PDA

View Full Version : One year dev cycle - Worried?



Andy_Pandy86
11-23-2011, 09:47 PM
Interested to know whether anyone else is worried about AC3 only having a one year dev cycle?

Next year's title is going to be a major one and I'd hate to see it turn out sub-par because of time restrictions.

Revelations definitely suffered because of a short turn over (Den Defense anyone?) and I really want AC3 to be a full AC experience (ie multiple cities, side quests etc)

reini03
11-23-2011, 10:00 PM
There have been rumours that AC 3 was in development since the release of AC 2. Of course, I don't know, but they've certainly got more time than a year. Remember that Revelations was also already development before the release.of ACB. Plus they had like six studios around the world working on it... I'm not exactly worried.

Radman500
11-23-2011, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by MagnifyHope:
There have been rumours that AC 3 was in development since the release of AC 2. Of course, I don't know, but they've certainly got more time than a year. Remember that Revelations was also already development before the release.of ACB. Plus they had like six studios around the world working on it... I'm not exactly worried.

im pretty sure they were already developing AC3... when they were doing brotherhood and revelations as well

zhengyingli
11-23-2011, 11:32 PM
Didn't Revelations started out as a 3DS game? If that's the case, we probably don't have to worry about AC3, as the team probably are developing the game with the original concept without having to alter it, most likely with more time for the development cycle.

Revelation's a pretty solid game, but if the conceptually sound, yet plagued with clunky controls, bomb system was the result of time cut short by the 3DS transition, AC3 should be fine.

Andy_Pandy86
11-24-2011, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by MagnifyHope:
There have been rumours that AC 3 was in development since the release of AC 2. Of course, I don't know, but they've certainly got more time than a year. Remember that Revelations was also already development before the release.of ACB. Plus they had like six studios around the world working on it... I'm not exactly worried.

I didn't know about that. Nor that Revelations was originally a DS game... weird. Well, if it's true that AC3 was being developed parallel to ACB and ACR, then that's a promising sign.

YHHTQ
11-24-2011, 01:36 AM
Both the lead writer and creative director for Revelations had already confirmed that Lost Legacy had been cannibalized by the former.

Also, according to the same lead writer, Darby Mcdevitt, work on Revelations began even BEFORE Brotherhood was released.

ajl992008
11-24-2011, 06:14 AM
Revelations had a different development team, all the main people working on acb were not on acr, my theory is that ac3 dev started just after acb, then all ppl on acr have now come onto its development.

Assassin_M
11-24-2011, 06:20 AM
the ground work for AC III has probably been established right after AC II.
I can safely assume that AC III has been in development for at least 2 years.

GunnarGunderson
11-24-2011, 08:36 AM
AC2 felt like a brand new game compared to AC1, ACR and ACB didn't really seem all that different from AC2. I'm worried that AC3 will just fit into the mold of AC2 instead of being its own game.

ProdiGurl
11-24-2011, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by MagnifyHope:
There have been rumours that AC 3 was in development since the release of AC 2. Of course, I don't know, but they've certainly got more time than a year. Remember that Revelations was also already development before the release.of ACB. Plus they had like six studios around the world working on it... I'm not exactly worried.

I hadn't heard that before, but I agree w/ you that I'm not worried.

To the OP, honestly, there's only a few things that made this appear rushed - and that's if you read the Bugs & Issue thread.
Those things are valid issues - some are game killers.

I could care less about minor stuff and it appears to me that they created den defense that way - meant it to be that way.
Alot of times with a new concept, comes some clunky-ness and things that could be tweaked in the next installment.
That will go for Bombs & DD (if they keep them).

People expect perfection that I don't think exists in any games. You're always going to have something that could have been more to your liking.


If this is what they were able to produce in just one year, I'm pretty impressed.
ACR is a game that grows on you imo. A game I'll enjoy playing more than once.

But I do understand being concerned. By the way, since I first came in at ACB, how long did they wait in btwn releases for AC1 & ACII?
& ACII to ACB?

