PDA

View Full Version : Ubisoft are NOT "Milking" AC.



AU7thGear
11-05-2011, 01:52 AM
I have seen so many people that just believe that Ubisoft are "Milking" the AC franchise. I am not creating this thread to start a flame war or to tell people what to think I am simply giving people REAL facts as to why I believe they are not.

It has been said often by Ubisoft that they are NOT doing this. The reason they have released II, Brotherhood, Revelations and will release III back to back is to fit into the "2012 end of the world" nonsense. As AC revolves around this theory it would be silly to release ACIII in 2013. Ubisoft are doing fine with money as they have shipped 4 million copies on ACI, II and Brotherhood on the PS3 alone! With a combination of all AC games selling a combined total of over 27 million copies world wide.

Now sure the silly DS games and computer games have been unnecessary in part but it still doesn't change the fact that they aren't milking this series! I mean for Brotherhood (correct me if i'm wrong)all of the multi-player DLC was free!

I mean seriously guys if you don't want AC games coming out every year then don't buy them. Vote with your wallet not your dumb flame wars.

YuurHeen
11-05-2011, 03:19 AM
as a fan it might be hard to see how a average gamer looks at this franchise.

Chronomancy
11-05-2011, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by AU7thGear:
I have seen so many people that just believe that Ubisoft are "Milking" the AC franchise. I am not creating this thread to start a flame war or to tell people what to think I am simply giving people REAL facts as to why I believe they are not.

It has been said often by Ubisoft that they are NOT doing this. The reason they have released II, Brotherhood, Revelations and will release III back to back is to fit into the "2012 end of the world" nonsense. As AC revolves around this theory it would be silly to release ACIII in 2013. Ubisoft are doing fine with money as they have shipped 4 million copies on ACI, II and Brotherhood on the PS3 alone! With a combination of all AC games selling a combined total of over 27 million copies world wide.

Now sure the silly DS games and computer games have been unnecessary in part but it still doesn't change the fact that they aren't milking this series! I mean for Brotherhood (correct me if i'm wrong)all of the multi-player DLC was free!

I mean seriously guys if you don't want AC games coming out every year then don't buy them. Vote with your wallet not your dumb flame wars.

I honestly don't think they are milking it but if they were they wouldn't admit it would they.

Adeikalam
11-05-2011, 03:38 AM
For some reason, all the people that played ACB MP started to hate the AC series. I think they forgot all the amazing things they have done for the Single Player, like the Da Vinci missions, VR training, new mechanics, Borgia Towers, Leading your brotherhood, etc...

Dag_B
11-05-2011, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by AU7thGear:
I have seen so many people that just believe that Ubisoft are "Milking" the AC franchise. I am not creating this thread to start a flame war or to tell people what to think I am simply giving people REAL facts as to why I believe they are not.

It has been said often by Ubisoft that they are NOT doing this. The reason they have released II, Brotherhood, Revelations and will release III back to back is to fit into the "2012 end of the world" nonsense. As AC revolves around this theory it would be silly to release ACIII in 2013. Ubisoft are doing fine with money as they have shipped 4 million copies on ACI, II and Brotherhood on the PS3 alone! With a combination of all AC games selling a combined total of over 27 million copies world wide.

Now sure the silly DS games and computer games have been unnecessary in part but it still doesn't change the fact that they aren't milking this series! I mean for Brotherhood (correct me if i'm wrong)all of the multi-player DLC was free!

I mean seriously guys if you don't want AC games coming out every year then don't buy them. Vote with your wallet not your dumb flame wars.

Lol, those are not facts at all.
"They are not saying this" - sure they don't, gamers do not like to hear that their favorite games are milked. I do not think any gamecoperation will ever use that word. They will state it is fan-service or whatever sounds nice.
The reason Brotherhood and Revelations came out after a year is not really about the year 2012. They could have wait another year to create Brotherhood and skip Revelations or something. Revelations was not ment to be made from the beginning, they decided after Brotherhood to do it. Normally the storyparts in Revelations were ment for an other medium. I thing it was a DS Game but I am not quite sure.

That they make silly spin-offs shows really good that they are trying to milk. The merchandise does too and the dozens of collectors editions.
Why not make one big edition as fan-service and that's all? It's because of the money.

Some free DLC does not change anything about this. Especially when they sell chapters that were meant to be in the game after the release like in AC2. >__> And to such a high price compaired to what you get. Nah, you can't made this even with a free Animus 2.0-Update for Brotherhood.

And do not forget about the books about the games which do not really deliver something new and contain errors because they wanted to release them when the game is released. They do not taking their time for this stuff, they do just keep firing with merch and games so their annual sells look nice.


I like the games and I bought since AC2 the biggest collectors edition (in europe), but I still think AC is getting milked. They are to much rushed with most thing as I could think different.


Also Ubisoft itself shows how much they want our money with that ridiculous ubipasses, which you'll have to buy in future when you want to play a second-hand game and want to access all the contents. -__-

AU7thGear
11-05-2011, 04:51 AM
As you wish. But I must correct you on a number of things.

Firstly: They are facts. Ubisoft said that the reason that they had been doing yearly reasons was to fit into the plot 2012 plot line. Believe what you want but the fact that you are dismissing this is very silly indeed.. It makes sense otherwise they would be contradicting their own story line. Don''t be so naive.

Secondly: Ubisoft have NEVER admitted that Brotherhood and Revelations were afterthoughts as far as I am aware. I would like proof is this is incorrect. Of course we all know they were but that's not the point. They didn't do it to milk AC. They did it for fans. After ACII people were saying they wanted more Ezio so we got it. Then after Brotherhood people wanted more Altair with the new game mechanics and now we're getting that. My guess is that they had planned a single game for Ezio and Altair and it got to big so they split it into two smaller games.

Thirdly: They are a game company! Of course they want money! But this does not mean they are milking AC. Dev's are always thinking of ways to make sure their game isn't so long people loose interest but not so short people are disappointed. This was demonstrated with ACII and Brotherhood. Admittedly they could have fitted sequence 12+13 in ACII and The Da Vinci disappearance in Brotherhood but they chose not to so they could earn a few extra dollars. ALL company's release DLC. If you don't believe me you can think of Red Dead Redemption. Was Undead Nightmare at all necessary? No it wasn't they could have left the game as it is. And they are still realeasing MP DLC for that game. Was inFamous 2 FOB necessarily? No. I beat it in a hour and it cost me $10. They would have made a massive profit.

Fourthly: The books are done by Oliver Bowden. Merely a fan of the series who also happened to be an author. He approached Ubisoft and asked to write books. They said yes and receive a cut of the action and he gets to do what he loves about what he loves. So greedy isn't it? I assume you don't read the books as they do give you more information that you didn't know.

Lastly: Are you kidding? Your complaining about the CE's and yet you buy them? I cant even comprehend how silly this is. EVERY GAME HAS A CE THESE DAYS. It just how the industry works. They know hardcore fans want to have all the extra crap that isn't necessary so they do it. Why not? It gives the fans what they want and companies get some more money. Everyone wins.

But you can believe what you want. I didn't create this post but merely to give Ubisoft a fair chance. I maintain they do NOT milk this franchise. And even if they were does it matter? I mean the games are still phenomenal anyway.

roostersrule2
11-05-2011, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by AU7thGear:
I have seen so many people that just believe that Ubisoft are "Milking" the AC franchise. I am not creating this thread to start a flame war or to tell people what to think I am simply giving people REAL facts as to why I believe they are not.

It has been said often by Ubisoft that they are
NOT doing this. The reason they have released II, Brotherhood, Revelations and will release III back to back is to fit into the "2012 end of the world" nonsense. As AC revolves around this theory it would be silly to release ACIII in 2013. Ubisoft are doing fine with money as they have shipped 4 million copies on ACI, II and Brotherhood on the PS3 alone! With a combination of all AC games selling a combined total of over 27 million copies world wide.

Now sure the silly DS games and computer games have been unnecessary in part but it still doesn't change the fact that they aren't milking this series! I mean for Brotherhood (correct me if i'm wrong)all of the multi-player DLC was free!

I mean seriously guys if you don't want AC games coming out every year then don't buy them. Vote with your wallet not your dumb flame wars. Surely it would be more then 4 million as the whole console/pc franchise has sold over 30 million.

lukaszep
11-05-2011, 06:07 AM
I don't think they're milking it at the moment. But if they release a game in 2013, i'd start to point the finger. After AC3, the franchise needs at least a year to breathe and make a comeback in around 2014. I'd guess they're aiming for the next story arc in the franchise to tie in with the movie.

LightRey
11-05-2011, 06:18 AM
I won't consider it milking the franchise until I see a significant drop in quality.

Dag_B
11-05-2011, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by AU7thGear:
Secondly: Ubisoft have NEVER admitted that Brotherhood and Revelations were afterthoughts as far as I am aware. I would like proof is this is incorrect. Of course we all know they were but that's not the point. They didn't do it to milk AC. They did it for fans. After ACII people were saying they wanted more Ezio so we got it. Then after Brotherhood people wanted more Altair with the new game mechanics and now we're getting that. My guess is that they had planned a single game for Ezio and Altair and it got to big so they split it into two smaller games.
You said it by yourself. Brotherhood and Revelations were not planned, Ubisoft just found they could do and sell another one with Ezio. As I said the story for Revelations was there but it was not planned to do it in a big game. Parts of it should have been in the DS-Part that were cancelled. When Ubisoft realised there were space for another big spin-off they canceled the small game and put the stuff in a big one. There was news somewhere because UbiSoft defended Revelations that way to get something about the complainment that they are making up things to get more games. The story was there.
And as I said: It's all about the words.
"They are not saying this" - sure they don't, gamers do not like to hear that their favorite games are milked. I do not think any gamecoperation will ever use that word. They will state it is fan-service or whatever sounds nice.
Plus: When there wouldn't be fans that'll buy the game they would not be able to milk it. So milking is - at least at the beginning - always "for the fans". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
You can not milk a game that nobody buys.


Originally posted by AU7thGear:
Dev's are always thinking of ways to make sure their game isn't so long people loose interest but not so short people are disappointed. This was demonstrated with ACII and Brotherhood.
It was to short and Brotherhood was to similar. Another year would have helped Brotherhood to be better and not like AC 2.3 or something. ^^
Nobody would've been disappointed if they had to wait 2 Years for Brotherhood especially as ACIII would come out a year after.


Originally posted by AU7thGear:
Admittedly they could have fitted sequence 12+13 in ACII and The Da Vinci disappearance in Brotherhood but they chose not to so they could earn a few extra dollars. ALL company's release DLC. If you don't believe me you can think of Red Dead Redemption. Was Undead Nightmare at all necessary? No it wasn't they could have left the game as it is. And they are still realeasing MP DLC for that game. Was inFamous 2 FOB necessarily? No. I beat it in a hour and it cost me $10. They would have made a massive profit.
That is the point: RDR inFamous: They were additional. The DLC from AC2 belongs there as it leaves a gap in the game itself.


Originally posted by AU7thGear:
Fourthly: The books are done by Oliver Bowden. Merely a fan of the series who also happened to be an author. He approached Ubisoft and asked to write books. They said yes and receive a cut of the action and he gets to do what he loves about what he loves. So greedy isn't it? I assume you don't read the books as they do give you more information that you didn't know.
The point here was not that there are books the point was that they release it the same time so the author does not get the time to be accourate as he can not react to chances in the gamestory. He gets a script a few month before and must stick to this, even if the developers chance parts of the game in a late phase. So the author creates errors because he can not rewrite his whole book every time the story is changed.


Originally posted by AU7thGear:
Lastly: Are you kidding? Your complaining about the CE's and yet you buy them? I cant even comprehend how silly this is. EVERY GAME HAS A CE THESE DAYS. It just how the industry works. They know hardcore fans want to have all the extra crap that isn't necessary so they do it. Why not? It gives the fans what they want and companies get some more money. Everyone wins.
Who complained that there is a CE?
I appreciate CEs, that's why I buy them. But what again did I complain about? Oh yes, it was the part that there are like a dozent of them. Standard Edition and Animus Edition would be enough. AE for the hardcore Fans, Standard for everybody else. Case close. So why is the a Collectors and Special Edition as well? Not to forget about the versions other contries have. Ultimate Edition, Black Edition in Austria, Templar Edition in italy.
I myself feel more like losing this time. I get the biggest version and do not get all existent extracontent. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif If it wouldn't be for the encyclopia I wouldn't get an CE this time. But the import of the white edition is to expancive to europe. I would pay almost the same for Standard Edition and White Edition encyclopia than I do for AE. So I am buying the AE and get some extracontent for the same money.


A good example for milking is God of War though not very much people would say it's a bad trilogy. This shows milking does not always end bad.
The sad thing is GoW could be much more interesting if they did not just made up a flat story for the second part where everything Kratos achieves in the first part is gone. He learned something in the first part but on the second his character hasn't developed at all. Reason is they fired a few important developers and just made an similar game instead of develop the character etc pp.
AC goes in a similar direction. At least I hope in AC3 they will present something really new and not just a few add-ons. ^^ Altough I know that nowadays most people want the same game again and again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jexx21
11-05-2011, 08:27 AM
Also Ubisoft itself shows how much they want our money with that ridiculous ubipasses, which you'll have to buy in future when you want to play a second-hand game and want to access all the contents. -__-

You know WHY Ubisoft has these 'Ubipasses'? It's the same reason why they have over-priced DLC.

