PDA

View Full Version : Do they have enough time?



Turkiye96
08-09-2011, 02:31 PM
Ok well the question is very simple, do you think that the Assassin's creed developer team will have enough time to make a worthy game?

keep in mind how much they improved from AC1 to AC2 to ACB ( in spesific aspect)
weather or not the actual story will be long enough ( AC 2 spanned like 20 years while ACB spanned like 8-9 years, with much less plot)
weither they have added enough improvements
(in Ac 2 we had a bunch of gadgets for the hidden blade in brotherhood we had guys with guns and your own assassins)
but most importantly will they have enough time to make a decent anout of missions ( side missions included)

and what are you expecting to see for the time given to them (eg how many sequences)

GunnarGunderson
08-09-2011, 02:32 PM
well brotherhood was done in 10 months, and that had an entirely new city and gameplay

Azula2005
08-09-2011, 02:37 PM
Well the Developers say the games overlap

while Brotherhood was being made another Ubisoft studio was already in the making of Revelations
So as we speak AC3 is already happening

and yea i guess they had enough time?
But it's those small things that bother me.
like your sword going through your cape/stairs that is so anoyying!

Animuses
08-09-2011, 03:26 PM
...I've seen this kind of thread multiple times already. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Warforger
08-09-2011, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by BradKinn:
well brotherhood was done in 10 months, and that had an entirely new city and gameplay

Yah but it's VERY likely that it was going to be part of Assasin's Creed II. I assume Assasin's Creed II was going to have multiplayer but maybe by the time it was released it was a mess, and they didn't want to risk it so they shelved it, took a part out of AC II and worked on the multiplayer, then added some bits here and there to Brotherhood like the Subject 16 puzzles (whose budget is made quite clear seeing that it uses images that are taken from real life and not made with CGI or whatever).

And that's what I'm assuming Brotherhood did, it gave the developers more time to work on Revelations and test out the multiplayer.

Poodle_of_Doom
08-09-2011, 04:05 PM
My only complaints for ACII and Brotherhood are that ACII seemed to long, and the glyphs seemed to pull me out of the story line, where Brotherhood was way to short. If they could of made ACII about three quaters the length with the glyphs still in, that would of been great.

MacDaddyMcC
08-09-2011, 04:36 PM
You cant expect a complete new game with every iteration they bring out. I am expecting big gaps too be filled with the storyline but for gameplay I see no new improvements as Brotherhoods was great.

Poodle_of_Doom
08-09-2011, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by MacDaddyMcC:
You cant expect a complete new game with every iteration they bring out. I am expecting big gaps too be filled with the storyline but for gameplay I see no new improvements as Brotherhoods was great.

I'm with you. I don't want new Assination techniques, or weapons necessarily. I don't want a overly short game. I want answers,.... and the kind that make me have more questions. I want this game to be a mind bomb,...

twenty_glyphs
08-09-2011, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Warforger:
Yah but it's VERY likely that it was going to be part of Assasin's Creed II. I assume Assasin's Creed II was going to have multiplayer but maybe by the time it was released it was a mess, and they didn't want to risk it so they shelved it, took a part out of AC II and worked on the multiplayer, then added some bits here and there to Brotherhood like the Subject 16 puzzles (whose budget is made quite clear seeing that it uses images that are taken from real life and not made with CGI or whatever).

And that's what I'm assuming Brotherhood did, it gave the developers more time to work on Revelations and test out the multiplayer.

Um, AC2's puzzles used real-life photographs and paintings everywhere too. It had very few images that were custom created by Ubisoft, CGI or otherwise. The whole point of the puzzles is that you're seeing the secret history behind real events, so naturally they would use real photos and paintings to illustrate that. Brotherhood's puzzles use fewer paintings because its subject deals mostly with the 20th Century and there are tons of photographs to use. I do think AC2's puzzles covered a lot more subjects and were overall more interesting, but Brotherhood's puzzles didn't seem like they had a low budget to me. Besides, the team working on the puzzles is unlikely to also work on the main part of the game since it's so different. There are probably only a few people building those puzzles, so slashing their budget doesn't make much sense to me.

