sighted and, in the long run, detrimental to the company as a whole.

Ubisoft, if you respect and understand your long term Assassins Creed fans and want to build your fan base rather than have to constantly renew it, please realise that to make a DECENT video game, it takes more than 1 year!

Two years is fine(judging by AC2) but one year is FAR too short to create a deep, satisfying experience.

Profits may skew a little higher but you owe it to yourselves and to your long term fans to create a quality experience to make Ubisoft a name revered in the annals of gaming and not just another, flash in the pan game company.

AC1 and AC2 were brilliant in my opinion, but, from the perspective of a lot of long term fans you really dropped the ball with ACB and in my opinion this is only due to the short production/development time. I haven't played Revelations yet but my expectations, compared to my expectations for ACB are not even remotely comparable.

Please dont continue to let us long term fans down. We're on the same team, you give us the respect we deserve and your long term success will be assured.

Great post, you summed up all my thoughts and put them to paper.

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
I agree, but when a company needs this yearly profits to keep running I'd say, keep milking it out until you can change that.

True. But maybe the milking is the cancer, and to fix it maybe they could take heed of others, as you say;

"Bethesda, however, is doing great.
It's been bigger than ever, they're coming out with great games like Rage, Skyrim, Fallout, Prey and Brink."

I don't mean to dwell on Bethesda as a "perfect" game company, but I do appreciate the credit that they give their fans as far as quality is concerned (glitches not withstanding lol).

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 05:53 AM
I dunno...

I don't see how you can compare The Elder Scrolls to Assassin's Creed. They are completely different games.

And ACB was my favorite game in the series, and I don't really get why people think that it decreased in quality from AC1/AC2. And I see ACR as being the best in the series so far.

Will_Lucky
11-04-2011, 05:55 AM
Considering the fact six studios worked on Revelations, I'd say thats more than enough manpower to release games year on year. But I'd like to see a year without a release, give them more time for AC3 which has been in development since the end of AC2.

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Will_Lucky:
Considering the fact six studios worked on Revelations, I'd say thats more than enough manpower to release games year on year. But I'd like to see a year without a release, give them more time for AC3 which has been in development since the end of AC2.

They already confirmed that AC3 is releasing next year, because they think that ending a story that takes place in December 2012 after December 2012 passes in real life is stupid. Which I can concur with.

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by Will_Lucky:
Considering the fact six studios worked on Revelations, I'd say thats more than enough manpower to release games year on year. But I'd like to see a year without a release, give them more time for AC3 which has been in development since the end of AC2.

5 studios worked on ACB!
1 studio worked on AC1 & 2

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Will_Lucky:
Considering the fact six studios worked on Revelations, I'd say thats more than enough manpower to release games year on year. But I'd like to see a year without a release, give them more time for AC3 which has been in development since the end of AC2.

5 studios worked on ACB! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

err.. It doesn't really matter. ACB was still an awesome game.

LightRey
11-04-2011, 06:05 AM
Why do people keep talking about ACB as if it were a bad game? It was awesome and well received, so show some respect. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Chronomancy
11-04-2011, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
Why do people keep talking about ACB as if it were a bad game? It was awesome and well received, so show some respect. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

The only complaint that I have about ACB and the up and coming Revelations is that we are playing Ezio again.

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
Why do people keep talking about ACB as if it were a bad game? It was awesome and well received, so show some respect. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Exactly. ACB isn't a bad game, not any worse than AC1 or AC2. I really don't know why people talk about it as if it were a degradation in quality. Anything that was removed from AC2-ACB (which isn't much if anything at all in my experience), was made up for in additions to the series in ACB.

Steelback2010
11-04-2011, 06:14 AM
I'm new here but as far as i know companies like Ubisoft work on a rolling schedule, meaning although these games come out annually some could have been worked on for two or more years, unless your in the know or have access to their financial papers you don't know until they release the games.

I personally can't say I've noticed a drop in quality, if anything its improved from the original and they've added multi-player, i can honestly say I'm impressed.

Mr_Shade
11-04-2011, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
I agree, but when a company needs this yearly profits to keep running I'd say, keep milking it out until you can change that. I'm glad you have some inside insight.. More than I do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tbh Ubisoft is going strong, as the recent acquisition of other companies shows.


The reason there is "so many" AC games, maybe down to the fact the fans want them, and they have invested a lot of money into dedicated studios / teams for them.

Ubisoft is releasing new tiles all the time though, such as the announcement of the new rainbow 6 game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 06:24 AM
Yea, Ubisoft is releasing tons of games all the time as a publisher.

Just look here: http://store.steampowered.com/publisher/Ubisoft

roostersrule2
11-04-2011, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by Steelback2010:
I'm new here but as far as i know companies like Ubisoft work on a rolling schedule, meaning although these games come out annually some could have been worked on for two or more years, unless your in the know or have access to their financial papers you don't know until they release the games.

I personally can't say I've noticed a drop in quality, if anything its improved from the original and they've added multi-player, i can
honestly say I'm impressed. Yea, A whole different studio does multiplayer I think it's Ubisoft Annecy which does the multiplayer so the
single player doesn't go down hill.

tjbyrum1
11-04-2011, 06:25 AM
Like the guy way above me said, these games ain't worked on in a year.

For example, right now as Revelations is finishing up, Ubi is already working on AC3, and probably have been for the past year of so. I don't know. I just remember Ubi saying they work on the AC games simultaneously or something? If someone could find a reference to that it would be great.

Besides, we got nothing to worry about. Ubisoft created a game series that is enjoyable - a good story and good gameplay - you won't find another game like it on the market.

Ubi does indeed deliver quality games every year, despite the short time of development on them. AC2 was the biggest leap probably because it had more time to be worked on, but don't forget that it also had the most room to work with after AC1.

Every AC game that comes out is an improvement over the last AC game. AC1 was good, AC2 was great, ACB was better, and ACR will be the best so far. They all add something new to enhance the gameplay of the games.

Plus have you ever wondered about them building the cities we're in? They had to build Rome for Brotherhood (not much of Rome was used in II) and had to build Constaninople for Revelations.

So I would say, YES, Ubi does deliver quality-games.

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Will_Lucky:
Considering the fact six studios worked on Revelations, I'd say thats more than enough manpower to release games year on year. But I'd like to see a year without a release, give them more time for AC3 which has been in development since the end of AC2.

5 studios worked on ACB! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

err.. It doesn't really matter. ACB was still an awesome game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why do people keep talking about ACB as if it were a bad game? It was awesome and well received, so show some respect.

I know you guys (Jexx & Lightrey) love the series but in my opinion if you want the series to remain at the standard you enjoy it's important to be objective and give criticism when & where you feel it is warranted.

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by Chronomancy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AlphaAltair:


Great post, you summed up all my thoughts and put them to paper.

Thanks Chrono, I remember having some great games against you in the Beta!

SlimeDynamiteD
11-04-2011, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
I agree, but when a company needs this yearly profits to keep running I'd say, keep milking it out until you can change that. I'm glad you have some inside insight.. More than I do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tbh Ubisoft is going strong, as the recent acquisition of other companies shows.


The reason there is "so many" AC games, maybe down to the fact the fans want them, and they have invested a lot of money into dedicated studios / teams for them.

Ubisoft is releasing new tiles all the time though, such as the announcement of the new rainbow 6 game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh you and your Rainbow 6! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

And I don't have inside insight :P It was an... educated guess, but thanks for confirming it :P


Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
True. But maybe the milking is the cancer, and to fix it maybe they could take heed of others, as you say;


I don't think it's the cancer, if this yearly profit they make from the Assassin's Creed series, they can put in the work they do, a bigger team, for example, they will improve the Assassin's Creed series yearly and it becomes a bit better every year.

Also, like Mr_Shade made a valid point: Maybe they release Assassin's Creed on a yearly basis because we, the fans, demand that. To keep us please they release it yearly, when they stop doing that there's a good chance alot of fans will feel like they've been let down.

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 06:30 AM
Well.. it is at a standard I enjoy.

And while ACB has it flaws, I feel like it's better than AC2.

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by tjbyrum1:
Like the guy way above me said, these games ain't worked on in a year.

For example, right now as Revelations is finishing up, Ubi is already working on AC3, and probably have been for the past year of so. I don't know. I just remember Ubi saying they work on the AC games simultaneously or something? If someone could find a reference to that it would be great.

Besides, we got nothing to worry about. Ubisoft created a game series that is enjoyable - a good story and good gameplay - you won't find another game like it on the market.