S-EVANS
11-24-2011, 09:29 AM
People expect perfection that I don't think exists in any games. You're always going to have something that could have been more to your liking.

*cough* urm excuse me, pacman.....

LightRey
11-24-2011, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People expect perfection that I don't think exists in any games. You're always going to have something that could have been more to your liking.

*cough* urm excuse me, pacman..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you just compare Assassin's Creed to Pacman? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

S-EVANS
11-24-2011, 09:31 AM
lol

Il_Divo
11-24-2011, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Andy_Pandy86:

Revelations definitely suffered because of a short turn over (Den Defense anyone?) and I really want AC3 to be a full AC experience (ie multiple cities, side quests etc)

I'm confused. Wouldn't Den Defense be an indicator that Ubisoft isn't suffering from the one year cycle? Even if you didn't like it (I certainly don't), I would have thought it's an indicator that they do have resources to spare in developing alternate game modes, otherwise it would have been easier to avoid exploring new elements.

masterfenix2009
11-24-2011, 09:57 AM
Nope. Nothing about ACR was rushed to me except the begining. Desmond went along with it way too fast.

LightRey
11-24-2011, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andy_Pandy86:

Revelations definitely suffered because of a short turn over (Den Defense anyone?) and I really want AC3 to be a full AC experience (ie multiple cities, side quests etc)

I'm confused. Wouldn't Den Defense be an indicator that Ubisoft isn't suffering from the one year cycle? Even if you didn't like it (I certainly don't), I would have thought it's an indicator that they do have resources to spare in developing alternate game modes, otherwise it would have been easier to avoid exploring new elements. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree. Den Defense is a well thought out addition to the gameplay. If they were able to develop that in just a year's time, then that means they're not having any trouble at all developing games in one year cycles.

ProdiGurl
11-24-2011, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andy_Pandy86:

Revelations definitely suffered because of a short turn over (Den Defense anyone?) and I really want AC3 to be a full AC experience (ie multiple cities, side quests etc)

I'm confused. Wouldn't Den Defense be an indicator that Ubisoft isn't suffering from the one year cycle? Even if you didn't like it (I certainly don't), I would have thought it's an indicator that they do have resources to spare in developing alternate game modes, otherwise it would have been easier to avoid exploring new elements. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes exactly.

The DD is a preference issue. And any new concepts added to a game usually end up needing fine-tuning.

Even good concepts get fine tuned.
Rushing to me, is when you see major bugs & serious problems.
For instance, Fallout New Vegas.
Read those reviews - that's what I consider rushed. And it's a real shame too bcuz I LOVED Fallout 3.

@ S-Evans, I don't understand what you meant by pacman?

S-EVANS
11-24-2011, 10:21 AM
I really dont think den defense took two much programming in all honestly, but i understand the point being discussed and ubi is one of the largest compaines around im certain they have the manpower required to create another game to rival the best of the series...

In fact each new release will have to a degree taken equal amounts of work as the one before, this is where movies have the upper hand...

in movie making circles there make a model of a sword, its used in other films, even backdrops are recycled in other films...

But in the gaming world each company has to recreate stuff over and over again they dont pull together and share resources, picture how many shooting games have used a 3d model of an AK47 yet each time is rebuilt from sratch...

if they adopted the movie methods, games would get cheaper and easy to make and yearly deadlines would become common place for all games...

so theres no need to panic as even though the development team have assigned yearly target markers they will have both planned for it and have reusable material to make the job quicker..

games cost to much to make these days which is one of the reasons why you always get sequels to them...

RzaRecta357
11-24-2011, 11:12 AM
They pretty much do what you said.

Not sure if you've noticed but the animation engine has been the same in these games since the original.

It's part of what gives this game it's charm and I hope it never changes.

Honestly, if the next Assassin doesn't have the Altair walk that Desmond adopted and Ezio just had...I won't even play the damn game.

Hah.

They re-use lots of stuff.

People are expecting huge changes for AC3. The gameplay is almost perfect already.

