PDA

View Full Version : Do you like AC being an annual franchise?



Paulno1990
12-01-2011, 09:47 PM
Personally, I do not like it.

AC: revelations is a good game, and I have enjoyed it, but there seems to be some parts of it that are missing from the previous entries.

There was no real wow factor in the story. I think the new gameplay that was added for the city itself was a really great step forwards, but the product as a whole didn't seem like it made any progress.

We must remember, AC is not a multiplayer mammoth like COD, The MP is great, dont get me wrong, its really fun, but it is obvious that they are trying to take a piece of the MP pie, and I get the feeling that Revelations was a title that was mostly created to push the MP a bit further, but we must remember that AC started out as a SP franchise that had an amazing new gameplay concept, and it was a complete winner!

But at the end of the day, even every single COD entry has a 2 year gap (they use multiple devs to keep it anual, but each dev has 2 years to work). AC needs time to breeth, give fans time to miss it, time to want more. I mostly bought Revelations because I felt obliged to, to finish Ezio's story.

I will buy the next title, because I want to see where they take the franchise after Ezio, but it will be my last if they keep the franchise annual. Annual DOES ruin SP experiences, check Revelations review scores for the proof.

Dear Ubisoft,
Please don't kill my favourite game franchise of all time, don't do what Activision did to Guitar Hero.

Animuses
12-01-2011, 09:51 PM
AC should have NEVER become an annual franchise. I should be playing AC3 this year instead of Revelations this year and Brotherhood last year.

When Ubisoft decided to put out annual releases look what happened...

The games were not nearly up to par with the first two and everyone who made the series great left.

Quality over quantity any day.

scout455
12-01-2011, 10:28 PM
I prefer the 2 years just for a better game but it's hard to wait that long when you know when they are coming out with a new AC. And honestly the MP is starting to get boring. I mean it can be really fun at time but like he said IT IS NOT CALL OF DUTY. I think they should really pay attention to the single player aspect of the game. Look what it did to their customers. But overall it's the best game that I ever played literally besides the MP.

E-Zekiel
12-01-2011, 10:39 PM
SP Wouldn't be so short lived if they didn't keep doing MP on the side for every game. Let's just keep AC3 as SP and keep MP in Revelations, shall we? heh.


Anyway, one thing I like about yearly releases....with the way they do these games, I'm often left thinking ARGGGHHH I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT, and honestly waiting one year is bad enough.

kriegerdesgottes
12-01-2011, 10:52 PM
Aren't option 2 and 3 pretty much the same answer? either way I truly believe that Ubisoft has become better at making AC games but more importantly it doesn't matter if you're not given enough time to do so. You can throw all the people you want on a project to get it done but that will not guarantee quality. That guarantees a rushed project that could be so much better. Each AC game should have at least a two year development cycle if not 3 or more. You should not be playing a smaller game that is exactly the same with small upgrades every year. You should be blown away every year like we were with the first game and then two years later with ACII(which was also an unfinished game).

This can work for a game like COD which is just the same mindless gun fire over and over. There isn't much to change except the maps and small things in online MP and a 5 hour story. This does NOT work for Assassin's Creed which is a core SP game that requires tons of research and work.

@ Animuses: Totally agree.

RzaRecta357
12-01-2011, 11:45 PM
If they keep up this quality I don't mind it. I see this games as Vice city and San Andreas.

Now, AC3 will be the real test. Will it be the same but different enough to warrant the mass amount of awards a game like that SHOULD get? It should have that wow that a new MGS or GTA game gets.

misterB2001
12-02-2011, 12:45 AM
The way I see it, they had the spare time and money to knock out a couple of games whilst developing AC3. AC3 was always going to be a 2012 game. So it's either accept Brotherhood and Revelations for what they ultimately were.... fillers, or don't. As long as AC3 has been in development for a while and isn't a 1 year rush job, then everything has worked out lovely for me.

kriegerdesgottes
12-02-2011, 12:53 AM
I don't know why everyone is assuming that they've been working on ACIII for the last 2 years but we have gotten zero confirmation on that theory. I hope like crazy that it is true but I seriously doubt that they've just made ACIII their little side project since ACII being that in order to make a game you have to get approval from above for certain things and Ubisoft has thrown insane amounts of money and resources in order to get Brotherhood and Revelations out. I'm sure that they've been considering ideas and concepts for years now but I doubt that they've been doing much if any actual work on ACIII until recently.

SolidSage
12-02-2011, 12:53 AM
YES.

EVERY Assassin's Creed has been far better than it's closest competitor. This year, Batman Arkham City is the main contendor, and while it will probably receive more recognition than Creed, (newer = more wow) it is not.. better.

ACR is a touch shorter yes, but the quality is higher, than previous episodes, (unless your one of the AC1 purists...whatever, it was great) all over the place.

Animuses, you said you shouldn't have even been playing ACB, and ACR, you should be playing AC3 now instead. Seriously, you would prefer to not have had those 2 entries the last 2 years, and instead got one, AC3, this year? Even if it was the length of the two miscreants combined, 20 hours-ish SP, I can't see how that would be better. For one, everyone assumes the quality or innovations would be better, or more. How likely is thar, it would be the same innovations in one big bite, rather than time released in more frequent episodes. It would be the same, only with more waiting.

I've played franchises that take a decade to release 3 entries, it's not better, you just have to find other games to fill those gaps, and why would you want that when Creed is the best.thing.out.there?

It's not quantity over quality. AC is quality, defined, I can have it in quantity too. What sense is there in asking for that to stop? "The game they do make after waiting longer will be sooooo much better?" How do you know?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, it just doesn't make any sense to me.
Everybody's getting burn out or something, so spoiled with the quality that it's starting to be taken for granted. What else do you want, it sounds like the main complaint this time is that there wasn't enough of it, too short. But at the same time we want it less so there can be more later?