Ubi does indeed deliver quality games every year, despite the short time of development on them. AC2 was the biggest leap probably because it had more time to be worked on, but don't forget that it also had the most room to work with after AC1.

Every AC game that comes out is an improvement over the last AC game. AC1 was good, AC2 was great, ACB was better, and ACR will be the best so far. They all add something new to enhance the gameplay of the games.

Plus have you ever wondered about them building the cities we're in? They had to build Rome for Brotherhood (not much of Rome was used in II) and had to build Constaninople for Revelations.

So I would say, YES, Ubi does deliver quality-games.

I have to agree with this absolutely. And the MP is still awesome MP. I love playing a good game of Manhunt, Assassinate, or Wanted.

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
I agree, but when a company needs this yearly profits to keep running I'd say, keep milking it out until you can change that. I'm glad you have some inside insight.. More than I do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tbh Ubisoft is going strong, as the recent acquisition of other companies shows.


The reason there is "so many" AC games, maybe down to the fact the fans want them, and they have invested a lot of money into dedicated studios / teams for them.

Ubisoft is releasing new tiles all the time though, such as the announcement of the new rainbow 6 game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh you and your Rainbow 6! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

And I don't have inside insight :P It was an... educated guess, but thanks for confirming it :P


Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
True. But maybe the milking is the cancer, and to fix it maybe they could take heed of others, as you say;


I don't think it's the cancer, if this yearly profit they make from the Assassin's Creed series, they can put in the work they do, a bigger team, for example, they will improve the Assassin's Creed series yearly and it becomes a bit better every year.

Also, like Mr_Shade made a valid point: Maybe they release Assassin's Creed on a yearly basis because we, the fans, demand that. To keep us please they release it yearly, when they stop doing that there's a good chance alot of fans will feel like they've been let down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would be pretty happy with 700 employees in ONE studio working on a game a year basis, or 350 over 2 yrs, however 600-700 over 6 studios over 1 yr is a little "incohesive" and, unfortunately it does show. The fans that defend AC to the death now only have to have their expectations destroyed once to be at the same place I am. I realise Ubisoft has to make a profit but in order to maximise that it is in their best interests to make the best QUALITY products they can can, not the most quantity they're able to.

SlimeDynamiteD
11-04-2011, 06:51 AM
I have to agree with you on that.

Lass4r
11-04-2011, 07:03 AM
What? Just....what? Ubisoft as far as I can see is not struggling at all... and early reviews of Revelations are pretty much across the board positive.
What makes you say they are having trouble? And why can't a game be released after 1 year if it's great? The team at Ubisoft is enourmous, and they've already pulled off one highly popular game that was made in 1 year, AC Brotherhood. AC is not in any way declining, it is constantly expanding, and it's the only game series that have managed to pull me in continuously. So why are you bashing it?

LightRey
11-04-2011, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
I would be pretty happy with 700 employees in ONE studio working on a game a year basis, or 350 over 2 yrs, however 600-700 over 6 studios over 1 yr is a little "incohesive" and, unfortunately it does show. The fans that defend AC to the death now only have to have their expectations destroyed once to be at the same place I am. I realise Ubisoft has to make a profit but in order to maximise that it is in their best interests to make the best QUALITY products they can can, not the most quantity they're able to.
From what I hear they actually work very closely together, especially considering the numbers. I haven't noticed anything at all. If you had your expectations destroyed then clearly you had the wrong expectations.

Chronomancy
11-04-2011, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Lass4r:
What? Just....what? Ubisoft as far as I can see is not struggling at all... and early reviews of Revelations are pretty much across the board positive.
What makes you say they are having trouble? And why can't a game be released after 1 year if it's great? The team at Ubisoft is enourmous, and they've already pulled off one highly popular game that was made in 1 year, AC Brotherhood. AC is not in any way declining, it is constantly expanding, and it's the only game series that have managed to pull me in continuously. So why are you bashing it?

He's not bashing it he's giving constructive feedback.

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
I would be pretty happy with 700 employees in ONE studio working on a game a year basis, or 350 over 2 yrs, however 600-700 over 6 studios over 1 yr is a little "incohesive" and, unfortunately it does show. The fans that defend AC to the death now only have to have their expectations destroyed once to be at the same place I am. I realise Ubisoft has to make a profit but in order to maximise that it is in their best interests to make the best QUALITY products they can can, not the most quantity they're able to.
From what I hear they actually work very closely together, especially considering the numbers. I haven't noticed anything at all. If you had your expectations destroyed then clearly you had the wrong expectations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's nothing closer than being in the same building, and BTW the only expectations I had were based on AC2.

LightRey
11-04-2011, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
I would be pretty happy with 700 employees in ONE studio working on a game a year basis, or 350 over 2 yrs, however 600-700 over 6 studios over 1 yr is a little "incohesive" and, unfortunately it does show. The fans that defend AC to the death now only have to have their expectations destroyed once to be at the same place I am. I realise Ubisoft has to make a profit but in order to maximise that it is in their best interests to make the best QUALITY products they can can, not the most quantity they're able to.
From what I hear they actually work very closely together, especially considering the numbers. I haven't noticed anything at all. If you had your expectations destroyed then clearly you had the wrong expectations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's nothing closer than being in the same building, and BTW the only expectations I had were based on AC2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So were mine. Yet mine weren't shattered.

SlimeDynamiteD
11-04-2011, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
So were mine. Yet mine weren't shattered.

But that's unfair, your expectations are always low so they won't get shattered xD

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
I would be pretty happy with 700 employees in ONE studio working on a game a year basis, or 350 over 2 yrs, however 600-700 over 6 studios over 1 yr is a little "incohesive" and, unfortunately it does show. The fans that defend AC to the death now only have to have their expectations destroyed once to be at the same place I am. I realise Ubisoft has to make a profit but in order to maximise that it is in their best interests to make the best QUALITY products they can can, not the most quantity they're able to.
From what I hear they actually work very closely together, especially considering the numbers. I haven't noticed anything at all. If you had your expectations destroyed then clearly you had the wrong expectations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's nothing closer than being in the same building, and BTW the only expectations I had were based on AC2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So were mine. Yet mine weren't shattered.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet!?

Lass4r
11-04-2011, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by Chronomancy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lass4r:
What? Just....what? Ubisoft as far as I can see is not struggling at all... and early reviews of Revelations are pretty much across the board positive.
What makes you say they are having trouble? And why can't a game be released after 1 year if it's great? The team at Ubisoft is enourmous, and they've already pulled off one highly popular game that was made in 1 year, AC Brotherhood. AC is not in any way declining, it is constantly expanding, and it's the only game series that have managed to pull me in continuously. So why are you bashing it?

He's not bashing it he's giving constructive feedback. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, ignore that one line then, my entire comment shouldn't be trashed because of that...

SlimeDynamiteD
11-04-2011, 07:28 AM
Actually yes, yes it should. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LightRey
11-04-2011, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
Yet!?
Yes, "yet". As in, "contrary to yours".

YuurHeen
11-04-2011, 07:37 AM
the way i see it the top of games are published by 6 big publishers.
the 3 artist studios and 3 economic publishers.
artist: bethesda, rockstar and blizzard
economic: ea, activision and ubisoft.

i know blizzard and activision are combined now but their studios make totally different games.

what bethesda studio makes is 200-500 hours open-world games in where you can really live a second live and feel a part of that world which are in my opinion what a game should be. fallout 3 being my top game ever.

ubisoft on the other hand is more likely to supply to the demand of gamers. they listen what most gamers want and try to sell as much of copies as they can. while this idea can bring great games like acr it can also slow down the artistic of games. bold moves are put to a miminum. So while each game is better than its previous it wont be as epic as a elder scrol or GTA. and in this business if you are to slow with improvements you loose.

Chronomancy
11-04-2011, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by YuurHeen:
the way i see it the top of games are published by 6 big publishers.
the 3 artist studios and 3 economic publishers.
artist: bethesda, rockstar and blizzard
economic: ea, activision and ubisoft.

i know blizzard and activision are combined now but their studios totally different games.

what bethesda studio makes is 200-500 hours open-world games in where you can really live a second live and feel a part of that world which are in my opinion what a game should be. fallout 3 being my top game ever.

ubisoft on the other hand is more likely to supply to the demand of gamers. they listen what most gamers want and try to sell as much of copies as they can. while this idea can bring great games like acr it can also slow down the artistic of games. bold moves are put to a miminum. So while each game is better than its previous it wont be as epic as a elder scrol or GTA. and in this business if you are to slow with improvements you loose.