Second-hand games sales. Mostly GameStop. If I'm correct, GameStop sells more used games than new games. Guess what, the money you pay for used games doesn't go to the company that makes the games. Since a majority of their profits are then cut, they are forced to come up ways to make money. Shorter dev cycles, over-priced DLC, Multiplayer passes, just plain passes to get full content.

Anyway, with that said, I don't see it as UbiSoft 'milking' the series. I just see it as them providing a lot of ways for people to get into the Assassin's Creed series. Not to mention I don't see a drop in quality of Brotherhood. Anyway, if they are milking the series for cash, I still like the cow itself.

thekarlone
11-05-2011, 08:28 AM
I hope Desmond's Story ends with next game (and solve all mysteries to date, but can open other new ones to continue the franchise, but always closing the current ones), ACIII, in 2012. After that, they can do other new stories involving this Universe, or a new beginning with a new main character. But if they don't end Desmond's Story with the next game, then they will be milking the franchise.

On the other hand, I think the MP is one of the best multiplayers ever for a console. I don't like multiplayers when the only challenge is who shoots more and faster.

Jexx21
11-05-2011, 08:31 AM
I thought it was confirmed that Desmond's cycle ends with AC3? I'm pretty sure that it is.

Then Darby says that they would want to take a year break for the games, but ultimately it's up to corporate.

thekarlone
11-05-2011, 08:34 AM
I thought it was confirmed that Desmond's cycle ends with AC3? I'm pretty sure that it is.


Yes, i think it is, but I mean not only the Desmond's plot, but also the First Civilization plot and the Abstergo's mission plot.

Jexx21
11-05-2011, 08:38 AM
Well..

I wouldn't mind continuing parts of the First civilization and Abstergo plots.

ShaneO7K
11-05-2011, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by thekarlone:
but also the First Civilization plot and the Abstergo's mission plot.

They'll most likely stay in the story after Desmonds ends, that's if they keep the modern side of the AC in which they most likely will.

Biomedical-Fire
11-05-2011, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by AU7thGear: Lastly: Are you kidding? Your complaining about the CE's and yet you buy them? I cant even comprehend how silly this is. EVERY GAME HAS A CE THESE DAYS. I had to laugh at this statement. Maybe in Europe every game has a CE attached to it, but here in the U.S. and Canada, we get a couple of CE's to Europe's 5 or 6. Heck, Europe has 2 different CE's for just Revelations alone. What do I get for my favorite platform game, Sonic? a big fat nothing, but Europe gets this really nice CE for Sonic Generations and then Square is giving Europe 2 different CE's for FFXIII-2 while here in N.A. all we get are pre-order bonuses. If every game that I wanted this year had a CE, I'd be in CE heaven right about now, but unfortunately, Europe got most of them.

LightRey
11-05-2011, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Biomedical-Fire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AU7thGear: Lastly: Are you kidding? Your complaining about the CE's and yet you buy them? I cant even comprehend how silly this is. EVERY GAME HAS A CE THESE DAYS. I had to laugh at this statement. Maybe in Europe every game has a CE attached to it, but here in the U.S. and Canada, we get a couple of CE's to Europe's 5 or 6. Heck, Europe has 2 different CE's for just Revelations alone. What do I get for my favorite platform game, Sonic? a big fat nothing, but Europe gets this really nice CE for Sonic Generations and then Square is giving Europe 2 different CE's for FFXIII-2 while here in N.A. all we get are pre-order bonuses. If every game that I wanted this year had a CE, I'd be in CE heaven right about now, but unfortunately, Europe got most of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Let me rephrase for him: "Every game that isn't a Nintendo game and is expected to have good sales ratings gets a custom edition these days".

SteelCity999
11-05-2011, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Biomedical-Fire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AU7thGear: Lastly: Are you kidding? Your complaining about the CE's and yet you buy them? I cant even comprehend how silly this is. EVERY GAME HAS A CE THESE DAYS. I had to laugh at this statement. Maybe in Europe every game has a CE attached to it, but here in the U.S. and Canada, we get a couple of CE's to Europe's 5 or 6. Heck, Europe has 2 different CE's for just Revelations alone. What do I get for my favorite platform game, Sonic? a big fat nothing, but Europe gets this really nice CE for Sonic Generations and then Square is giving Europe 2 different CE's for FFXIII-2 while here in N.A. all we get are pre-order bonuses. If every game that I wanted this year had a CE, I'd be in CE heaven right about now, but unfortunately, Europe got most of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it a much bigger investment on the part of retailers and the gaming companies to bring the CE's to NA in comparison to Europe. look what happened to Ubisoft with Brotherhood - they are still selling Doc-in-the-boxes and there are still CE's in Best Buy and Gamestop. Killzone 3 still has CE's in stores. Halo still has tons of CE's in the stores. Retailers can't sit on items that they paid full price for.

Back on topic, people can say whatever they want about Ubi milking AC but they are just following the same example as a smaller franchise released 30+ years ago....Star Wars. When the universe is large enough to support the stories than there is nothing wrong with it and AC has a pretty large universe to pull from. So why not tell the stories that can be told?

Animuses
11-05-2011, 06:01 PM
Assassin's Creed is being milked, even the devs know so, but they are doing their best with the time they have.

Silvermoth
11-05-2011, 06:43 PM
I wasn't worried about Ubisoft milking the AC franchise until Assassin's Creed 3 was announced. I can see why they did it in terms of story, I'm just worried they'll sacrifice quality for speed.

It would be dreadful to just run the AC games out every year like Call of Duty.

That said, they've already said they'll slow things down after AC3 so I'm fairly content. I just hope the first trilogy doesn't underwhelm.

Jexx21
11-05-2011, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
Assassin's Creed is being milked, even the devs know so, but they are doing their best with the time they have.

Err..

source?

ace3001
11-05-2011, 06:51 PM
No, they're not. People like to hate on things, so they pick something. If the last two games came out like 2 to 3 years apart instead of once an year, and better yet, they came with the names Assassin's Creed III and Assassin's Creed IV, no one would've said this milking rubbish.

AU7thGear
11-05-2011, 07:07 PM
Dag_B everyone has their own opinion. My opinion is their not. So what if a game has a million CE's it doesn't matter? They have already said they wanted more Dev time on both Brotherhood and Revelations but decided they needed to get all the games out in time for 2012. Assassin's Creed has always been a futuristic game. I mean it's modern day timeline is set in 2012 and even when we are in the Crusades and Renaissance period we still have futuristic stuff like the POE's. So it would be dumb to shift it to a game in the past just for and extra year of Dev time to please all the silly people. The quality is still perfect so it doesn't bother me either.

Dag_B
11-05-2011, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also Ubisoft itself shows how much they want our money with that ridiculous ubipasses, which you'll have to buy in future when you want to play a second-hand game and want to access all the contents. -__-

You know WHY Ubisoft has these 'Ubipasses'? It's the same reason why they have over-priced DLC.

Second-hand games sales. Mostly GameStop. If I'm correct, GameStop sells more used games than new games. Guess what, the money you pay for used games doesn't go to the company that makes the games. Since a majority of their profits are then cut, they are forced to come up ways to make money. Shorter dev cycles, over-priced DLC, Multiplayer passes, just plain passes to get full content. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, the bad second-hand sales again. The videogamecompany do not need the money that is made there. They just want it. ^^
The sales for videogames are actually pretty good at the moment. Also I think they lose more money to illegal copies that legal resales. But the sales are more easily to charge. ^^

I also do not see the reason for overpriced DLC in profitproblems, the problem is more that many people are stupid enough to buy those things. If you can sell a DLC for 10$ why not charge it for this price? Supply and demand. =(
If the people would not buy the expansive ones the compaines would be forced to drop the price or stop the production on DLCs. But tell this the fanboys... Many videogamers are very easy to milk when you hype them enough. >____>
^^

We are not far away from the concept which EA suggested: Sell a game with only half the content and sell a code or something to get the other half. And we all know that the half-contented game will cost the same as a "full game" will cost at the moment.
But the problem is not really that the companies make things like that, the problem is that to many people pay for it, I guess.

iN3krO
11-05-2011, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by AU7thGear:
Dag_B everyone has their own opinion. My opinion is their not. So what he a game has a million CE's it doesn't matter? They have already said they wanted more Dev time on both Brotherhood and Revelations but decided they needed to get all the games out in time for 2012. Assassin's Creed has always been a futuristic game. I mean it's modern day timeline is set in 2012 and even when we are in the Crusades and Renaissance period we still have futuristic stuff like the POE's. So it would be dumb to shift it to a game in the past just for and extra year of Dev time to please all the silly people. The quality is still perfect so it doesn't bother me either.

Perfect?

If ppl says cod:mw2 mp is umbalanced i don't know what a cod player would say about acB!

Ac3 must be Ac's MW3!

AU7thGear
11-05-2011, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AU7thGear:
Dag_B everyone has their own opinion. My opinion is their not. So what he a game has a million CE's it doesn't matter? They have already said they wanted more Dev time on both Brotherhood and Revelations but decided they needed to get all the games out in time for 2012. Assassin's Creed has always been a futuristic game. I mean it's modern day timeline is set in 2012 and even when we are in the Crusades and Renaissance period we still have futuristic stuff like the POE's. So it would be dumb to shift it to a game in the past just for and extra year of Dev time to please all the silly people. The quality is still perfect so it doesn't bother me either.

Perfect?

If ppl says cod:mw2 mp is umbalanced i don't know what a cod player would say about acB!

Ac3 must be Ac's MW3! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you please at least use grammar we can understand?

Dag_B: I am not longer going to argue with you. As I said I did not make this thread to start a flame war. You refuse to see what the facts are.

Biomedical-Fire
11-05-2011, 10:17 PM
Pass the Ubimilk to go with my Oreo's please!

E-Zekiel
11-05-2011, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by AU7thGear:
I have seen so many people that just believe that Ubisoft are "Milking" the AC franchise. I am not creating this thread to start a flame war or to tell people what to think I am simply giving people REAL facts as to why I believe they are not.

It has been said often by Ubisoft that they are NOT doing this. The reason they have released II, Brotherhood, Revelations and will release III back to back is to fit into the "2012 end of the world" nonsense. As AC revolves around this theory it would be silly to release ACIII in 2013. Ubisoft are doing fine with money as they have shipped 4 million copies on ACI, II and Brotherhood on the PS3 alone! With a combination of all AC games selling a combined total of over 27 million copies world wide.

Now sure the silly DS games and computer games have been unnecessary in part but it still doesn't change the fact that they aren't milking this series! I mean for Brotherhood (correct me if i'm wrong)all of the multi-player DLC was free!

I mean seriously guys if you don't want AC games coming out every year then don't buy them. Vote with your wallet not your dumb flame wars.

Your mistake is to believe that people want facts. They don't. They want outrage and sensationalism.

Society has kind of decided that facts are not important. Or at least, American society. Maybe it's not so bad in other countries.

MostJadedGamer
11-05-2011, 11:20 PM
It has been said often by Ubisoft that they are NOT doing this. The reason they have released II, Brotherhood, Revelations and will release III back to back is to fit into the "2012 end of the world" nonsense.

The fact is they are milking it. There never would have been a Brotherhood or a Revelations if Ubisoft wasn't milking it, and they still could had AC3 in 2012. It is not at all unusual for there to be 3 years between sequels, or they could have put 3 years between AC1, and Ac2, and then 2 years between AC2, and AC3.

masterfenix2009
11-06-2011, 01:28 AM
No. They were planned. They were originally going to add brotherhood to Ac2, but couldn't fit it. So they made another game and expanded on it. Part of ACR was a DS game that they decided to cut. Not to mention Revelations was being made since brotherhood was being made.

souNdwAve89
11-06-2011, 02:35 AM
Some fans speculate that this is the reason why Patrice Desilets and another member left Ubisoft. It may be just a coincidence, but they left right before the release of Brotherhood. They did promote the game and such, but my guess is that they didn't agree with the direction of the series.

lukaszep
11-06-2011, 02:58 AM
The reason people complain about company's milking franchises is because of the quality. I think they've already proven that they can make a game in a 1 year development cycle, so why complain? I would worry when they make an AC game that Ubisoft Montreal isn't involved with. That would be a definite sign they are milking the franchise.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
The reason people complain about company's milking franchises is because of the quality. I think they've already proven that they can make a game in a 1 year development cycle, so why complain? I would worry when they make an AC game that Ubisoft Montreal isn't involved with. That would be a definite sign they are milking the franchise.

They add some cool features but they didn't take time enough to balance them (and ppl liked it umbalanced so they will never balance it).


Originally posted by souNdwAve89:
Some fans speculate that this is the reason why Patrice Desilets and another member left Ubisoft. It may be just a coincidence, but they left right before the release of Brotherhood. They did promote the game and such, but my guess is that they didn't agree with the direction of the series.

neither do i in some things.... Ezio is renaissance's prototype O.o

Dag_B
11-06-2011, 04:01 AM
Interesting how a simple discussion is considered a flame war, just because you have another opinion. ^^
Nobody is flaming here.



They add some cool features but they didn't take time enough to balance them (and ppl liked it umbalanced so they will never balance it).
Yes and that's pretty sad. I do not like the direction that AC follows either. Where is the stealth, where are the reasons to be stealthy and where is freedom in decision?
AC1 was cool because you could plan your own assassinations, you collected informations and than could choose if you'll run into the guards or use a sneaky sideway. But since AC2 they restrict these things and in ACR it'll be extremly linear (more linear but more impressive). I think I'll have fun with ACR but it is not really what AC1 was about or what you would exspect from an "Assassins" game. AC could be so much more if they would drop this "more linear but more impressive" sh... and return to the though of a open world game where you are an assassine.


