PDA

View Full Version : Assassins Creed made the list - And not in a good way



Poodle_of_Doom
02-11-2012, 06:24 PM
Apparenty, Assassins Creed made the list of video game series that should simply be left to die off. It made the list based partially on the latest instalment. Take a look:

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/5-video-game-franchises-break-192537661.html

Gil_217
02-11-2012, 06:40 PM
Apparenty, Assassins Creed made the list of video game series that should simply be left to die off. It made the list based partially on the latest instalment. Take a look:

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/5-video-game-franchises-break-192537661.html

Call of Duty not being in that list is beyond me.

kriegerdesgottes
02-11-2012, 06:41 PM
Call of Duty not being in that list is beyond me.

Good point. what's with that? I do 100% agree though that AC is in desperate need of a break.

LoveTwisted
02-11-2012, 06:44 PM
Well, I agree with certain points.

I wish the games were released every two years or so. In my opinion, and I know there are others that feel this way, is that pushing out a new game every year hurts the quality of the series. I'm certain that if each installment was released in the same timeframe that AC1 (2007) and AC2 (2009), the quality would be much improved.

Don't get me wrong, I still love the series, and I pray that AC3 will be as good and even better than AC2 (and hopefully somewhere around the same length. BH and AC:R were way too short. But like I said, they were released with a year between them)

Poodle_of_Doom
02-11-2012, 07:59 PM
Good point. what's with that? I do 100% agree though that AC is in desperate need of a break.

I agree with this and the call of duty thing. That's one series I never fully understood.

naran6142
02-11-2012, 08:21 PM
to me the improvements in AC are becoming more ummmm novelty, no wat i mean, like poison darts, parachutes and bombs. the new features are becoming more flashy and not adding a lot.

i think most will agree that AC2 had this really cool feel to it, parachutes and bombs would never fit in AC2

story wise in think the games have been great but AC needs a break after AC3 IMO

rileypoole1234
02-12-2012, 02:19 AM
Give Ubisoft a break. Some people that aren't like us Forum goers just don't appreciate AC. It should NOT be on that list. Bloody Hell.

D.I.D.
02-12-2012, 03:09 AM
Give Ubisoft a break. Some people that aren't like us Forum goers just don't appreciate AC. It should NOT be on that list. Bloody Hell.

The writer only lists it as a game that should take a break though, not one that should be permanently ditched.


"We love the Assassin's Creed series as much as the next stealthy killer. We just think it should breathe a little."

NewBlade200
02-12-2012, 03:15 AM
This guy is completely right. I can wait until 2013. I might wait that long anyway if people aren't saying "It's better than AC2" after a month of release. The series has just gotten too milked.

The13Doctors
02-12-2012, 03:14 PM
Halo is in for a confirmed 8-10, AC is on a shaky 6.

Wuht?

Again I say it. There are about 6-8 studios working on AC, it goes through more development than average games. Just in less time.
You don't have to get it on release...

LightRey
02-12-2012, 03:18 PM
Halo is in for a confirmed 8-10, AC is on a shaky 6.

Wuht?

For me Halo committed suicide with Halo: Reach. If Halo 4 is good I might get into it again. AC has never seriously disappointed me and my opinion has not changed with the yearly releases. They can do monthly releases with 100 studios working on the games for all I care. As long as I don't see any change in the quality of the games (and I haven't so far), they can do whatever they want.

The13Doctors
02-12-2012, 03:39 PM
For me Halo committed suicide with Halo: Reach. If Halo 4 is good I might get into it again. AC has never seriously disappointed me and my opinion has not changed with the yearly releases. They can do monthly releases with 100 studios working on the games for all I care. As long as I don't see any change in the quality of the games (and I haven't so far), they can do whatever they want.

This, except I liked Reach the most, I felt it was more classic, while 2 and 3 were completely different games, not bad but different, I prefer 1 and Reach. I heard 4-6 will probably use the 2-3 engine, if so I most likely won't get it, I never liked that style, it isn't bad, it's just I don't like it.

As per shaky I meant it's not even certain if more than 6, I agree with you on the monthly thing, bring it on! I'd buy them haha. (I'm not even kidding).

LightRey
02-12-2012, 03:50 PM
This, except I liked Reach the most, I felt it was more classic, while 2 and 3 were completely different games, not bad but different, I prefer 1 and Reach. I heard 4-6 will probably use the 2-3 engine, if so I most likely won't get it, I never liked that style, it isn't bad, it's just I don't like it.

As per shaky I meant it's not even certain if more than 6, I agree with you on the monthly thing, bring it on! I'd buy them haha. (I'm not even kidding).

I felt Reach just didn't have that sense of mystery and awe the other games had. The 2 story elements that could have given me that feeling failed miserably at it and the way they tried to make the main characters relatable was also kinda pathetic. I didn't care about a single one of them when they died, except maybe Jorge, but I think that was mostly because he was a SPARTAN II.

Anyways, AC deserves at least a 9 imo, but I never cared much for the opinions of reviewers. They tend to think they can actually rationalize their opinions.