Ubisoft doesn't listen to their customers if I read this correctly.

Not trying to start an argument, just putting it out there.

LightRey
11-04-2011, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Chronomancy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by YuurHeen:
the way i see it the top of games are published by 6 big publishers.
the 3 artist studios and 3 economic publishers.
artist: bethesda, rockstar and blizzard
economic: ea, activision and ubisoft.

i know blizzard and activision are combined now but their studios totally different games.

what bethesda studio makes is 200-500 hours open-world games in where you can really live a second live and feel a part of that world which are in my opinion what a game should be. fallout 3 being my top game ever.

ubisoft on the other hand is more likely to supply to the demand of gamers. they listen what most gamers want and try to sell as much of copies as they can. while this idea can bring great games like acr it can also slow down the artistic of games. bold moves are put to a miminum. So while each game is better than its previous it wont be as epic as a elder scrol or GTA. and in this business if you are to slow with improvements you loose.

Ubisoft doesn't listen to their customers if I read this correctly.

Not trying to start an argument, just putting it out there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What? How are they not listening to their customers?

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
Yet!?
Yes, "yet". As in, "contrary to yours". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

12 mths ago I would've been as confident as you as well. Of course no one can predict the future( except TWCB).

LightRey
11-04-2011, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
Yet!?
Yes, "yet". As in, "contrary to yours". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

12 mths ago I would've been as confident as you as well. Of course no one can predict the future( except TWCB). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tbh, I was pleasantly surprised by just how much of a sequel ACB was. I had expected it to be more like the DS and PSP games, but bigger. However, the game had an incredible amount of new content both gameplay- and story-wise. I was more than satisfied after finishing it.

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
Yet!?
Yes, "yet". As in, "contrary to yours". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

12 mths ago I would've been as confident as you as well. Of course no one can predict the future( except TWCB). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tbh, I was pleasantly surprised by just how much of a sequel ACB was. I had expected it to be more like the DS and PSP games, but bigger. However, the game had an incredible amount of new content both gameplay- and story-wise. I was more than satisfied after finishing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, maybe that's part of it? I was expecting another AC2.

Chronomancy
11-04-2011, 07:53 AM
I just want a new assassin to play with. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SlimeDynamiteD
11-04-2011, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
But that's unfair, your expectations are always low so they won't get shattered xD


Originally posted by LightRey:
Tbh, I was pleasantly surprised by just how much of a sequel ACB was. I had expected it to be more like the DS and PSP games, but bigger. However, the game had an incredible amount of new content both gameplay- and story-wise. I was more than satisfied after finishing it.


Ah, My point is proven.

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Chronomancy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by YuurHeen:
the way i see it the top of games are published by 6 big publishers.
the 3 artist studios and 3 economic publishers.
artist: bethesda, rockstar and blizzard
economic: ea, activision and ubisoft.

i know blizzard and activision are combined now but their studios totally different games.

what bethesda studio makes is 200-500 hours open-world games in where you can really live a second live and feel a part of that world which are in my opinion what a game should be. fallout 3 being my top game ever.

ubisoft on the other hand is more likely to supply to the demand of gamers. they listen what most gamers want and try to sell as much of copies as they can. while this idea can bring great games like acr it can also slow down the artistic of games. bold moves are put to a miminum. So while each game is better than its previous it wont be as epic as a elder scrol or GTA. and in this business if you are to slow with improvements you loose.

Ubisoft doesn't listen to their customers if I read this correctly.

Not trying to start an argument, just putting it out there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe this is part of the problem? Which comes first, the profit or the art?? We know you cant have one without the other.Sadly?

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
But that's unfair, your expectations are always low so they won't get shattered xD


Originally posted by LightRey:
Tbh, I was pleasantly surprised by just how much of a sequel ACB was. I had expected it to be more like the DS and PSP games, but bigger. However, the game had an incredible amount of new content both gameplay- and story-wise. I was more than satisfied after finishing it.


Ah, My point is proven. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol. Exactly

LightRey
11-04-2011, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
But that's unfair, your expectations are always low so they won't get shattered xD


Originally posted by LightRey:
Tbh, I was pleasantly surprised by just how much of a sequel ACB was. I had expected it to be more like the DS and PSP games, but bigger. However, the game had an incredible amount of new content both gameplay- and story-wise. I was more than satisfied after finishing it.


Ah, My point is proven. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I saw no reason to assume it would be as "grande" as ACII. It was being developed in only a year's time and from the trailers it was clearly visible they hadn't changed much about the engine. I still think it's as good as ACII, just that it didn't improve as much on it as ACII did on ACI, which is to be expected. Not to mention that ACB was basically about Ezio wrapping up things in Italy.

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
But that's unfair, your expectations are always low so they won't get shattered xD


Originally posted by LightRey:
Tbh, I was pleasantly surprised by just how much of a sequel ACB was. I had expected it to be more like the DS and PSP games, but bigger. However, the game had an incredible amount of new content both gameplay- and story-wise. I was more than satisfied after finishing it.


Ah, My point is proven. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I saw no reason to assume it would be as "grande" as ACII. It was being developed in only a year's time and from the trailers it was clearly visible they hadn't changed much about the engine. I still think it's as good as ACII, just that it didn't improve as much on it as ACII did on ACI, which is to be expected. Not to mention that ACB was basically about Ezio wrapping up things in Italy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So with a larger development time they could produce a better game?

Steelback2010
11-04-2011, 08:15 AM
The fact is if were on this forum, were passionate about the games being made, which means the games must be of sufficient quality to have such a dedicated fan base.
Alpha raises some very good points, that developers must strive for quality and to listen to their customers, however lets not delude ourselves, this is a profit making business, no developer is going to cut their own throat by throwing out garbage and then taking a loss on it.
Ubisoft puts the time in, gets the job done right, yes there have been a few hiccups and yes they haven't been AS innovative recently but lets just see what ACR brings to the table.

My two cents and ramblings.

LightRey
11-04-2011, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
But that's unfair, your expectations are always low so they won't get shattered xD


Originally posted by LightRey:
Tbh, I was pleasantly surprised by just how much of a sequel ACB was. I had expected it to be more like the DS and PSP games, but bigger. However, the game had an incredible amount of new content both gameplay- and story-wise. I was more than satisfied after finishing it.


Ah, My point is proven. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I saw no reason to assume it would be as "grande" as ACII. It was being developed in only a year's time and from the trailers it was clearly visible they hadn't changed much about the engine. I still think it's as good as ACII, just that it didn't improve as much on it as ACII did on ACI, which is to be expected. Not to mention that ACB was basically about Ezio wrapping up things in Italy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So with a larger development time they could produce a better game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope, just one that's a bigger step forward from the previous game, but the quality of AC3 compared to AC2 would not be any different if there were no ACB and ACR. In fact, games like ACB and ACR allow Ubisoft to get more feedback and make more improvements.

AlphaAltair
11-04-2011, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
But that's unfair, your expectations are always low so they won't get shattered xD


Originally posted by LightRey:
Tbh, I was pleasantly surprised by just how much of a sequel ACB was. I had expected it to be more like the DS and PSP games, but bigger. However, the game had an incredible amount of new content both gameplay- and story-wise. I was more than satisfied after finishing it.


Ah, My point is proven. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I saw no reason to assume it would be as "grande" as ACII. It was being developed in only a year's time and from the trailers it was clearly visible they hadn't changed much about the engine. I still think it's as good as ACII, just that it didn't improve as much on it as ACII did on ACI, which is to be expected. Not to mention that ACB was basically about Ezio wrapping up things in Italy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So with a larger development time they could produce a better game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope, just one that's a bigger step forward from the previous game, but the quality of AC3 compared to AC2 would not be any different if there were no ACB and ACR. In fact, games like ACB and ACR allow Ubisoft to get more feedback and make more improvements. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So What you're saying is that if Ubi used 600-700 staff through 2009-2012 developing AC3 it would be no better than if they had the worldwide staff divided creating 2 demi-games instead...ok

SlimeDynamiteD
11-04-2011, 08:57 AM
I'm sorry to disturb this most interesting arguement but:

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0803/quotes-demotivational-poster-1206284005.jpg

See all those Quotes? Yea, that's annoying.
I think I've made my point here.