I am still at a point where I say:
Brotherhood and Revealations are just kind of spin-offs and stuff, so it's kind of ok to stay similar. That they do not balance the combatsystem is sad. I am afraid the bombs do not add that much fun, as it was always very easy to run into the guards and kill hundreds of them. Why should I distract them with a bomb if there is no negative side in killing them all? >_>
We'll see if it is that way, but that's what I am afraid of.
Errr...what I wanted to say: I hope UbiSoft will do the neccessary chances in the third part, come back to the "Assassins" part (stealth + assassinations, not solving personal issues like Ezio is mainly doing), improve the combat system etc pp.

EzioAssassin51
11-06-2011, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by Dag_B:
But since AC2 they restrict these things and in ACR it'll be extremly linear (more linear but more impressive)

I could say more about the whole choosing to be stealthy thing but it's 10:00pm here and I'm tired so I'm just going to ask you:

Have you played ACR to know it's going to be "extremely linear"?

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dag_B:
But since AC2 they restrict these things and in ACR it'll be extremly linear (more linear but more impressive)

I could say more about the whole choosing to be stealthy thing but it's 10:00pm here and I'm tired so I'm just going to ask you:

Have you played ACR to know it's going to be "extremely linear"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's great how ppl have faith in the games just cuz developers says things about it....

CS:GO is in alpha-beta status and almost every cs1.6 player is flaming it, the videos seen of the game are enough to know what valve wants to do with the game...

AcB is enough to know what ubisoft will do of AcR.... they are just expansions of Ac2 (same core mechanics).

LightRey
11-06-2011, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dag_B:
But since AC2 they restrict these things and in ACR it'll be extremly linear (more linear but more impressive)

I could say more about the whole choosing to be stealthy thing but it's 10:00pm here and I'm tired so I'm just going to ask you:

Have you played ACR to know it's going to be "extremely linear"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's great how ppl have faith in the games just cuz developers says things about it....

CS:GO is in alpha-beta status and almost every cs1.6 player is flaming it, the videos seen of the game are enough to know what valve wants to do with the game...

AcB is enough to know what ubisoft will do of AcR.... they are just expansions of Ac2 (same core mechanics). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dude, cut it out with the ACB bashing. You're acting like it was generally considered a bad game, which is utter nonsense. It was to date the best sold AC game and was just as well received as its predecessors.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 05:22 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 daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dag_B:
But since AC2 they restrict these things and in ACR it'll be extremly linear (more linear but more impressive)

I could say more about the whole choosing to be stealthy thing but it's 10:00pm here and I'm tired so I'm just going to ask you:

Have you played ACR to know it's going to be "extremely linear"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's great how ppl have faith in the games just cuz developers says things about it....

CS:GO is in alpha-beta status and almost every cs1.6 player is flaming it, the videos seen of the game are enough to know what valve wants to do with the game...

AcB is enough to know what ubisoft will do of AcR.... they are just expansions of Ac2 (same core mechanics). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dude, cut it out with the ACB bashing. You're acting like it was generally considered a bad game, which is utter nonsense. It was to date the best sold AC game and was just as well received as its predecessors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ppl do not think that acB is too linear? LOL

When you need to enter the st angelo it says: Go from A to B, B to C, C to D, see cinematic, D to E, E to F, cinematic, F to G and the mission is over.

What is the point of the game telling u everything u need to do? -.-'' i would prefer go from A to G and u find out that D is the only place where u can go thought and that a cinematic pops up when u arrive there...

It's not AcB bashing, i've stated that AcR will follow +/- the same mechanics that AcB had meaning that they liked more AcB then Ac2 will like AcR and those who didn't will still prefer Ac2...

For me both Ac1 and Ac2 were great games, each one with their flaws... but AcB i wouldn't really say it deserved the atention given...
And having more ppl buying doesn't mean it's the best game, ppl don't know exatly if they like the game before they buy, otherwise i would not have bought Black Ops for example.

ShaneO7K
11-06-2011, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dag_B:
But since AC2 they restrict these things and in ACR it'll be extremly linear (more linear but more impressive)

I could say more about the whole choosing to be stealthy thing but it's 10:00pm here and I'm tired so I'm just going to ask you:

Have you played ACR to know it's going to be "extremely linear"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's great how ppl have faith in the games just cuz developers says things about it....

CS:GO is in alpha-beta status and almost every cs1.6 player is flaming it, the videos seen of the game are enough to know what valve wants to do with the game...

AcB is enough to know what ubisoft will do of AcR.... they are just expansions of Ac2 (same core mechanics). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's clear some people obviously don't like any big changes from a game that they have played for years and would consider a classic. Their hardcore fanbase wouldn't be happy with a completely new one and even if it was kept like the old ones they would still complain.

As for you, you are being far to single minded. AC1 was far from a perfect game, it wasn't the biggest of the franchise that much is clear when some people have never even heard of Altair. There is no point at all contributing to thses discussions at all when you will only say the good in AC1 and the bad in ACB.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by dead_gunner187:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dag_B:
But since AC2 they restrict these things and in ACR it'll be extremly linear (more linear but more impressive)

I could say more about the whole choosing to be stealthy thing but it's 10:00pm here and I'm tired so I'm just going to ask you:

Have you played ACR to know it's going to be "extremely linear"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's great how ppl have faith in the games just cuz developers says things about it....

CS:GO is in alpha-beta status and almost every cs1.6 player is flaming it, the videos seen of the game are enough to know what valve wants to do with the game...

AcB is enough to know what ubisoft will do of AcR.... they are just expansions of Ac2 (same core mechanics). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's clear some people obviously don't like any big changes from a game that they have played for years and would consider a classic. Their hardcore fanbase wouldn't be happy with a completely new one and even if it was kept like the old ones they would still complain.

As for you, you are being far to single minded. AC1 was far from a perfect game, it wasn't the biggest of the franchise that much is clear when some people have never even heard of Altair. There is no point at all contributing to thses discussions at all when you will only say the good in AC1 and the bad in ACB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I liked most of the changes of Ac2, only thing i would change was the combat system of hidden blade back to ac1...

And what you said about if it was kept like the old ones i must disagree with you, cspromod is doing cs1.6 with better greaphics and improved features, it's still beta and most ppl already prefer it over cs1.6... If developers know what their fans want, they do it... the problem is that since Ac2 (and mostly AcB) this game has gain a fanbase that prefer use overpowered characters instead of use the head....

I do not blame Batman Arkham City and it's as or more easy then AcB... but it's Batman, he's supposed to be overpowered... Assassin's aren't supposed to be overpowered!

LightRey
11-06-2011, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
Ppl do not think that acB is too linear? LOL

When you need to enter the st angelo it says: Go from A to B, B to C, C to D, see cinematic, D to E, E to F, cinematic, F to G and the mission is over.

What is the point of the game telling u everything u need to do? -.-'' i would prefer go from A to G and u find out that D is the only place where u can go thought and that a cinematic pops up when u arrive there...

It's not AcB bashing, i've stated that AcR will follow +/- the same mechanics that AcB had meaning that they liked more AcB then Ac2 will like AcR and those who didn't will still prefer Ac2...

For me both Ac1 and Ac2 were great games, each one with their flaws... but AcB i wouldn't really say it deserved the atention given...
And having more ppl buying doesn't mean it's the best game, ppl don't know exatly if they like the game before they buy, otherwise i would not have bought Black Ops for example.
Play FF XIII. That's linear. ACB is far from linear. It allows you to basically free roam during missions (unless you have to stay close to a certain target) and even then it allows you to at the very least in general pick your own route, it provides the choice between stealth and combat and for god's sake it's open world. ACB is nowhere close to linear.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 05:31 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 daniel_gervide:
Ppl do not think that acB is too linear? LOL

When you need to enter the st angelo it says: Go from A to B, B to C, C to D, see cinematic, D to E, E to F, cinematic, F to G and the mission is over.

What is the point of the game telling u everything u need to do? -.-'' i would prefer go from A to G and u find out that D is the only place where u can go thought and that a cinematic pops up when u arrive there...

It's not AcB bashing, i've stated that AcR will follow +/- the same mechanics that AcB had meaning that they liked more AcB then Ac2 will like AcR and those who didn't will still prefer Ac2...

For me both Ac1 and Ac2 were great games, each one with their flaws... but AcB i wouldn't really say it deserved the atention given...
And having more ppl buying doesn't mean it's the best game, ppl don't know exatly if they like the game before they buy, otherwise i would not have bought Black Ops for example.
Play FF XIII. That's linear. ACB is far from linear. It allows you to basically free roam during missions (unless you have to stay close to a certain target) and even then it allows you to at the very least in general pick your own route, it provides the choice between stealth and combat and for god's sake it's open world. ACB is nowhere close to linear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compare AcB to Ac1, or even Ac2.... why do you acept that a game comes from total freedom (ac1) to script and linear everywhere (acb)? ... I prefer missions with total freedom and gameplay mechanics restricted like in ac1...

LightRey
11-06-2011, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<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 daniel_gervide:
Ppl do not think that acB is too linear? LOL

When you need to enter the st angelo it says: Go from A to B, B to C, C to D, see cinematic, D to E, E to F, cinematic, F to G and the mission is over.

What is the point of the game telling u everything u need to do? -.-'' i would prefer go from A to G and u find out that D is the only place where u can go thought and that a cinematic pops up when u arrive there...

It's not AcB bashing, i've stated that AcR will follow +/- the same mechanics that AcB had meaning that they liked more AcB then Ac2 will like AcR and those who didn't will still prefer Ac2...

For me both Ac1 and Ac2 were great games, each one with their flaws... but AcB i wouldn't really say it deserved the atention given...
And having more ppl buying doesn't mean it's the best game, ppl don't know exatly if they like the game before they buy, otherwise i would not have bought Black Ops for example.
Play FF XIII. That's linear. ACB is far from linear. It allows you to basically free roam during missions (unless you have to stay close to a certain target) and even then it allows you to at the very least in general pick your own route, it provides the choice between stealth and combat and for god's sake it's open world. ACB is nowhere close to linear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compare AcB to Ac1, or even Ac2.... why do you acept that a game comes from total freedom (ac1) to script and linear everywhere (acb)? ... I prefer missions with total freedom and gameplay mechanics restricted like in ac1... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
AC1 didn't give total freedom at all. During Assassination missions you were even limited from going out of an often very small area until the target was assassinated and the side missions, though more open than some of the ACB (side-)missions, we're all just variations on 5 different kinds.

Dag_B
11-06-2011, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dag_B:
But since AC2 they restrict these things and in ACR it'll be extremly linear (more linear but more impressive)

I could say more about the whole choosing to be stealthy thing but it's 10:00pm here and I'm tired so I'm just going to ask you:

Have you played ACR to know it's going to be "extremely linear"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.qj.net/xbox-360/new...inear-sequences.html (http://www.qj.net/xbox-360/news/ac-revelations-will-have-more-linear-sequences.html)

"You know how in Assassin's Creed we've always had the typical systematic city, then missions on top of that, and then sometimes we have more linear moments? Some people have called them 'Prince of Persia moments' within Assassin's Creed. We're taking that idea and having more linear sequences. But instead of having more challenged-based sequences, we're having highly realized sequences. So we're drawing the emotion from the actual realization and intensity, rather than from climbing puzzles for example. You have those moments in the game."

I might have chosen a to hard word in saying "extremly" but it'll be more linear than Brotherhood.

About the chosing:
My problem is that there are many passages where you head from checkpoint to checkpoint. Like in the vatican, there is just one way and even on that way you have to get all checkpoints. I do not have the choice "left or right" because the next checkpoint is on the right site. Also I thing it would be more interesting if the game would not show you "It's that way" but you'd have to try out where you can climb and where not.

dxsxhxcx
11-06-2011, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Dag_B:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dag_B:
But since AC2 they restrict these things and in ACR it'll be extremly linear (more linear but more impressive)

I could say more about the whole choosing to be stealthy thing but it's 10:00pm here and I'm tired so I'm just going to ask you:

Have you played ACR to know it's going to be "extremely linear"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.qj.net/xbox-360/new...inear-sequences.html (http://www.qj.net/xbox-360/news/ac-revelations-will-have-more-linear-sequences.html)

"You know how in Assassin's Creed we've always had the typical systematic city, then missions on top of that, and then sometimes we have more linear moments? Some people have called them 'Prince of Persia moments' within Assassin's Creed. We're taking that idea and having more linear sequences. But instead of having more challenged-based sequences, we're having highly realized sequences. So we're drawing the emotion from the actual realization and intensity, rather than from climbing puzzles for example. You have those moments in the game."

I might have chosen a to hard word in saying "extremly" but it'll be more linear than Brotherhood.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I believe they were talking about the missions like the Lairs of Romulus in ACB and the Assassins' Tombs in AC2, at least that's what I understood when I read "climbing puzzles", this was a characteristic of those lairs/tombs, I believe this time we'll have more action on them instead of (only) "climbing puzzles"...

but I hope they don't completely remove the climbing puzzles of them, I liked to play the Assassins' Tombs and some Lairs of Romulus... a mix of action and climbing puzzles would be cool...

LightRey
11-06-2011, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
I believe they were talking about the missions like the Lairs of Romulus in ACB and the Assassins' Tombs in AC2, at least that's what I understood when I read "climbing puzzles", this was a characteristic of those lairs/tombs, I believe this time we'll have more action on them instead of (only) "climbing puzzles"...

but I hope they don't completely remove the climbing puzzles of them, I liked to play the Assassins' Tombs and some Lairs of Romulus... a mix of action and climbing puzzles would be cool...
You're right. They were talking specifically about those missions. It's in no way about the entire game.