I doubt that Brotherhood was originally intended to happen in AC2. AC2 was such a long game, I can't imagine that even an abbreviated Brotherhood story was intended to fit into it. I think they just liked the idea of using Rome and continuing Ezio's story, so they tied off AC2 in a way that let Brotherhood flow from it. I've posted in other places about my theory on AC2's ending. In short, it seems that AC2 was originally going to end in 1503 and Rodrigo Borgia was going to poison himself after Ezio spared his life. Evidence for this is Corey May saying in an AC2 Developer Diary that AC2 would go from 1476-1503, and the novel ended in 1503 and had Rodrigo poison himself. The AC2 database entry for the Sistine Chapel also says that Michelangelo hadn't painted the ceiling in 1503, but was changed in Brotherhood to remove the reference to 1503. It seems that at the very end of development on AC2, they realized how much they liked Ezio and wanted to continue his story. They wanted to use the whole Borgia family as antagonists, so they switched the ending to 1499 and kept Rodrigo alive, so the story's continuation could take place while Rodrigo was still alive and in power.

I do agree that multiplayer may have been planned for AC2, especially because of the room full of Animii that Desmond and Lucy go through at the beginning.

It sounds like after AC2 they really planned where the story and franchise was heading while Brotherhood was starting its development. Brotherhood was also originally intended to be a large DLC pack before it evolved into a full game. If anything, I expect Revelations to have had more time spent in its planning stages than Brotherhood. Hopefully it really benefits from that extra time to get started. Alexandre Amancio's LinkedIn profile shows him as a Creative Director at Ubisoft since July of 2010, so it's likely that's when the initial planning started on the core of Revelations' gameplay. We know the initial story idea was already there before that because it was being planned as the Lost Legacy game as early as February 2010.

trialbyfire73
08-09-2011, 05:13 PM
I honestly would like to have a vaulting animation....if they have enough time for that. Because as much as i love leaping from a 4 foot wall onto a beam, what if i didn't need to be up there? I think it should be a little bit like Mirror's Edge because that game was about speed as well as using surroundings. So for the chase scenes in AC:R we could use a vault animation....haha a lot of people i would expect to say TL;DR
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LightRey
08-09-2011, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by twenty_glyphs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Warforger:
Yah but it's VERY likely that it was going to be part of Assasin's Creed II. I assume Assasin's Creed II was going to have multiplayer but maybe by the time it was released it was a mess, and they didn't want to risk it so they shelved it, took a part out of AC II and worked on the multiplayer, then added some bits here and there to Brotherhood like the Subject 16 puzzles (whose budget is made quite clear seeing that it uses images that are taken from real life and not made with CGI or whatever).

And that's what I'm assuming Brotherhood did, it gave the developers more time to work on Revelations and test out the multiplayer.

Um, AC2's puzzles used real-life photographs and paintings everywhere too. It had very few images that were custom created by Ubisoft, CGI or otherwise. The whole point of the puzzles is that you're seeing the secret history behind real events, so naturally they would use real photos and paintings to illustrate that. Brotherhood's puzzles use fewer paintings because its subject deals mostly with the 20th Century and there are tons of photographs to use. I do think AC2's puzzles covered a lot more subjects and were overall more interesting, but Brotherhood's puzzles didn't seem like they had a low budget to me. Besides, the team working on the puzzles is unlikely to also work on the main part of the game since it's so different. There are probably only a few people building those puzzles, so slashing their budget doesn't make much sense to me.