The cycle is successful. The MP needs to stop eating SP assets and time, or the guys and gals working on SP need to work overtime or have more help so they can produce longer story and more missions in the annum.

Don't listen to them Ubi, they're crazy!!!

max170892
12-02-2011, 01:11 AM
cdf

misterB2001
12-02-2011, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
I don't know why everyone is assuming that they've been working on ACIII for the last 2 years but we have gotten zero confirmation on that theory. I hope like crazy that it is true but I seriously doubt that they've just made ACIII their little side project since ACII being that in order to make a game you have to get approval from above for certain things and Ubisoft has thrown insane amounts of money and resources in order to get Brotherhood and Revelations out. I'm sure that they've been considering ideas and concepts for years now but I doubt that they've been doing much if any actual work on ACIII until recently. apart from that guy on a website who had on his resume that he had been working on texture designs for AC3, then there is no evidence whatsoever. However, it would be bordering suicide for Ubi to think that they could make such a pivotal game and wrap up the main trilogy in a game which took a year to make. They simply HAVE to have been working on it for a good while.

misterB2001
12-02-2011, 01:22 AM
Just to add, AC2 was brought out in November 09, it was only officially announced in April of that year. There were a few rumors at the very end of 2008, but thats all they were, rumours. Theres one article in November 08 that predicts that AC2 will be during the French Revolution !!!!!

Assassin_M
12-02-2011, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by SolidSage:
YES.

EVERY Assassin's Creed has been far better than it's closest competitor. This year, Batman Arkham City is the main contendor, and while it will probably receive more recognition than Creed, (newer = more wow) it is not.. better.

ACR is a touch shorter yes, but the quality is higher, than previous episodes, (unless your one of the AC1 purists...whatever, it was great) all over the place.

Animuses, you said you shouldn't have even been playing ACB, and ACR, you should be playing AC3 now instead. Seriously, you would prefer to not have had those 2 entries the last 2 years, and instead got one, AC3, this year? Even if it was the length of the two miscreants combined, 20 hours-ish SP, I can't see how that would be better. For one, everyone assumes the quality or innovations would be better, or more. How likely is thar, it would be the same innovations in one big bite, rather than time released in more frequent episodes. It would be the same, only with more waiting.

I've played franchises that take a decade to release 3 entries, it's not better, you just have to find other games to fill those gaps, and why would you want that when Creed is the best.thing.out.there?

It's not quantity over quality. AC is quality, defined, I can have it in quantity too. What sense is there in asking for that to stop? "The game they do make after waiting longer will be sooooo much better?" How do you know?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, it just doesn't make any sense to me.
Everybody's getting burn out or something, so spoiled with the quality that it's starting to be taken for granted. What else do you want, it sounds like the main complaint this time is that there wasn't enough of it, too short. But at the same time we want it less so there can be more later?

The cycle is successful. The MP needs to stop eating SP assets and time, or the guys and gals working on SP need to work overtime or have more help so they can produce longer story and more missions in the annum.

Don't listen to them Ubi, they're crazy!!!
Ditto !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

PhiIs1618033
12-02-2011, 03:57 AM
No, I don't like it. The game mechanics are boring and stale.
In my first hour of playing Revelations, I was already able to kill Yusuf twice, simply due to the fact that I knew the mechanics from AC2 very well. I played through the story in a mere 8 hours, and almost never desynchronized, despite NEVER using medicine and not having bought any armour.

I think Revelations and Brotherhood suffered from Sequelitis. Everything is bigger and better, there are more systems, more stuff to do... but the story is short and lacking. AC1 had this amazing philosophical story that really made me think. The atmosphere in the game was grim and dark, really awesome. Now? I don't even like the Alta´r missions, because they don't preserve the original's style. They don't feel nostalgic at all, have no relation whatsoever to the first game of the series.
As far as story goes, that's headed the right way, but still a long way from where it should be. Ezio was more philosophical in Revelations, but that was completely downplayed by his actions. What kind of an assassin are you if you blow up a weapons depot in a INHABITED CAVE. That will kill hundreds of innocent people. Same with the Greek fire.

Any action a player performs should be in context of the story.
Greek fire may be fun, but it's not fitting to the story. If Ezio blew up those ships, there'd certainly be crews from different cities going after him and doing a wide search until he was found. What happens in the game? Nothing. It seems these actions were only thrown in because they were 'fun'. "Hey, they had this flamethrower type thing back then, wouldn't it be cool if Ezio could use that? Yeah, that would be awesome!"
Saints Row is a 'wouldn't it be cool if'-game and it's fun for that reason. But in a story based game like AC, it has no place. It's just an easy cop-out to make a rushed game feel filled.

Hadn't I be making videos, I'd regret I'd payed 55 euro's for this thing.

ProdiGurl
12-02-2011, 04:58 AM
solidsage
ACR is a touch shorter yes, but the quality is higher, than previous episodes, (unless your one of the AC1 purists...whatever, it was great)

This is a key point as far as I'm concerned.
Since I still haven't played AC1, the entire AC direction has only gotten better in my view. As you call it being a 'purist', I think that's where you find alot of the disgruntled AC fans wishing it was more like the much earlier games.

What I think happens is what happens w/ movies, you can't recapture the glory of the first prototype - the more they try, the more original/older fans they lose.
They seemed to like the first Altair and the first young Ezio, then the complaints rolled in for Ezio 2 and 3.

As to the OP, if ACR took just one year, they've impressed me with better missions & more fun - just add a few more side missions maybe w/ the factions or as a sole assassin, and the most important thing I think is to add the choice of a difficulty level - easy, medium, too hard.

The one thing I do have an issue with are the bugs/glitches that have been reported. If bugs & alot of glitches are due to one year releases, then move it to 1&1/2 year increments & iron it all out. Nobody wants patches later.

