PDA

View Full Version : You guys have to see this



zStrictStyle
02-06-2012, 02:11 AM
If anybody thought Revelations and Ezio`s trilogy was made year by year look at this.It looks like Assassin`s Creed Revelations has been planned already since 2009.Look at the date.The concept art is already made for The Grand Bazzar.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/545/capture2zz.png/http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/593/capturejs.png/

LightRey
02-06-2012, 12:34 PM
I assume you intended to post a picture along with this?

GLHS
02-06-2012, 02:29 PM
Would be cool if we could see it..........

But yeah, I've never doubted the fact that Ezio's story was planned out from the beginning. Really, the entirety of all of the games have been. Even Desmond's story was written out since the beginning. I's quite obvious considering they did create the last couple games yearly, b/c if they had to do the rest of the story from scratch without having it written and planned out, they would have never been able to produce the games in a year. This allows for them to build everything else around the story, instead of taking that extra time to write everything out. Then they can just start right into creating the game itself and recording voice acting, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if simple game mechanics and certain other things for AC3 have been in slow development since AC2. Or at least AC:B, which would make the most sense considering that this large of a game would take 2-3 years, and they still plan for it to be a yearly release.

zStrictStyle
02-06-2012, 06:57 PM
I assume you intended to post a picture along with this?
Yes but this is the first time for me to post a picture and it said upload from a url only ,so go to it insted
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/593/capturejs.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/545/capture2zz.png/

zStrictStyle
02-06-2012, 07:03 PM
Would be cool if we could see it..........

But yeah, I've never doubted the fact that Ezio's story was planned out from the beginning. Really, the entirety of all of the games have been. Even Desmond's story was written out since the beginning. I's quite obvious considering they did create the last couple games yearly, b/c if they had to do the rest of the story from scratch without having it written and planned out, they would have never been able to produce the games in a year. This allows for them to build everything else around the story, instead of taking that extra time to write everything out. Then they can just start right into creating the game itself and recording voice acting, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if simple game mechanics and certain other things for AC3 have been in slow development since AC2. Or at least AC:B, which would make the most sense considering that this large of a game would take 2-3 years, and they still plan for it to be a yearly release.

Look at this.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpv97dOggoM ....Corey May says that Assassin`s Creed 2 is(or was supposed to end)in1503 not 1499 like in game.But I think they cut that part to get $$$ out of a new sequel and that means that the story of Brothrhood was already written before 2010.

LightRey
02-06-2012, 07:29 PM
Look at this.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpv97dOggoM ....Corey May says that Assassin`s Creed 2 is(or was supposed to end)in1503 not 1499 like in game.But I think they cut that part to get $$$ out of a new sequel and that means that the story of Brothrhood was already written before 2010.

Originally this was the idea, yes. However, at some point during the production they decided to alter Ezio's story somewhat and add the ACB storyline (originally possibly as a DLC). Considering the many rather stunning new clues ACB added and the fact that the modern-day story has been worked out since the beginning, it's not hard to imagine that the ACR story had also been planned around that time (possibly originally as a DLC as well).

GLHS
02-06-2012, 09:22 PM
Look at this.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpv97dOggoM ....Corey May says that Assassin`s Creed 2 is(or was supposed to end)in1503 not 1499 like in game.But I think they cut that part to get $$$ out of a new sequel and that means that the story of Brothrhood was already written before 2010.

Well, yeah, see I figured that the story was all planned out. Of course, there's always altering to be done once they get into it, so it doesn't surprise me that they had to cut certain things. I highly doubt it was just a decision done to get extra money, since it's obvious that Ubisoft isn't some greedy, money hungry company that's gonna do whatever they can with the franchise to get money. AC2's story was quite large to begin with, and with the amount of story that AC:B covers, it's a bit too big to just be thrown in there as DLC. Plus there was already 2 memory blocks of DLC. I do remember hearing somewhere that AC:B's storyline was originally intended to be DLC, but they decided to release it as a follow up game b/c of it's size. Hence why it was stressed so much that it was a continuation of AC2's story, and not a sequel. They've also cut things from AC:R as well, such as dialogue and things originally intended to be cutscenes for time purposes, along with the fact of it needing to make sense with the story. So it's natural for certain things to be cut, just like in movies. It's all part of the editorial and development process.

Gil_217
02-06-2012, 09:42 PM
But why did they intended to release ACR's story in Lost Legacy, a 3DS game in the first place??

Assassin_M
02-06-2012, 10:19 PM
If any of you senior members here recalls, before the announcement of ACB, some "Unofficial" news started spreading about a HUGE DLC to come out after the Bonfire of the Vanities.. Now seeing this Dev Diary it looks like ACB was DLC but then became too big, and ACR was, as you all know, what came to be called "lost legacy"..

rileypoole1234
02-06-2012, 11:09 PM
Never seen those before. I always assumed it was planned out to a certain extent though.

zStrictStyle
02-06-2012, 11:55 PM
They could have released Brotherhood and Revelations as a one huge DLC in 2 years.