MostJadedGamer
11-06-2011, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by assassino151:
No. They were planned. They were originally going to add brotherhood to Ac2, but couldn't fit it. So they made another game and expanded on it. Part of ACR was a DS game that they decided to cut. Not to mention Revelations was being made since brotherhood was being made.

They were NEVER planned. Originally they were ONLY going to have AC1, AC2, and AC3. All that changed with the MASSIVE sales though.


Some fans speculate that this is the reason why Patrice Desilets and another member left Ubisoft. It may be just a coincidence, but they left right before the release of Brotherhood. They did promote the game and such, but my guess is that they didn't agree with the direction of the series.

Its NOT speculation. It is the reason he left. He had said there publicly would NOT be a AC game in 2011 as he didn't want to push out games that fast.

Dag_B
11-06-2011, 06:35 AM
Hm, I am not sure. I though about passages like the one in the GP-Demonstration where Ezio climbs that tower. He has du duck and has to reach the next checkpoint. It's a little bit more scripted there, I am not sure but I think there also breaks a bit from the wall?

Not sure, we'll have to wait, but at least officially it's more linear and that is a direction I dislike. For me there were to much linear missions in Brotherhood where only one way to solve the mission existed. Or at least reach your target.
I hope they'll not follow that way in AC3 which would probably mean that almost all missions are scripted and linear. D=
There are other francises for that kind of staging.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by dennis580:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by assassino151:
No. They were planned. They were originally going to add brotherhood to Ac2, but couldn't fit it. So they made another game and expanded on it. Part of ACR was a DS game that they decided to cut. Not to mention Revelations was being made since brotherhood was being made.

They were NEVER planned. Originally they were ONLY going to have AC1, AC2, and AC3. All that changed with the massive sales though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Read more closely. The bulk of the ACB story was planned as the final sequence in ACII, but was eventually turned into a game of its own after it became obvious that it would just be too much to put into one game. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar story regarding ACR.

MostJadedGamer
11-06-2011, 06:42 AM
Read more closely. The bulk of the ACB story was planned as the final sequence in ACII, but was eventually turned into a game of its own after it became obvious that it would just be too much to put into one game. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar story regarding ACR.

NO they could have easily released AC2 in 2010 instead of 2009 which is what they actually SHOULD have done. AC2 SHOULD have been delayed a full year so they could actually finish it.

AC2 WAS actually rushed out the door, and they saw there was a way to make a lot more money by just releasing Brotherhood the next year instead of delaying AC2 a year, and actually finishing AC2.

ShaneO7K
11-06-2011, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by dennis580:


NO they could have easily released AC2 in 2010 instead of 2009 which is what they actually SHOULD have done. AC2 SHOULD have been delayed a year so they could actually finish it.

AC2 WAS actually rushed out the door, and they saw there was a way to make a lot more money by just releasing Brotherhood the next year instead of delaying AC2 a year, and actually finishing it. AC2 was in no way rushed, it was said time and time again during ACB development that it was supposed to be apart of AC2 but with all the new features and story it had it deserved its own game. Putting ACB into AC2 with all its features and multiplayer would've been too big. It would just have ended up having to be on more than one disk.

And I really don't know why people keep bringing up "they wanted to make more money" into every argument. OF COURSE THEY DO. They are no different than any other person, they still have bills to pay and mouths to feed just like anyother person. Really don't see this as a valid argument when you say they wanted more money..

MostJadedGamer
11-06-2011, 07:00 AM
AC2 was in no way rushed, it was said time and time again during ACB development that it was supposed to be apart of AC2

So even you yourself admit it was suppsoed to be apart of AC2. AC2 was rushed out, and was NOT finished. Instead the rest of what SHOULD have been AC2 was instead released as a seperate game called Brotherhood.


Putting ACB into AC2 with all its features and multiplayer would've been too big. It would just have ended up having to be on more than one disk.

Its easy to put games on more then one disc so that is NOT a factor at all. In fact the PS3 version would still have only one disc.

The simple truth is it was much better financially for them to just released the rest of AC2 the next year as a seperate game called Brotherhood. That is the simple truth.


Really don't see this as a valid argument when you say they wanted more money.

Its not only a valid arguement; it is in fact the ONLY reason that AC2, and Brotherhood was released as seperate games.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by dennis580:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AC2 was in no way rushed, it was said time and time again during ACB development that it was supposed to be apart of AC2

So even you yourself admit it was suppsoed to be apart of AC2. AC2 was rushed out, and was NOT finished. Instead the rest of what SHOULD have been AC2 was instead released as a seperate game called Brotherhood.


Putting ACB into AC2 with all its features and multiplayer would've been too big. It would just have ended up having to be on more than one disk.

Its easy to put games on more then one disc so that is NOT a factor at all. In fact the PS3 version would still have only one disc.

The simple truth is it was much better financially for them to just released the rest of AC2 the next year as a seperate game called Brotherhood. That is the simple truth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, read more carefully. It wasn't part of the game, because else the game would've been too long. It was in no way rushed.

MostJadedGamer
11-06-2011, 07:07 AM
It wasn't part of the game, because else the game would've been too long. It was in no way rushed.

Too long LOL. Only a person who worked for Ubisoft or was payed off by Ubisoft should say something like that. There is no such thing as too long.

AC2 was indeed rushed. It should have been delayed a full year. They did NOT finish AC2. Brotherhood SHOULD have been part of AC2. YOU know that acknowledge that.

If AC1 had sold less then 5 million. Here is what would have happened.

AC1- 2007
AC2- 2010
AC3- 2012

Instead of

AC1- 2007
AC2- 2009
Brotherhood- 2010
Revelations- 2011
AC3- 2012

ShaneO7K
11-06-2011, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by dennis580:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AC2 was in no way rushed, it was said time and time again during ACB development that it was supposed to be apart of AC2

So even you yourself admit it was suppsoed to be apart of AC2. AC2 was rushed out, and was NOT finished. Instead the rest of what SHOULD have been AC2 was instead released as a seperate game called Brotherhood.


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't even try and twist my words, AC2 was not rushed what it could've been was too large. ACB had everything it needed to be its own game. They expanded on what it was supposed to be in AC2. Just because it was supposed to be AC2 does not mean in ANY way that AC2 was rushed. ACB had close 10-15 hours in the campaign. Trying to squeeze that and its new feature plus multiplayer into AC2 would've been too much.

ACR was grown from the idea of what was supposed to Lost Legacy.

ShaneO7K
11-06-2011, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by dennis580:


AC1- 2007
AC2- 2010
AC3- 2012

Instead of

AC1- 2007
AC2- 2009
Brotherhood- 2010
Revelations- 2011
AC3- 2012

Wait...so you think they would've put AC2, ACB, and ACR into the one game? Now that there is far too much. A longer game does not mean it is a better one, people lose interest fast if it goes on and on.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by dennis580:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It wasn't part of the game, because else the game would've been too long. It was in no way rushed.

Too long LOL. Only a person who worked for Ubisoft or was payed off by Ubisoft should say something like that. There is no such thing as too long.

AC2 was indeed rushed. It should have been delayed a full year. They did NOT finish AC2. Brotherhood SHOULD have been part of AC2. YOU know that acknowledge that.

If AC1 had sold less then 5 million. Here is what would have happened.

AC1- 2007
AC2- 2010
AC3- 2012

Instead of

AC1- 2007
AC2- 2009
Brotherhood- 2010
Revelations- 2011
AC3- 2012 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you kidding? AC would've been almost twice as long had the stories of ACB and ACR been incorporated (and cut in half length-wise). Games that get significantly longer than ACII generally don't sell well, especially since there are barely any changes in gameplay and general experience. Besides, if they do than they could just as well cut them up into 3 different games while they're at it, allowing feedback, improvement of the engine, far better organized development, and the list goes on.

It's clear that you have absolutely no understanding about game development and the gaming industry in general.


Wait...so you think they would've put AC2, ACB, and ACR into the one game? Now that there is far too much.
It would be an absolutely idiotic move on Ubisoft's part. Not only would it have meant putting basically 2 to 3 times the workload of the original game for basically the same amount of profit, but it would also mean that the game would get so long the quality would suffer significantly.

ShaneO7K
11-06-2011, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wait...so you think they would've put AC2, ACB, and ACR into the one game? Now that there is far too much.
It would be an absolutely idiotic move on Ubisoft's part. Not only would it have meant putting basically 2 to 3 times the workload of the original game for basically the same amount of profit, but it would also mean that the game would get so long the quality would suffer significantly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I have no idea why he thinks it should've been done like this. With the amount of size maps and their size, trying to keep good textures, have decent AI the game would have been completely ruined. And the story would have been wasted because of them having to squeeze all of it into one big game. It would be like looking at all the Harry Potter books in one big book, it would discourage you from even attempting to read something so big and could possibly lose interest not even half way through.

It's also true what you said it probably would sold the same as what AC2 currently has and at the end of the day they still need money just like any other person here.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by dead_gunner187:
<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">Wait...so you think they would've put AC2, ACB, and ACR into the one game? Now that there is far too much.
It would be an absolutely idiotic move on Ubisoft's part. Not only would it have meant putting basically 2 to 3 times the workload of the original game for basically the same amount of profit, but it would also mean that the game would get so long the quality would suffer significantly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I have no idea why he thinks it should've been done like this. With the amount of size maps and their size, trying to keep good textures, have decent AI the game would have been completely ruined. And the story would have been wasted because of them having to squeeze all of it into one big game. It would be like looking at all the Harry Potter books in one big book, it would discourage you from even attempting to read something so big and could possibly lose interest not even half way through.

It's also true what you said it probably would sold the same as what AC2 currently has and at the end of the day they still need money just like any other person here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly. According to his logic every game, book, TV and film series could just as well just be bundled together into one single game, book, etc. It makes no sense. The very fact that they're divided into separate installments allows for periodical improvement and changes in experience to prevent dullness.

MostJadedGamer
11-06-2011, 07:31 AM
Wait...so you think they would've put AC2, ACB, and ACR into the one game? Now that there is far too much. A longer game does not mean it is a better one, people lose interest fast if it goes on and on.

There would have been no Revelations. Ubisoft is just making it up as they go now.

Also back to AC2. 100% undenible proof that AC2 was without a doubt rushed is they actually released 2 chapters as DLC. 2 chapters that SHOULD have been part of AC2 at launch had to be released as DLC later because they rushed the game out for the Holiday season.

It was the most ridiculous thing I had ever seen. I had never seen a game do something like that before. Where the chapters which were actually a part of the main story were released as DLC later so they could rush the game out in time for the Holiday season.

ShaneO7K
11-06-2011, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
The very fact that they're divided into separate installments allows for periodical improvement and changes in experience to prevent dullness.

Even now there is people that say ACs gameplay is repetitive, now just imagine what that would be like if the 3 games were mashed into one. Now i'm not usually one to have a go at someones opinion but it really is something stupid to even suggest.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by dennis580:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wait...so you think they would've put AC2, ACB, and ACR into the one game? Now that there is far too much. A longer game does not mean it is a better one, people lose interest fast if it goes on and on.

There would have been no Revelations. Ubisoft is just making it up as they go now.

Also back to AC2. 100% undenible proof that AC2 was without a doubt rushed is they actually released 2 chapters as DLC. 2 chapters that SHOULD have been part of AC2 at launch had to be released as DLC later because they rushed the game out for the Holiday season.

It was the most ridiculous thing I had ever seen. I had never seen a game do something like that before. Where the chapters which were actually a part of the main story were released as DLC later so they could rush the game out in time for the Holiday season. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again you're bs-ing. The entire modern-day story was planned out from the very beginning. The historical settings were largely made up during the development of the respective main installment (in this case that would be ACII) and then worked out, incorporating the already planned out TWCB/Modern day related events.

Your "undeniable proof" is at best meager evidence that the game was rushed. They were released later on because they weren't finished, but they offered little insight into the story and were quite perfect for DLC to begin with. They were removed from the game for the same reason ACB was removed. It would've made the game too long and development time was better spent on finishing and perfecting the more important aspects of the game.

Jexx21
11-06-2011, 07:34 AM
Games, like movies, cannot be too long. If a game is too long, people will stop playing before they beat the game, which is a bad thing.

and also, I don't know why people are bashing on the linear missions (which include the Exotic missions, and the Lair of Romulus/Assassin tomb-like missions). They are actually pretty fun, and they still allow you to choose how to tackle combat outside of the war machines you have to operate. Actually... now that I think of it.. the assassination missions of AC1 feel similar in a way. They put you in a box and just allow you to kill the guy the way you want to.

Anyway, I don't really get why people hate on ACB so much. Just because it's different from the other games (less Assassinations that have a different set up from others), it's automatically bad? I like all the different things they are adding. Liberating a whole city from the Templars? Cool! Re-vitalizing the city by buying shops, monuments, and doing reconstruction efforts? Even better! Commanding your own squad of Assassins? Just plain awesome!

Honestly, I really feel like some people just need to see all the AC games as what they are. Awesome games.

Dag_B
11-06-2011, 07:58 AM
Actually I would say, if you present a game in a good way i can't be to long. ^^ This is shown by a lot of games which you can even play three times in a row and you still do not get bored. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
(I mean especially games that provide a lot of freedom so you have new perspectives by replaying)

And as the story of ACB is not very complicated or something it would not add so much content to AC2. Also some of the missions wouldn't be in a bundle as they do not add something new to the story but make the game longer.

