PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed III biggest Assassin's Creed yet.



AVVSOM3
01-26-2012, 04:13 PM
http://www.oxm.co.uk/38186/assassins-creed-3-will-be-ubisofts-biggest-to-date/
CEO Yves Guillemot has just said that Assassin's Creed III will be massive.
He also talked about the yearly releases and that it attracts new fans.

D.I.D.
01-26-2012, 04:42 PM
"We are pleased with our continued success so far: in the US, Assassin's Creed: Revelations was a Top Ten title for the entire calendar year, which shows that the demand is definitely there.
"We think that delivering regular instalments and expanding the brand to other platforms will continue to satisfy the demand, while at the same time attracting new fans.
"And we're confident that the next instalment of Assassin's Creed will be the biggest to date."

That really isn't good news.

If they want to keep getting new fans, they need to kill off this convoluted story as quickly as possible with AC3, so that current players and new players know about as much as each other when we get AC4. Otherwise, nobody new is going to be able to figure out what's going on, and you can'y expect them to have to read an encyclopaedia to get a grip on the storyline.

No more direct involvement of TWCB would be a very good idea, I think. The idea of emergency messages sent forward in time during a cataclysmic event is going to be beyond silly if it turns out they've got an eternal supply of predictions and prophecies.

SixKeys
01-26-2012, 04:53 PM
I don't think anybody is denying that there is demand for the franchise to continue, but only if it doesn't begin to weaken due to bad writing and less development time. It seemed a given that Revelations was going to sell big, the pre-order numbers alone were already high, but once the reviews started pouring in, it quickly became obvious it wasn't quite what most fans or reviewers had hoped for. If they continue with the yearly releases after AC3, I think this kind of dissatisfaction will quickly start to show in sales records. If the AC franchise eventually begins to run out of steam, it won't be because there is no more potential in the series, it will be due to overexposure and declining quality.

I'm still looking forward to AC3 and how they will wrap up Desmond's story, but after that Ubisoft is going to have to seriously impress me with something new and fantastic if they want me to keep supporting the franchise.

twenty_glyphs
01-26-2012, 05:04 PM
There is a high demand for the franchise, but that's because of the high quality of Assassin's Creed 2 and the mysterious story for the most part. If the quality of the series and story do not reach AC2 levels again, that demand will go away in a hurry. I don't think yearly installments are the problem as much as yearly development cycles. If a game of AC2 scope and quality came out every year, the demand would likely remain. If we get a game with Revelations' limited scope and rushed nature every year, and the overall plot does not advance, the demand will dwindle.

kriegerdesgottes
01-26-2012, 05:34 PM
ugh he just doesn't get it. Every time I try to reboost my hope for the franchise, this guy comes around and deletes all hope I had. If this franchise continues to make annual installments it will die. Period. Not just because of the lack of quality that many on here pretend not to see but also just straight out franchise fatigue. If this next game doesn't just blow my mind like ACII did then I am 100% done with AC.

GunnarGunderson
01-26-2012, 05:41 PM
ugh he just doesn't get it. Every time I try to reboost my hope for the franchise, this guy comes around and deletes all hope I had. If this franchise continues to make annual installments it will die. Period. Not just because of the lack of quality that many on here pretend not to see but also just straight out franchise fatigue. If this next game doesn't just blow my mind like ACII did then I am 100% done with AC.

Agreed. Not to mention the multiplayer that nobody cares about but for some reason takes up alot of the dev time and resources

LightRey
01-26-2012, 05:43 PM
ugh he just doesn't get it. Every time I try to reboost my hope for the franchise, this guy comes around and deletes all hope I had. If this franchise continues to make annual installments it will die. Period. Not just because of the lack of quality that many on here pretend not to see but also just straight out franchise fatigue. If this next game doesn't just blow my mind like ACII did then I am 100% done with AC.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Up until now the sales rates have only increased with each installment. I don't see that changing anytime soon, even if they continue doing yearly releases. Every bit of statistical evidence indicates that the series' popularity will only increase.

GLHS
01-26-2012, 05:52 PM
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Up until now the sales rates have only increased with each installment. I don't see that changing anytime soon, even if they continue doing yearly releases. Every bit of statistical evidence indicates that the series' popularity will only increase.