Acrimonious_Nin
02-07-2012, 03:01 AM
They could have released Brotherhood and Revelations as a one huge DLC in 2 years.
yeah but if you remember the first time you beat ac2 did you ever say "yeah ill wait 2 years to know wth happens with this goddess like being"..i dont think so we want it fast and entertaining

VRTX97
02-07-2012, 04:26 AM
yeah but if you remember the first time you beat ac2 did you ever say "yeah ill wait 2 years to know wth happens with this goddess like being"..i dont think so we want it fast and entertaining


I don't know about you but, I did say ''Yeah I'll wait 2 years to know wth happens with this goddess like being'' :P I wasn't expecting another game to come out until 2011 o.o

Acrimonious_Nin
02-07-2012, 05:12 AM
I don't know about you but, I did say ''Yeah I'll wait 2 years to know wth happens with this goddess like being'' :P I wasn't expecting another game to come out until 2011 o.o
lol hmm well then i guess... -___- oh well

JumpInTheFire13
02-07-2012, 05:46 AM
I think Brotherhood and Revelations could have just been one game. But anyways I remember seeing a video, I think it was a developer diary for Brotherhood, and one of the devs said that Rome was originally planned to be another city in AC2, but they realized that it had so much potential so they gave that city its own game.

GLHS
02-07-2012, 10:22 AM
I think Brotherhood and Revelations could have just been one game. But anyways I remember seeing a video, I think it was a developer diary for Brotherhood, and one of the devs said that Rome was originally planned to be another city in AC2, but they realized that it had so much potential so they gave that city its own game.

Right, which is why at the end of AC2, you just start at some random place and infiltrate that way. They didn't want it to be explorable by that point, b/c they had already realized they were just gonna make another game for it. It think they had the story laid out, but in the very early development, they didn't quite realize how big these games were actually gonna be. So then, AC2 starts comin along and they go "ok, well we'll just throw Rome in as DLC." and then it gets further along and they decide to make sequence 12 and 13 broken so they can introduce DLC, and they realize how big it's gonna be then. And then they just kinda went "Screw it. We can do some much with Rome. Why don't we just end the game in 1499 at the Vault, and have Ezio go back to Rome in a new game, cuz it's gonna be way too much for DLC." As far as AC:R, it was probably the same idea. At first, they thought about making it a hand held game or whatever, but then decided against it and to release it as a console game because of the potential. And considering the amount of continuation of the story, I agree with them. If it were to be just some sort of a side game, we'd all be lost. And they would completely lose out because it offered a way for new MP and a perfect set up for AC3, as well as more DLC. Plus, the introduction of Eagle Sense, which we're gonna need for Desmond in AC3.

LightRey
02-07-2012, 01:50 PM
They could have released Brotherhood and Revelations as a one huge DLC in 2 years.

Do you have any idea just how much memory that would use on a hard drive? Not to mention the unbearably long download times and the (relatively) bad quality due to the fact that they have to use the older engines. Both for the consumer and for the distributor it's much more beneficial to release them as separate games on discs.

zStrictStyle
02-07-2012, 02:53 PM
If it`s that way,then why do some people argue Ubisoft did that just for extra cash every year?And also it could have worked.7 long sequences for Brotherhood and 7 for Revelations.Just like AC2.with two main cities:Rome,Constantinople.and the others like Masyaf,Cappadocia.Maybe Rhodes could be a secondary city like Forli in AC2.You see it on the road and you maybe return to it later.It could have been like AC2 with new mechanics,differnet story and locations.

GLHS
02-07-2012, 03:49 PM
Again, it would be huge. There's no possible way. Plus, that would mean they would have to take out like half the story to make it fit, and then nothing would make sense.

Acrimonious_Nin
02-07-2012, 04:08 PM
nothing would make sense.
exactly, well said :D

zStrictStyle
02-07-2012, 04:38 PM
That makes me fear about the amount of content AC3 might have.They say"biggest to date".But how should a game introduce a new ancestor and finish his story along with Desmond`s story in just one game??It`s so huge that way.More than you think then.

Gil_217
02-07-2012, 04:55 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how they will introduce a new character and for what purpose, even though I love the historical part the most.

I don't think it's necessary at all.

Acrimonious_Nin
02-07-2012, 05:01 PM
i have the strangest feeling that ac3 is gonna have spin offs lol ..but i can't wait for the new assassin :p

zStrictStyle
02-07-2012, 10:15 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how they will introduce a new character and for what purpose, even though I love the historical part the most.

I don't think it's necessary at all.

You don`t see it necessary,but they said they will.Maybe Desmond will need another POE to activate it.Like Ezio at the Vault .And his ancestor knows one (Probably in the U.S then as the Grand Temple is in New York).

JumpInTheFire13
02-08-2012, 01:24 AM
What's done is done and we can't do anything about it. We have 4 great games (well, 2 or 3, depending how you look at it) and now the series is set up fairly well for AC3, except we still don't know about Lucy!