So AC2+ACB would not be a game which contains everything from both games but only parts from both. If you cut a few missions in AC2 and a few from ACB you come also to a point were it wouldn't be "to long".

But that's all just theoretical as you don't know how much of the content we now have would've been in there etc pp.

I just wanted to add that "to long" is not really a good argument, as bundling two games does not mean you'd have the playtime full playtime from both.

I myself think both AC2 and ACB were to short but that's just my opionion. I could've played both longer without getting bored. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LightRey
11-06-2011, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Dag_B:
Actually I would say, if you present a game in a good way i can't be to long. ^^ This is shown by a lot of games which you can even play three times in a row and you still do not get bored. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
(I mean especially games that provide a lot of freedom so you have new perspectives by replaying)

And as the story of ACB is not very complicated or something it would not add so much content to AC2. Also some of the missions wouldn't be in a bundle as they do not add something new to the story but make the game longer.

So AC2+ACB would not be a game which contains everything from both games but only parts from both. If you cut a few missions in AC2 and a few from ACB you come also to a point were it wouldn't be "to long".

But that's all just theoretical as you don't know how much of the content we now have would've been in there etc pp.

I just wanted to add that "to long" is not really a good argument, as bundling two games does not mean you'd have the playtime full playtime from both.

I myself think both AC2 and ACB were to short but that's just my opionion. I could've played both longer without getting bored. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
AC2 too short? It hat 14 sequences for god's sake. It was (much) longer than AC1 was. AC isn't Final Fantasy where they take 5 years to develop a single game that takes over 60 hours to complete. That would absolutely suck for AC.

ShaneO7K
11-06-2011, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Dag_B:
Actually I would say, if you present a game in a good way i can't be to long. ^^ This is shown by a lot of games which you can even play three times in a row and you still do not get bored. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
(I mean especially games that provide a lot of freedom so you have new perspectives by replaying)

And as the story of ACB is not very complicated or something it would not add so much content to AC2. Also some of the missions wouldn't be in a bundle as they do not add something new to the story but make the game longer.

So AC2+ACB would not be a game which contains everything from both games but only parts from both. If you cut a few missions in AC2 and a few from ACB you come also to a point were it wouldn't be "to long".

But that's all just theoretical as you don't know how much of the content we now have would've been in there etc pp.

I just wanted to add that "to long" is not really a good argument, as bundling two games does not mean you'd have the playtime full playtime from both.

I myself think both AC2 and ACB were to short but that's just my opionion. I could've played both longer without getting bored. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Having so much in a game can possibly harm other features quality like texture and so on.

RzaRecta357
11-06-2011, 08:13 AM
I don't think they're milking it but I do agree ripping those chapters out was stupid.


Patrice was super excited about the Caterina lift her dress up scene in one of the first interviews for the game.

They ripped it out for DLC of course.

AC2 and L.A Noire. Terrible. L.A Noire actually has a main character introduced to you during one of their DLC missions. You'd just hear them mention him without really knowing him without it.

Jexx21
11-06-2011, 08:16 AM
I got those DLC with AC2 when I bought the game for $20.

So.. I can't relate to what you guys are talking about.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
I got those DLC with AC2 when I bought the game for $20.

So.. I can't relate to what you guys are talking about.
I was a little surprised by it, but I still thought the game was well worth its price without them and I was happy to pay for them as DLC.

Jexx21
11-06-2011, 08:42 AM
Ubisoft isn't milking Assassin's Creed.

I'm milking Assassin's Creed. For the fun. I like the milk.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 08:47 AM
Ubisoft could have clearly put brotherhood inside ac2...

I wouldn't say revelation, but brotherhood could have been included in ac2!

LightRey
11-06-2011, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
Ubisoft could have clearly put brotherhood inside ac2...

I wouldn't say revelation, but brotherhood could have been included in ac2!
They could have, yes. They even intended to originally. However, it was just too much to put into one game and they made the better decision of using the abundance of information and tools they had to instead turn it into an entire new game, which was by far the best decision.

Dag_B
11-06-2011, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
AC2 too short? It hat 14 sequences for god's sake. It was (much) longer than AC1 was. AC isn't Final Fantasy where they take 5 years to develop a single game that takes over 60 hours to complete. That would absolutely suck for AC.
Nah, the number of sequences does not really count to me, those weren't that long. You could split every chapter in the half and give it a number, than you'd have 28 chapters but the game wouldn't be any longer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
And yes, longer and better than AC1 with it's only 4 missionkinds. But - following my opinion AC2 and ACB were to short - that would mean AC1 was to short too.
Especially in Brotherhood I remember that I was disappointed that I was already done. 2 could've been longer too, that's why I wanted to buy the DLC but they were in my opinion (from reviews and stuff, had never the chance to test them) to expencive. I bought the Black Edition that was more than enough money for the game. ^^


If it was a perfect length for you: Fine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
You can't argue about that kind of stuff, for me it was to short, for you maybe nearly perfect and another person might state it was to long for him. Nobody is wrong or right there, we just prefer different things. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LightRey
11-06-2011, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Dag_B:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
AC2 too short? It hat 14 sequences for god's sake. It was (much) longer than AC1 was. AC isn't Final Fantasy where they take 5 years to develop a single game that takes over 60 hours to complete. That would absolutely suck for AC.
Nah, the number of sequences does not really count to me, those weren't that long. You could split every chapter in the half and give it a number, than you'd have 28 chapters but the game wouldn't be any longer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
And yes, longer and better than AC1 with it's only 4 missionkinds. But - following my opinion AC2 and ACB were to short - that would mean AC1 was to short too.
Especially in Brotherhood I remember that I was disappointed that I was already done. 2 could've been longer too, that's why I wanted to buy the DLC but they were in my opinion (from reviews and stuff, had never the chance to test them) to expencive. I bought the Black Edition that was more than enough money for the game. ^^


If it was a perfect length for you: Fine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
You can't argue about that kind of stuff, for me it was to short, for you maybe nearly perfect and another person might state it was to long for him. Nobody is wrong or right there, we just prefer different things. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I'm fine with that. Just keep in mind that it's quite likely that the majority disagrees with you, since the game was so well received.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 02:03 PM
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 Dag_B:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
AC2 too short? It hat 14 sequences for god's sake. It was (much) longer than AC1 was. AC isn't Final Fantasy where they take 5 years to develop a single game that takes over 60 hours to complete. That would absolutely suck for AC.
Nah, the number of sequences does not really count to me, those weren't that long. You could split every chapter in the half and give it a number, than you'd have 28 chapters but the game wouldn't be any longer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
And yes, longer and better than AC1 with it's only 4 missionkinds. But - following my opinion AC2 and ACB were to short - that would mean AC1 was to short too.
Especially in Brotherhood I remember that I was disappointed that I was already done. 2 could've been longer too, that's why I wanted to buy the DLC but they were in my opinion (from reviews and stuff, had never the chance to test them) to expencive. I bought the Black Edition that was more than enough money for the game. ^^


If it was a perfect length for you: Fine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
You can't argue about that kind of stuff, for me it was to short, for you maybe nearly perfect and another person might state it was to long for him. Nobody is wrong or right there, we just prefer different things. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I'm fine with that. Just keep in mind that it's quite likely that the majority disagrees with you, since the game was so well received. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why u only care about majority? -.-'' i only care about my personal tastes.

Ac2 was ok in lenght, althought i think that venecia missions felt a bit "rushed" idk why.

But if you say that Ac2 and brotherhood togehther would be to long, i disagree... GTA is a game much longer and has the same mechanics from start to end (assassin's creed envolves) and ppl still love that game.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
Why u only care about majority? -.-'' i only care about my personal tastes.

Ac2 was ok in lenght, althought i think that venecia missions felt a bit "rushed" idk why.

But if you say that Ac2 and brotherhood togehther would be to long, i disagree... GTA is a game much longer and has the same mechanics from start to end (assassin's creed envolves) and ppl still love that game.
It's not that I care about the majority, it's that I generally agree with it when it comes to AC and it's because it's the opinion of the majority of the players that Ubi will listen to. You can like whatever you want, but unless it's what the majority likes Ubisoft won't (and shouldn't) really care much.

AU7thGear
11-06-2011, 10:52 PM
Woah, Ok firstly this has turned into a flame war. I will close this topic if people are arguing. I don''t care if your bringing up valid points and discussing but as I said no arguing! Now at the end of the day none of us really know wether Ubisoft are or are not milking AC. I believe they are not. But to be honest some of you are really stupid.

Some people have been saying AC2 was "rushed" that is the biggest load of S*** I have ever heard. AC2 development was finished a month early. I read an article a month before the game was released on IGN stating the game was complete and they were now just pretty much testing. Seriously they would not have rushed to get it out. IMO AC1 was a really bad game and not enjoyable. Some people thought it was good and that's fine. But Ubisoft had no reason to rush AC2. They had all the time in the world because no-one was expecting it to be brilliant. Yet it was!

I joined the AC series on number 2 and there is a good reason for this. AC2 is by far the best game I have ever played. But AC1 was disappointing to me anyway.

Now to those of you who believe AC is "linear" please go back and play all the games again. It's and open world game! Seriously are you kidding or what!? Sure there are some mission that force you to go a certain way. But what do you expect it's not an RPG? It's still gives you more than enough variety of choice than required.

woowu
11-06-2011, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by AU7thGear:
Woah, Ok firstly this has turned into a flame war. I will close this topic if people are arguing. I don''t care if your bringing up valid points and discussing but as I said no arguing! Now at the end of the day none of us really know wether Ubisoft are or are not milking AC. I believe they are not. But to be honest some of you are really stupid.

Some people have been saying AC2 was "rushed" that is the biggest load of S*** I have ever heard. AC2 development was finished a month early. I read an article a month before the game was released on IGN stating the game was complete and they were now just pretty much testing. Seriously they would not have rushed to get it out. IMO AC1 was a really bad game and not enjoyable. Some people thought it was good and that's fine. But Ubisoft had no reason to rush AC2. They had all the time in the world because no-one was expecting it to be brilliant. Yet it was!

I joined the AC series on number 2 and there is a good reason for this. AC2 is by far the best game I have ever played. But AC1 was disappointing to me anyway.

Now to those of you who believe AC is "linear" please go back and play all the games again. It's and open world game! Seriously are you kidding or what!? Sure there are some mission that force you to go a certain way. But what do you expect it's not an RPG? It's still gives you more than enough variety of choice than required.

AC2 was rushed in the sense of not testing the game enough. It's inexcusable to release a game with so many glitches like AC2 has, hard freezes and so on. The fact that they had one extra month for testing says alot.
Also, your personal opinion is not fact and while you think AC1 may be bad, I find it the most satisfying experience out of the 3 released so far just because it nailed the atmosphere and pseudo-difficulty. While there is an obvious progression with each game, a yearly release means a drop in quality. You guys may say that the games are obviously better but just think how AC could turn out with a bi-annual release. Sharper graphics, better animations, bigger textures, much more recorded material, fluid framerates, better story, etc, all of this for a better AC immersion.

So while, SO FAR AC is doing ok with annual releases, this trend can't go on forever and releasing games at 2 or 3 years time is the best solution for Ubi.

EzioAssassin51
11-07-2011, 12:25 AM
Bahaha,some of these people really are complete idiots. Now they are bashing AC2? Really? AC2? think it's great the Annual releases cause, yeah sure, ACB didn't have the best story, but it was still an amazing game! You bashers only ever look at the negatives, you're all pessimists, you never bloody look at the awesome stuff in BroHood cause you're too busy looking for crap to complain about.

I'm bloody sick of all of this bashing. I don't know why, but it only seems to have happened this year, all of a sudden, all of these people joined and all they do is bash brotherhood.

Dag_B
11-07-2011, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by woowu:
So while, SO FAR AC is doing ok with annual releases, this trend can't go on forever and releasing games at 2 or 3 years time is the best solution for Ubi.
Ubisoft already stated that AC3 will be the last game with an annual release.

http://playstationlifestyle.ne...80%99s-creed-titles/ (http://playstationlifestyle.net/2011/10/06/ubisoft-we-need-to-back-off-annual-assassin%E2%80%99s-creed-titles/)

woowu
11-07-2011, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
Bahaha,some of these people really are complete idiots. Now they are bashing AC2? Really? AC2? think it's great the Annual releases cause, yeah sure, ACB didn't have the best story, but it was still an amazing game! You bashers only ever look at the negatives, you're all pessimists, you never bloody look at the awesome stuff in BroHood cause you're too busy looking for crap to complain about.

I'm bloody sick of all of this bashing. I don't know why, but it only seems to have happened this year, all of a sudden, all of these people joined and all they do is bash brotherhood.

First of all stop acting like a spoiled kid and stop offending others by calling them names. If you can't defend your views with viable arguments, please stay out of the discussion.

Second, I for one, am not bashing AC2 just for the fun of it. I love all 3 AC's released so far and each of them has it's own ups and downs. And while I try to love them all in equal amounts, AC2 has a certain feeling that makes it my most favourite AC. But that's not to say the game is perfect because from a technical standpoint it has a great deal of bugs.

For example, recently I tried to finish AC2 again (for the 4th time) but couldn't bring myself to do it because as soon as I reach Venice, the game starts freezing, so I have to restart the console. AC games are the only games that EVER froze my ps3. Also, looking at open world games, Ubi surely can improve their game.. I mean look at Infamous 2 and it's stellar framerate. That game moves like a dream. Or look at Arkham City's stealth.. the AI in that game is miles better than any AC game. Or RDR's immersion with thunderstorms or varied landscapes. I'm not saying these things to annoy AC fans. I'm just saying with the proper amount of time they can make mechanics as solid as those games. It's as simple as that.