GLHS
02-12-2012, 07:31 PM
Here's my list:

1. CALL OF DUTY (No explanation needed, and this is coming from a former CoD player. I am fully disgusted with the lack of appreciation for their fans and gaming in general. I have since moved to Battlefield 3 and find it much better and the job that DICE is doing to better the experience is fantastic. They actually care about more than raping people for money.)
2. Halo (Halo has always annoyed me and really should've just died with Halo 2. Another sh!t attempt by Microsoft to have a "face" of the console. If they want a face, move to a good game...say Gears of War.)
3. Grand Theft Auto (GTA has always been the staple for gangster thugs to just do whatever, with no real point or story. They just make sh!t up to have a "story." They are all the same, and show no amount of intelligence in game development, nor innovation. How many wh0res and cops can you run over before you get bored? Vice City should've been the last one, and that's giving it leniency.)
4. Music and Dance Games (They are fun for partying and stuff, but every game is the same and gets really boring unless you only play them every once in a blue moon)
5. Sports Games (This has always been insane and needs to just friggin stop)

Thank god I am not the only one that is angry over AC being on that list. They have done an exceptional job with yearly releases, and to the contrary of most of the critics, most fans agree. The games show no aging, but only different ideas on game execution. Plus they fail to see that these games are really not yearly games, b/c the story has been in place since the beginning and they have a bunch of teams working on them. These games are really 2 year games made in one year. No other series to date can say that they have released good successful, continuously better yearly releases and not fallen off the tracks. I agree with everything Lightrey said about it. Either people complain about it b/c they don't like the changes, or b/c they don't have enough knowledge about it. Sorry yahoo, but you suck and shouldn't make any lists about games. Ever.

ShaneO7K
02-12-2012, 07:37 PM
Although I am excited to see AC3 be released year, I would not be too bothered by a delay into 2013. I have no real problem with how things are being done with AC at the minute because Ubisoft have shown us a few times now that they are more than capable of producing great stories and gameplay within the space of little over a year.

Most people like to jump to conclusions and be the first to say that a game made within a year of the last will not be good, that isn't really the case here. Ubisoft deserve a little more credit than what some people are saying around the internet, AC as a franchise from the beginning could've been a disaster if it had been in the hands of someone else. People should be a little more grateful about something people put alot of time and care into when it doesn't turn out to be the thing which they have been over-hyped about.

Back on topic though I would be OK with a break because there is always room for improvement and it would help me be a little more excited for it after having not seeing a new one in a few years, but it would be good to get AC3 done and out of the way so we can get a proper idea if they should continue or not.

pacmanate
02-12-2012, 08:04 PM
I think everyone agrees that this franchise needs a break...

LightRey
02-12-2012, 08:51 PM
I think everyone agrees that this franchise needs a break...

If you had read the other posts, then you'd have realized you're wrong.

The13Doctors
02-12-2012, 08:59 PM
Although I am excited to see AC3 be released year, I would not be too bothered by a delay into 2013. I have no real problem with how things are being done with AC at the minute because Ubisoft have shown us a few times now that they are more than capable of producing great stories and gameplay within the space of little over a year.

Most people like to jump to conclusions and be the first to say that a game made within a year of the last will not be good, that isn't really the case here. Ubisoft deserve a little more credit than what some people are saying around the internet, AC as a franchise from the beginning could've been a disaster if it had been in the hands of someone else. People should be a little more grateful about something people put alot of time and care into when it doesn't turn out to be the thing which they have been over-hyped about.



Exactly, and people forget two important facts, these 5 games have been planned from the start, Ubisoft has more than 6 studios working on it as opposed to the usual 1.

zStrictStyle
02-12-2012, 09:15 PM
What`s wrong with you guys?! Assassin`s Creed will take a break after AC3.And AC3 has been in development since Brotherhood,and the evidence is that some people like Christopher Weiler,Gaelec Simbard, Corey May and many others who worked and came up with most of the ideas of AC2 and ACB are still at Ubisoft working on the"unnamed Assassin`s Creed Title".So,relax and be confident that AC3 will have have a full new gameplay mechanics and story.And you in the thread I made that Ezio`s story was already made since 2009.That means they`re being very careful with this game and after it.,they take a break for some years and release a sequel to some other games like POP 2008 maybe.

tarrero
02-12-2012, 09:28 PM
I find the lack of COD disturbing.

Other than that, Revelations is not better that AC1 and AC2I, but from my point of view, it beats Brotherhood. I am almost sure that after AC3 it will take, at least, a two year break.

The13Doctors
02-13-2012, 05:20 AM
You can't revolutionize the gaming industry every single time!
AC1 was revolutionary to game mechanics, as was AC2, they were games that may go down in history should anyone eventually care to make a history book about games. Thing is, they can't have a revolutionary game each time. The industry already has everything that AC1 and AC2 introduced, what else? Think of it from Ubisoft's perspective, in this day and age everything has been made, how would YOU deal with it? How would you change the gaming industry forever at this point? The games haven't impacted as well as before, because it's now a part of the industry, it isn't revolutionary because it just can't be. It's just as good as before, they have everything we had before, and we have more things on top of that.

With AC1 changing the way changing the way AI act, how are you supposed to add to that?

You all are on Ubisoft's back for not being industry changing, okay you do it.

Come up with something industry changing, think of something and tell the idea, something that hasn't been done ever before in the industry.