Honestly, they're going to find a better way to do bombs and were either gonna have another game like 200 years into the future with tweaked gameplay and a new voice actor/ assassin or were gonna get a Desmond game where all the gameplay is futurized.

So if you're expecting lots to be different....don't.

New area and a bit more modern with maybe a few gadgets to go with the times or were gonna be Desmond and maybe he'll be able to shoot ziplines to grapple from himself or something. If you've seen the ending he'll probably have some new gameplay elements of his own.

Besides small tweaks like that..it'll be the same gameplay and we'll hear the complainers. They're gonna want some sort of den defense also, so there will have to be some sort of war going on.

I'm not saying any of these ideas are good. But what could they really do?

Please no one say twisty jumpy japanese assassins as it's a terrible idea also.

S-EVANS
11-24-2011, 11:26 AM
Yep the biggest change to this series would be if they redesigned the entire game from the ground up, whilst a graphics engine will dramactically enhance how it will look it wont change how it plays etc...

zhengyingli
11-24-2011, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by YHHTQ:
Also, according to the same lead writer, Darby Mcdevitt, work on Revelations began even BEFORE Brotherhood was released.

My bad.

lukaszep
11-24-2011, 02:27 PM
No matter how long they work on AC III, they will never please everyone. Not with expectations so high.

S-EVANS
11-24-2011, 02:35 PM
My expectations took a knock with revelations all i ask for now is a storyline that blows my mind to pieces along with answers to my questions...

the rest is all water under the bridge for me now!!

ProdiGurl
11-24-2011, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
No matter how long they work on AC III, they will never please everyone. Not with expectations so high.

Yep -
But I had high expectations and it exceeded them except that I'd like to have had more romance w/ Sophia.
He was a real ladies man, he should still be trying to hit it w/ the ladies to some extent.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Andy_Pandy86
11-24-2011, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andy_Pandy86:

Revelations definitely suffered because of a short turn over (Den Defense anyone?) and I really want AC3 to be a full AC experience (ie multiple cities, side quests etc)

I'm confused. Wouldn't Den Defense be an indicator that Ubisoft isn't suffering from the one year cycle? Even if you didn't like it (I certainly don't), I would have thought it's an indicator that they do have resources to spare in developing alternate game modes, otherwise it would have been easier to avoid exploring new elements. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Den Defense comes across as a weird unnecessary addition. It feels out of place in AC. I think it a sign of one year cycle blues as playing it you can tell that it wasn't well thought out and plays really awkwardly. Felt like DD needed to go back to the drawing board. Felt unfinished.

Yes, they have the resource to make it, but not the time to refine it into a solid game-play element.

And yeah Desmond's story in ACR was poor at best.

YHHTQ
11-24-2011, 05:52 PM
And yeah Desmond's story in ACR was poor at best.

Define "poor". Not only they explorer his backstory but they also did in a way that was NEW to the series and avoided the template they used in Brotherhood and AC2. Personally, I couldn't have asked for more.

Il_Divo
11-24-2011, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Andy_Pandy86:

Den Defense comes across as a weird unnecessary addition. It feels out of place in AC. I think it a sign of one year cycle blues as playing it you can tell that it wasn't well thought out and plays really awkwardly. Felt like DD needed to go back to the drawing board. Felt unfinished.

But we could just as easily point to the repetitive nature of AC1's gameplay and argue they didn't give the game enough development time.

Sometimes a feature is bad merely because it's bad, not because time is a factor. How many bad games ultimately come out in a year? Is every single one really the result of lack of development time? Or is it simply a bad idea, or a good idea with bad implementation? My point is that if the year deadline is a problem, they probably wouldn't even be trying to create new gameplay sequences; they would stick to what they know.



And yeah Desmond's story in ACR was poor at best.

I'd argue the opposite. Since AC1, Desmond has wanted to avoid dealing with his past, including the knowledge that he left his family behind. In Brotherhood's case, he's now dealing with the knowledge of how he attacked Lucy. Revelations ultimately deals with Desmond's acceptance as an assassin. There may not be much plot development, but Desmond's acceptance of his identity is a critical aspect of character development.