One last thought - the MP & SP - I'd much prefer if they just made AC SP & ditched multi altogether. Give them more ability to focus on the story & quality and make it a good long game for us.

There's plenty of MP's out there - this game could probably do without it. (that is unless MP is a real hit it brings them a good fan base?)

dxsxhxcx
12-02-2011, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by misterB2001:
So it's either accept Brotherhood and Revelations for what they ultimately were.... fillers, or don't.

I might be wrong but my definition of "filler" is something we can live without and still understand the story, I doubt someone who will play AC3 without playing ACB/R will understand what's happening in the modern day part, ACB/R aren't fillers..

Serrachio
12-02-2011, 06:03 AM
ACR, despite it's new features, made me think that it was like AC1 when it came to story consistency. All of the other features in it were too dulled down and didn't do much to impress.

AC1 was a game that had a good mentality for the player, considering that they'd place themselves in the ideology of the Syrian Assassins under Al Mualim.

It was more repetitive in its gameplay, but it was justified by intelligence gathering and the philosophies of the Templar targets making the player's empathy duel against itself. After that, we saw the conclusion that added a whole lot of theories in our heads after playing along a rather general thought process. The Piece of Eden and its implications were baffling to a person who had played through the game as an assassin from a realistic perspective.

With ACR, the story followed the same pattern that we had grown used to since AC2, and didn't do anything to inspire wonder, but it was shaken up by <span class="ev_code_WHITE">Ahmet's betrayal</span> and the events after it, which gave it the feel of AC1 when it comes to an exciting ending.

Every mechanic that was added in ACR was tacked on, or ceased to be useful after accomplishing something. The only exception to that was the Hookblade, but with how it can sometimes stop momentum in the middle of climbing and the rather silly function of the Press for Hook and Throw and Hold for Hook and Run, it seems to be set back a bit.

Den Defense was basic Tower Defense gameplay, which was easy to trigger but ramped up the difficulty. I only played through it 3 times for the Assassin Challenges, but it can be crossed off by posting 7 Master Assassins in Dens.

That also cut out the Byzantine Templars (aside from a few in the slums) pretty much indefinately which disables the guard hostility.

Not to mention that only two hidden tombs and a distinct lack of side missions except the "Recruit Missions" for Assassin Apprentices and "Master Assassin" for the Templar Agent multiplayer character cameos, I'd say that they really cut corners with this installment that could have been more fulfilling if they hadn't been so rushed to release it.

In addition, the Desmond Sequences were kind of boring for someone who already knew the basics of Desmond's life through playing the previous games and that they hadn't expanded on the details or immersed the player enough to care. I mean really, adding in some Portal-like gameplay and playing dialogue in the background isn't going to make me connect with Desmond much more than seeing proper visual accompanyment would. (cut up black and white projections aren't interesting)

PhiIs1618033
12-02-2011, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
As to the OP, if ACR took just one year, they've impressed me with better missions & more fun - just add a few more side missions maybe w/ the factions or as a sole assassin, and the most important thing I think is to add the choice of a difficulty level - easy, medium, too hard.
You're impressed with the game, CONSIDERING it took one year to make?

It should be a great game, period. Not a great game considering it only took so long to make, or a great game considering how little effort they put in. NO. That's not a great game. That's what we call a half-effort. And as everybody should know, half-efforts suck. Give it your all, or don't even try.

That's why I don't like the 1 year cycle. It means devs are going to leave things imperfect, simply because of extreme time constraints. To make a game as rich as the AC series used to be, you need more than a year.

ProdiGurl
12-02-2011, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by PhiIs1618033...:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
As to the OP, if ACR took just one year, they've impressed me with better missions & more fun - just add a few more side missions maybe w/ the factions or as a sole assassin, and the most important thing I think is to add the choice of a difficulty level - easy, medium, too hard.
You're impressed with the game, CONSIDERING it took one year to make?

It should be a great game, period. Not a great game considering it only took so long to make, or a great game considering how little effort they put in. NO. That's not a great game. That's what we call a half-effort. And as everybody should know, half-efforts suck. Give it your all, or don't even try.

That's why I don't like the 1 year cycle. It means devs are going to leave things imperfect, simply because of extreme time constraints. To make a game as rich as the AC series used to be, you need more than a year. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I never said that. Here's my quote:
>> As to the OP, if ACR took just one year, they've impressed me with better missions & more fun - just add a few more side missions maybe w/ the factions or as a sole assassin, and the most important thing I think is to add the choice of a difficulty level - easy, medium, too hard. <<

I think you read that into my statement.
I'm impressed with ACR, I love the game.
I loved these missions more than I loved some of the missions in ACII & ACB even tho I'm partial to ACB.
Honestly, there were some tedious, frustrating & repetitive lairs/missions that were extremely long or nearly impossible to sync - nevermind the racing & timed events . .

A company who shouldn't take one year to put their games out is apparently Bethesda w/ the Fallout New Vegas sequel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Bugs & heavy glitching are more what I find to be a time constraint problem.

They make Batman in a year and it's pretty amazing. Why can't AC put out a good game in a year too esp. with all the Ubi teams they have working on it.

It's very possible they purposely made this game a little shorter (being a trilogy & all?). Who knows. What one may see as cutting a corner, another may not - or it may have been on purpose for a separate reason we'll never know unless Ubi does a "tell all" on the making of AC.

Hope that better clarifies my reply http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

==============

@ "M"

Ditto !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif bow


I'll ditto your ditto

TrueStoic
12-02-2011, 09:00 AM
if they can make amazing games like this in a year , each year, fine. but why not take lets say a few months more or the hell how much you need to fully un-bug the games ?

iNvid22
12-02-2011, 09:02 AM
it looks like they cant pull off a brotherhood annually, if they were able to then i would be OK with a yearly release, its actually a long time.