Then there's also the big thing of Ancestors. Each Ancestor has their specific style of gameplay (movement, fighting), and style of living (story development, style), we've had Ezio for 3 games because of his trilogy, so a lot of people are just tired of his style, people don't know (many haven't played AC1) and take it out on the series.

AC3 will bring people back because it will be a fresh start.

(I'm going to start putting this in all these threads) (anyone going to make a "complaint about the series thread" to keep it all in?)

Limed_-
02-13-2012, 11:41 AM
You can't revolutionize the gaming industry every single time!
AC1 was revolutionary to game mechanics, as was AC2, they were games that may go down in history should anyone eventually care to make a history book about games. Thing is, they can't have a revolutionary game each time. The industry already has everything that AC1 and AC2 introduced, what else? Think of it from Ubisoft's perspective, in this day and age everything has been made, how would YOU deal with it? How would you change the gaming industry forever at this point? The games haven't impacted as well as before, because it's now a part of the industry, it isn't revolutionary because it just can't be. It's just as good as before, they have everything we had before, and we have more things on top of that.

With AC1 changing the way changing the way AI act, how are you supposed to add to that?

You all are on Ubisoft's back for not being industry changing, okay you do it.

Come up with something industry changing, think of something and tell the idea, something that hasn't been done ever before in the industry.

Then there's also the big thing of Ancestors. Each Ancestor has their specific style of gameplay (movement, fighting), and style of living (story development, style), we've had Ezio for 3 games because of his trilogy, so a lot of people are just tired of his style, people don't know (many haven't played AC1) and take it out on the series.

AC3 will bring people back because it will be a fresh start.

(I'm going to start putting this in all these threads) (anyone going to make a "complaint about the series thread" to keep it all in?)


So colourful..

GLHS
02-13-2012, 11:57 AM
Most people like to jump to conclusions and be the first to say that a game made within a year of the last will not be good, that isn't really the case here. Ubisoft deserve a little more credit than what some people are saying around the internet, AC as a franchise from the beginning could've been a disaster if it had been in the hands of someone else. People should be a little more grateful about something people put alot of time and care into when it doesn't turn out to be the thing which they have been over-hyped about.


Exactly, thank you. I feel bad for Ubisoft for getting slammed like they have with this release. It's not fair, and not founded. People just want to be a$$holes. I've kinda always just moderately payed attention to critics anyway. I take what they have to say into consideration, but most of the time they are overly critical and I like to see for myself. I mostly take into account the overall fan-feeling, as the fans are more accurate in their opinions. Largely, there have really only been disappointments on how they handled the questions from AC:B, but not really with the game itself. Ubisoft deserves much more credit that they got for this game, and I only hope they look at the positive things people have said and use that to their advantage.

The13Doctors
02-13-2012, 12:04 PM
Exactly, thank you. I feel bad for Ubisoft for getting slammed like they have with this release. It's not fair, and not founded. People just want to be a$$holes. I've kinda always just moderately payed attention to critics anyway. I take what they have to say into consideration, but most of the time they are overly critical and I like to see for myself. I mostly take into account the overall fan-feeling, as the fans are more accurate in their opinions. Largely, there have really only been disappointments on how they handled the questions from AC:B, but not really with the game itself. Ubisoft deserves much more credit that they got for this game, and I only hope they look at the positive things people have said and use that to their advantage.


Exactly, also asI keep mentioning, 6 studios working on the game, not one.

GLHS
02-13-2012, 12:24 PM
Right. Like I said before, these aren't really 1 year games anyway b/c of that. These are 2 year games released in 1 year b/c of the amount of work going into them and b/c the story has been laid out from the start. People just wanna rag on AC:R b/c it didn't shine like the other ones did. IMO it's a great game, and I loved every minute of it (except Den Defense.) So everybody b!tching about it just needs to calm down and learn to enjoy it.

D.I.D.
02-13-2012, 01:05 PM
Exactly, thank you. I feel bad for Ubisoft for getting slammed like they have with this release. It's not fair, and not founded. People just want to be a$$holes. I've kinda always just moderately payed attention to critics anyway. I take what they have to say into consideration, but most of the time they are overly critical and I like to see for myself. I mostly take into account the overall fan-feeling, as the fans are more accurate in their opinions. Largely, there have really only been disappointments on how they handled the questions from AC:B, but not really with the game itself. Ubisoft deserves much more credit that they got for this game, and I only hope they look at the positive things people have said and use that to their advantage.


Exactly, also asI keep mentioning, 6 studios working on the game, not one.

Excuse me you two, but I paid a lot of money for ACR. Do not call me an arsehole for being annoyed about a blatant undercooked game which let me actually play it less than any other game I've played in my life. Do not excuse its massive shortcomings because it had 6 studios working on it, as if that makes it okay. 6 studios? Great. Use 7 or 8 studios if you want. Give it more time in testing and development, that's all the writer wants.

Those of us who've stuck with it are not simply bored. We love more of the same: playing AC1 through to ACB proves that. We would just like a certain standard to be maintained, and this one fell so far short. It is not going to be the critics' faults if this series gets driven into the ground. Nobody ever cancelled a commercial success because its fans said an instalment was bad. When AC finally goes down the pan, it'll be because it lost its grip on commercial success - and the only fans to blame will be the ones who applauded mediocrity.