Omg for once I actually agree with you. I have no problem with the yearly releases as long as it's not killing the franchise, which I don't believe it's doing. Plus, as they've already stated, AC3 has to, and is their intention, to come out in 2012 for the storyline to make sense and be current. I do not believe that multiplayer is their focus or main reason for sales either. People should also realize that AC3 will most likely be the last one and the main story wrap up, and if that's the case, then it won't have a chance to die from being released yearly since it will only have one more year left.

SixKeys
01-26-2012, 06:08 PM
Agreed. Not to mention the multiplayer that nobody cares about but for some reason takes up alot of the dev time and resources

I understand not everybody likes multiplayer and that's fine, but to say "nobody cares about it" is just plain false. The multiplayer forum here is very active, perhaps even more so than the single-player side. It also seems clear to me that the main reason Ubisoft made Revelations into a full game instead of the Nintendo DS title it was originally meant to be was because the multiplayer was extremely popular and they wanted to milk it. The multiplayer side is done by an entirely separate studio from the one that handles the single-player side of things, so I don't think it's a valid argument to claim it takes away time and resources from the single-player stuff. If there is a problem with the multiplayer, it's that just like the SP side, the team aren't given enough time to test and fix certain problems before release, leaving us with a buggy product. Hate MP all you want, hate it because it doesn't work for you or because you don't like playing it, not because you assume the MP is somehow responsible for the problems with SP. And don't say nobody cares about it when the opposite is obviously true.

GLHS
01-26-2012, 06:14 PM
I can see why people don't like MP though. Assassin's Creed is a SP game, and in my opinion, always will be. MP is just an addition. This isn't CoD. Their priority is MP first, everything else later. AC is differerent and I believe always will be.

twenty_glyphs
01-26-2012, 06:46 PM
Omg for once I actually agree with you. I have no problem with the yearly releases as long as it's not killing the franchise, which I don't believe it's doing. Plus, as they've already stated, AC3 has to, and is their intention, to come out in 2012 for the storyline to make sense and be current. I do not believe that multiplayer is their focus or main reason for sales either. People should also realize that AC3 will most likely be the last one and the main story wrap up, and if that's the case, then it won't have a chance to die from being released yearly since it will only have one more year left.

AC3 will most certainly not be the last Assassin's Creed game. It will most likely be Desmond's last game, but I'm sure the franchise will continue after his story wraps up. In the last 2 months, Ubisoft Montreal has put out 2 different calls on Twitter for people to apply to work as creative directors on the Assassin's Creed brand (one in November, one after Alexandre Amancio left). We've also seen the supposed survey asking about locations and time periods. Every indication is that they will conclude Desmond's and the 12/21/2012 story in AC3 this year, but that they are setting up and planning the series for the long haul moving forward. I could see another trilogy starting after this (hopefully a proper trilogy that doesn't get stretched out in the middle like this one) that introduces a new overarching story and protagonist. There are so many more historical periods and locations to visit, and tons of other gods and goddesses to explore. The brand has a unique premise that allows them to continue to develop stories within the world for a long time to come. Whether or not that's a good thing remains to be seen.

Xizzorz84
01-26-2012, 08:04 PM
http://i.imgur.com/nmdk8.jpg

albertwesker22
01-26-2012, 08:13 PM
AC3 will most certainly not be the last Assassin's Creed game. It will most likely be Desmond's last game, but I'm sure the franchise will continue after his story wraps up. In the last 2 months, Ubisoft Montreal has put out 2 different calls on Twitter for people to apply to work as creative directors on the Assassin's Creed brand (one in November, one after Alexandre Amancio left). We've also seen the supposed survey asking about locations and time periods. Every indication is that they will conclude Desmond's and the 12/21/2012 story in AC3 this year, but that they are setting up and planning the series for the long haul moving forward. I could see another trilogy starting after this (hopefully a proper trilogy that doesn't get stretched out in the middle like this one) that introduces a new overarching story and protagonist. There are so many more historical periods and locations to visit, and tons of other gods and goddesses to explore. The brand has a unique premise that allows them to continue to develop stories within the world for a long time to come. Whether or not that's a good thing remains to be seen.

I'm starting to think that AC could become the Final Fantasy of the West. Just imagine, all of us middle aged talking about how AC isn't as good as it used to be, we'll all be cynical b***ards by that point.

Assassin_M
01-26-2012, 08:20 PM
http://i.imgur.com/nmdk8.jpg
Hello ?????

LightRey
01-26-2012, 08:34 PM
http://i.imgur.com/nmdk8.jpg

Ah, memories...