BUT just look at ACR and the time constraints are obvious. its a good game with an interesting story, its still fun but everything apart from the main story has suffered imo.

im in the middle of replaying AC2 and its amazing, loads of different locations, tons of things to do, and you can just tell the game was polished and had time spent on it.

maybe they are doing a GTA thing where the numbered releases are the major ones, and the releases in between are minor. Thats fine as long as the numbered releases are worth waiting for.

AnthonyA85
12-02-2011, 09:16 AM
Personally, i wouldn't mind if they went back to a 2-year development cycle, first and foremost, that would give them more time to work on the SP story, and ballance that out against the MP.

i feel that MP is taking up about 45-50% of the dev time, which in the case of ACB, made the story suffer somewhat (less main story targets), plus, the MP doesn't really work all that well on PC (P2P systems are horribly unstable and can be screwed up by almost anything)

While i understand why Ubi would want to follow a yearly release cycle, but it would be better if they did not.

Hopefully, AC3 will be the last yearly release, i think they said in an interview (can't remember where) that it would be.

Riften
12-02-2011, 09:18 AM
Well, long time lurker, first account...

Anyway, I'm sure for me and many other people, the great thing about AC is that ridiculously amazing story that has blown in to this huge world made up of a war between the Assassins and Templars.

To me, I couldn't care what they do with the gameplay, for me the gameplay is just a great bonus.

The thing that makes AC shine is the story, like I have said.

Serrachio
12-02-2011, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Riften:
Well, long time lurker, first account...

Anyway, I'm sure for me and many other people, the great thing about AC is that ridiculously amazing story that has blown in to this huge world made up of a war between the Assassins and Templars.

To me, I couldn't care what they do with the gameplay, for me the gameplay is just a great bonus.

The thing that makes AC shine is the story, like I have said.

Welcome to the Forums, Riften. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Originally posted by AnthonyA85:
Personally, i wouldn't mind if they went back to a 2-year development cycle, first and foremost, that would give them more time to work on the SP story, and ballance that out against the MP.

i feel that MP is taking up about 45-50% of the dev time, which in the case of ACB, made the story suffer somewhat (less main story targets), plus, the MP doesn't really work all that well on PC (P2P systems are horribly unstable and can be screwed up by almost anything)

While i understand why Ubi would want to follow a yearly release cycle, but it would be better if they did not.

Hopefully, AC3 will be the last yearly release, i think they said in an interview (can't remember where) that it would be.

In my opinion, I'd rather they just keep updating Revelations MP and leave it out of AC3 this time. It would give the developers more time to work on the story and the single player and have less pressure to meet upto "industry standards" when it comes to the whole "every game must have a multiplayer to be successful".

SolidSage
12-02-2011, 10:22 AM
Hopefully AC3 comes out this time next year as promised. And, HOPEFULLY, it's different enough, or the same as AC1 enough, or more packed with content enough, to amaze everyone who has had their quality taste buds obliterated by the standard of game play that ALL AC's possess.

Prodigurl said it somewhere else, (kind of) Purists want an AC1 carbon copy, bored players want somehing new and fresh, thrill seekers want it MORE BIGGER, and everyone else just wants MORE of it.
I tell you, there is a disease plaguing the community called 'AC desensitization to awesomeness'. Seriously, go play some other games for a month or two, then come back to ACR and give it a fair shake.
The biggest problem for AC is that it always gets compared to ITSELF. How are you supposed to out awesome the awesomest ever with a new entry in a series, where most of the real 'discovery' and awe inspiring factors have been revealed? We've already been exposed to social stealth and aerial assassinations and 12 on 1 combat scenarios and parachuting, free running, boat piloting, swimming, high diving, eagle synching leaps of faith, tank driving, carriage crashing, FLAME throwering, bombs, knives, crossbows, axes, guns, treasure, towers, tombs, armor and weapon unlocks, BRILLIANT story and concept, etc, etc, etc. The list GOES ON!
And yet here we are, another year, another entry and 'fans' are still complaining about it needing to be better. Ha, you make it sound so easy, "yeah it needs to be better, that whole Forum of The Ox thing with it's fantastic accompanying score was, meh" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif It's nuts. It's like listening to kids raised on ski slopes complaining about the snowfall this season while the majority of the population are already working dead end jobs that will never finance a skiing trip.

How lucky we are to be so spoiled.

I hope the break that has been mentioned between AC3 and the next installment (but maybe people dont want another one after that, since it won't be able to impress them as much as the original) will be because of the jump to the next gen consoles. And then, I for one, hope AC will get right back at being an annual release.

The same thing happened with the Matrix and Lord of the Rings movies, the first ones blew peoples minds wide open, then the follow ups released so quickly that everyone was all "whatever man, I've seen that already". Go back and watch those sequels now though, they are as good if not better than the originals, same as AC.

I DO agree about the MP, I really was hooked on it in ACB, but to be honest, the best time with it was probably during the Beta, and also in full release unlocking the new gear. But after that it got repetetive. So much so that I haven't felt the urge to play ACR's yet. Like most of you, I want there to be MORE SP! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
I want more because what I got was so good.

All the combat additions are great, the hookblade adds an new dimension and makes climbing so fast now that I never lose the high pace of free running. Whoever said it slows down climbing probably is trying to use it in a route that doesn't facilitate it. It's not like here you go, bound over everything at will like the hulk, you still have to foresee the routes and use the right moves accordingly. You know, let go of that sprint button sometimes to facilitate more efficient travel.
The hook blade allows wall scaling in half the time or less of the original method, how does it slow it down??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I got off track. Yeah, push that MP to the side, or establish a team to manage just that, overhauling it yearly has to be a major task.