NewBlade200
11-24-2011, 06:07 PM
Its not going to be as good as it could be. There's no way to change it now though. Best just deal with the fact that AC3 will either be bad or get old really fast.

Andy_Pandy86
11-24-2011, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andy_Pandy86:

Den Defense comes across as a weird unnecessary addition. It feels out of place in AC. I think it a sign of one year cycle blues as playing it you can tell that it wasn't well thought out and plays really awkwardly. Felt like DD needed to go back to the drawing board. Felt unfinished.

But we could just as easily point to the repetitive nature of AC1's gameplay and argue they didn't give the game enough development time.

Sometimes a feature is bad merely because it's bad, not because time is a factor. How many bad games ultimately come out in a year? Is every single one really the result of lack of development time? Or is it simply a bad idea, or a good idea with bad implementation? My point is that if the year deadline is a problem, they probably wouldn't even be trying to create new gameplay sequences; they would stick to what they know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it really was just a bad idea. But what if they had more time to work on it? It might have turn out a good idea or a different idea. We'll never know.

CRUDFACE
11-24-2011, 06:34 PM
After one more, the one years cycle might not happen again, according to Ubisoft. But they have...err...twisted the truth around before when the company forced them to make brotherhood do fast.

Every Assassin's creed game's story is started around the time the game launches. I am getting tired of the way Ezio fights barehanded, looks so wild, lmao

Of course they didn't make the whole story of all the AC's from the start.

@Rza: we'll never get an entire Desmond game. The day that happens, is the day that special apocalyptic day of 2012 will actually happen. Oh, and I wanted to ask, did you get the new Edition of the Fall yet?


Originally posted by Il_Divo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andy_Pandy86:

Den Defense comes across as a weird unnecessary addition. It feels out of place in AC. I think it a sign of one year cycle blues as playing it you can tell that it wasn't well thought out and plays really awkwardly. Felt like DD needed to go back to the drawing board. Felt unfinished.

But we could just as easily point to the repetitive nature of AC1's gameplay and argue they didn't give the game enough development time.

Sometimes a feature is bad merely because it's bad, not because time is a factor. How many bad games ultimately come out in a year? Is every single one really the result of lack of development time? Or is it simply a bad idea, or a good idea with bad implementation? My point is that if the year deadline is a problem, they probably wouldn't even be trying to create new gameplay sequences; they would stick to what they know.



And yeah Desmond's story in ACR was poor at best.

I'd argue the opposite. Since AC1, Desmond has wanted to avoid dealing with his past, including the knowledge that he left his family behind. In Brotherhood's case, he's now dealing with the knowledge of how he attacked Lucy. Revelations ultimately deals with Desmond's acceptance as an assassin. There may not be much plot development, but Desmond's acceptance of his identity is a critical aspect of character development. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We already knew about Desmond accepting the order, becoming an assassin when he decided to be one at the beginning of AC2. In Revelations, we simply went on an overview, nothing new was shown and Desmond was quickly sped up to saying he is an assassin. You didn't play as Desmond during his struggles and stuff, he just told you about them. Two very different things.

It was poor to me because I knew all that already. It actually made me feel a bit worse because Desmond knew how to do all that stuff, but then he simply forgot? Really? I understand trying to run away, but if you knew Templars were everywhere, you'd keep yourself up, especially if you're already trained.

Edit: also, ACR is missing a crapload of sidequests

Il_Divo
11-24-2011, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Andy_Pandy86:

Maybe it really was just a bad idea. But what if they had more time to work on it? It might have turn out a good idea or a different idea. We'll never know.

But that's exactly the problem. We need positive evidence to demonstrate the claim that Den Defense being bad was a result of a short development cycle. That it might have turned out better doesn't get us very far, because with more development time Ubisoft could just as easily have kept den defense and worked on something else with that time.