It seems like only yesterday that the world looked like that. Oh, wait. It did.

TorQue1988
01-26-2012, 09:01 PM
http://i.imgur.com/nmdk8.jpg
What the hell is this supposed to be?

mustangmaniak20
01-26-2012, 09:25 PM
OBLIGATORY!:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk

JumpInTheFire13
01-26-2012, 09:32 PM
There is a high demand for the franchise, but that's because of the high quality of Assassin's Creed 2 and the mysterious story for the most part. If the quality of the series and story do not reach AC2 levels again, that demand will go away in a hurry. I don't think yearly installments are the problem as much as yearly development cycles. If a game of AC2 scope and quality came out every year, the demand would likely remain. If we get a game with Revelations' limited scope and rushed nature every year, and the overall plot does not advance, the demand will dwindle.

This ^. But I don't think we should believe any of this hype. Revelations was also supposed to have "revelations" and... yeah...

LightRey
01-26-2012, 09:41 PM
This ^. But I don't think we should believe any of this hype. Revelations was also supposed to have "revelations" and... yeah...

Nonsense. Most gamers don't "wait and see". They get pissed and quit. It's called "ragequitting".

YuurHeen
01-26-2012, 10:15 PM
im afraid it will only be making money from now on with this serie. after ac3 they are done with the original trilogy and they can fill in the rest. only supply and demand. what makes money and is cheap to add? they will add it.cliches, more multi-player, old characters, bad jokes, leaving out answers to mysteries, easy combat, easy running, easy climbing, den defense 1.1, big ugly stupid evil guy, more action, more finishing moves, more romance, ...


like they will add ezio again? that is a terrible thing to do story wise but it sure will make people to buy the next game again.

biggest assassins creed game? with a lot of open space that has nothing unique in it maybe.


my trust is fading a bit while i did think acr was the best game of 2011 (mostly because the rest was really milking old series and other dissapointing games)

LightRey
01-26-2012, 11:14 PM
im afraid it will only be making money from now on with this serie. after ac3 they are done with the original trilogy and they can fill in the rest. only supply and demand. what makes money and is cheap to add? they will add it.cliches, more multi-player, old characters, bad jokes, leaving out answers to mysteries, easy combat, easy running, easy climbing, den defense 1.1, big ugly stupid evil guy, more action, more finishing moves, more romance, ...


like they will add ezio again? that is a terrible thing to do story wise but it sure will make people to buy the next game again.

biggest assassins creed game? with a lot of open space that has nothing unique in it maybe.


my trust is fading a bit while i did think acr was the best game of 2011 (mostly because the rest was really milking old series and other dissapointing games)

They always left mysteries open (duh), the game with the most glitches was AC1, MP isn't getting in the way of SP, combat has always been easy, freerunning should be easy, Den Defense was fun, blame history on the big ugly stupid evil guys, etc.

Of course they won't add Ezio again. He's dead and for the millionth time they've said countless times that they're done with both Altaïr and Ezio.

Animuses
01-27-2012, 03:26 AM
ugh he just doesn't get it. Every time I try to reboost my hope for the franchise, this guy comes around and deletes all hope I had. If this franchise continues to make annual installments it will die. Period. Not just because of the lack of quality that many on here pretend not to see but also just straight out franchise fatigue. If this next game doesn't just blow my mind like ACII did then I am 100% done with AC.
I'm not done with the series, but I'm as close as there is to being done. Brotherhood and Revelations were steps in the absolute wrong direction. I don't expect anything from the next installment, but as a fan of the first two games, I'm going to give it a shot. Whenever I think about how AC changed for the worst, I die a little inside and then I play games that are a lot more enjoyable.

YuurHeen
01-27-2012, 08:28 AM
They always left mysteries open (duh), the game with the most glitches was AC1, MP isn't getting in the way of SP, combat has always been easy, freerunning should be easy, Den Defense was fun, blame history on the big ugly stupid evil guys, etc.

Of course they won't add Ezio again. He's dead and for the millionth time they've said countless times that they're done with both Altaïr and Ezio.

http://www.oxm.co.uk/31073/will-ezio-return-for-assassins-creed-3-and-beyond-its-always-possible/\


I wrote clichés, not glitches. mp isn't in the way of sp indeed but so what? combat is getting easier each game dont deny. if freerunning gets to easy it can get like in prototype where you can climb buildings without feeling you climb them and it will be less fun. den defense was not bad and easy but it was to different kind of action than the overall experience and if they expand it even more it will really slide off into a strategy ac game. people writing histrory arent always unbiased and dont always have the full picture of the bad guy.

anyway it does not always have to be bad the economic way of making games but it sure will slow down renewal.