Nobody is bashing the series for being what it is, but with a little more time and much more work, this franchise could become what it's meant to be: the best open-world games ever.

But for that to become a reality, Ubi needs time to improve their engine and mechanics.

lukaszep
11-07-2011, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Dag_B:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by woowu:
So while, SO FAR AC is doing ok with annual releases, this trend can't go on forever and releasing games at 2 or 3 years time is the best solution for Ubi.
Ubisoft already stated that AC3 will be the last game with an annual release.

http://playstationlifestyle.ne...80%99s-creed-titles/ (http://playstationlifestyle.net/2011/10/06/ubisoft-we-need-to-back-off-annual-assassin%E2%80%99s-creed-titles/) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was happy when i read that too. Then i read another interview recently (i forget which) and someone from Ubi Montreal said it's up too the Ubisoft CEO really. I hope they don't release one in 2013 though.

luckyto
11-07-2011, 01:29 PM
I'd be totally stoked if all the AC games were as long and as big as AC2. Or AC1.


Also, looking at open world games, Ubi surely can improve their game.. I mean look at Infamous 2 and it's stellar framerate. That game moves like a dream. Or look at Arkham City's stealth.. the AI in that game is miles better than any AC game. Or RDR's immersion with thunderstorms or varied landscapes. I'm not saying these things to annoy AC fans. I'm just saying with the proper amount of time they can make mechanics as solid as those games. It's as simple as that.

You know, I was thinking this the other day. I had hopped on Just Cause 2 for a bit after playing some AC and some ACB, and I noticed how absolutely beautiful the environments are in that game. Red Dead too.

Thing is, once I got to looking at Just Cause 2, I realized that there was almost no NPC population filling up the environment. It was empty. So, how much of a drop in environment graphics do I have to take to get an active populace? Really, there is no game with a better population than Assassin's Creed.

Although, Red Dead Redemption makes a really strong argument -- not many games look better visually and is as "alive" as that Wild West.

Haven't played Arkham City or Infamous 2 yet? But Arkham Asylum is small, confined and very controlled and the AI isn't nearly as smart as people make it out to be. I don't think it's a fair comparison. It isn't nearly as "open" as Assassin's Creed.

My main beef is that AC1 had such beautiful art direction, fantastic visuals, and a nice style with a desaturated natural color pallete whereas AC2/ACB chose to go with this really sharp focus, deeply saturated color pallettes and high contrast which is very "gamey."

Jexx21
11-07-2011, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
My main beef is that AC1 had such beautiful art direction, fantastic visuals, and a nice style with a desaturated natural color pallete whereas AC2/ACB chose to go with this really sharp focus, deeply saturated color pallettes and high contrast which is very "gamey."

I feel like the visuals of ACB were better than AC1, and I feel like the colors were more realistic than in AC1 or AC2. And I also felt like the sharp focus of AC2/ACB made it feel better and less 'cloudy'. But I felt very immersed in both AC2's and ACB's world, I felt like I was in a game in AC1 most of the time, unlike AC1 or AC2.

Opinions just differ.

luckyto
11-07-2011, 02:12 PM
Opinions do differ. That high-contrast deeply-saturated look is very popular, and has been for a decade. Just look at movies that are put out these days compared to the 70s. The contrast is much greater, but the real world isn't that deeply saturated and that's why I prefer the desaturated look. So, tt's a real debate amongst designers that's been going on for some time. Video games are just following all other popular mediums.

As for the "cloudy", that is blur. It's used to soften edges and to create depth of field. Thing is, in real life, things at a distance aren't at the same focus as things up close. So when I see everything in perfect focus (albeit with less detail), it isn't as natural as a game which uses blur to create depth of field.

Just Cause 2 is absolutely brilliant at using blur to create realistic environments. It is soft or "cloudy" when looking at things off in the distance. And they should be. AC1 also made things softer, and RDR does it extremely well. Personally, I'd prefer a 'softer' look over something that accentuates the pixel definition. If Ubi's engine utilized this effect, it would help mitigate the terrible texture pop-in and pop-out in AC2 and ACB.

Ever notice the weird pixellated moving shadows in AC2 or ACB? A little bit of softness would go a long way to getting rid of that. How can other games with moving light sources (sun/moon/etc) not suffer from jaggedy dancing shadows?

These kinds of things matter. They don't make me dislike the game, but I do certainly notice.

Jexx21
11-07-2011, 02:47 PM
I've played Just Cause 2 a bit. It doesn't have the cloudiness of AC1. The only place in AC1 that didn't have the cloudiness was Damascus.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind having more DOP.

luckyto
11-07-2011, 02:56 PM
I think you are talking about the "smoke" effect which was heavily sprinkled all over some cities in AC1. ?

Jexx21
11-07-2011, 03:36 PM
No, I mean, it was on the screen ALL the time when in any area besides Damascus. It was so annoying. It's present a lot in AC2 also.

lukaszep
11-07-2011, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
No, I mean, it was on the screen ALL the time when in any area besides Damascus. It was so annoying. It's present a lot in AC2 also.

Especially in Acre, which is made worse by the fact the whole city looks like mold.
Although, i felt AC1 and AC2 had atmosphere, whereas AC:B didn't, and after about a year of trying to work out why i think that, i've come to no conclusions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Jexx21
11-07-2011, 04:08 PM
I think that the atmosphere in ACB and Rome was the best. I really liked it there. I feel like ACR and Constantinople will be the best though (ACR in practically everything).

EzioAssassin51
11-08-2011, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by woowu:
First of all stop acting like a spoiled kid and stop offending others by calling them names. If you can't defend your views with viable arguments, please stay out of the discussion.

Second, I for one, am not bashing AC2 just for the fun of it. I love all 3 AC's released so far and each of them has it's own ups and downs. And while I try to love them all in equal amounts, AC2 has a certain feeling that makes it my most favourite AC. But that's not to say the game is perfect because from a technical standpoint it has a great deal of bugs.

For example, recently I tried to finish AC2 again (for the 4th time) but couldn't bring myself to do it because as soon as I reach Venice, the game starts freezing, so I have to restart the console. AC games are the only games that EVER froze my ps3. Also, looking at open world games, Ubi surely can improve their game.. I mean look at Infamous 2 and it's stellar framerate. That game moves like a dream. Or look at Arkham City's stealth.. the AI in that game is miles better than any AC game. Or RDR's immersion with thunderstorms or varied landscapes. I'm not saying these things to annoy AC fans. I'm just saying with the proper amount of time they can make mechanics as solid as those games. It's as simple as that.

Nobody is bashing the series for being what it is, but with a little more time and much more work, this franchise could become what it's meant to be: the best open-world games ever.

But for that to become a reality, Ubi needs time to improve their engine and mechanics.

How am I acting like a spoiled child and how is pointing out the fact that some people only look for the bad in BroHood and never look at the good not a viable argument?

I agree with you, and btw, I wasn't bagging you before, I was bagging others who said AC2 was rushed in terms of development with the whole Brotherhood attachment thing. AC2 did have a lot of glitches that froze it (btw, did you ever get the patch that fixed freezes in double assassinations? If you don't have online you might not have gotten it...) Again, I agree the AI can easily be upped and the stealth could improve but i personally love the stealth as it is, and I've even heard there is better stealth in ACR!

And people are bashing the series for what it is, in case you haven't read some people's post of the previous pages. They can't seem to accept some of the changes, though small they are, and, like I said, hardly notice the awesome bits of ACB and only get angry about the few flaws in the game.

Sorry I offended you, I didn't mean to get angry at you. Mind, you're main point was about the Annual releases (the glitches I didn't mention as I agreed), which i also mentioned, saying i don't mind them, since I loved ACB and i will love ACR

woowu
11-08-2011, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by woowu:
First of all stop acting like a spoiled kid and stop offending others by calling them names. If you can't defend your views with viable arguments, please stay out of the discussion.

Second, I for one, am not bashing AC2 just for the fun of it. I love all 3 AC's released so far and each of them has it's own ups and downs. And while I try to love them all in equal amounts, AC2 has a certain feeling that makes it my most favourite AC. But that's not to say the game is perfect because from a technical standpoint it has a great deal of bugs.

For example, recently I tried to finish AC2 again (for the 4th time) but couldn't bring myself to do it because as soon as I reach Venice, the game starts freezing, so I have to restart the console. AC games are the only games that EVER froze my ps3. Also, looking at open world games, Ubi surely can improve their game.. I mean look at Infamous 2 and it's stellar framerate. That game moves like a dream. Or look at Arkham City's stealth.. the AI in that game is miles better than any AC game. Or RDR's immersion with thunderstorms or varied landscapes. I'm not saying these things to annoy AC fans. I'm just saying with the proper amount of time they can make mechanics as solid as those games. It's as simple as that.

Nobody is bashing the series for being what it is, but with a little more time and much more work, this franchise could become what it's meant to be: the best open-world games ever.

But for that to become a reality, Ubi needs time to improve their engine and mechanics.

How am I acting like a spoiled child and how is pointing out the fact that some people only look for the bad in BroHood and never look at the good not a viable argument?

I agree with you, and btw, I wasn't bagging you before, I was bagging others who said AC2 was rushed in terms of development with the whole Brotherhood attachment thing. AC2 did have a lot of glitches that froze it (btw, did you ever get the patch that fixed freezes in double assassinations? If you don't have online you might not have gotten it...) Again, I agree the AI can easily be upped and the stealth could improve but i personally love the stealth as it is, and I've even heard there is better stealth in ACR!

And people are bashing the series for what it is, in case you haven't read some people's post of the previous pages. They can't seem to accept some of the changes, though small they are, and, like I said, hardly notice the awesome bits of ACB and only get angry about the few flaws in the game.

Sorry I offended you, I didn't mean to get angry at you. Mind, you're main point was about the Annual releases (the glitches I didn't mention as I agreed), which i also mentioned, saying i don't mind them, since I loved ACB and i will love ACR </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problems man. No doubt I will love AC forever in the future with a limitless passion. It just saddens me when I see these sort of missteps regarding tech. aspects like freezes or fps drops. Yeah, I have wi-fi on my ps3 so it's only natural that I got the latest updates and patches for all my games and even after that, AC2 still froze.

luckyto
11-08-2011, 07:38 AM
AC2 never froze or locked up on me and I've played that game for a 100+ hours. ACB only has once. AC1, though I do love it, it locks up on me almost every time I play it --- usually in the first five minutes of play.

cyrax008
11-08-2011, 03:51 PM
ACI and ACII were brilliant, I enjoyed both games and found them time-consuming in a good way.

AC:B was amazing too and I preferred AC:B over ACI and ACII. I think AC:R will be even better. I think ACR will score better than AC:B and there are more mechanics than AC:B, the multiplayer will be more improved and the story will be go further and not forgetting the Altair gameplay.

It could be the best AC game yet...

Sparty2020
11-08-2011, 04:58 PM
I think that while Ubi are not milking the franchise they aren't giving it the time it deserves. We have 5 years between Elder Scrolls games; two years between Batman and Uncharted; and I don't know how many years between Mario and Zelda games. I don't care how many people you assign to a game, it takes time to come up with good stories and well-developed plots. All of the games I've listed have shown up in the VGAs 2011 Game of the Year nominations. When was the last time that AC had a game of the year nomination? 2009?

Arkham City in particular is incredible. It is what AC should have been since the beginning: a large, immersive world full of sidequests with extremely (frustratingly) intelligent enemies and you are one man against the world. Batman, like Ezio and Altair, is far faster and stronger than your average grunt and it shows when he gets into fights.

But Batman has succeeded where the AC franchise continues struggling: Despite being faster, stronger, smarter, and better equipped than literally everybody else in the game Batman REQUIRES stealth! You cannot go through the game without it: the enemies are too smart. I spent much more time in that game planning on how to do silent takedowns, move rapidly, and overall act like a true assassin (I giggled when Batman was invited to become the leader of that universe's guild of assassins) than I had in every AC game and nearly every Splinter Cell game.

The difference between Batman games in 2 years is simply astounding and my mouth is watering at the prospect of what Skyrim will accomplish. In fact I'm gonna have to wait until the reviews whether to buy Skyrim or Revelations since I am so hyped for either. Makes me wonder what AC could accomplish in the same time with Ubisoft's large teams...

Jexx21
11-08-2011, 05:13 PM
I don't want Assassin's Creed to require stealth though..

And AC IS a large immersive world full of sidequests.

And if the difficulty of guards in Arkham City is anything like Arkham Asylum the typical gang battles will be easy.

EDIT: And also, Assassin's Creed Revelations looks absolutely AMAZING. Just watch the recent 38 minute gameplay video. It looks like it's going to be the best game in the series by a long shot.

Sparty2020
11-08-2011, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
I don't want Assassin's Creed to require stealth though..

And AC IS a large immersive world full of sidequests.

And if the difficulty of guards in Arkham City is anything like Arkham Asylum the typical gang battles will be easy.

EDIT: And also, Assassin's Creed Revelations looks absolutely AMAZING. Just watch the recent 38 minute gameplay video. It looks like it's going to be the best game in the series by a long shot. I'm not speaking like Arkham City is a 100% stealth game. It just means that if you run in gung-ho into a bunch of thugs and gangsters it's not going to end well. At all. In fact it might just end in a few seconds. AC by contrast if you jump into a group of mobs you can easily annihilate them in a few seconds and continue with your day.