Your big colourful post ignores the fact that actually most people who have a negative opinion of ACR do know exactly what they don't like about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument), and have ideas about better directions. The "I'd like to see you do better" argument is pointless too, but I can assure you that when I do establish my own giant games publisher with an annual revenue of 1 billion Euros, it's right at the top of my list.

LightRey
02-13-2012, 01:40 PM
Right. Like I said before, these aren't really 1 year games anyway b/c of that. These are 2 year games released in 1 year b/c of the amount of work going into them and b/c the story has been laid out from the start. People just wanna rag on AC:R b/c it didn't shine like the other ones did. IMO it's a great game, and I loved every minute of it (except Den Defense.) So everybody b!tching about it just needs to calm down and learn to enjoy it.

I agree. Many already formed their opinion long before ACR was actually released and focus on every little thing they dislike.

FrankieSatt
02-13-2012, 02:43 PM
I agree that Assassin's Creed needs to end and it needs to end soon. They have already dragged this game out longer than they should have by making 2 add-ons for AC II, in Brotherhood and Revelations, instead of a full blown AC III. Brotherhood and Revelations were not worth the price nor were they nothing more than high cost DLC in packaging.

ACIII needs to come out and it needs to end the series. Extending a series longer than it should takes away from the series all together. They painted themselves into a corner with the story line and now they need to finish painting that corner.

D.I.D.
02-13-2012, 03:15 PM
I agree. Many already formed their opinion long before ACR was actually released and focus on every little thing they dislike.

Here's the thing: either you say you dislike it and can't explain why, in which case you're hating for no reason, or you know exactly what you don't like, in which case you're small-mindedly picking over little details.

Some problems are small, some are massive. The topic of this thread is the commercial side of the release schedule. Going for the absolute maximum amount of money that you possibly can is risky to long-term prospects, and many people believe the cracks are beginning to show. I honestly don't blame the devs for this, and of course I have no reason to do so. The decisions of scheduling and pricing are not their call. The top level is pushing the teams to produce high quality products in the shortest time imaginable, but they are also demanding too much of the customers financially in order to compete with Activision and EA's mega-profits.

Things have been cut from the value of the game to be sold later as DLC. DLC benefits the publisher most of all; it's a technique designed to keep games on the players' shelves and out of the Used section in the high street games shops. Revelations cost around £40 new (although many retailers have now dropped that price significantly), and sometimes a lot more depending on which edition you bought. Then came the DLC: £4 for a few MP characters, £8 for a map pack that only contained three new maps. We could charitably guess the forthcoming single-player DLC will be £10 at the lowest (though it could easily be £15), so let's assume that it is at the lowest estimate: £40 + £4 + £8 + £10 = £62, or the equivalent of $98 USD. Some fans have argued that the extras are optional, or that for instance CoD is worse, which misses the point completely about Ubisoft's financial strategy and what it means for the future.

Rockstar produced the biggest selling game to date when they released GTA4, and then followed it with excellent, good value DLC. The combination of the two packages easily constituted another full GTA title, and each half was more substantial than many SP campaigns we've seen since then in major titles. Better still, you did not require the original game to play the DLC, which won the thanks of people who'd already sold their GTA4 discs and didn't shut out new players either (and of course boosted sales of the original title). This is good business. GTA5 will not be released until the company is sure it's ready, despite the ****ouring of fans. This might not be good business in the eyes of most, but it's a respectable approach.

Valve comes from the original era of DLC-before-there-was-DLC, so they understand the value of free things. On the other hand, they kind of invented commercial DLC too, but they don't overdo it. The Halflife series gave customers lots of free content, and even spawned free popular games such as Team Fortress. Portal 2 gave us a free co-op campaign, and prior to that Portal was simply given away for free. Each time the news sites went crazy, and the fans talked about how much they love the games and appreciate Valve. Portal 2 became a major seller and won a ton of awards - pretty good for such a quirky title, and it's hard to imagine anyone else giving it a better push by any other means. This is good business.

Ubisoft, by comparison, is generating resentment. They don't seem to mind, because little seems to change in the face of their negative public image. They dropped DRM when it was hurting AC's profits on PC, only to implement an even worse version in Anno 2070 (which made the game impossible for tech sites to review with a range of graphics cards (http://www.guru3d.com/news/why-guru3d-probably-never-will-review-ubisoft-titles-anymore/)). They need to find a way, at the very least, to thank people who buy on day one. Make the subsequent DLC free to those people, perhaps. Don't make them feel like they've been punished for supporting the project. The developers have proved what they can do and they've created the organisation to achieve it, and these people are some of the best artists in the industry. What a waste it would be, to put a permanent deadline ahead of the games' potential.

[edit] Oh automod! I didn't use a curse word above. I said this word (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefreedictionary.com%2F****o uring&ei=ASo5T_GtCcW-0QXsqcCTAg&usg=AFQjCNHv9oW4CNyvdeM4xe81tr0c11x42A) which has been cut with asterisks because of the double meanings of a shelled mollusc :D

SixKeys
02-13-2012, 03:41 PM
You can't revolutionize the gaming industry every single time!
AC1 was revolutionary to game mechanics, as was AC2, they were games that may go down in history should anyone eventually care to make a history book about games. Thing is, they can't have a revolutionary game each time. The industry already has everything that AC1 and AC2 introduced, what else? Think of it from Ubisoft's perspective, in this day and age everything has been made, how would YOU deal with it? How would you change the gaming industry forever at this point? The games haven't impacted as well as before, because it's now a part of the industry, it isn't revolutionary because it just can't be. It's just as good as before, they have everything we had before, and we have more things on top of that.