GLHS
01-27-2012, 09:57 AM
AC3 will most certainly not be the last Assassin's Creed game. It will most likely be Desmond's last game, but I'm sure the franchise will continue after his story wraps up. In the last 2 months, Ubisoft Montreal has put out 2 different calls on Twitter for people to apply to work as creative directors on the Assassin's Creed brand (one in November, one after Alexandre Amancio left). We've also seen the supposed survey asking about locations and time periods. Every indication is that they will conclude Desmond's and the 12/21/2012 story in AC3 this year, but that they are setting up and planning the series for the long haul moving forward. I could see another trilogy starting after this (hopefully a proper trilogy that doesn't get stretched out in the middle like this one) that introduces a new overarching story and protagonist. There are so many more historical periods and locations to visit, and tons of other gods and goddesses to explore. The brand has a unique premise that allows them to continue to develop stories within the world for a long time to come. Whether or not that's a good thing remains to be seen.

Please explain to me then how it's possible they could continue AC and have it make sense without Desmond, who is the centerpiece and the whole reason for the series. The ancestors come from him, and since he's pretty much "the chosen one" it makes zero sense for them to put somebody else in an Animus just for the sake of going through the ancestor's lives. It holds no purpose b/c Desmond holds all the information. The whole entire point of the story is saving the world from the Apocalypse, which only Desmond can do, and keeping Abstergo away from Pieces of Eden, which again, only Desmond can successfully do. Why do you think it is that Desmond has been able to adapt to the bleeding effect so well and not die or become insane as a result? B/c he's the only one that can. If there were countless others out there like Desmond, he wouldn't be nearly as special, and they could eventually just stumble upon another one like him and start all over again. Please. It would be useless and stupid, and not to mention completely pointless, for them to create anything other than prequels or current storyline fill-ins after Desmond's story is finished. Even if AC3 isn't Desmond's last game, whatever will be, will be the last game that actually furthers the story. Ubisoft has said from the very beginning that this was always meant to be a trilogy. Maybe a few games like Brotherhood and Revelations thrown in, but they have no intention of creating anything other than 3 main games. Which is exactly why AC:B and AC:R have no numerical title. They're inbetween-ers. I doubt very highly there will be an AC4 and if there is and Desmond's story isn't continued in it, then they are indeed milking and ruining the series like so many other franchises have.

EscoBlades
01-27-2012, 10:26 AM
http://i.imgur.com/nmdk8.jpg

rofl!

LightRey
01-27-2012, 11:35 AM
Please explain to me then how it's possible they could continue AC and have it make sense without Desmond, who is the centerpiece and the whole reason for the series. The ancestors come from him, and since he's pretty much "the chosen one" it makes zero sense for them to put somebody else in an Animus just for the sake of going through the ancestor's lives. It holds no purpose b/c Desmond holds all the information. The whole entire point of the story is saving the world from the Apocalypse, which only Desmond can do, and keeping Abstergo away from Pieces of Eden, which again, only Desmond can successfully do. Why do you think it is that Desmond has been able to adapt to the bleeding effect so well and not die or become insane as a result? B/c he's the only one that can. If there were countless others out there like Desmond, he wouldn't be nearly as special, and they could eventually just stumble upon another one like him and start all over again. Please. It would be useless and stupid, and not to mention completely pointless, for them to create anything other than prequels or current storyline fill-ins after Desmond's story is finished. Even if AC3 isn't Desmond's last game, whatever will be, will be the last game that actually furthers the story. Ubisoft has said from the very beginning that this was always meant to be a trilogy. Maybe a few games like Brotherhood and Revelations thrown in, but they have no intention of creating anything other than 3 main games. Which is exactly why AC:B and AC:R have no numerical title. They're inbetween-ers. I doubt very highly there will be an AC4 and if there is and Desmond's story isn't continued in it, then they are indeed milking and ruining the series like so many other franchises have.

New Templar Doomsday plan, New main character, new PoE-related stuff, new story.