LightRey
11-04-2011, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
So What you're saying is that if Ubi used 600-700 staff through 2009-2012 developing AC3 it would be no better than if they had the worldwide staff divided creating 2 demi-games instead...ok
They're not divided. They're simply creating the games at slower paces, while in the background working on the next "big one". In the process they're learning from the "smaller ones", which allows them to improve the "big one" even further. There should be no degradation of quality, nor have I noticed any.

My point is that the difference between the installments may be less significant, but the relative difference is still the same, if not greater.

Bruno_Berg
11-04-2011, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
Even though Ubisoft probably won't admit it, it's not going very good with the studio.

They have to make these profits to keep running, and the Assassin's Creed franchise is one of their best-sellers, therefore they HAVE to keep selling these.

Bethesda, however, is doing great.
It's been bigger than ever, they're coming out with great games like Rage, Skyrim, Fallout, Prey and Brink.

Therefore they get more money and are able to do more things than Ubisoft, ofcourse the time does also count, Oblivion was released in 2006, so they had 5 years to create Skyrim.

Assassin's Creed releases once a year and therefore has much less time to create the next Assassin's Creed game.

Only, this isn't correct. If you're saying Bethesda are making lots of great games like Rage, Skyrim, Fallout, Prey and Brink, and Ubisoft are not, then I don't even know how to respond. Ubisoft are releasing loads of games, for example: Anno 2070, I am Alive, Rayman Origins, Ghost Recon and more. Bethesda stands as the publisher on Rage, Prey and Brink, they are not the developing Studio. Bethesda Game Studios have only created Skyrim and Fallout 3 out of those titles, so I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

(This is more of a response to the first post)
Also, when was Oblivion ever remotely comparable to the AC franchise? They are both open world and both contain swords, and there the similarities end. I can't think of anything these games really have in common. And AC1 out of all of them? At least AC2 and AC:B had some side missions in them.

Skyrim and The Elder Scrolls series overall, they all have their flaws just as the AC games have theirs. Both are increadibly awesome games but they're just not comparable.

SlimeDynamiteD
11-04-2011, 09:18 AM
You never heared me say that Ubisoft is not making great games. Hell I wouldn't even be here if I wouldn't support Ubisoft in their doings.

Bruno_Berg
11-04-2011, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
You never heared me say that Ubisoft is not making great games. Hell I wouldn't even be here if I wouldn't support Ubisoft in their doings.

That wasn't my point at all. I was just wondering why you compared Ubisoft and Bethesda and argued the point that Ubisoft only released AC and nothing else, while Bethesda created loads of different games when in fact they aren't doing that any more than Ubisoft is. This has nothing really to do with how good you think of the games. I simply can't understand the point you were trying to make.

SlimeDynamiteD
11-04-2011, 09:33 AM
I never said Ubisoft only released one franchised either.

But look at this:
Ubisoft games:
Armored Core
Assassin's Creed
Avatar: The Game
Beyond Good & Evil
Blazing Angels
Brothers in Arms
Call of Juarez
Cellfactor
ChessMaster
CSI
Tom Clancy's Endwar
Farcry
Fragdolls
Ghost Recon
H.a.w.x
Haze
Heroes over Europe
I Am Alive
Lock On
Lost
IL 2
Might and Magic
Myst
Uru
Naruto
No More Heroes
Prince of Persia
Pure Football
Rabbids
Rainbow Six
Rayman
Red Steel
RUSE
Shaun White Snowboarding
The Settlers 7
Splinter Cell
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Smash-Up
Tenchu
Wheelman
Your Shape
Imagine Town
Megaband

There are only a couple really succesful franchises in that list: Assassin's Creed, Beyond Good & Evil, Brothers in Arms, Call of Juarez, Ghost Recon, Hawx, Prince of Persia, Rabbids, Rainbow Six, Rayman, Splinter Cell and that's about it. (forgive me if I forgot a couple)

The others don't have that big of a fanbase and I don't really think they made much profit from those games either.

Whereas Bethesda doesn't make alot of games but pretty much get picked up by the bigger public and have a reasonably big fanbase.

That's my point.

Bruno_Berg
11-04-2011, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
I never said Ubisoft only released one franchised either.

There are only a couple really succesful franchises in that list: Assassin's Creed, Beyond Good & Evil, Brothers in Arms, Call of Juarez, Ghost Recon, Hawx, Prince of Persia, Rabbids, Rainbow Six, Rayman, Splinter Cell and that's about it. (forgive me if I forgot a couple)

The others don't have that big of a fanbase and I don't really think they made much profit of the games either.

Whereas Bethesda doesn't make alot of games but pretty much get picked up by the bigger public and have a reasonably big fanbase.

That's my point.

I meant to write that it in your first post sounded like they only released the AC franchise, my mistake on that one.

The games you just listed as really successfull are quite a few franchises, especially considering how many sequels etc, each of those games have. I also do not agree that the Bethesda games you listed have a huge fanbase. Prey was fairly poorly recieved, as was Brink. Now I'm mostly arguing reviews and feedback from forums that I've seen, and I might be wrong. I don't know much about what people thought of Rage besides the reviews and it wasn't really a great game either. The Elder Scrolls series and Fallout 3 with it's expansions are no doubt great franchises with a huge fanbase though.

SlimeDynamiteD
11-04-2011, 09:49 AM
I agree that Prey and Brink didn't come out great, and weren't succesfull.
But Bethesda make less games, and a bigger percentage of these games make good profit.

whereas Ubisoft has 11 succesful franchises out of the 42 they have.
which basicaly means they make good money off of 11 franchises, and made none to little profit out of the other 31.

kriegerdesgottes
11-04-2011, 11:35 AM
I have to agree as cynical as it may seem. I haven't wanted to admit it but I have lost a lot of steam for AC lately. I knew Batman Arkham City would be great but I didn't realize it was going to make me see how far AC has gone down the wrong road. I went from playing AC every day, to having it sit there collecting dust next to the other two and quite honestly, it's getting to the point where if I do play an AC game it's the first or second. I've just lost a lot of excitement for AC because A: They continue to bleed the franchise dry with yearly renditions (which hopefully will end after next year like Alex said) and B: I know/think that Revelations is going to be another Brotherhood. A short, rushed, assassin's game that is good but nothing amazing or innovative enough to look forward to like the first two games.

Of course I have to have Revelations and I've already got it bought and paid for and I am still excited but I'm just worried about how much my obsession and love for the franchise is beginning to diminish.

Bruno_Berg
11-04-2011, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
I agree that Prey and Brink didn't come out great, and weren't succesfull.
But Bethesda make less games, and a bigger percentage of these games make good profit.

whereas Ubisoft has 11 succesful franchises out of the 42 they have.
which basicaly means they make good money off of 11 franchises, and made none to little profit out of the other 31.

Now you're starting to make more sense, I'm inclined to agree with you here.

Black_Widow9
11-04-2011, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
Probably not equal in any definite sense, but, to me they felt equal. Both were as much fun as the other.
What Bethesda have done in 3 years is magnificent,I only wish that ubisoft had the the same respect for their fans that Bethesda has, that is to be a games company that puts substance over style and artistry and creativity over profit.


I don't understand how you can compare the two games. They are completely different. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
I think that saying the AC Team created a game with no substance, artistry or creativity is just wrong. I believe they love the game just as much as we do and they put their heart, soul and long hours into it.


Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
AC1 and AC2 were brilliant in my opinion, but, from the perspective of a lot of long term fans you really dropped the ball with ACB.


How I wonder since you don't really explain yourself? If it was such a "letdown" did you provide any Feedback to the team? It offered a completely different Multiplayer experience than any that we have seen and it continued the story and experience.

I don't think most of us are qualified to judge how long a great game takes to make. If you have a lot of people working on it then the time should not make a difference.

Biomedical-Fire
11-04-2011, 01:53 PM
Let's just say that when I bought into Ubi, the stocks were close to $10 a share. They're now down to just over $4 a share. Why did I keep them and lose money instead of selling? It's called optimism, because with like all of my investments I hope that they'll recover and with the announcement of R6, hopefully I'll see some gain. Also it doesn't hurt to have stocks in Google and Apple! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 02:33 PM
Well.. outside of this forum, 1 person I know and talk to likes AC1 the best. Everyone else likes Brotherhood the best.

Anyway, just how was Brotherhood a letdown?

The story was still great, I find it equal to AC2 and better than AC1.

The character development in ACB was the best in the series for characters other than Ezio (and his character development in ACB was still equal to AC2's), surpassing both AC1 and AC2.