With AC1 changing the way changing the way AI act, how are you supposed to add to that?



AC2 added a whole lot. In AC1 the crowd was just random NPCs wandering around aimlessly, with monks being the only blend groups. AC2 introduced blending with any group of NPCs, changed the way pick-pocketing works (and how NPCs react to it), introduced shops that actually work instead of just being there for decoration, improved crowd behavior and introduced three different factions each with their own unique functions. In the following games these mechanics have been slightly tweaked, but nothing substantial has been added. If you want examples of the kinds of things that could be added, feel free to peruse the dozens of threads on these forums where people have given their own suggestions for new and improved crowd mechanics.

Also, as has been pointed out, no-one is saying each entry in the series should be industry-changing and revolutionary. Just that the devs take their time to develop a game with something truly new and fresh with a good story instead of throwing half-a$$ed improvements into a short campaign and marketing it as groundbreaking. The hookblade allowed you to jump a whole 1 foot higher than you normally could. <Yahtzee> "F-ing Christmas come early!" </Yahtzee> And that was marketed as one of Revelations' biggest selling points, this one new gadget. All the other stuff was just building on already existing concepts, except maybe Den Defense which most people hated.


You all are on Ubisoft's back for not being industry changing, okay you do it.

Come up with something industry changing, think of something and tell the idea, something that hasn't been done ever before in the industry.


This is like saying you're not allowed to say "this movie was bad" without having made a better movie yourself. It's downright silly.



Then there's also the big thing of Ancestors. Each Ancestor has their specific style of gameplay (movement, fighting), and style of living (story development, style), we've had Ezio for 3 games because of his trilogy, so a lot of people are just tired of his style, people don't know (many haven't played AC1) and take it out on the series.

You can't really say each ancestor has their own style of gameplay when we've only had two so far. In Revelations I would have been happy if there had actually been a difference in the fighting and parkour styles of Altaļr and Ezio, but they both felt exactly the same. It's clear that the reason the two ancestors had a different gameplay style in their respective games was simply because AC1 had more limitations. For Revelations they didn't bother making any distinction between the characters' style, so they just gave Ezio's mechanics to Altaļr (kill streaks and all).




AC3 will bring people back because it will be a fresh start.


I sure hope so. I love the series, but after three games of the same gameplay with very few changes, I'm starting to yearn for something truly refreshing. AC1 may have been revolutionary in many ways, AC2 brought lots of new things to the table. The massive jump in gameplay mechanics and story scope was the reason so many people got hooked after the second game. If AC3 wants to impress people in the same way, they need to do more than tweak some small things here and there.

LightRey
02-13-2012, 03:54 PM
Here's the thing: either you say you dislike it and can't explain why, in which case you're hating for no reason, or you know exactly what you don't like, in which case you're small-mindedly picking over little details.

Some problems are small, some are massive. The topic of this thread is the commercial side of the release schedule. Going for the absolute maximum amount of money that you possibly can is risky to long-term prospects, and many people believe the cracks are beginning to show. I honestly don't blame the devs for this, and of course I have no reason to do so. The decisions of scheduling and pricing are not their call. The top level is pushing the teams to produce high quality products in the shortest time imaginable, but they are also demanding too much of the customers financially in order to compete with Activision and EA's mega-profits.

Things have been cut from the value of the game to be sold later as DLC. DLC benefits the publisher most of all; it's a technique designed to keep games on the players' shelves and out of the Used section in the high street games shops. Revelations cost around £40 new (although many retailers have now dropped that price significantly), and sometimes a lot more depending on which edition you bought. Then came the DLC: £4 for a few MP characters, £8 for a map pack that only contained three new maps. We could charitably guess the forthcoming single-player DLC will be £10 at the lowest (though it could easily be £15), so let's assume that it is at the lowest estimate: £40 + £4 + £8 + £10 = £62, or the equivalent of $98 USD. Some fans have argued that the extras are optional, or that for instance CoD is worse, which misses the point completely about Ubisoft's financial strategy and what it means for the future.

Rockstar produced the biggest selling game to date when they released GTA4, and then followed it with excellent, good value DLC. The combination of the two packages easily constituted another full GTA title, and each half was more substantial than many SP campaigns we've seen since then in major titles. Better still, you did not require the original game to play the DLC, which won the thanks of people who'd already sold their GTA4 discs and didn't shut out new players either (and of course boosted sales of the original title). This is good business. GTA5 will not be released until the company is sure it's ready, despite the ****ouring of fans. This might not be good business in the eyes of most, but it's a respectable approach.

Valve comes from the original era of DLC-before-there-was-DLC, so they understand the value of free things. On the other hand, they kind of invented commercial DLC too, but they don't overdo it. The Halflife series gave customers lots of free content, and even spawned free popular games such as Team Fortress. Portal 2 gave us a free co-op campaign, and prior to that Portal was simply given away for free. Each time the news sites went crazy, and the fans talked about how much they love the games and appreciate Valve. Portal 2 became a major seller and won a ton of awards - pretty good for such a quirky title, and it's hard to imagine anyone else giving it a better push by any other means. This is good business.