D.I.D.
01-27-2012, 01:46 PM
Please explain to me then how it's possible they could continue AC and have it make sense without Desmond, who is the centerpiece and the whole reason for the series. The ancestors come from him, and since he's pretty much "the chosen one" it makes zero sense for them to put somebody else in an Animus just for the sake of going through the ancestor's lives. It holds no purpose b/c Desmond holds all the information. The whole entire point of the story is saving the world from the Apocalypse, which only Desmond can do, and keeping Abstergo away from Pieces of Eden, which again, only Desmond can successfully do. Why do you think it is that Desmond has been able to adapt to the bleeding effect so well and not die or become insane as a result? B/c he's the only one that can. If there were countless others out there like Desmond, he wouldn't be nearly as special, and they could eventually just stumble upon another one like him and start all over again. Please. It would be useless and stupid, and not to mention completely pointless, for them to create anything other than prequels or current storyline fill-ins after Desmond's story is finished. Even if AC3 isn't Desmond's last game, whatever will be, will be the last game that actually furthers the story. Ubisoft has said from the very beginning that this was always meant to be a trilogy. Maybe a few games like Brotherhood and Revelations thrown in, but they have no intention of creating anything other than 3 main games. Which is exactly why AC:B and AC:R have no numerical title. They're inbetween-ers. I doubt very highly there will be an AC4 and if there is and Desmond's story isn't continued in it, then they are indeed milking and ruining the series like so many other franchises have.

It really depends on how attached to Desmond you are. To me, he's nothing but a vehicle and the more they expand him beyond being a pair of eyes, the more he irritates me. They have improved him a little bit in AC:R, and knocked out some of his "woah dude" Keanu-ness, but he's still a cardboard bro. If they can replace him with a smart Animus pilot, someone you can actually believe is capable of solving glyph puzzles and so on, that wouldn't be too bad at all. The easy way to carry it on is if we're not really saving the world at all.

That brings me to the other thing I don't like about the Desmond story, which is the tired old messiah business in the first place. The hero does not have to be drawn by destiny, does not have to be the Chosen One. Dune, Star Wars, Avatar (either one), The Matrix, Superman, Harry Potter, Tron, Highlander, The Golden Child, Kung Fu Panda, Flash Gordon, Willow, The Mummy, Stargate, The Lord of the Rings, Buffy, Akira, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Doctor Who: there are hundreds more. Some of them subvert the idea in interesting ways. Sometimes it's just a good way of saying "just because" in a story for kids. Sometimes the messiah theme adds energy and is beneficial to the story, but I feel that it weakens AC. When I first heard about AC1 in Edge Magazine years ago, it was a while before I was really aware about the Desmond side of things, or how much coverage the story would give to him. I was only interested in the game being set in the 12th century, the way it looked, the low reliance on combat, high reliance on vertical movement and stealth: already sold. Every new helping of "chosen one" material has been like another door slamming shut for me, narrowing it down more and more.

Here's one way you could carry on the story, if you want it to continue but also have an ending: Desmond fails. Assassins realise their mistake was to think an ancient story must a powerful one, and to have put all their eggs in one basket ("nothing is true...") - only the future matters, and everyone is equally important. They falsify information and trick the Templars into finding it, making them believe that their most able member is fated to lead them to dominance. With the Templars distracted and focussed on their false messiah, the Assassins put many recruits into many Animuses (giving us several more historical eras to explore), and quietly unearth all remaining PoEs, finally using them to take back the ones held by the Templars. All PoEs are then wiped out, because the potential for harm has always been too great (I know, that's a cliché too). TWCB are finally silent, there's no greater power in the world than human affairs, and there's no big apocalyptic war. I'm sure there are many other better ideas than this, but that's one, anyway.

I'd be fine with it if all ACs after III got rid of the whole Animus thing. It was a great gameplay idea, and a really clever way to justify why you can go here but not there, but I don't mind if it's gone altogether after the next game. If all the coming ACs simply put you in the role of an assassin from history and the plot was only about the balance of power in that assassin's era with no link to the present day, I'd be fine with that. There have been lots of nice details in the games, but the essence of its fun is that you get to climb all over beautiful places from history, and stumble into a mixture of real, semi-fictional and entirely fictional figures from the era and become embroiled in some hidden skulduggery. That's plenty.