O-kay, laterz. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Animuses
12-02-2011, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by SolidSage:
Don't listen to them Ubi, they're crazy!!! Now my opinion is worthless? It's people like you that help contribute to the death of this series. You see so little flaws even though they are MANY and they are in your face too.

With the original vision of the series gone (Patrice), it will never be the same series again.

and YES, one AMAZING game is better than two games that are just good. ACB and ACR are nothing special, they are just good. AC3 will also be just good.

You take a series with the potential to be one of the best video game franchises and decide to milk it. Worst decision ever.


Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
They make Batman in a year and it's pretty amazing. Why can't AC put out a good game in a year too esp. with all the Ubi teams they have working on it.

Arkham City had two years of development time and the city aspect was thought of before the release of Arkham Asylum.

luckyto
12-02-2011, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SolidSage:
Don't listen to them Ubi, they're crazy!!! Now my opinion is worthless? It's people like you that help contribute to the death of this series. You see so little flaws even though they are MANY and they are in your face too.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This kind of fandom brings down many great franchises.... reminds me of the Prequel days and the riff between fans. Ultimately, Lucas catered to the "fanatics" and we have some crappy movies to show for it. Sure, Star Wars survived and Lucas got rich, but for millions of people - we will never care or spend as much as we once did on it. What a waste.

Clearly, Ubi isn't capable of producing a great game in a year. No one is. The maps get shorted, testing gets shorted, story and missions get shorted. ACR is at least good, but I almost walked after ACB.

SolidSage
12-02-2011, 03:19 PM
@Animuses
Of course your opinion isn't worthless. Is a little humor so offensive though?

The AC series IS fantastic, all of the games are incredible. Sure there are flaws, but this negative critiquing is just a little...unjustified.

What you expect is way beyond rationale. ACR differs very little from AC1, there just aren't as many opportunties to follow guys around and listen to them talk.

AC1 was innovative, players were astounded. Asking them to recapture that awe for you is asking for them to change the series so much more than the changes you already claim to dislike.

There are flaws, glitches, errors, those things occur in all lines of work. I just ask for a little reason and common sense. How perfect is your work, whatever it may be? How would you feel if people were so easily inclined to bash your hard efforts, even when your product maintains the quality it has always possessed?

ACR WAS shorter, there were less missions when there should be more. Fair enough. Thats it though, all other aspects are as good as any other Creed. List them if yoy like, tell me jow the environment is worse, or combat, or the story or the movies, or the free running. How is it worse really?

The QUANTITY? I might agree there, but getting twice the amount in two years adds up to the same as getting half as much in one year, to my mind anyway.
Don't be offended, just be reasonable and I'll listen.

Lurker178
12-02-2011, 04:25 PM
Didn't the developers say that they were only making each game with a 1 year development time because they needed to finish the story before December 2012?

kriegerdesgottes
12-02-2011, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SolidSage:
Don't listen to them Ubi, they're crazy!!! Now my opinion is worthless? It's people like you that help contribute to the death of this series. You see so little flaws even though they are MANY and they are in your face too.

With the original vision of the series gone (Patrice), it will never be the same series again.

and YES, one AMAZING game is better than two games that are just good. ACB and ACR are nothing special, they are just good. AC3 will also be just good.

You take a series with the potential to be one of the best video game franchises and decide to milk it. Worst decision ever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree. I have to say it's true that it's because of people who are ok with lowering their expectations that the franchise is suffering. Ubisoft made a giant mistake in annualizing the franchise and I think they are just now beginning to see that being that Alex did say after ACIII they are done with that. Falko even said that a lot of Ubisoft developers are even complaining because they simply don't have enough time to make the games as great as they can be. It's almost a crime to limit the time that these insanely talented people are given. Ubisoft Montreal knows how to make awesome games for sure. But if you limit the time given they can only do so much which is make a Brotherhood or Revelations. Good games, but nothing like what we could have now.

Oh and yes I agree totally with Animuses that I'd rather have another huge game right now. Someone said would he have preferred to not have Brotherhood and Revelations and wait till now for another huge game. YES! I would have preferred that. He is also right in saying that Batman AC took two years and they did indeed get started immediately after arkham asylum. Ugh I don't even want to think about what that game would be like if they had rushed in out in a year.

twenty_glyphs
12-02-2011, 05:08 PM
I'm torn, but for the most part I like annual installments because the story is so engrossing and the game is so fun. If it continues like this after AC3, each game needs to have parallel development teams so each game is taking at least 2 years to make and not just one. Revelations leaves me with a bad taste because of the lack of side content and the quantity of bugs, especially the music not playing bug when the music has been a core part of the franchise's identity.

It would be hard to go back to a year without an AC after the last 3 years. Having said that, I wouldn't mind if they took a break of some kind after AC3. Even if every game continues to be good, it can still wear on people and as we get used to it, it just won't feel as fresh over time. This year's lack of story development and answers leaves me feeling a little empty. Especially because a lot of the conspiracy elements are gone, with no puzzles to solve and no secret messages to find, and no real new mysteries to solve.

AC3 needs to be a big step for the franchise, with fresh new gameplay ideas in the present and the past that fit in with the story like AC2's elements did. AC2's mechanics are obviously wearing out in Revelations, and one more game of the same would bore me at this point. Social stealth could still get a lot better, with bigger and more complicated crowd mechanics.

I guess my final verdict is I like the annual releases, but not the reality of getting less of a game because of it. AC2 was epic and made me fall in love with the franchise, Brotherhood was a huge leftover treat that upped the ante with the story and mysteries, but Revelations has obviously suffered from the short development time. I am glad we got Brotherhood and Revelations even with their issues, because I was wondering how in the world they were going to wrap up this huge story they had opened up in AC2 in just one game, and if we were going to have to wait until 2011 or 2012 to get it.