Ubisoft, by comparison, is generating resentment. They don't seem to mind, because little seems to change in the face of their negative public image. They dropped DRM when it was hurting AC's profits on PC, only to implement an even worse version in Anno 2070 (which made the game impossible for tech sites to review with a range of graphics cards (http://www.guru3d.com/news/why-guru3d-probably-never-will-review-ubisoft-titles-anymore/)). They need to find a way, at the very least, to thank people who buy on day one. Make the subsequent DLC free to those people, perhaps. Don't make them feel like they've been punished for supporting the project. The developers have proved what they can do and they've created the organisation to achieve it, and these people are some of the best artists in the industry. What a waste it would be, to put a permanent deadline ahead of the games' potential.

I disagree immensely with this. You do not know the financial plans regarding AC or even the current financial situation. All you have is speculation based on your opinion. Meanwhile, the sales rates increase with each release. The DLC elements were never "cut" (except the ACII DLC). They were meant to be DLC from the start. This is how the game industry works. Certain (side) elements of the story are released later to keep the public interested. It's a way to keep up the popularity of the games while they work on the next installment.

The fact of the matter is that you are all just disappointed and are trying to put the blame on the developers instead of your personal tastes or simply your inability to refrain from focusing on every little thing you dislike, because you're so afraid it will fail. Instead of trying to make up these silly excuses, which are all completely unfounded as all of what you have said is pure speculation, you should just accept that Ubisoft will always try to please the majority and you'll not always be part of the majority. If you truly don't like it, too bad, better luck next time. If you actually do like it and are just too afraid to just relax and enjoy the game, then stop nagging and annoying the rest of us and start playing.

D.I.D.
02-13-2012, 04:05 PM
I disagree immensely with this. You do not know the financial plans regarding AC or even the current financial situation. All you have is speculation based on your opinion. Meanwhile, the sales rates increase with each release. The DLC elements were never "cut" (except the ACII DLC). They were meant to be DLC from the start. This is how the game industry works. Certain (side) elements of the story are released later to keep the public interested. It's a way to keep up the popularity of the games while they work on the next installment.

The fact of the matter is that you are all just disappointed and are trying to put the blame on the developers instead of your personal tastes or simply your inability to refrain from focusing on every little thing you dislike, because you're so afraid it will fail. Instead of trying to make up these silly excuses, which are all completely unfounded as all of what you have said is pure speculation, you should just accept that Ubisoft will always try to please the majority and you'll not always be part of the majority. If you truly don't like it, too bad, better luck next time. If you actually do like it and are just too afraid to just relax and enjoy the game, then stop nagging and annoying the rest of us and start playing.

They were cut from ACR.

The alternative is to believe that those few characters, those few maps, were created after ACR, as extra content made especially for you, the customers. I hope nobody here is stupid enough to believe that.

I'm blaming the publishing arm, not the development one. They're two different things completely.

[edit] And sorry, what am I worried will fail?

SixKeys
02-13-2012, 04:22 PM
I love how every time people give sound reasons for disliking the game, they are labeled as nagging and nitpicky and how it's "just" their opinion and that they should "learn to enjoy the game". What seems to elude some people is that every single post is someone's personal opinion. Just because yours is the complete opposite of someone else's doesn't mean it's better. If you complain about a movie that you think is bad and you back up your opinion with arguments, it doesn't mean the movie is "really" good and you just need to learn to enjoy things you consider to be bad. If you complain about a dinner you bought at a restaurant, it's no use for the waiter to explain carefully how you couldn't possibly be right because the chef slaved away at the kitchen for hours and that is clearly evidence that your dinner was, in fact, perfectly fine and you just need to shut up and teach your stomach to enjoy what it's given.

Some of us think Revelations did not live up to its predecessors. Yes, it is our personal opinion. No, yours is not fact. We have given reasoned arguments for our position. Just because you disagree that those reasons are enough to view the game in a bad light does not mean the rest of us are simply WRONG to dislike it. Giving valid arguments to back up your opinions is not nagging, it is called criticism. I'm not simply "too afraid to relax and enjoy the game", I find the game has some merits but it falls short of its potential due to being given less time for development. The reason I criticize is because I hope - foolishly, perhaps - that the developers are actually listening to fans' opinions and are willing to take into consideration even what some people may view as nitpicking over details. If I feel a game is bad or mediocre, I will back up my opinion with what I feel are valid reasons, just like I will criticize a movie for being bad. Some people may not think bad acting is enough to label a movie as bad while other people think it does. Neither can be said to be right in that case, they simply disagree on what aspects make a movie enjoyable. It does not mean the one criticizing the acting just needs to learn to relax and enjoy something he does not find enjoyable.