GLHS
01-27-2012, 02:42 PM
I do see where they could get rid of the Animus idea, therefore getting rid of Desmond and all the current time period stuff. and I do understand where you're coming from on the cliche of the Chosen One idea. Because, yes, it has been overused for like the last 50 years. But that's one of the many things that makes AC unique from other games. It's not just "hey, you get to be an Assassin and run around killing templars b/c it betters the world." Everything you do in the history time period is connected to the present. It has a purpose. Think about it. The game mechanics and visuals are built around the Animus. It would be kinda just like some random game set in the past if all of that were to be taken out. No running around in a virtual Animus-made loading screen. No loading up the cites animus-style. No animus HUD or controls. When you die, it couldn't be "Desynching" anymore, it would just be plain old dying and restarting the mission like in countless other games. The allure of AC is how the story and everything about the game is built around it's mystery and unknown technology. The thing that attracted me to the story in the first place was how they go back into a memory and see something from somebody else's life. And that reminds me. There'd be no memory blocks, replaying memories, 100% syching, or playing after the game is over either. They'd basically have to change the entire way the games operate without an Animus feature. It would just be dull and bland, and to alike most other games. Take God of War for example. I love Kratos and everything GoW, but you play as a bada$$ in some unknown ancient Greek time-period and that's it. There's nothing more to it. Just like every other game that takes place in whatever time period it takes place in. AC takes seemingly unrelated time periods, and unrelated countries, and combines it all into one story. One entity. As far as I'm concerned, the Animus and the ability to see everything through it is what gives AC it's strength and uniqueness. I just don't believe that AC would make as much sense or be as alluring without the Animus and Desmond.

D.I.D.
01-27-2012, 02:55 PM
Oh yes, I agree with all that. I really do like all of that stuff - I've never seen a game before that has such a great way of justifying how a game works. Other games have to set up some dubious explanation of why you can't get to the next area, even though you can see it's there - the bridge roadblocks in GTA, or the immoveable piles of junk in every FPS ever - and the whole idea of synchronisation is superb, for all the reasons you mention. I would miss them, and it wouldn't make as much sense, but I just mean I could still get on with a game that was purely about history.

I'm just a bit worried that the whole series could die simply because the modern world side of it could end up with nowhere to go. All the stuff we do in the past is infinitely extendable, and all the writers have to do is find interesting political conspiracies from history and weave our player character into them, whereas (as you rightly pointed out) the modern world story is a bit too big and final. There aren't a lot of places to go after saving the world, and continually saving the world will lose its thrill if we do it too many times.

ElDoucherino
01-27-2012, 03:26 PM
Woah...I thought this would be good news for you guys but heck all i read is all negative. How about wait and see and if they say it will be the biggest then it probably will be. I have faith in the series, and my hype is just of the chart...and has always been since the very first game.

Yes, the Desmond story will probably end after AC3 and my predictations is that it may be Animus free with focus on the ancestor part of the series. Maybe adding a twist after awhile, not sure what though. But this The Chosen One will most likely not be done because it would be laughable after the Desmond portion of the story to have another Chosen One. But that is my own opinion. Maybe reliving templar ancestor? No, I am just being silly now. We just have to wait and see.

dxsxhxcx
01-27-2012, 03:26 PM
if Ubi is smart, after Desmond' story comes to an end they'll only make AC games about other people involved with Desmond story, try to continue the story from where Desmond will stop will be a wrong move IMO, I think make games about S16, Daniel Cross and Eve (the one Desmond needs to find) are a good way to still explore the franchise's potential with a bit of originality instead of just milking it for the sake of make money... there are also the lifes of the 6 legendary assassins (the ones who have statues in the sanctuary) that can be explored without the use of the animus (this means play directly with them, in the past)..

Xizzorz84
01-27-2012, 03:51 PM
Let me point out that there are 14 Abstergo Subjects that are yet to be introduced. ;)

GLHS
01-27-2012, 04:19 PM
@ Shanki_86: They sort of already did the Templar ancestor thing with the idea of Project Legacy and the whole "Templar Army" aspect of the multiplayer.

And @dxsxhxcx: I guess I never really thought about it before cuz of what they're doing with the upcoming single player DLC, but I wouldn't mind a prequel playing as Clay. I find his story pretty fascinating since we don't know much about him, and it would be pretty fun to find out what really happened during his days at Abstergo.

MarleyMon81
01-27-2012, 07:52 PM
[QUOTE=GLHS;8121155And @dxsxhxcx: I guess I never really thought about it before cuz of what they're doing with the upcoming single player DLC[/QUOTE]

There is confirmed SP DLC incoming at some point?