The combat in ACB was the best, regardless of it being easier. Not to mention it added poison darts, the crossbow, the dual wielding system, and the Brotherhood Assist Moves.

The length of the main mission WAS shorter than AC2, but it made up for it with the side missions (which actually tied in to the story unlike AC2).

Rome was a GREAT city. I agree that there should of been one or two extra free-roam cities however.

Multiplayer, a first in the series, was an awesome addition. I love playing it, and tons of others play it regularly.

The Desmond segments in ACB were the best of the series, providing some of the best insights into what's going on in the modern-day aspect of the game, and it also provided some of the best dialogue of the Desmond segments.

The factions are also given a more higher priority, by giving them full out bases in Rome and also improving their AI with the more guild challenges you complete.

Not to mention the new type of missions. The exotic missions with the war machines are quite amazing, and also give a more cinematic feel. Just replay the machine gun mission, it's really fun. And you have to admit that the parachutes are a neat and fun addition that can help navigation (and they just provide a huge sense of fun. Not to mention they make you feel more like a Renaissance Batman) Also, I loved the repressed Christina missions, they gave a good insight into Ezio's life and his times with Christina.

The customization options with the armor, dyes, and costumes were also the best in the series, providing the most choices to alter your appearance.

There is also the addition of the training room, which provide us with endless guards to kill, as long as you don't get hit. I do wish there was one that just spawned endless guards until you get killed.

The soundtrack of ACB was also great, it fit right in with Rome and the whole game, although it wasn't better than AC2's soundtrack.

Honestly, a lot of you guys are really bashing on ACB for little to no reason, and I don't understand why.


Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte
I've just lost a lot of excitement for AC because A: They continue to bleed the franchise dry with yearly renditions (which hopefully will end after next year like Alex said) and B: I know/think that Revelations is going to be another Brotherhood. A short, rushed, assassin's game that is good but nothing amazing or innovative enough to look forward to like the first two games.


You see, I don't understand how people can honestly think this, the bolded part in particular. I don't see how the franchise is being bled dry by yearly releases. They set it so that they would finish the Desmond cycle in 2012, and not finish it after 2012 (after the events in the game would of finished already), not just to make a ton of profit. And I don't understand how you can think that Brotherhood was short and rushed. If you add up it's single player components (which for most people take around 30 hours to get 100% sync, which is just as long as the other games), and it's multi player components, it actually takes longer to get a full completion of it than the last two games. And while I started the AC series after Brotherhood was released (I did play it in order of AC1-ACB however), I still don't understand how people don't think it was amazing as AC2. It has all the same things from AC2, and it adds even more with the new dual wielding system, poison darts, crossbow, and the Brotherhood of Assassins. While it's not as much as AC2 (better blending system, notoriety system, hidden gun, poison blade, second hidden blade, smoke bombs, spears, heavy weapons, improved climbing system) it still made a huge effect on how you played the game, especially the Brotherhood.

As for Revelations, it's keeping the new mechanics of Brotherhood, and expanding on them in a HUGE way. You have the improved Brotherhood system, which will provide you with multiple ways to recruit assassins and to get to know them. You can also assign them classes and weapons and customize them more, which is an awesome thing. Not to mention the missions you get to do with them when they reach Level 10 and another one when they reach Level 15. And you have the more extensive contract system, renamed Mediterranean Defense. You send your assassins to cities to degrade the Templar presence at them and put the Assassins up in their places, instead of just go on generic assignments. You also have an addition to the side mission system, with random quests. You can help out people move boxes, you can probably help them by being a delivery boy or beating up someone's husband like in AC2's side missions. Hell, maybe there will even be a homage to AC1 where Ezio has to spy on someone for someone else. Not to mention the exotic missions are returning, and they'll probably have improvements also. And then there are the dens, which are the new Borgia towers, and they are improved in the way that the Templars can take them back, and you can defend them in Den Defense. And the dual wielding system of Brotherhood is returning, better than ever, with the primary and secondary weapon wheels, where you can pair any primary weapon with any secondary weapon.

As for the completely new additions, the hook blade and the bombs, they can do a lot. The hook blade can be used in combat, it can pull scaffolding down, it can be used to climb faster, it can be used to pick pocket faster (according to what Yusuf said in a video), and it can also be used to navigate the city faster with the zip lines. The bombs are an awesome addition to combat, stealth, and are just fun to play around with (from what I've seen). I mean, you gotta love throwing a coin bomb in the middle of a crowd. So bombs are GREAT for tactics and strategy, and may just bring a level of more strategic play that a lot of people want.

So yea.. in my opinion, Brotherhood was great. Revelations is going to be better.

EDIT: Just realized I passes 2000 posts a while back.

E-Zekiel
11-04-2011, 02:56 PM
I don't understand the OP. Are you saying AC:B was terrible and that you already know somehow that AC:R is terrible?

I really have to disagree and say that's a matter of opinion, if so.

Sarari
11-04-2011, 04:18 PM
To be honest, I'd like Ubisoft to take their time with the development of each assassin's creed game, but at the same time, I'll probably give up on the series if they take 3 years or more. I remember when I was obsessed with the Saints Row series. I played SR2 for 1 year straight and gave up on the game because they kept saying it would release at a certain date, then cancel it. Release on a certain date, then cancel it. I just gave up on the series. I really really really hope that doesn't happen with me on the AC series.

Moultonborough
11-04-2011, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
To be honest, I'd like Ubisoft to take their time with the development of each assassin's creed game, but at the same time, I'll probably give up on the series if they take 3 years or more. I remember when I was obsessed with the Saints Row series. I played SR2 for 1 year straight and gave up on the game because they kept saying it would release at a certain date, then cancel it. Release on a certain date, then cancel it. I just gave up on the series. I really really really hope that doesn't happen with me on the AC series.

I don't think it would happen with Assassin's Creed. Ubisoft seems to keep it's word on things. They had the release date set back in June and nothing has changed yet so I think we can count on them releasing games when they say they will.

YuurHeen
11-04-2011, 04:22 PM
the improvements are great just not great enough compared to other games.

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 04:46 PM
AC still adds tons of improvements each iteration.

kriegerdesgottes
11-04-2011, 06:58 PM
The story was still great, I find it equal to AC2 and better than AC1.

The character development in ACB was the best in the series for characters other than Ezio (and his character development in ACB was still equal to AC2's), surpassing both AC1 and AC2.

The length of the main mission WAS shorter than AC2, but it made up for it with the side missions (which actually tied in to the story unlike AC2).

Multiplayer, a first in the series, was an awesome addition. I love playing it, and tons of others play it regularly.

The customization options with the armor, dyes, and costumes were also the best in the series, providing the most choices to alter your appearance.

The soundtrack of ACB was also great, it fit right in with Rome and the whole game, although it wasn't better than AC2's soundtrack.

These are all the things in your post that I disagree with. I erased all the stuff that I can agree with. The characters and story of Brotherhood were not anywhere near as good as ACII imo. It felt very rushed and thrown together to me. They went on and on about how crazy Cesare was and all he really ever did in the game was make out with his sister(which is difficult to watch no matter how many times I play that part) and he strangled a guy and wanted power. He wasn't any more evil in the game than the other templars.

The second point is with the side missions. There weren't really that many. You collect some stuff you buy everything in the store and game over. Batman has HUNDREDS of things to collect and you get some reward for every one of them! That is how a game should be.

You mention the MP being a good addition. I have to disagree. I outright despise online MP. Imagine how much longer and better the SP campaign could have been if ALL of the Ubisoft studios had been focusing on SP. I know some people like MP but for us people who never play it because we hate it it kind of sucks because AC is a core SP game. You can't deny and Ubisoft has not denied that this game is a core SP one. They did a good job with the MP for sure but I sure the hell didn't want it and I'd be more than happy to see it go away.

The soundtrack on Brotherhood was not as good as ACII I'm sorry but it also was very much rushed and rehashed. It wasn't terrible or anything but when I'm playing ACII, the music totally sets the mood and was soo incredibly well done that it makes a huge difference in gameplay. ACII showed how important music in a game can be. ACB did no such thing. It rehashed what it had in ACII.