LightRey
02-13-2012, 04:40 PM
I love how every time people give sound reasons for disliking the game, they are labeled as nagging and nitpicky and how it's "just" their opinion and that they should "learn to enjoy the game". What seems to elude some people is that every single post is someone's personal opinion. Just because yours is the complete opposite of someone else's doesn't mean it's better. If you complain about a movie that you think is bad and you back up your opinion with arguments, it doesn't mean the movie is "really" good and you just need to learn to enjoy things you consider to be bad. If you complain about a dinner you bought at a restaurant, it's no use for the waiter to explain carefully how you couldn't possibly be right because the chef slaved away at the kitchen for hours and that is clearly evidence that your dinner was, in fact, perfectly fine and you just need to shut up and teach your stomach to enjoy what it's given.

Some of us think Revelations did not live up to its predecessors. Yes, it is our personal opinion. No, yours is not fact. We have given reasoned arguments for our position. Just because you disagree that those reasons are enough to view the game in a bad light does not mean the rest of us are simply WRONG to dislike it. Giving valid arguments to back up your opinions is not nagging, it is called criticism. I'm not simply "too afraid to relax and enjoy the game", I find the game has some merits but it falls short of its potential due to being given less time for development. The reason I criticize is because I hope - foolishly, perhaps - that the developers are actually listening to fans' opinions and are willing to take into consideration even what some people may view as nitpicking over details. If I feel a game is bad or mediocre, I will back up my opinion with what I feel are valid reasons, just like I will criticize a movie for being bad. Some people may not think bad acting is enough to label a movie as bad while other people think it does. Neither can be said to be right in that case, they simply disagree on what aspects make a movie enjoyable. It does not mean the one criticizing the acting just needs to learn to relax and enjoy something he does not find enjoyable.

I have nothing against the reasons people come up with, but I do have something against using those same reasons to declare that "ubisoft is taking the wrong direction" or that those reasons are enough to say the games have decreased in quality or whatnot.

The games are doing just fine. The only thing that can truly be an indication of any kind of degradation in quality is how well the games sell, and they are selling very well. Your opinion is not the standard of the gaming industry. It's not like the things you dislike are the things that are actually bad game elements. They're just the things you dislike, nothing more.

For instance, I have a certain disgust for what Halo: Reach did to Halo, but I know that my opinion is not shared by the majority. I know that there are many who would agree with me, but that does not make my opinion the standard. The fact of the matter is that Halo: Reach sold very well and was also well received. As much as I can defend my opinion and why I think the game sucks, I absolutely cannot argue that the game is bad in general, because the very fact that it's sold so well means that it isn't. You can try to be as rational and logical as you want. You can give examples of other games that did similar things and failed, you could show countless reviews of people who agree, but it is all completely meaningless next to the cold-hard numbers that directly contradict it.

You can defend your own opinions as much as you want. I completely respect that and I can relate, but you cannot claim anything about the actual success of the games. Certainly not with what little information you actually have.

kriegerdesgottes
02-13-2012, 04:49 PM
I love how every time people give sound reasons for disliking the game, they are labeled as nagging and nitpicky and how it's "just" their opinion and that they should "learn to enjoy the game". What seems to elude some people is that every single post is someone's personal opinion. Just because yours is the complete opposite of someone else's doesn't mean it's better. If you complain about a movie that you think is bad and you back up your opinion with arguments, it doesn't mean the movie is "really" good and you just need to learn to enjoy things you consider to be bad. If you complain about a dinner you bought at a restaurant, it's no use for the waiter to explain carefully how you couldn't possibly be right because the chef slaved away at the kitchen for hours and that is clearly evidence that your dinner was, in fact, perfectly fine and you just need to shut up and teach your stomach to enjoy what it's given.

Some of us think Revelations did not live up to its predecessors. Yes, it is our personal opinion. No, yours is not fact. We have given reasoned arguments for our position. Just because you disagree that those reasons are enough to view the game in a bad light does not mean the rest of us are simply WRONG to dislike it. Giving valid arguments to back up your opinions is not nagging, it is called criticism. I'm not simply "too afraid to relax and enjoy the game", I find the game has some merits but it falls short of its potential due to being given less time for development. The reason I criticize is because I hope - foolishly, perhaps - that the developers are actually listening to fans' opinions and are willing to take into consideration even what some people may view as nitpicking over details. If I feel a game is bad or mediocre, I will back up my opinion with what I feel are valid reasons, just like I will criticize a movie for being bad. Some people may not think bad acting is enough to label a movie as bad while other people think it does. Neither can be said to be right in that case, they simply disagree on what aspects make a movie enjoyable. It does not mean the one criticizing the acting just needs to learn to relax and enjoy something he does not find enjoyable.

Exactly, 100% agree with this

twenty_glyphs
02-13-2012, 04:54 PM
It always cracks me up when people who like something insult the people who don't like it. I liked Brotherhood a lot, but there were a good amount of people on this board who were upset about it. I respected that they had different opinions, and never had the urge to try to change their minds or say they were basically stupid for not liking what was obviously a great game. Can fans of the series who have played every game seriously not enjoy an entry as much as you guys without being insulted? If we truly don't like it, our only option is not "too bad, better luck next time" -- we can voice our opinions on this forum in the hope of having those opinions influence future games. Ultimately, we can voice our opinion by not buying the next game, but a lot of us love the series and don't want it to come to that.