I doubt that Brotherhood was originally intended to happen in AC2. AC2 was such a long game, I can't imagine that even an abbreviated Brotherhood story was intended to fit into it. I think they just liked the idea of using Rome and continuing Ezio's story, so they tied off AC2 in a way that let Brotherhood flow from it. I've posted in other places about my theory on AC2's ending. In short, it seems that AC2 was originally going to end in 1503 and Rodrigo Borgia was going to poison himself after Ezio spared his life. Evidence for this is Corey May saying in an AC2 Developer Diary that AC2 would go from 1476-1503, and the novel ended in 1503 and had Rodrigo poison himself. The AC2 database entry for the Sistine Chapel also says that Michelangelo hadn't painted the ceiling in 1503, but was changed in Brotherhood to remove the reference to 1503. It seems that at the very end of development on AC2, they realized how much they liked Ezio and wanted to continue his story. They wanted to use the whole Borgia family as antagonists, so they switched the ending to 1499 and kept Rodrigo alive, so the story's continuation could take place while Rodrigo was still alive and in power.

I do agree that multiplayer may have been planned for AC2, especially because of the room full of Animii that Desmond and Lucy go through at the beginning.

It sounds like after AC2 they really planned where the story and franchise was heading while Brotherhood was starting its development. Brotherhood was also originally intended to be a large DLC pack before it evolved into a full game. If anything, I expect Revelations to have had more time spent in its planning stages than Brotherhood. Hopefully it really benefits from that extra time to get started. Alexandre Amancio's LinkedIn profile shows him as a Creative Director at Ubisoft since July of 2010, so it's likely that's when the initial planning started on the core of Revelations' gameplay. We know the initial story idea was already there before that because it was being planned as the Lost Legacy game as early as February 2010. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your words ring true.

kriegerdesgottes
08-09-2011, 05:22 PM
Although this is a constantly repeating thread I will once again say no, no it's not enough time. Sure you can make a GOOD AC game in a year. Maybe. But I'm telling you, you can not make another ACII in one year. I am just hoping that the overlapping will compensate for that when it comes to ACIII. I was just reading an article about some studio stopping with their annual renditions because they can't make the significant changes they would like to and that all they are doing is adding stuff to a game that already exists and recycling things. Like Brotherhood was a recycled product from ACII. Phillpe Bergeron has said they can make a city in a couple of months now but the gameplay is for the most part all the same. You are getting a slightly better game each time instead of something incredible which they could do in two years but not 10 months.

AC, as amazing as it was, was blown out of the water by ACII which had a two year development cycle. And yet it suffered a little from its own lack of time. Not being replayable, missing sequences, Rome (which was originally supposed to be part of ACII) and that was after two years. Then we got Brotherhood which is good but it was a shorter game with more of the same with a different combat style and ONE city to walk around in instead of the massive improvements that went into ACII from AC.

This is also the reason DICE refuses to make Battlefield 3 into an annual franchise. Even if they could make the games GREAT every year which they can't, they are GOOD not GREAT, the franchise will start to get stale and will need time to breath and grow which is exactly what Jean Francois said before he gave up on Ubisoft and left for THQ just like Patrice after Ubisoft decided to rape his creation for every cent.

LightRey
08-09-2011, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
Although this is a constantly repeating thread I will once again say no, no it's not enough time. Sure you can make a GOOD AC game in a year. Maybe. But I'm telling you, you can not make another ACII in one year. I am just hoping that the overlapping will compensate for that when it comes to ACIII. I was just reading an article about some studio stopping with their annual renditions because they can't make the significant changes they would like to and that all they are doing is adding stuff to a game that already exists and recycling things. Like Brotherhood was a recycled product from ACII. Phillpe Bergeron has said they can make a city in a couple of months now but the gameplay is for the most part all the same. You are getting a slightly better game each time instead of something incredible which they could do in two years but not 10 months.

AC, as amazing as it was, was blown out of the water by ACII which had a two year development cycle. And yet it suffered a little from its own lack of time. Not being replayable, missing sequences, Rome (which was originally supposed to be part of ACII) and that was after two years. Then we got Brotherhood which is good but it was a shorter game with more of the same with a different combat style and ONE city to walk around in instead of the massive improvements that went into ACII from AC.