The only AC game with missions worthy of being called "side quests" is ACB. AC2 imo does not count since they were just a collection of the same "do this over and over again" missions similar to rescuing citizens in AC1. But even the side missions in ACB pale in comparison to Batman's.

Trust me dude, play Batman and compare it to ACB. BIG difference. They're the same genre, have the same sandbox feature, have a badass ninja as their main character, and have a large fanbase. But you will quickly and easily discover the difference in quality between the two games. I assure you.

By the way, I have seen the 38 minute gameplay vid and I agree it is, undoubtedly, the best AC game yet. And that's just off 38 minutes :P But my deal is that Madden NFL '08 was the best football game at its time. NFL '09 was even better than that. So was NFL '10, NFL '11, and NFL '12. I am 100% sure that Madden NFL '13 will be the best football game ever made. But I'm still not gonna play it because I have grown bored of the same franchise selling me the same game over and over again except with minor improvements and gimmicks. I'm not suggesting the cool den mode is either (I know the Rome Total War junkie in me is dying to play it...) but the whole bomb crafting is imo an unnecessary gimmick that might make an already easy series even easier.

Jexx21
11-09-2011, 05:03 AM
:O

I LOVE the bombs! They look like they'll add a depth of actual strategy to the combat!

They don't seem like a gimmick at all. Not to mention that guards can use them. And didn't you hear? The combat is harder in ACR than in ACB.

InfectedNation
11-09-2011, 05:18 AM
Jexx can I ask what make you love Rome's atmosphere more than any other city?

I mean at the beginning of the game (sequence 2-4) it looked very good because apart from the high contrast sun effect, the atmosphere felt natural and realistic, and it felt more 3D than the previous games when you played it on a big TV.

However towards the middle and end of the game (some people seem think it's because of renovating lots of shops), the whole city seemed to turn a horrible musty orange colour like it was constantly sunset, which really killed the immersion.

Jexx21
11-09-2011, 05:26 AM
I didn't experience this musty orange color. I did however experience the removal of a blue and depressing tint with each Borgia tower I took down.

Still, I love Rome in Brotherhood. Quite an amazing city, full of country side and the ruins of the old Roman buildings. I don't know why I love it the most out of AC1-ACB, but I do.

luckyto
11-09-2011, 08:38 AM
Sparty, you make a good argument. And you've got me really excited to get my hands Arkham City. I thought Asylum was brilliant, but small.

Though, I don't think I would want to see an AC game that required as much stealth as Batman. Movement across enemy territory should be more difficult, and I should find myself in a FEW fights that I just can't win and have to run. But, I like my Assassin to be able to deal the pain when I need him too.

You HAVE to do stealth in Batman, and that is shoehorning you into one mode of play and only a few successful approaches. I'd rather have a tangible reward for using stealth like facing less opposition, completing my task quickly and quietly without a long drawn out fight or optional sync rewards. And that's my problem with ACB, there was really no reward for stealth. In fact, it was easier to just go in guns blazing. In AC1, I could go in Rambo style and win; but I had a long dangerous arduous fight on my hand. There was a reward for playing stealth.

As a general rule, I'm opposed to any mechanic that shoehorns me into one or two approaches to gameplay. That's my problem with "cinematic" sequences, they are great the first time; but on replay, you are trapped into the same linear sequence. Sandbox games can just as easily fall into this trap. I know the first Batman did on ocassion.


Originally posted by InfectedNation:
Jexx can I ask what make you love Rome's atmosphere more than any other city?

I mean at the beginning of the game (sequence 2-4) it looked very good because apart from the high contrast sun effect, the atmosphere felt natural and realistic, and it felt more 3D than the previous games when you played it on a big TV.

However towards the middle and end of the game (some people seem think it's because of renovating lots of shops), the whole city seemed to turn a horrible musty orange colour like it was constantly sunset, which really killed the immersion.


I've noticed that ACB looks really good when you are up close. Everything is very highly detailed and looks fantastic. Stand in a busy street with buildings nearby, people moving about doing different things, and that picture perfect sky in the backdrop and that game is absolutely gorgeous.

But once things get off in the distance, the engine doesn't handle them that well. Textures pop in and out. The clouds create these weird shadow effects. And it just doesn't look good. It's almost like there is no depth of field in the engine. AC2 had some similar problems.

But up close, I do admit, ACB is a fantastic sight to behold. And Rome is Rome. How do you not love it?

Sparty2020
11-09-2011, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
:O

I LOVE the bombs! They look like they'll add a depth of actual strategy to the combat!

They don't seem like a gimmick at all. Not to mention that guards can use them. And didn't you hear? The combat is harder in ACR than in ACB. As a matter of fact I loved how the guard used a bomb in the 38 minute video http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The thing I don't like is how Ezio is now capable of crafting HUNDREDS of bombs! It's an unnecessary addition. I'd understand it if there were a large variety of enemies (though that would be a lot to justify hundreds of options) that made you actually think "Do I use this one or this one?" or if it was a little something to give the enemy a fair chance. Maybe even a bit of both (like in Arkham City with a large variety of enemies wielding a large variety of weaponry) but right now I just don't think that I will ever truly rely on bombs.

Sparty2020
11-09-2011, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
You HAVE to do stealth in Batman, and that is shoehorning you into one mode of play and only a few successful approaches. I'd rather have a tangible reward for using stealth like facing less opposition, completing my task quickly and quietly without a long drawn out fight or optional sync rewards. And that's my problem with ACB, there was really no reward for stealth. In fact, it was easier to just go in guns blazing. In AC1, I could go in Rambo style and win; but I had a long dangerous arduous fight on my hand. There was a reward for playing stealth.

As a general rule, I'm opposed to any mechanic that shoehorns me into one or two approaches to gameplay. That's my problem with "cinematic" sequences, they are great the first time; but on replay, you are trapped into the same linear sequence. Sandbox games can just as easily fall into this trap. I know the first Batman did on ocassion.
In that case then I didn't relay myself good enough. It's a bit hard to describe a game with new features to somebody who hasn't played it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I didn't mean it like in Splinter Cell where you instantly lost if the enemy found you, or you had a real low chance of survival. I meant that the main character is bigger, faster, and far stronger than anybody else in the game and it shows. But the enemy moves together, works smarter, and have a level of cooperation that I have yet to see in Assassins Creed. Unlike the AC series or even Arkham Asylum they attack you at the same time and it's up to you to decide on how to approach it. I've had armor-wielding and knife-toting enemies rush me as a distraction while others picked up furniture and gas tanks to throw at me. While it is possible to complete the game by going Rambo everywhere it is generally smarter to think things through. Either option accomplishes the same things and there is no reward for stealth aside from a few less bullet holes.

I know I'm probably praising Batman: AC a great deal but it is both extremely hard to intellectually criticize it (even Zero Punctuation can't do that) and describe it to somebody else. Thing is, imo Batman is the sort of game the AC franchise was designed and Ubi should not be afraid to look to it for inspiration.

Jexx21
11-09-2011, 06:28 PM
Honestly, I would love for AC to be better and just generally be an un-critisciable game. From what I've seen, Arkham City has gotten practically no negative reviews.

luckyto
11-10-2011, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Sparty2020:
Unlike the AC series or even Arkham Asylum they attack you at the same time and it's up to you to decide on how to approach it. I've had armor-wielding and knife-toting enemies rush me as a distraction while others picked up furniture and gas tanks to throw at me. While it is possible to complete the game by going Rambo everywhere it is generally smarter to think things through. Either option accomplishes the same things and there is no reward for stealth aside from a few less bullet holes.


Yes, that's EXACTLY how it should be. Oh that has got me stoked for Christmas and Batman Arkham City. Because the first game wasn't that way. If you needed to be stealthy, you had to be stealthy or you were dead. The reward for stealth should be "less bullet holes" or something akin to that. That's kind of why I liked AC1 so much, I could pick either option depending on my mood and end up with the same results but a very different experience. To me, that is ideal.

E-Zekiel
11-10-2011, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Sparty2020:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
I don't want Assassin's Creed to require stealth though..

And AC IS a large immersive world full of sidequests.

And if the difficulty of guards in Arkham City is anything like Arkham Asylum the typical gang battles will be easy.

EDIT: And also, Assassin's Creed Revelations looks absolutely AMAZING. Just watch the recent 38 minute gameplay video. It looks like it's going to be the best game in the series by a long shot. I'm not speaking like Arkham City is a 100% stealth game. It just means that if you run in gung-ho into a bunch of thugs and gangsters it's not going to end well. At all. In fact it might just end in a few seconds. AC by contrast if you jump into a group of mobs you can easily annihilate them in a few seconds and continue with your day.

The only AC game with missions worthy of being called "side quests" is ACB. AC2 imo does not count since they were just a collection of the same "do this over and over again" missions similar to rescuing citizens in AC1. But even the side missions in ACB pale in comparison to Batman's.

Trust me dude, play Batman and compare it to ACB. BIG difference. They're the same genre, have the same sandbox feature, have a badass ninja as their main character, and have a large fanbase. But you will quickly and easily discover the difference in quality between the two games. I assure you.

By the way, I have seen the 38 minute gameplay vid and I agree it is, undoubtedly, the best AC game yet. And that's just off 38 minutes :P But my deal is that Madden NFL '08 was the best football game at its time. NFL '09 was even better than that. So was NFL '10, NFL '11, and NFL '12. I am 100% sure that Madden NFL '13 will be the best football game ever made. But I'm still not gonna play it because I have grown bored of the same franchise selling me the same game over and over again except with minor improvements and gimmicks. I'm not suggesting the cool den mode is either (I know the Rome Total War junkie in me is dying to play it...) but the whole bomb crafting is imo an unnecessary gimmick that might make an already easy series even easier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I own them both and I have to say the quality difference isn't nearly as huge as you're making out to be.

That, and there weren't very many side quests in Arkham City. Granted, the side quests that WERE there were totally immersive and seemed relevant to the main character in that it's not just like he's being an errand boy, but fact still remaining.

Sparty2020
11-10-2011, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
I own them both and I have to say the quality difference isn't nearly as huge as you're making out to be.

That, and there weren't very many side quests in Arkham City. Granted, the side quests that WERE there were totally immersive and seemed relevant to the main character in that it's not just like he's being an errand boy, but fact still remaining. Well like every other form of art (yes I consider games art. I'll fight anyone who says otherwise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif ) it is open to interpretation. But after jumping from Arkham Asylum to Arkham City to Brotherhood I quickly realized what a large difference there was between each title. The AI (I died so many times in Arkham City it's absurd), the environment, the snow, the conversations of enemies (real conversations on your progress and not simple placeholders), the RPG mechanics, and most importantly the vast amount of ways to complete your objective astounded me. Especially in a sandbox game.

Then again it is perfectly natural to have a different opinion. There are people who feel that Halo, Unreal Tournament, and Battlefield are the exact same things and there are people who will argue otherwise breaking down each game and contrasting the pieces. For me, as far as Action Adventure sandbox games go, Batman is definitely the new king. (Sorry Mr. Marston, guess its time for your son to come out with a sequel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

The thing is, imo there were plenty of side quests. From hundreds riddler trophies where each and every trophy granted you a reward, to riddles, to the actual side missions. Then there are hundreds challenge rooms, the inevitable DLC (Catwoman, Robin, Nightwing, and Red Hood have been announced and the game hasn't even been out a full month) each with their own challenges and uniqueness. Then there's the super fun (and hard) new game plus. If you were to compare Batman to Skyrim then no there aren't many side quests but if you were to compare it to Assassins Creed, Red Dead, and even GTA you can see that it holds its own.

Jexx21
11-11-2011, 04:37 AM
I've been watching some ACR vids..

I have to say that ACR feels like the AC2 to ACB's AC1.

luckyto
11-11-2011, 07:47 AM
For me, as far as Action Adventure sandbox games go, Batman is definitely the new king. (Sorry Mr. Marston, guess its time for your son to come out with a sequel )
Really? Better than Red Dead.... those are serious claims.

E-Zekiel
11-11-2011, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by luckyto:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For me, as far as Action Adventure sandbox games go, Batman is definitely the new king. (Sorry Mr. Marston, guess its time for your son to come out with a sequel )
Really? Better than Red Dead.... those are serious claims. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do have to agree there, actually. I only meant that the way he was saying it made it sound like AC:B was crap and Arkham City was gold.

Arkham City was indeed great, but AC:B was still good. I think it was a little rushed, admittedly. Given the timespan of AC2, I think AC:B and AC:R honestly could have been rolled into a single game.

Though Arkham City's "RPG elements" are well implemented, because while they're neat and cool, you don't feel like a powerless poop**** without them. In Arkham City, while the upgrades were cool and all, in general combat I tended to stick to tried and true stuff, the only change from upgrades being using special finishers (instant KO, weapon break, and one in a long while I'll use the area knockdown). I will say here and now that people saying action games "need" these elements can go **** themselves, though, because most games do it wrong and use some form of disguised grinding to basically just put a timesink into the game to get crucial things, instead of using it largely as "nice new stuff that's not necessary or leaves you feeling powerless without it, but helpful" - as it should be.

Jexx21
11-11-2011, 08:47 PM
Err.. ACR and ACB couldn't of been one game without a drop in quality or having a huge mashed up story that is sometimes not completely understandable on one playthrough like AC2.

Sparty2020
11-11-2011, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:

I do have to agree there, actually. I only meant that the way he was saying it made it sound like AC:B was crap and Arkham City was gold.