ChaosxNetwork
01-27-2012, 08:18 PM
I understand not everybody likes multiplayer and that's fine, but to say "nobody cares about it" is just plain false. The multiplayer forum here is very active, perhaps even more so than the single-player side. It also seems clear to me that the main reason Ubisoft made Revelations into a full game instead of the Nintendo DS title it was originally meant to be was because the multiplayer was extremely popular and they wanted to milk it. The multiplayer side is done by an entirely separate studio from the one that handles the single-player side of things, so I don't think it's a valid argument to claim it takes away time and resources from the single-player stuff. If there is a problem with the multiplayer, it's that just like the SP side, the team aren't given enough time to test and fix certain problems before release, leaving us with a buggy product. Hate MP all you want, hate it because it doesn't work for you or because you don't like playing it, not because you assume the MP is somehow responsible for the problems with SP. And don't say nobody cares about it when the opposite is obviously true.
The multi-player does effect the single player, it takes up room on the disc. 9GB is not a lot to work with when it is halved for a poorly made and unnecessary edition.
I don't mind the yearly cycles for extra games to the franchise like Brootherhood and Revelations as they are not massive changes and can't be what AC:II was without a change in ancestor.
AC:3 has been in the works for long time though, just not as the full focus, I hope post 3 stuff will have two year cycles.

LightRey
01-27-2012, 10:17 PM
The multi-player does effect the single player, it takes up room on the disc. 9GB is not a lot to work with when it is halved for a poorly made and unnecessary edition.
I don't mind the yearly cycles for extra games to the franchise like Brootherhood and Revelations as they are not massive changes and can't be what AC:II was without a change in ancestor.
AC:3 has been in the works for long time though, just not as the full focus, I hope post 3 stuff will have two year cycles.

It doesn't take up so much room on the disk that it is a problem for anyone. MP will never take up half the disc. That's ridiculous. MP takes up much less space than SP. It's nowhere near the kind of amount where anyone should start worrying about the space for SP being limited and even if that were the case they could simply decide to use multiple discs. At worst it'll cost you a little more time installing the game, which is a very small price to pay to allow the people that very much enjoy the MP to have their fun.

EDIT: not to mention there is plenty of overlap.

matheus_737
01-27-2012, 10:20 PM
This interview show off they want money but I'm certain AC3 gonna be the best of franchise and will be epic because they have to do a great game thanks to critics AC:R has so I trust him.

rileypoole1234
01-27-2012, 10:25 PM
I can see why people don't like MP though. Assassin's Creed is a SP game, and in my opinion, always will be. MP is just an addition. This isn't CoD. Their priority is MP first, everything else later. AC is differerent and I believe always will be.

I honestly can't either. It's not very appealing to me. Just walking around a map getting stabbed ninety times a match isn't fun for me. I've always wanted them to stick with just SP since ACB.

lukaszep
01-27-2012, 10:38 PM
Please explain to me then how it's possible they could continue AC and have it make sense without Desmond, who is the centerpiece and the whole reason for the series. The ancestors come from him, and since he's pretty much "the chosen one" it makes zero sense for them to put somebody else in an Animus just for the sake of going through the ancestor's lives. It holds no purpose b/c Desmond holds all the information. The whole entire point of the story is saving the world from the Apocalypse, which only Desmond can do, and keeping Abstergo away from Pieces of Eden, which again, only Desmond can successfully do. Why do you think it is that Desmond has been able to adapt to the bleeding effect so well and not die or become insane as a result? B/c he's the only one that can. If there were countless others out there like Desmond, he wouldn't be nearly as special, and they could eventually just stumble upon another one like him and start all over again. Please. It would be useless and stupid, and not to mention completely pointless, for them to create anything other than prequels or current storyline fill-ins after Desmond's story is finished. Even if AC3 isn't Desmond's last game, whatever will be, will be the last game that actually furthers the story. Ubisoft has said from the very beginning that this was always meant to be a trilogy. Maybe a few games like Brotherhood and Revelations thrown in, but they have no intention of creating anything other than 3 main games. Which is exactly why AC:B and AC:R have no numerical title. They're inbetween-ers. I doubt very highly there will be an AC4 and if there is and Desmond's story isn't continued in it, then they are indeed milking and ruining the series like so many other franchises have.

How about, continuing the struggle between Assassin's and Templar's that has been going on for at least 2000 years?

SixKeys
01-27-2012, 11:03 PM
I honestly can't either. It's not very appealing to me. Just walking around a map getting stabbed ninety times a match isn't fun for me. I've always wanted them to stick with just SP since ACB.