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 07:38 PM
Uhh.. are you really telling me that you liked the character development in AC2? Honestly, barring Ezio, Leonardo, and Mario, character development in AC2 was VERY VERY shallow. ACB actually delved more on the development of characters (at least on the Assassin side). Oh, and also, Cesare wanted to take over the whole world, but also enforce strict rules and bring down the populace. He essentially wanted to become an evil dictator, and taking over Roma completely was his first step. And he wasn't afraid to do anything to reach his goals. It's not all about what he did on camera by the way, as in Project Legacy Cesare recruits most of the MP characters to his cause, and they go on their Templar missions. (Also Cesare WAS a Templar who wanted the apple to control Italy. He wasn't just some crazy war-mongering dude that just happened to be the son of the Templar Pope) And also, the story of ACB was actually pretty good in my opinion. Cesare sieges Monterigionni and kills Mario. Ezio goes to Roma at first to kill Cesare, but upon seeing the ways that Cesare was terrorizing Roma he decided that he needed to take out Cesare for the good of the people. But first he had the unite the main groups of the people, the thieves, the courtesans, and the mercenaries. Once he does so, he gets a steady flow of information on the enemy from those groups. He goes to take out Cesare and Rodrigo, but doesn't get the change to kill them. He saves Caterina, and then starts recruiting members to the Brotherhood to fight Cesare and the Templar presence in Roma. But he still needs to get rid of all of Cesare's presence, so he takes out the funds (Banker), his allies (French Commander), and the army of Cesare (Borgia Towers). Ezio then continues the plan to kill Cesare by infiltrating a play where one of Cesare's men plans to kill Pietro (Lucrezia's boytoy) who has the key to the Castello. Ezio lets the assassin go after he attempts to kill Pietro, and Ezio gets pietro patched up. Pietro gives Ezio the key, and Ezio infiltrates the Castello. Ezio finds that Cesare has killed his father, Rodrigo, and that Cesare wants to get the apple of eden which is hidden in the Vatican. Ezio gets the apple before Cesare, and uses it against Cesare's army. The new pope then declares that Cesare shall be arrested, and said something that worried Ezio. Leonardo tells Ezio to look in the apple, and finds out information on what Cesare will do. After this he hides the apple. Ezio kills Cesare in Viana in 1507. Honestly AC2's story isn't any better than ACB's story.

Err.. and the collections and shops aren't side missions. I was referring to the side missions the guilds give you. Trust me, there were a lot of side missions.

And only one team focused on MP for ACB, and the same is with ACR. So, I don't see that much being added in place of MP. Actually. since ACB had 5 studios (with one for MP), and ACR has six studios (with one for MP), we'll see that ACR's SP essentially will have the quality of what ACB would of had if it didn't have MP.

And the soundtrack for Brotherhood didn't actually rehash anything from AC2's, which is the funny thing. AC2's tracks actually sounded a lot alike also. And the soundtrack in ACB was actually better than AC2's if you don't include the basic nostalgic tracks like 'Earth' or 'Ezio's Family'. And yes, both tracks have similar sounds, but there is a reason for that. (Psst.. it's because both games are in Renaissance Italy)

Honestly, I think you need to replay Brotherhood and listen to the soundtracks again. They are both a lot better than you give them credit for.

kriegerdesgottes
11-04-2011, 08:03 PM
I have replayed Brotherhood several times and I just disagree. We all know you prefer Brotherhood and that's cool but to me it was a good game compared to the incredible game that the first two games were.

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 09:20 PM
K, one last thing.

How exactly was AC1 incredible? I can see for AC2 and ACB (although, I wouldn't call those two incredible either, there hasn't really been an 'incredible' game for me), but not AC1. And come on, you have to say that ACB was better than AC1. AC1 didn't provide the same amount of fun as the other games, and that's what I rate a game on.

kriegerdesgottes
11-04-2011, 09:35 PM
I think the reason you don't see why AC1 was so incredible is because you came to the AC franchise kind of late in the game. Not that there is anything wrong with that but keep in mind that when AC1 came out, there was nothing like it. It was revolutionary, it was amazing. The graphics were and in my opinion are still one of a kind and it put you in recreated places the way they were 1000 years ago. It was new and innovative, two things that imo Brotherhood is not. It had its problems sure but for me the game was sooo fun and incredible that it canceled out all the stupid complaints like oh it's repetitive. yeah it was repetetive and there were other things wrong with it but the free-running and combat(for me) and the atmosphere and story and everything that it did was perfect to me. Perfect enough that I played it daily and never got tired of it until ACII came out which imo crushed it. Then Brotherhood came and didn't do any crushing. It added to the masterpiece that was ACII. great. but it wasn't a real AC game as we had been used to at that point. It was just like a giant piece of dlc. It was like the zombie dlc for RDR compared to the game RDR sold as a full retail product. then Ubisoft says well this is our new technique so I hope you can lower your expectations so we can pump these things out yearly and make more money off of a smaller product k thanks. And not only does that diminish the quality of the games (although they are still well made), but people WILL and ARE getting tired of the franchise. It's inevitable. Jean Francois Boivin was right when he said the franchise needs time to breath like a seed needs time to grow to become something great and strong.

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 10:31 PM
Uhh..

I don't think you understand that ACB and ACR are supposed to be extensions of AC2. That's why you don't feel a huge leap. ACB and ACR aren't supposed to "crush" their predecessors. They are supposed to add onto the AC2 trilogy. Oh, and also, I felt like Brotherhood was new and that I didn't play a game like it before outside the AC series.

And also, can you stop talking about Brotherhood as if it's a lower quality? It's at least equal to AC2 and AC1. (ACB also isn't smaller in my personal experience. AC1 was the smallest in my experience tbh)

kriegerdesgottes
11-04-2011, 10:36 PM
That is exactly the mindset Ubisoft wants you to have so I guess you're on the right track but once upon a time, Ubisoft made their sequels 10 times better than the last one, not 2 times better like they are now. A sequel is not supposed to be an extension jexx. I don't pay 60 dollars for an extension. That's what dlc is for. I pay 60 dollars for something amazing, new, and innovative. Not something that slightly improves on that last one. That's like me paying 600 dollars every time the PS3 gets an update.

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 10:43 PM
I don't pay 60 bucks for an extension either. I don't pay 60 bucks for ANY game. That's just over-priced IMO.

You see, I bought AC1 for 9 bucks, AC2 for 20, and ACB for 25 bucks. I'm gonna wait for ACR to go on sale to get it, hopefully during Christmas.

Honestly, I get most of my games today for 10-30 dollars, and the price of the average expansion (your so called big-DLCs) is about $40. If you count the SP of ACB as an expansion (which I will in this case), but then add MP on it, the standard console price of $60 is still acceptable. Like it or not, you are getting the MP with your purchase of ACB.

Anyway, I don't feel like ACB or ACR just 'slightly' improves on their predecessors, they improve significantly. Just not as significantly as AC1 to AC2. And honestly, it's expected. AC1 was essentially their way of testing the waters, seeing if the industry would have a major call for games like Assassin's Creed.

albertwesker22
11-05-2011, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
I don't pay 60 bucks for an extension either. I don't pay 60 bucks for ANY game. That's just over-priced IMO.

You see, I bought AC1 for 9 bucks, AC2 for 20, and ACB for 25 bucks. I'm gonna wait for ACR to go on sale to get it, hopefully during Christmas.

Honestly, I get most of my games today for 10-30 dollars, and the price of the average expansion (your so called big-DLCs) is about $40. If you count the SP of ACB as an expansion (which I will in this case), but then add MP on it, the standard console price of $60 is still acceptable. Like it or not, you are getting the MP with your purchase of ACB.

Anyway, I don't feel like ACB or ACR just 'slightly' improves on their predecessors, they improve significantly. Just not as significantly as AC1 to AC2. And honestly, it's expected. AC1 was essentially their way of testing the waters, seeing if the industry would have a major call for games like Assassin's Creed.

Couldn't agree more. Can't wait to see what kind of sad elitist comment kriegerdesgotte comes up with now.

Jexx21
11-05-2011, 08:29 AM
I like krieg. He just has a different opinion from mine.

I'm alright with it, it's just that I gotta stick up for my opinion. (Mostly since I don't like it when people say things that make me feel like they just punched me and my opinion in the gut)

LightRey
11-05-2011, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
I like krieg. He just has a different opinion from mine.

I'm alright with it, it's just that I gotta stick up for my opinion. (Mostly since I don't like it when people say things that make me feel like they just punched me and my opinion in the gut)
You like war? D:

Jexx21
11-05-2011, 09:01 AM
no.

kriegerdesgottes
11-05-2011, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by albertwesker22:
Couldn't agree more. Can't wait to see what kind of sad elitist comment kriegerdesgotte comes up with now.