PhiIs1618033
12-03-2011, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by SolidSage:
What you expect is way beyond rationale. ACR differs very little from AC1, there just aren't as many opportunties to follow guys around and listen to them talk.

Not at all. AC1 was a completely different experience from the rest of the series. In terms of freerunning or combat maybe not (even though the freerunning was more realistic in terms of climbing and the combat was balanced well), but in terms of feel, story, mission structure...
The first AC game I fully played was AC2. I only played AC1 fully last year, yet it's my favourite game. Why? Because the philosophical story, the atmosphere, the gameplay locking in tightly with the story all felt so immersive. AC2 and later games feel more like a heap of unconnected game mechanics, even with the efforts put forth by Amancio's team. The games have become bright, cartoonish almost.
I like to compare AC2 and later games to blockbusters: sell a lot, everyone loves them, but in the end, they're empty. They don't stick with you. AC1, on the other hand, is more of an 'artsy' movie. Something like Primer (that movie is awesome) if you will. It simply has more depth. Not a story about simple revenge, but a philosophical journey, an intelligent commentary on the meaning of truth and lies, the answer to the question 'how far can you go?'. Coupled with the absolute immersion that AC1 has without all the HUD crap, that makes it my favourite game of all time. Even Spyro II is second to that, and I finished that game 5 times to hundred 100% when I was little and only got half an hour to play every day.

PhiIs1618033
12-03-2011, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
No, I never said that. Here's my quote:
>> As to the OP, if ACR took just one year, they've impressed me with better missions & more fun - just add a few more side missions maybe w/ the factions or as a sole assassin, and the most important thing I think is to add the choice of a difficulty level - easy, medium, too hard. <<

Well, technically, that's what you were saying. But I get what you mean.


Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
Hope that better clarifies my reply http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It does. I'm not going to discuss these issues with you, since we are on two completely different sides of the fence. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

n3krO1191
12-03-2011, 06:04 AM
You are all wrong, what made this games wrong was the multiplayer... Ac1 had no multiplayer and was great, Ac2 had not multiplayer and was great, AcB had multiplayer and appeared umbalanced stuff, AcR had multiplayer and the umbalanced stuff from AcB kept umbalanced.

Janisseries felt like a cheap workarround for the killstreaks instead of a solution.

I think that ubisoft should implement a dificult level in Ac3, and in hard, do not make all guards like janisseries, just make killstreaks requiring you to press the attack button in certain time. There are many other things that ubisoft could change instead of things like health and damage between dificult levels :X

tarrero
12-03-2011, 07:49 AM
Multiplayer is the main problem!!!!

I could not care less about it, but since the market "demands" basically any game to include that mode, we are heading to a even more rushed game every year.

AC2 was the best on this series (at least to me), its only fault was the fact you could not repeat memories, besides that, it was "perfect"

It is hard to develop a new story, mechanics and even graphics annually if you also have to include MP.

The way they could make combat or missions more difficult has many possibilities, but one thing I would remove is the fact that doctors and Blacksmiths are open 24/7.

I think it would be cool if close range gunshots are instantly lethal also....

Ansatsushas
12-09-2011, 12:41 AM
Personally I'd prefer they have a 2 year cycle, since I believe Ubi have the talent to make a great game.

Not to start a game war, but I am nearly finished playing Batman: AC and have to say the 2 year development cycle there has been great for that title. Also, it only focuses on SP.

Sincerely hope AC3 brings that wow factor again from AC2 days

SleezeRocker
12-09-2011, 12:46 AM
Personally im ok with the the Bro and ACR titles but I do believe in quality over quantity.

Hell if AC3 excludes multiplayer in exchange for super awesome story and new gameplay elements and/or extra features (kind of like AC2 only I wish they had all of AC lineage) like Dev diaries and soundtracks im down for it!

indulgence82
12-09-2011, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
SP Wouldn't be so short lived if they didn't keep doing MP on the side for every game. Let's just keep AC3 as SP and keep MP in Revelations, shall we? heh.

Pretty sure your the only one that enjoys this version of multiplayer. Many players on my list have stopped playing ACR multiplayer already after less than a month of the game being out. Some have even returned to brotherhood. That's pathetic when you consider brotherhood held many players interest until revelations was released.

I am starting to agree that the games should be separate. Maybe attaching a short coop storyline for the templars and making the player vs player multiplayer the main feature of the game. It would allow the design/production team to concentrate on the multiplayer working correctly on the network. Would also allow them to address all the issues we dislike.

Would be nice if AC3 had actual depth in the story. Maybe bring back the conspiracy puzzles.

phoenix-force411
12-09-2011, 01:21 AM
You guys! AC 2012 will come out next year, but after that it's a 2 year break again! They really dug deep into the Desmond story, now it has to end. AC3 will come out probably on PS4 and the new Xbox if PS4 and the new Xbox debuts by then!

EscoBlades
12-09-2011, 01:46 AM
In my opinion, yearly AC releases aren't ideal. That being said, i always factor in 2 things:

1) Yearly release schedule does not equal yearly dev cycle.

2) Whether or not you think the quality of the games has dropped since AC2, the vast majority of the industry remain impressed with the continued fidelity AC continues to show with each release, due in large part to the robust Anvil engine. And the last time i checked the financials, the sales were heading in the right direction too.

persiateddy95
12-09-2011, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by joshuathao64:
You guys! AC 2012 will come out next year, but after that it's a 2 year break again! They really dug deep into the Desmond story, now it has to end. AC3 will come out probably on PS4 and the new Xbox if PS4 and the new Xbox debuts by then!
AC3 is releasing next year, and the new consoles aren't announced yet.

AC3 will probably be released on PS3 and the next AC on the new consoles, if they ever release that soon.

ProdiGurl
12-09-2011, 05:40 AM
Please tell me that a new Xbox console will still play Xbox 360 games I have?!