Arkham City was indeed great, but AC:B was still good. I think it was a little rushed, admittedly. Given the timespan of AC2, I think AC:B and AC:R honestly could have been rolled into a single game.

Though Arkham City's "RPG elements" are well implemented, because while they're neat and cool, you don't feel like a powerless poop**** without them. In Arkham City, while the upgrades were cool and all, in general combat I tended to stick to tried and true stuff, the only change from upgrades being using special finishers (instant KO, weapon break, and one in a long while I'll use the area knockdown). I will say here and now that people saying action games "need" these elements can go **** themselves, though, because most games do it wrong and use some form of disguised grinding to basically just put a timesink into the game to get crucial things, instead of using it largely as "nice new stuff that's not necessary or leaves you feeling powerless without it, but helpful" - as it should be. I like ACB and the disc has been spinning in my PS3 for the last week since I purchased the Da Vinci Disappearance (was foolishly hoping for a drop in price all these months http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif ). Anybody who says the game is crap needs to be shown several other Action Adventure games of 2010; ACB was one of the best games released that year. Problem was that it wasn't even close to being Game of the Year in most publications because the only addition to combat was the chain kill, the only addition to navigation were the pulleys, and the story was rushed and short. The game improved in a few areas but was a farcry from the revolutionary AC1 and AC2.

In the timespan of 2009-2011 however Batman has completely revamped navigation, upgraded enemy ai, and done the other things I have already discussed before. In most of the "Game of the Year" nominations I read/saw during 2009 Batman and Assassins Creed were included up there with Uncharted and Modern Warfare. Now we're in 2011 and Batman, Uncharted, and even Modern Warfare (don't ask me how) have returned to their positions on people's Game of the Year lists but Assassins Creed is nowhere to be found. If I seem critical comparing Assassins Creed to Batman it's because I want Ubi to see the difference between those two and ask themselves why the games of their rivals have returned are still Game of the Year nominees and why their's isn't.

Jexx21
11-11-2011, 09:25 PM
well, ACB did recently win the action game award in the golden joystick awards.

Are you sure that they reason why they are being nominated is because they come out too late?

I honestly think more more of an issue of advertisment issues, not issues with the game itself, seeing as the games actually do make tons of improvements with each iteration.

Sparty2020
11-11-2011, 10:20 PM
Well Skyrim came out just yesterday, 4 days before Revelations and idk when Zelda is coming out but both games are already listed in the Video Game Award's Game of the Year nominees. So I doubt it has much to do with release date.

AVanguardLeads
11-12-2011, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by Sparty2020:
<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 own them both and I have to say the quality difference isn't nearly as huge as you're making out to be.

That, and there weren't very many side quests in Arkham City. Granted, the side quests that WERE there were totally immersive and seemed relevant to the main character in that it's not just like he's being an errand boy, but fact still remaining. Well like every other form of art (yes I consider games art. I'll fight anyone who says otherwise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif ) it is open to interpretation. But after jumping from Arkham Asylum to Arkham City to Brotherhood I quickly realized what a large difference there was between each title. The AI (I died so many times in Arkham City it's absurd), the environment, the snow, the conversations of enemies (real conversations on your progress and not simple placeholders), the RPG mechanics, and most importantly the vast amount of ways to complete your objective astounded me. Especially in a sandbox game.

Then again it is perfectly natural to have a different opinion. There are people who feel that Halo, Unreal Tournament, and Battlefield are the exact same things and there are people who will argue otherwise breaking down each game and contrasting the pieces. For me, as far as Action Adventure sandbox games go, Batman is definitely the new king. (Sorry Mr. Marston, guess its time for your son to come out with a sequel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

The thing is, imo there were plenty of side quests. From hundreds riddler trophies where each and every trophy granted you a reward, to riddles, to the actual side missions. Then there are hundreds challenge rooms, the inevitable DLC (Catwoman, Robin, Nightwing, and Red Hood have been announced and the game hasn't even been out a full month) each with their own challenges and uniqueness. Then there's the super fun (and hard) new game plus. If you were to compare Batman to Skyrim then no there aren't many side quests but if you were to compare it to Assassins Creed, Red Dead, and even GTA you can see that it holds its own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've played both games so I see where you're coming from, but I have to agree with an earlier poster. Arkham City is not gold, and AC:B is not inferior. Just because the mechanics are flawed in comparison to other games does not mean it is (not that you said that).You keep comparing AC:B to other games but you have to remember that it is Assassin's Creed, not [insert better game here]. I had to put that out there(btw, compare the storyline of AC:B to B:AC, it is far superior and on that note).

So. Whether or not Ubisoft is milking AC. I would like to say no, the series isn't being milked, because the incredible plotline has kept everyone hooked. At the end of the day I'd say AC is more a story than a game, and the characterization/etc. is enough to build anticipation for annual releases, so why shouldn't they do it? If the demand is high feel free to put out a new full-priced game, as long as you give the buyer what they pay for.

That being said, I do agree that the non-console games, poorly written books, unnecessary DLC along with a few too many editions of the game overwhelm the main storyline. So yes OP, they are in fact milking the series by taking the main focus away from the plotline.

EzioAssassin51
11-12-2011, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by AVanguardLeads:
That being said, I do agree that the non-console games, poorly written books, unnecessary DLC along with a few too many editions of the game overwhelm the main storyline. So yes OP, they are in fact milking the series by taking the main focus away from the plotline.

I agree with everything in your post (especially the books, eugh) but I think the non-console games were good for extra story and same with the DLC, not to mention it was fun, for new content and story to come. But I do agree the amount of editions is ridiculous. They really should just have the one ultimate one (which, from what I've seen, is the Animus Edition right? I think that has nearly everything, minus the art book and maybe one other thing... But apart from those, I think it has the most...)

Chronomancy
11-12-2011, 05:41 AM
Honestly wouldn't you milk your best selling franchise?

I would, I would milk it for every penny it has.

Jexx21
11-12-2011, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Sparty2020:
Well Skyrim came out just yesterday, 4 days before Revelations and idk when Zelda is coming out but both games are already listed in the Video Game Award's Game of the Year nominees. So I doubt it has much to do with release date.

I see ACR on all the sites GOTY nominees and predictions, and I never found any kind of official site so I figured that there wasn't one. Mind linking to an 'official' site?

Jexx21
11-12-2011, 07:46 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 Sparty2020:
Well Skyrim came out just yesterday, 4 days before Revelations and idk when Zelda is coming out but both games are already listed in the Video Game Award's Game of the Year nominees. So I doubt it has much to do with release date.

I see ACR on all the sites GOTY nominees and predictions, and I never found any kind of official site so I figured that there wasn't one. Mind linking to an 'official' site? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I found an official site.

Seeing that the nominees are...

Skyrim (A sequel to one of the most acclaimed video games)
Arkham City (a game with few negative reviews if any)
Skyward Sword (a Zelda game. they HAVE to have it in)
Uncharted (another sequel to a critically acclaimed video game that is more popular than Assassin's Creed)
Portal 2 (dude, it's a Valve game. They have to have it in practically)

I don't see how they could of fit ACR into that without facing negative reception. Also, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood DID win the Best Action game of the year last year. Assassin's Creed 2 didn't even do that.

ACB won in that category against Red Dead Redemption and God of War III, who were both nominees for GOTY, and RDR even won GOTY, but still lost to Brotherhood for best Action Adventure game. They select nominees based on what they think will be the most widely accepted. Hell, when put against widely acclaimed games like Zelda, Elder Scrolls, and Portal, I'm not even sure if I would vote for ACR if it was a nominee.

Honestly, if I was doing a Game of the Year awards, I would do all the genre specific categories first, and then choose 5 of the winners and use them for the 'Game of the Year' nominees. But that's not the way business works.

Also, GOTY awards are pretty useless IMO anyway. I love the Batman series, but I still love Assassin's Creed more. Maybe Assassin's Creed isn't the better game, but I still like it more.

Sparty2020
11-12-2011, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
I don't see how they could of fit ACR into that without facing negative reception. Also, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood DID win the Best Action game of the year last year. Assassin's Creed 2 didn't even do that.

ACB won in that category against Red Dead Redemption and God of War III, who were both nominees for GOTY, and RDR even won GOTY, but still lost to Brotherhood for best Action Adventure game. They select nominees based on what they think will be the most widely accepted. Hell, when put against widely acclaimed games like Zelda, Elder Scrolls, and Portal, I'm not even sure if I would vote for ACR if it was a nominee.

Honestly, if I was doing a Game of the Year awards, I would do all the genre specific categories first, and then choose 5 of the winners and use them for the 'Game of the Year' nominees. But that's not the way business works. I did say that ACB was one of the best games of the year, its not like I'm putting it down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I was merely indicating how compared to its contemporaries the AC series is making less advances than it is known for. And for a series that first gained fame in 2007 for being a revolutionary IP in a world of sequels then then gained even more fame for completely reinventing their mechanics in a world of "copy and paste" (I'm looking at you Call of Duty) it is disappointing to see the series slowly but surely falling into the same system it used to rebel against.

I smiled a bit when I read your tidbit for Zelda since sometimes it feels like Nintendo always has a GOTY spot reserved for its games, whether or not the game itself deserves it (not saying it doesn't but looking back at previous GOTY nominees it seems like it). I agree that I would also pick the nominees from the best games each genre and have them duke it out.

AVanguardLeads I am not comparing ACB to some random [insert better game here]. If I were doing that I would use Uncharted or Elder Scrolls or perhaps a Valve game. I am comparing it to Batman, a game which is set in the same sandbox action-adventure genre, a game which uses similar "go anywhere climb anything" mechanics, which has similar "you against the world" combat dominated by the counter-button, and which has been competing neck and neck with the AC series since 2009 with AC2 and B:AA. Heck, ACR and BAC both use the same game engine that AC2 and BAA had back in 2009.

I'm not unjustifiably comparing apples to oranges, nor am I saying that one game is perfect while another is crap. They are both magnificent games and have both been spinning (well ACB has) in my PS3 for a month now. The thing is, while people are excited to see a Batman game out others have grown blase with the AC series. I'm trying to compare them so that Ubi can ask themselves why AC no longer has the "fire" has had games name achievements after the AC series or had unlockable Altair/Ezio skins.

mikepilgrim
08-21-2012, 04:23 AM
I preoder Assassinís Creed III Limited Edition for ps3. so i want to ask which is better Assassinís Creed III Limited Edition or Assassinís Creed III freedom Edition?theAssassinís Creed III Limited Edition comes with 9''connor statue,the 28x48colonial flag with assassin's crest and the lost mayan mission and sawtooth sword and the belt buckle the Assassinís Creed III freedom Edition come with 9''connor statue and lost mayan mission got the steel book and gost of war mission and sharpshooter and the george washington note book

Chocoburger
08-21-2012, 08:32 AM
This was probably mentioned, but I'll add it again: Brotherhood DID have pay multiplayer DLC. So your 'list of facts' crumble at that point.

Calvarok
08-21-2012, 08:44 AM
I'm trying to compare them so that Ubi can ask themselves why AC no longer has the "fire" has had games name achievements after the AC series or had unlockable Altair/Ezio skins.
I find that sentence really annoying. for one, other publishers have done those things, yes, and they've done them very recently, and they haven't stopped. So there's no evidence of losing the fire on that end.

Secondly, AC has risen in popularity with every game, including brotherhood and Revelations. The hardcore fans, however, are the ones who are most visible on the internet, and some of them have grown tired of the series, yes. But of those fans, only a very small amount of them have still been bored with AC3. And even then that was with not knowing how different the game is going to be.

The level of excitement for Arkham city was arguably lower than the level of excitement I'm seeing for AC3, so I'm not sure why you're choosing to compare those two titles.

"AVanguardLeads I am not comparing ACB to some random [insert better game here]. If I were doing that I would use Uncharted or Elder Scrolls or perhaps a Valve game. I am comparing it to Batman, a game which is set in the same sandbox action-adventure genre, a game which uses similar "go anywhere climb anything" mechanics, which has similar "you against the world" combat dominated by the counter-button, and which has been competing neck and neck with the AC series since 2009 with AC2 and B:AA. Heck, ACR and BAC both use the same game engine that AC2 and BAA had back in 2009."
Ah.
So you are comparing them because you consider them to be the same type of game.
They are assuredly not.

They are the same genre, but it's like comparing CoD to Halo.

And Assassin's Creed is leaps and bounds more popular with the gaming public at large.

With hardcore fans, I would estimate that they are about neck and neck, but this is because perception from the hardcore has been dropping after two non-numbered sequels which were not huge improvements, and scored lower in reviews.

It's got nothing to do with frequency. It's got everything to do with quality. I think Ubisoft knows to plan their releases so that everything has more than a year behind it, now. They have seen the critical backlash, and more importantly, the studios themselves have experienced the frenzy of crunch time, and seen features get cut and games scaled back.

I'm sure that even if AC is yearly til its end, it will only increase in quality.

EDIT: I apologize for my tone. late at night I'm not the most gracious. I know you know they're different games, I'm just saying that the audience tehy're geard to is different as well. different ends of the sandbox spectrum.

doogsy91
08-21-2012, 10:48 AM
After Brotherhood, Ubisoft said there'd be no AC for 2011 and that the audience needed a break in order to keep the game still feeling fresh. Oh how I wish they'd taken their own advice after the turd that Revelations turned out to be. You said yourself that the DS games etc were unnecessary which is exactly what Revelations was intended to be. I wish it had have stayed that way, although the storyline is bearly good enough for a stinkin' DS game.