What? What are you talking about? I don't think anyone was really arguing. Jexx and I were having a rather civil conversation about our differences in opinion about Brotherhood. He says a lot of things I agree with and some that I don't. No one is being an "elitist".

LightRey
11-05-2011, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
no.
But you said you liked krieg. D:
(krieg = German for war)

kriegerdesgottes
11-05-2011, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
no.
But you said you liked krieg. D:
(krieg = German for war) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol OH I didn't get that at first either. You're the first person to notice that. However to be technical kriegerdesgottes means "warrior of God"

LightRey
11-05-2011, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
no.
But you said you liked krieg. D:
(krieg = German for war) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol OH I didn't get that at first either. You're the first person to notice that. However to be technical kriegerdesgottes means "warrior of God" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know.
I just thought it was something worth pointing out. :P

E-Zekiel
11-05-2011, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Uhh.. are you really telling me that you liked the character development in AC2? Honestly, barring Ezio, Leonardo, and Mario, character development in AC2 was VERY VERY shallow. ACB actually delved more on the development of characters (at least on the Assassin side). Oh, and also, Cesare wanted to take over the whole world, but also enforce strict rules and bring down the populace. He essentially wanted to become an evil dictator, and taking over Roma completely was his first step. And he wasn't afraid to do anything to reach his goals. It's not all about what he did on camera by the way, as in Project Legacy Cesare recruits most of the MP characters to his cause, and they go on their Templar missions. (Also Cesare WAS a Templar who wanted the apple to control Italy. He wasn't just some crazy war-mongering dude that just happened to be the son of the Templar Pope) And also, the story of ACB was actually pretty good in my opinion. Cesare sieges Monterigionni and kills Mario. Ezio goes to Roma at first to kill Cesare, but upon seeing the ways that Cesare was terrorizing Roma he decided that he needed to take out Cesare for the good of the people. But first he had the unite the main groups of the people, the thieves, the courtesans, and the mercenaries. Once he does so, he gets a steady flow of information on the enemy from those groups. He goes to take out Cesare and Rodrigo, but doesn't get the change to kill them. He saves Caterina, and then starts recruiting members to the Brotherhood to fight Cesare and the Templar presence in Roma. But he still needs to get rid of all of Cesare's presence, so he takes out the funds (Banker), his allies (French Commander), and the army of Cesare (Borgia Towers). Ezio then continues the plan to kill Cesare by infiltrating a play where one of Cesare's men plans to kill Pietro (Lucrezia's boytoy) who has the key to the Castello. Ezio lets the assassin go after he attempts to kill Pietro, and Ezio gets pietro patched up. Pietro gives Ezio the key, and Ezio infiltrates the Castello. Ezio finds that Cesare has killed his father, Rodrigo, and that Cesare wants to get the apple of eden which is hidden in the Vatican. Ezio gets the apple before Cesare, and uses it against Cesare's army. The new pope then declares that Cesare shall be arrested, and said something that worried Ezio. Leonardo tells Ezio to look in the apple, and finds out information on what Cesare will do. After this he hides the apple. Ezio kills Cesare in Viana in 1507. Honestly AC2's story isn't any better than ACB's story.

Err.. and the collections and shops aren't side missions. I was referring to the side missions the guilds give you. Trust me, there were a lot of side missions.

And only one team focused on MP for ACB, and the same is with ACR. So, I don't see that much being added in place of MP. Actually. since ACB had 5 studios (with one for MP), and ACR has six studios (with one for MP), we'll see that ACR's SP essentially will have the quality of what ACB would of had if it didn't have MP.

And the soundtrack for Brotherhood didn't actually rehash anything from AC2's, which is the funny thing. AC2's tracks actually sounded a lot alike also. And the soundtrack in ACB was actually better than AC2's if you don't include the basic nostalgic tracks like 'Earth' or 'Ezio's Family'. And yes, both tracks have similar sounds, but there is a reason for that. (Psst.. it's because both games are in Renaissance Italy)

Honestly, I think you need to replay Brotherhood and listen to the soundtracks again. They are both a lot better than you give them credit for.

I know!! If it wasn't for the Maximus, the corrupt new emperor, and the sister in Gladiator, that movie woulda sucked too! God these people are so blind!

And I swear if it wasn't for Altaīr and Al-Mualim and Malik in AC1 that game would horribly sucked!

L.Cie
11-05-2011, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
[thread starter post]

I agree completely. Very well said.
I started on Oblivion and Assassin's Creed at the same time, as well, and both felt equal in enjoyment factor -- I loved both games to bits, and I only just finished my second Oblivion playthrough (160+hrs) after losing my first one (450+hrs). I've replayed AC four times.

With Revelations and Skyrim releasing within four days of each other next week, I can't help but notice a disparity has grown between the two; I don't consider the new Assassin's Creed and the new Elder Scrolls equal at all, like I did back in '07. In fact, Skyrim seems so much bigger in every single way than Revelations; it might be because Brotherhood felt 'hollow' at times. I haven't even pre-ordered my copy yet.

So I see what you're saying, and I see it from the points of view of many others posting in this thread as well, but overall, I almost completely agree with you.

As for development time, it can vary vastly depending on who's working on the game, the amount of people in the teams, and how many teams. Hearing that six teams are working on Revelations, I think that the game will feel quite polished by the time we get our hands on it. On the contrary, though...
Final Fantasy XIII had a team of almost (exceeding?) 200 people on it. It was in development for SIX YEARS. It still turned out a painfully small game that, while pretty awesome, felt unfinished. Didn't help with all that hype it was getting.
Skyrim's been in development for just three years, and I don't have to tell you how good it's looking (not just visually! I mean gameplay!). 40-60 people worked on it, I heard.

The difference is probably in the team/s passion for the game they're creating. Square Enix worked on FFXIII systematically and the game came off as a little dry -- now they're milking the rather undesired sequel for all it's worth. Bethesda's team, on the other end of the spectrum, worked on Skyrim with such love and dedication for the series and the lore, and it's got so much heart and substance to it.
I believe Revs is somewhere in the middle of these two, leaning more towards the more passionate side.

Noble6
11-06-2011, 02:59 AM
People are criticizing AC:B because it feels just like AC2. It has same main charachter, environment is similar and gameplay is mostly same. There wasn't as great change as there was from first AC to AC2.

Even thought Acb was as good as AC2, people felt like: "been there,done that" so it wasn't as good experience.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 05:03 AM
Ah, yes. FF XIII. It was the first (and only) FF game I ever played. Biggest. Disappointment. Ever.

SlimeDynamiteD
11-06-2011, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by Noble6:
People are criticizing AC:B because it feels just like AC2. It has same main charachter, environment is similar and gameplay is mostly same. There wasn't as great change as there was from first AC to AC2.

Even thought Acb was as good as AC2, people felt like: "been there,done that" so it wasn't as good experience.

'people', or 'you'?
Because honestly, I did not feel that way.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Noble6:
People are criticizing AC:B because it feels just like AC2. It has same main charachter, environment is similar and gameplay is mostly same. There wasn't as great change as there was from first AC to AC2.

Even thought Acb was as good as AC2, people felt like: "been there,done that" so it wasn't as good experience.

'people', or 'you'?
Because honestly, I did not feel that way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As he presents no data, at this point it's very likely he's only referring to his own opinion and is trying to give it authority by assuming that others feel the same.

SlimeDynamiteD
11-06-2011, 05:39 AM
Exactly.

Jexx21
11-06-2011, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
I know!! If it wasn't for the Maximus, the corrupt new emperor, and the sister in Gladiator, that movie woulda sucked too! God these people are so blind!

And I swear if it wasn't for Altaīr and Al-Mualim and Malik in AC1 that game would horribly sucked!

Uhh.. I can't tell if you are just trolling me or if you are being serious.

Anyway, I think AC2 and ACB are supposed to feel similar..

I mean.. it's Ezio.. and Italy. ACR will probably feel really different compared to AC2 and ACB. Why? Ezio is trying to become a normal person why also staying an Assassin. And he's in Constantinople. You'll notice Ezio trying to become a normal person when he talks to Sophia, and interacts with civilians in the Random Missions.

Animuses
11-06-2011, 09:07 AM
kriegerdesgotte basically summed up the way I feel with his super long post.

Jexx21
11-06-2011, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Animuses:
kriegerdesgotte basically summed up the way I feel with his super long post.

krieg didn't have a super long post?