Il_Divo
11-24-2011, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by t260z:

We already knew about Desmond accepting the order, becoming an assassin when he decided to be one at the beginning of AC2. In Revelations, we simply went on an overview, nothing new was shown and Desmond was quickly sped up to saying he is an assassin. You didn't play as Desmond during his struggles and stuff, he just told you about them. Two very different things.

I'd argue that there is a huge difference between his willingness to help Lucy and the Assassins in AC2 and his acceptance in Revelations of his identity as an assassin. The entire point at the start of the sequence is that he was forced into the Brotherhood, and he couldn't accept that role. Even assisting Lucy wasn't fully complicit. There, he fights the Templars under the simple realization that they won't leave him alone, essentially an alliance of convenience. Revelations demonstrated Desmond's full acceptance of who he was born to be, what initially he ran away from.

The optional sequences, imo, provided much needed context for everything in his life. Desmond being a bartender, Desmond owning a motorcycle, Desmond escaping from his parents, etc. We definitely knew all this before Revelations, but the specifics, the details, provided much greater insight into his mentality and made him that much more sympathetic. We didn't perceive these events as Desmond explains it to someone else (like Lucy in AC1), we experienced it as Desmond experienced the events.



It was poor to me because I knew all that already. It actually made me feel a bit worse because Desmond knew how to do all that stuff, but then he simply forgot? Really? I understand trying to run away, but if you knew Templars were everywhere, you'd keep yourself up, especially if you're already trained.

But he wouldn't. The entire point of that Desmond sequence was that he didn't buy into his parents' beliefs regarding the Templars; he thought it was crap. That's exactly the point of the Metropolis sequence: "My parents were conspiracy theorists who lived off the grid". Desmond didn't believe that the Templars exist at that point, and didn't believe the training was really worth anything. His skills as an assassin also were clearly not revealed to be anywhere close to the level of Altair/Ezio. If anything, his comments throughout the series indicate that he wasn't really exemplary assassin material.

CRUDFACE
11-24-2011, 07:05 PM
@Il_Divo: I'll do it like this since I don't want to make a quote pyramid. just to comment on the side real fast, I don't think Den defense was a thing on the side due to a short development cycle.

Okay, back to this:

Yes, I get it, it clarified what we already knew about Desmond, by immersing us in sound, light and some images as well as some weird/new gameplay to do on the side. It even showed how he didn't care by naming a drink after the Templars.

But none of that is new and what was there was more of refinery what we already know. There were multiple sights talking about what his father and mother were like. What the farm was, what it meant to be an assassin in this current day and age, and even where he got that tattoo from. And even though I liked it as a side mission, because it was, it showed how much it didn't matter.

There weren't many details to me, and what was new was skimmed over so fast I never got a chance to take it in. And we didn't experience the events as Desmond did. I'd say only the music and some light levels did, but most of them didn't. Now I don't mind a refinery of these things, but it told nothing new and that was something that he needed IMO.

Maybe it's because when you compare it to Ezio's or even Altair's little segments, his story, it shows how much less went into his.

We actually don't know about his skills. While we do know he was injured a couple times during training (minor stuff, nothing broken), we don't know what he could and could not do. We do know he was able to survive on his own for...was it about two days?

Andy_Pandy86
11-24-2011, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Il_Divo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andy_Pandy86:

Maybe it really was just a bad idea. But what if they had more time to work on it? It might have turn out a good idea or a different idea. We'll never know.

But that's exactly the problem. We need positive evidence to demonstrate the claim that Den Defense being bad was a result of a short development cycle. That it might have turned out better doesn't get us very far, because with more development time Ubisoft could just as easily have kept den defense and worked on something else with that time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe with more time it still would have turned out the same but having more time to go over it wouldn't have been a bad thing. It could have helped. That's what I'm saying.

It's obvious DD needed more work. So the fact that they kept it as is seems strange. More time could be the factor. (Maybe they found themselves committed to DD and couldn't just start over.) Obviously it's up to them whether they take the opportunity of more time.

Most dev's are pretty savy and test their games extensively so I find it hard to believe that with more time DD couldn't have been improved.