I left PC gaming bcuz of the Windows platform issues (XP, to Vista to Win 7) - plus the constant upgrading for newer games.

*editing in*

I don't want to wait 2 years for the next AC game. 2 years is just too long. God forbid if people weren't thrilled w/ the direction the devs took, imagine the hate threads if they waited 2 years & weren't impressed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I'm fine with up to a year & 1/2 . . I like reading the credits and as before, I was completely amazed at how many people are involved in putting this game together !! That many people should be more than capable of putting out a high quality, yearly game.

In my view, not liking a game as much as a previous one doesn't prove it was a Rushed job.
I actually liked most of the new additions to ACR - and as first additions often are, they will need some tweaking & refining if they keep them in AC3. It doesn't mean they didn't have enough time when they did this much adding.

SteelCity999
12-09-2011, 01:33 PM
Everyone has to remember this is the first truly one year cycle for a game. ACB was an extension of AC2 and always has been. It was said in multiple sources that AC2 just got to big for itself - that's why AC2 and ACB flow together like they do. They already had alot of Rome completed as well as he story. ACR is a truly unique story that was initally intended for the DS - it was an unrelated story and an afterthought. That is the main reason why ACR has alot less material in it. So this is what you get with a one year dev cycle.

Less face it...Ubi is out to make money and if COD and EA(Battlefield) can take everyone's money, so can they. So long as there is the one year cycle, you will never ever see a jump like we did from AC1 to AC2.

kriegerdesgottes
12-09-2011, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by SteelCity999:
Everyone has to remember this is the first truly one year cycle for a game. ACB was an extension of AC2 and always has been. It was said in multiple sources that AC2 just got to big for itself - that's why AC2 and ACB flow together like they do. They already had alot of Rome completed as well as he story. ACR is a truly unique story that was initally intended for the DS - it was an unrelated story and an afterthought. That is the main reason why ACR has alot less material in it. So this is what you get with a one year dev cycle.

Less face it...Ubi is out to make money and if COD and EA(Battlefield) can take everyone's money, so can they. So long as there is the one year cycle, you will never ever see a jump like we did from AC1 to AC2.

This is scary but true but COD and Battlefield are totally different types of games from what AC is. They are just shooters. shoot kill shoot kill. Not a lot of animations or work to be done on the character considering it's first person. AC is a totally different kind of game and requires much more work than just creating a new 5 hours story and making the same exact gun look more realistic. If ACIII is not the same quality as ACII, I'm afraid I also will be done with the AC franchise. I played ACII last night just because I miss it and I was blown away by how good it is. I kept saying to myself THIS is an AC game. This is what I want. I do NOT want another ACB or ACR. Those games imo are good but garbage compared to ACII or AC1 even and I'm just not gonna buy another rushed game.

PhiIs1618033
12-09-2011, 02:01 PM
I'm just going to say it: you're coming across as a little child, who wants instant gratification instead of waiting for a bigger prize.

If they put in more time, the game will be better. Game developers in general want to continue to build, add new features, tweak old ones, better story integration, all that stuff. The only thing standing in between them and this is the deadline. There has to be a time when you must have finished the game, or else you'll never get there. What an extra year would add to the game are polished, well-balanced features, less glitches, longer storyline (my bet would be around AC2, which is more than twice the size of Revelations), plus more things to do, all translating into a game which will net you a lot more playing hours, since there is so much stuff to do.

Think about it. Double the wait would equal more than double the playing time, and I'm not even counting the effect of replaying the game. If there's one thing I've learnt, it's that if you're waiting for something awesome, the longer the wait, the better it is when you actually get it. This only applies to something being awesome. Brotherhood was a huge letdown for me, as I had been anticipating it for over six months, only to be disappointed with the laughably short storyline and the crappy game mechanics. (That's how I feel about Brotherhood.) have played AC2 to completion 8 times and played AC1 6 times. Brotherhood? I played it once, then started a replay only to stop halfway through. You can imagine my disappointment when I waited for 6 months, paid 90 euros and all I got was a game I didn't really like.
I don't want that to happen again. I purposefully didn't expect anything from Revelations and I'm glad I didn't, because it wouldn't have lived up to my expectations at all. I ended up buying it for the story (2012 part of it) and because, well, I make AC videos from time to time and we have gaming nights at THB every once in a while and those are a lot fun.

I'd rather wait 3 years for a completely mind-boggling awesome game than a year for something that's only meh.

Animuses
12-09-2011, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by PhiIs1618033...:
I'd rather wait 3 years for a completely mind-boggling awesome game than a year for something that's only meh.
I agree. AC3 should've had three years development time. The wait would have been unbelievably painful, but it would be worth it. If they decided to do this, the original devs would still be working on the game and it would probably be mind-blowing!

ProdiGurl
12-09-2011, 02:33 PM
How do you guys know this about the dev's & what their issues are?
Have they said any of this in interviews or anything?
If dev's want and need more time, then I can accept the complaints about one year cycles.
But it's very possible that these were their new ideas, they had enough time and you just didn't like it.

Also, it costs alot of $$ to wait 2-3 years for a game when others are able to put one out every year. It's easy for us to sit & back & critique & make demands, but they're the ones that have the costs to do all this.

kriegerdesgottes
12-09-2011, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
How do you guys know this about the dev's & what their issues are?
Have they said any of this in interviews or anything?
If dev's want and need more time, then I can accept the complaints about one year cycles.
But it's very possible that these were their new ideas, they had enough time and you just didn't like it.

Also, it costs alot of $$ to wait 2-3 years for a game when others are able to put one out every year. It's easy for us to sit & back & critique & make demands, but they're the ones that have the costs to do all this.