This is also the reason DICE refuses to make Battlefield 3 into an annual franchise. Even if they could make the games GREAT every year which they can't, they are GOOD not GREAT, the franchise will start to get stale and will need time to breath and grow which is exactly what Jean Francois said before he gave up on Ubisoft and left for THQ just like Patrice after Ubisoft decided to rape his creation for every cent.
I think you shouldn't look at ACB and ACR as full games, but rather oversized DLC's.

NewBlade200
08-09-2011, 05:31 PM
No, they do not.
It took 4 years to make the original AC, which was just the basics. AC2 took 2 years to finish and they still forgot some things. ACB was given 1 year and we get 4 main assassinations, a rushed ending (for Ezio) and a final sequence that consisted of a boring boss fight and a cutscene.

We can safely assume that ACR really kicked off when AC Lost Legacies fell off the face of the Earth. So no, they do not have enough time and I am expecting another rushed, forgettable game.

kriegerdesgottes
08-09-2011, 05:46 PM
[/QUOTE]
I think you shouldn't look at ACB and ACR as full games, but rather oversized DLC's.[/QUOTE]

I don't but first of all, Ubisoft wants us to see them as "Full retail products" even though they really are not and secondly ACIII is not going to get any additional time I guarantee it unless they overlap the games which I am sure they will but I have to say I am very worried for that game. Maybe they will prove me wrong and it won't just be another little Brotherhood/Revelations side game but it really needs to destroy ACII and I can't imagine how they are going to to do it in a year without having been started on it for a long long time now.

Poodle_of_Doom
08-09-2011, 06:14 PM
I actually agree with Krieg and Newblade.... Brotherhood was rushed, and to lob the same insult as you Rey, could barely be considered anything more than DLC, which is pathetic BS when you consider, like Krieg said, that they'll retail it for the same price. The story line was lagging to much. They should of focused more on ACII, and cut the story back to put the rest of the content in, and simply added the removed content to Brotherhood just to make that game better.

an-assassin
08-10-2011, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
My only complaints for ACII and Brotherhood are that ACII seemed to long, and the glyphs seemed to pull me out of the story line, where Brotherhood was way to short. If they could of made ACII about three quaters the length with the glyphs still in, that would of been great.

OMG WTF!!! Why would anyone want a SHORTER game? The longer the better. If they had made ACII shorter, it would have been worse.

LightRey
08-10-2011, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
I actually agree with Krieg and Newblade.... Brotherhood was rushed, and to lob the same insult as you Rey, could barely be considered anything more than DLC, which is pathetic BS when you consider, like Krieg said, that they'll retail it for the same price. The story line was lagging to much. They should of focused more on ACII, and cut the story back to put the rest of the content in, and simply added the removed content to Brotherhood just to make that game better.
I never meant it as an insult. It's another perspective. ACB was good to most people. Just because some of you didn't like it doesn't mean they should not have brought it out, because to many, if not most, it was the best of the AC games.
Also, just because it had few assassinations, doesn't mean the story was bad. ACB focused on something else than just killing people for a change, that was a step forward, not back.

Amaral724
08-10-2011, 09:29 AM
no, the ac revelations wiil be prepaired previously ac brotherhood, thei say : we make brtoherhood to calm down the fans. ACR , was already prepaired previously brotherhood

dchil279
08-10-2011, 09:39 AM
Yes, yes you can. AC1 and AC2 both took more than 1 year because they were creating new engines, mechanics and so on. ACR will run on AC2's (enhanced) engine and my guess is that AC3 will as well. Plus as many people have said the planning for each game overlaps the developing of the last. That also helps.

Poodle_of_Doom
08-10-2011, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by an-assassin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
My only complaints for ACII and Brotherhood are that ACII seemed to long, and the glyphs seemed to pull me out of the story line, where Brotherhood was way to short. If they could of made ACII about three quaters the length with the glyphs still in, that would of been great.