That's because you just don't know how to win. ;) J/k, but personally I really enjoy both the SP and MP. MP feels more challenging than the SP campaign because you're playing against real people, not poor computer AI. People with different strategies, who pay attention to their surroundings, who can bluff and cheat and actually be a threat to you, unlike any of the current enemies in the SP. I'm not saying I prefer the MP to SP (except in the case of Revelations, TBH), I believe that the story of AC should always be the series' main focus. But the MP is an entirely different experience and should be viewed as such. I also like that they came up with a plausible backstory to it, with the whole Templar agent training angle, instead of just making it a generic CoD "run around shooting everyone" clone. It's an original approach to multiplayer, where being stealthy is rewarded. Whether you like it or not is a matter of personal taste. I love it and I hope to see it return in future AC games, as long as it's not at the cost of SP. Since the two are handled by different studios and different teams, I don't think the MP is taking away any resources from the SP side.

Dieinthedark
01-27-2012, 11:18 PM
I can see why people don't like MP though. Assassin's Creed is a SP game, and in my opinion, always will be. MP is just an addition. This isn't CoD. Their priority is MP first, everything else later. AC is differerent and I believe always will be.

+1

That's why I say have ACIII as a SP only game and if people still want the MP just keep the DLC and whatever else going for ACR. Put all of the focus on SP just to tie things off nicely, leave MP. Seriously, what are you going to do in one years time that's so new, so awesome that people think they have to buy it for MP. My guess is there wouldn't be anything, hence- focus on SP only....just saying....

twenty_glyphs
01-27-2012, 11:46 PM
I doubt that disc space is a major limitation. If it's an issue, they can simply put the game on two discs. I've played games that did that before, and it was a little annoying but not a game-breaker (though I don't know how you would put an open world game onto multiple discs). If it's an issue with multiplayer, that's as simple as putting the multiplayer game on a separate disc since the multiplayer is already a completely different application from the singleplayer anyway. Incidentally, you could tell the Desmond's Journey segments in Revelations were also completely separate applications. That was obviously because they were developed at a separate studio, and it was really jarring every time you tried to load one. Imagine if The Truth had loaded so slowly in AC2 or ACB, or the VR training missions in ACB. I think having so many studios on the game make it too jarring. Brotherhood had just enough extra studios without feeling disjointed to me, with an extra studio doing the multiplayer and another studio building the linear tomb levels.


It's also silly to say that disc space is a reason Revelations couldn't get any bigger, since AC2 was on a disc the same size and had tons of content and many more cities. It was simply a matter of there not being enough time to develop the content for Revelations to make it at least as big as Brotherhood. Brotherhood benefitted by being an extension of AC2, so there was enough time to make it a large, satisfying game for me. Revelations tried to do too much from scratch, and there just wasn't enough time.


As for moving forward with the story, there are a lot of options. For me and a lot of people, I don't think the story is too tied to Desmond to make Assassin's Creed all about Desmond. It's not too big of a stretch to have another protagonist who has some important ancestors who were involved in big historical events. You could call it milking, but the universe they've created is broad enough and interesting enough to tell other stories. There are plenty of other conflicts they can explore than just the 2012/Mayan calendar end of the world scenario. For me, Assassin's Creed is more about exploring history through the Animus and unravelling the truth about events that have shaped human history than about just Desmond and the end of the world in 2012.

GLHS
01-28-2012, 12:13 PM
@ Rileypoole1234 and everybody else: Don't get me wrong. I like MP. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it or that it shouldn't be included on the disk. I play quite a bit myself and was in an AC:B tourney last year. What I meant was that I can understand why some people aren't too keen on the idea of it. A lot of us feel like AC is SP and should've stayed that way. I like the addition of MP, but for me, that's all it is. An addition. My main focus is SP. That's why I buy the game. That's what keeps me coming back for more. It's SP first, and MP second. I'm not against it, but it's always gonna be an addition to the game. Not the reason for the game, like CoD, as I stated earlier.

And @MarelyMon81 about the DLC: It has not been confirmed by Ubisoft yet, but there was an audio leak video that was on here a while ago about Clay and Lucy, detailing the dialogue in the upcoming DLC. Ubisoft has also dropped hints in a recent interview with Game Informer about more upcoming information about Clay and Lucy, and we're assuming that the announcement of this DLC will hopefully come out within the next few months.