Actually yes some have come out and said this. We don't know the exact reason Patrice left but it's very likely that is what it was. Jean Francois didn't even hide it. He just straight out said that if you want the franchise to grow and be strong it needs time to grow and breath or it'll wither and people will tire of it. He's absolutely right. After he made the comment that AC would take a break after Brotherhood and they wouldn't release another game, Ubisoft came out and said the decision is not yours you'll make it if we tell you to. Jean left Ubisoft and went with patrice to THQ shortly afterwards. I thought at the time, I'll never tire of this badass franchise. I was wrong. My enthusiasm for AC diminishes a little more with each rushed annual game. My hope that there may be another game worthy of the AC game diminishes with each Brotherhood/Revelations. Some say oh don't you know!? These games are mere expansions to what's to come. You are wrong. The developers have made it very clear that these are supposed to be "full retail products". Even Falko said recently that many people at Ubisoft don't like it and say "We just don't have enough time" If the developers who are so talented and capable of making these games great are worried about time restraints than we should be too people.

Il_Divo
12-09-2011, 02:52 PM
Really hard comparison. I personally think Brotherhood and Revelations were fantastic, but also realized that both installments featured much smaller "jumps" than we received from AC1 to AC2.

That's fine, if they liked AC2's combat system better, but the new and improved feeling of AC2 has worn off. I really don't know what it would have looked like if we were playing AC3 now. Maybe it would be better, or maybe it wouldn't? I can't really say.

SteelCity999
12-09-2011, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by EscoBlades:
In my opinion, yearly AC releases aren't ideal. That being said, i always factor in 2 things:

1) Yearly release schedule does not equal yearly dev cycle.

2) Whether or not you think the quality of the games has dropped since AC2, the vast majority of the industry remain impressed with the continued fidelity AC continues to show with each release, due in large part to the robust Anvil engine. And the last time i checked the financials, the sales were heading in the right direction too.

In the case of ACR...release schedule equals the dev cycle...that has been admitted to and it shows.

In terms of financials, I continue to buy the games because of the story they started in AC1 and they continued in AC2...not because the gaemplay has improved or because of multiplayer. There's alot of series that are like this and not just video games but movies and books alike. I'll buy AC3 as well but not necessarily because its a good game. I enjoy th concept and universe they have created but not all of the gameplay.

ProdiGurl
12-10-2011, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
How do you guys know this about the dev's & what their issues are?
Have they said any of this in interviews or anything?
If dev's want and need more time, then I can accept the complaints about one year cycles.
But it's very possible that these were their new ideas, they had enough time and you just didn't like it.

Also, it costs alot of $$ to wait 2-3 years for a game when others are able to put one out every year. It's easy for us to sit & back & critique & make demands, but they're the ones that have the costs to do all this.

Actually yes some have come out and said this. We don't know the exact reason Patrice left but it's very likely that is what it was. Jean Francois didn't even hide it. He just straight out said that if you want the franchise to grow and be strong it needs time to grow and breath or it'll wither and people will tire of it. He's absolutely right. After he made the comment that AC would take a break after Brotherhood and they wouldn't release another game, Ubisoft came out and said the decision is not yours you'll make it if we tell you to. Jean left Ubisoft and went with patrice to THQ shortly afterwards. I thought at the time, I'll never tire of this badass franchise. I was wrong. My enthusiasm for AC diminishes a little more with each rushed annual game. My hope that there may be another game worthy of the AC game diminishes with each Brotherhood/Revelations. Some say oh don't you know!? These games are mere expansions to what's to come. You are wrong. The developers have made it very clear that these are supposed to be "full retail products". Even Falko said recently that many people at Ubisoft don't like it and say "We just don't have enough time" If the developers who are so talented and capable of making these games great are worried about time restraints than we should be too people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok then. Those are the people that would know bcuz they're directly involved in the project and I value their opinions most.

I still think a year & 1/2 is plenty, but it seems like they want to get it out at the end of the year for some obvious reasons.

If it's going to cause this much of a quality issue, I don't want it yearly.
I said in another related thread topic that what I believe proves a rushed job is when a game has Bug & glitch issues thru it.
This one did, so I suspected time constraint could have been an issue.

I backed off the lesser content issue (shorter game) bcuz I knew it was the end of a Trilogy & it wasn't going to be a new game like AC3 w/ fresh beginnings.
But now this does concern me.

Still a FANTASTIC game imo - & very well done outside a few tweaks & revisions it could use (which is common for any new additional feature they add in any games).

EscoBlades
12-10-2011, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by SteelCity999:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EscoBlades:
In my opinion, yearly AC releases aren't ideal. That being said, i always factor in 2 things:

1) Yearly release schedule does not equal yearly dev cycle.

2) Whether or not you think the quality of the games has dropped since AC2, the vast majority of the industry remain impressed with the continued fidelity AC continues to show with each release, due in large part to the robust Anvil engine. And the last time i checked the financials, the sales were heading in the right direction too.

In the case of ACR...release schedule equals the dev cycle...that has been admitted to and it shows.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. Even with 6 studios and 400+ devs working night and day, it would be a struggle to put out a half decent AC game in just a year's dev time. Trust me on that.

ProdiGurl
12-10-2011, 05:19 AM
As I sat for a long, long time reading the credits at the end of ACR, I felt that with THAT many people working on it that it could be on a yearly cycle and not be negatively affected, but now my mind in changing on it.
Gosh I hope they don't completely screw up AC.

But with that said, ACB & ACR have been my favorites & those are the ones that are supposedly lacking the most?
So ...... ?

thekarlone
12-10-2011, 06:23 AM
The main saga (Desmond's Story) should end in the current console generation. Moreover, it should end with ACIII.

Only one year for the development of an AAA game is just impossible. The preproduction process and some of its production must start before the previous game development ends. I mean, there should be two game of the saga in development at the same time if they want to realease an issue per year.