OMG WTF!!! Why would anyone want a SHORTER game? The longer the better. If they had made ACII shorter, it would have been worse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're an idiot. I said it was a little to long, and monotonous. Something needs to be addressed in that.

@Rey:

Don't get me wrong, I thought the game was great, and the story line was great. It was just short.

ShaneO7K
08-10-2011, 10:12 AM
And considering they have said that they jave completed 85% of the AC story it leaves a lot more room for them to do other things like add gameplay features and so on. And with the amount of help they have got they really do have plenty of time.

And AC3 being the end of the trilogy they have probably started work on it sometime after AC2.

Animuses
08-10-2011, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
because to many, if not most, it was the best of the AC games.

You can't speak for everyone who has played the game. From what I've seen, many people just thought the combat took a step forward, that's it.
I've also seen "Call of Assassins" a lot... tells a lot in so little, right?

Jexx21
08-10-2011, 12:26 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 kriegerdesgotte:
Although this is a constantly repeating thread I will once again say no, no it's not enough time. Sure you can make a GOOD AC game in a year. Maybe. But I'm telling you, you can not make another ACII in one year. I am just hoping that the overlapping will compensate for that when it comes to ACIII. I was just reading an article about some studio stopping with their annual renditions because they can't make the significant changes they would like to and that all they are doing is adding stuff to a game that already exists and recycling things. Like Brotherhood was a recycled product from ACII. Phillpe Bergeron has said they can make a city in a couple of months now but the gameplay is for the most part all the same. You are getting a slightly better game each time instead of something incredible which they could do in two years but not 10 months.

AC, as amazing as it was, was blown out of the water by ACII which had a two year development cycle. And yet it suffered a little from its own lack of time. Not being replayable, missing sequences, Rome (which was originally supposed to be part of ACII) and that was after two years. Then we got Brotherhood which is good but it was a shorter game with more of the same with a different combat style and ONE city to walk around in instead of the massive improvements that went into ACII from AC.

This is also the reason DICE refuses to make Battlefield 3 into an annual franchise. Even if they could make the games GREAT every year which they can't, they are GOOD not GREAT, the franchise will start to get stale and will need time to breath and grow which is exactly what Jean Francois said before he gave up on Ubisoft and left for THQ just like Patrice after Ubisoft decided to rape his creation for every cent.
I think you shouldn't look at ACB and ACR as full games, but rather oversized DLC's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..expansions. Expansion Packs. Why the hell does no one remember these? I mean, I know it was usually just the PC games that had expansions, but Dragon Age: Origins had Awakening for both the consoles and PC.

Anyway, I see Brotherhood as the best AC game anyway. Especially on the PC. Much better graphics, and improved combat system, an evolved system for the reconstruction of Rome.

I always looked at ACB and ACR as expansions to AC2 anyway though. Even though I feel like they will most definitely improve upon the series.

I feel like that Assassin's Creed 3 was in development for a while already also. Since the AC series was always planned to be a Trilogy, I wouldn't be surprised if they started sometime soon after the release of AC2.

Poodle_of_Doom
08-10-2011, 01:28 PM
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 LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
Although this is a constantly repeating thread I will once again say no, no it's not enough time. Sure you can make a GOOD AC game in a year. Maybe. But I'm telling you, you can not make another ACII in one year. I am just hoping that the overlapping will compensate for that when it comes to ACIII. I was just reading an article about some studio stopping with their annual renditions because they can't make the significant changes they would like to and that all they are doing is adding stuff to a game that already exists and recycling things. Like Brotherhood was a recycled product from ACII. Phillpe Bergeron has said they can make a city in a couple of months now but the gameplay is for the most part all the same. You are getting a slightly better game each time instead of something incredible which they could do in two years but not 10 months.

AC, as amazing as it was, was blown out of the water by ACII which had a two year development cycle. And yet it suffered a little from its own lack of time. Not being replayable, missing sequences, Rome (which was originally supposed to be part of ACII) and that was after two years. Then we got Brotherhood which is good but it was a shorter game with more of the same with a different combat style and ONE city to walk around in instead of the massive improvements that went into ACII from AC.