Noble6
11-06-2011, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Noble6:
People are criticizing AC:B because it feels just like AC2. It has same main charachter, environment is similar and gameplay is mostly same. There wasn't as great change as there was from first AC to AC2.

Even thought Acb was as good as AC2, people felt like: "been there,done that" so it wasn't as good experience.

'people', or 'you'?
Because honestly, I did not feel that way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As he presents no data, at this point it's very likely he's only referring to his own opinion and is trying to give it authority by assuming that others feel the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah thats was just my assumption and I meant that I think that there are some people who can agree with that. My English skills are moderate...
I hope Revelations will be more distinctive than I fear.

Ioder
11-06-2011, 10:14 AM
I'm a huge Bethesda fan, and I've actually been on there forums instead of these, Skyrim looks great, and Bethesda is my favorite gaming studio, Ubisoft in second. I'll still be buying Revelations, but Skyrim is my #1, Bethesda is doing a great job.

E-Zekiel
11-07-2011, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:

Uhh.. I can't tell if you are just trolling me or if you are being serious.

Anyway, I think AC2 and ACB are supposed to feel similar..

I mean.. it's Ezio.. and Italy. ACR will probably feel really different compared to AC2 and ACB. Why? Ezio is trying to become a normal person why also staying an Assassin. And he's in Constantinople. You'll notice Ezio trying to become a normal person when he talks to Sophia, and interacts with civilians in the Random Missions.

I was essentially mocking you because you say character development in AC2 is terrible, after dismissing basically the three biggest figures from it.

To me, that's really, really petty.

LightRey
11-07-2011, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:

Uhh.. I can't tell if you are just trolling me or if you are being serious.

Anyway, I think AC2 and ACB are supposed to feel similar..

I mean.. it's Ezio.. and Italy. ACR will probably feel really different compared to AC2 and ACB. Why? Ezio is trying to become a normal person why also staying an Assassin. And he's in Constantinople. You'll notice Ezio trying to become a normal person when he talks to Sophia, and interacts with civilians in the Random Missions.

I was essentially mocking you because you say character development in AC2 is terrible, after dismissing basically the three biggest figures from it.

To me, that's really, really petty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, wow, there's three characters in ACII that undergo significant character development? That's, like, that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif many.

Don't kid yourself. Three characters undergoing character development in a game the length of ACII isn't much.

Animuses
11-07-2011, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
I was essentially mocking you because you say character development in AC2 is terrible, after dismissing basically the three biggest figures from it.

LightRey
11-07-2011, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
I was essentially mocking you because you say character development in AC2 is terrible, after dismissing basically the three biggest figures from it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As he discussed that all other characters did not have any character development, your point is moot.

Jexx21
11-07-2011, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:

Uhh.. I can't tell if you are just trolling me or if you are being serious.

Anyway, I think AC2 and ACB are supposed to feel similar..

I mean.. it's Ezio.. and Italy. ACR will probably feel really different compared to AC2 and ACB. Why? Ezio is trying to become a normal person why also staying an Assassin. And he's in Constantinople. You'll notice Ezio trying to become a normal person when he talks to Sophia, and interacts with civilians in the Random Missions.

I was essentially mocking you because you say character development in AC2 is terrible, after dismissing basically the three biggest figures from it.

To me, that's really, really petty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When only three characters from a game that has 15+ undergo actual character development, I consider that to be a bad thing.

There were 9 Assassins that trained you and helped you, and I felt like I only knew a couple of them when I was branded an Assassin. Compared to Brotherhood (which had less characters) which had better development of the actual characters and had much more satisfying dialogue compared to AC2.

If you think otherwise, that's fine. But I just don't think that games should only develop main characters, they should attempt to develop the personality of all key characters in some way.

LightRey
11-07-2011, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
When only three characters from a game that has 15+ undergo actual character development, I consider that to be a bad thing.

There were 9 Assassins that trained you and helped you, and I felt like I only knew a couple of them when I was branded an Assassin. Compared to Brotherhood (which had less characters) which had better development of the actual characters and had much more satisfying dialogue compared to AC2.

If you think otherwise, that's fine. But I just don't think that games should only develop main characters, they should attempt to develop the personality of all key characters in some way.
Most of the info we had on the secondary characters came from the database. I think the mistake they made was that since each city had their own assassins, you only got to work with them for a short while throughout the game, which gave little to no chance to really get to know them, let alone seeing them go through their own character development.

AlphaAltair
11-09-2011, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by L.Cie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaAltair:
[thread starter post]

I agree completely. Very well said.
I started on Oblivion and Assassin's Creed at the same time, as well, and both felt equal in enjoyment factor -- I loved both games to bits, and I only just finished my second Oblivion playthrough (160+hrs) after losing my first one (450+hrs). I've replayed AC four times.

With Revelations and Skyrim releasing within four days of each other next week, I can't help but notice a disparity has grown between the two; I don't consider the new Assassin's Creed and the new Elder Scrolls equal at all, like I did back in '07. In fact, Skyrim seems so much bigger in every single way than Revelations; it might be because Brotherhood felt 'hollow' at times. I haven't even pre-ordered my copy yet.

So I see what you're saying, and I see it from the points of view of many others posting in this thread as well, but overall, I almost completely agree with you.

As for development time, it can vary vastly depending on who's working on the game, the amount of people in the teams, and how many teams. Hearing that six teams are working on Revelations, I think that the game will feel quite polished by the time we get our hands on it. On the contrary, though...
Final Fantasy XIII had a team of almost (exceeding?) 200 people on it. It was in development for SIX YEARS. It still turned out a painfully small game that, while pretty awesome, felt unfinished. Didn't help with all that hype it was getting.
Skyrim's been in development for just three years, and I don't have to tell you how good it's looking (not just visually! I mean gameplay!). 40-60 people worked on it, I heard.

The difference is probably in the team/s passion for the game they're creating. Square Enix worked on FFXIII systematically and the game came off as a little dry -- now they're milking the rather undesired sequel for all it's worth. Bethesda's team, on the other end of the spectrum, worked on Skyrim with such love and dedication for the series and the lore, and it's got so much heart and substance to it.
I believe Revs is somewhere in the middle of these two, leaning more towards the more passionate side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make some really good points, I guess it must be a timeframe + dedication thing.

AC's devs have the dedication, but I don't think they have the time they deserve.

Please don't get me wrong guys, I really love AC. It's just a shame that it could be SO MUCH MORE if only the execs (Y.G) gave the devs the freedom and time they deserve to make the game, that, i feel, as loyal fans we deserve.

It rings MASSIVE alarm bells when even the CEO (again Y.G) comes out and says that " next years AC will be full(y) fledged". To me that's virtually an acknowledgement that ACB and ACR are glorified, full price expansions. It's not good enough! This series had (has) stellar potential and it's such a shame to abuse it. Here's the link for that statement btw.

[url=http://gematsu.com/2011/11/full-fledged-assassins-creed-set-for-2012]

I sincerely hope I'm dead wrong and ACR is the best of the series, I really do. But the proof of the pudding is in the tasting and, to me, ACB was sorely in need of some more time in the oven!

BradB97
11-09-2011, 02:46 PM
Don't judge the game, until you have played it that is. Plus, Brotherhood was fantastic in my opinion. Better than AC2? Not sure. Better than AC1? Certainly.

Jexx21
11-09-2011, 03:04 PM
Uh.. ACB and ACR ARE fully fledged.

kriegerdesgottes
11-09-2011, 11:33 PM
You make some really good points, I guess it must be a timeframe + dedication thing.

AC's devs have the dedication, but I don't think they have the time they deserve.

Please don't get me wrong guys, I really love AC. It's just a shame that it could be SO MUCH MORE if only the execs (Y.G) gave the devs the freedom and time they deserve to make the game, that, i feel, as loyal fans we deserve.

It rings MASSIVE alarm bells when even the CEO (again Y.G) comes out and says that " next years AC will be full(y) fledged". To me that's virtually an acknowledgement that ACB and ACR are glorified, full price expansions. It's not good enough! This series had (has) stellar potential and it's such a shame to abuse it. Here's the link for that statement btw.

[url=http://gematsu.com/2011/11/full-fledged-assassins-creed-set-for-2012]

I sincerely hope I'm dead wrong and ACR is the best of the series, I really do. But the proof of the pudding is in the tasting and, to me, ACB was sorely in need of some more time in the oven!

Totally agree.

Jexx21
11-11-2011, 08:49 PM
From what I've seen of ACR in recently released videos..

ACR is the AC2 to ACB's AC1.