This is also the reason DICE refuses to make Battlefield 3 into an annual franchise. Even if they could make the games GREAT every year which they can't, they are GOOD not GREAT, the franchise will start to get stale and will need time to breath and grow which is exactly what Jean Francois said before he gave up on Ubisoft and left for THQ just like Patrice after Ubisoft decided to rape his creation for every cent.
I think you shouldn't look at ACB and ACR as full games, but rather oversized DLC's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..expansions. Expansion Packs. Why the hell does no one remember these? I mean, I know it was usually just the PC games that had expansions, but Dragon Age: Origins had Awakening for both the consoles and PC.

Anyway, I see Brotherhood as the best AC game anyway. Especially on the PC. Much better graphics, and improved combat system, an evolved system for the reconstruction of Rome.

I always looked at ACB and ACR as expansions to AC2 anyway though. Even though I feel like they will most definitely improve upon the series.

I feel like that Assassin's Creed 3 was in development for a while already also. Since the AC series was always planned to be a Trilogy, I wouldn't be surprised if they started sometime soon after the release of AC2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, when it comes down between counsels, and the PC,... and DLCs and Expansion packs, I personally draw a parallel between them, based solely on preference.

LightRey
08-10-2011, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
Don't get me wrong, I thought the game was great, and the story line was great. It was just short.
I agree, but it was supposed to be. The price was fair imo, because besides the story being longer than most Expansion-like games, they added MP.

Jexx21
08-10-2011, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
Although this is a constantly repeating thread I will once again say no, no it's not enough time. Sure you can make a GOOD AC game in a year. Maybe. But I'm telling you, you can not make another ACII in one year. I am just hoping that the overlapping will compensate for that when it comes to ACIII. I was just reading an article about some studio stopping with their annual renditions because they can't make the significant changes they would like to and that all they are doing is adding stuff to a game that already exists and recycling things. Like Brotherhood was a recycled product from ACII. Phillpe Bergeron has said they can make a city in a couple of months now but the gameplay is for the most part all the same. You are getting a slightly better game each time instead of something incredible which they could do in two years but not 10 months.

AC, as amazing as it was, was blown out of the water by ACII which had a two year development cycle. And yet it suffered a little from its own lack of time. Not being replayable, missing sequences, Rome (which was originally supposed to be part of ACII) and that was after two years. Then we got Brotherhood which is good but it was a shorter game with more of the same with a different combat style and ONE city to walk around in instead of the massive improvements that went into ACII from AC.

This is also the reason DICE refuses to make Battlefield 3 into an annual franchise. Even if they could make the games GREAT every year which they can't, they are GOOD not GREAT, the franchise will start to get stale and will need time to breath and grow which is exactly what Jean Francois said before he gave up on Ubisoft and left for THQ just like Patrice after Ubisoft decided to rape his creation for every cent.
I think you shouldn't look at ACB and ACR as full games, but rather oversized DLC's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..expansions. Expansion Packs. Why the hell does no one remember these? I mean, I know it was usually just the PC games that had expansions, but Dragon Age: Origins had Awakening for both the consoles and PC.

Anyway, I see Brotherhood as the best AC game anyway. Especially on the PC. Much better graphics, and improved combat system, an evolved system for the reconstruction of Rome.

I always looked at ACB and ACR as expansions to AC2 anyway though. Even though I feel like they will most definitely improve upon the series.

I feel like that Assassin's Creed 3 was in development for a while already also. Since the AC series was always planned to be a Trilogy, I wouldn't be surprised if they started sometime soon after the release of AC2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, when it comes down between counsels, and the PC,... and DLCs and Expansion packs, I personally draw a parallel between them, based solely on preference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DLC are on the PC too ya know. Just like expansions are on the consoles. But ever since DLC became popular expansions have lessened in number.