You really think we are "too afraid to just relax and enjoy the game"? That's what I did when I first popped it into my console. I didn't overanalyze anything and was simply along for the ride the game had to offer. The problem was, the ride was nowhere near as fun as the previous games. It wasn't until I finished the game that I reflected back on it and began to analyze why I thought it wasn't as fun as previous entries. I was just as hyped to play Brotherhood as I was Revelations, and I never "nitpicked" Brotherhood for things that weren't as good as AC2. Revelations felt empty to me, like it was lacking some heart and soul. Part of that was due to the shrinking amount of side content. Mostly it was just unpolished and felt unfinished. It felt forced, much like you might expect a product to be when it was pulled out of a hat in order to have a major game to release in 2011 (by taking a story idea developed as a handheld game and promoting it to a console title).

I give a lot of credit to the developers for making a game as good as Revelations under such hard conditions. Revelations is in no way a bad game, it's just not as good as previous entries and is starting to get stale for a lot of us. It's obvious they simply weren't allowed to advance Desmond's story before AC3, which tells you this game was not "planned from the beginning". They've said Desmond's story arc was planned out, but even if that story had Desmond going into a coma, that doesn't require a full game to explore the coma. I applaud some of the ideas, like the hookblade and the bombs. I liked the additions the hookblade brought a lot, but the bombs felt more like a gimmick that didn't have the time to be fully developed. The writing was not as bad as some people claim, and I really enjoyed how Ezio and Altaļr's endings came together.

As for six studios working on the game, there is something called Brook's Law which states that "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later". The general idea is you can't just add more people to a software project and expect it to get finished faster. A related saying is "Nine women can't make a baby in one month". Large numbers of people working on a game can't compete with the benefits that more time brings you. The benefits of extra studios are in working on things in parallel, like the multiplayer game and "secret location" maps being developed at outside studios. But when it comes to features like the Templar Awareness system and bombs, those kinds of things benefit by getting the time to implement them into the game and then evaluate them. Sometimes a feature like that gets tweaked and improved, and sometimes it gets cut altogether. But that can't happen as well if you're under such a tight deadline. The project doesn't get the chance to grow organically and get refined over a period of time. You end up with a product like Revelations, where it looks like lots of features on a design document got implemented in the game, but didn't get the time to be properly evaluated and tweaked to fit just right.

As for the DLC, I don't think that content was "cut" from the game to be resold later, but I do think it was intentionally withheld from the game to be sold at a premium price later. The perfect example is the map pack, which only gives you 3 new maps and several old maps from Brotherhood and then charges a $10 premium.

To say that we can't say the quality of the series is dropping because the sales numbers are still good is just plain silly. For one, many of those sales figures are based on people buying the game in the first two weeks, before many people could reflect back on what they didn't enjoy about the game. It's part of why the video game industry is so preorder driven -- they only get one chance up front to make their money. Many of us were going to buy Revelations no matter what the reviewers said. I would argue Revelations' sales numbers are more a reflection of how people felt about Brotherhood than about Revelations itself, since so many of them were upfront. As for AC3, a lot of people will probably be a little more cautious about their purchase. But just because something continues to enjoy commercial success on the heels of other quality work does not mean it's still as good as the previous work. I believe each AC game has sold very well, but their sales numbers have still dipped with each entry. Even AC1 sold more than AC2 by a little, and Brotherhood's dip from AC2 was a little bit more. Only time will tell how much the dip is from Brotherhood to Revelations, but I bet Revelations sees a bigger dip than Brotherhood did.

LightRey
02-13-2012, 05:02 PM
It always cracks me up when people who like something insult the people who don't like it. I liked Brotherhood a lot, but there were a good amount of people on this board who were upset about it. I respected that they had different opinions, and never had the urge to try to change their minds or say they were basically stupid for not liking what was obviously a great game. Can fans of the series who have played every game seriously not enjoy an entry as much as you guys without being insulted? If we truly don't like it, our only option is not "too bad, better luck next time" -- we can voice our opinions on this forum in the hope of having those opinions influence future games. Ultimately, we can voice our opinion by not buying the next game, but a lot of us love the series and don't want it to come to that.

You really think we are "too afraid to just relax and enjoy the game"? That's what I did when I first popped it into my console. I didn't overanalyze anything and was simply along for the ride the game had to offer. The problem was, the ride was nowhere near as fun as the previous games. It wasn't until I finished the game that I reflected back on it and began to analyze why I thought it wasn't as fun as previous entries. I was just as hyped to play Brotherhood as I was Revelations, and I never "nitpicked" Brotherhood for things that weren't as good as AC2. Revelations felt empty to me, like it was lacking some heart and soul. Part of that was due to the shrinking amount of side content. Mostly it was just unpolished and felt unfinished. It felt forced, much like you might expect a product to be when it was pulled out of a hat in order to have a major game to release in 2011 (by taking a story idea developed as a handheld game and promoting it to a console title).

I give a lot of credit to the developers for making a game as good as Revelations under such hard conditions. Revelations is in no way a bad game, it's just not as good as previous entries and is starting to get stale for a lot of us. It's obvious they simply weren't allowed to advance Desmond's story before AC3, which tells you this game was not "planned from the beginning". They've said Desmond's story arc was planned out, but even if that story had Desmond going into a coma, that doesn't require a full game to explore the coma. I applaud some of the ideas, like the hookblade and the bombs. I liked the additions the hookblade brought a lot, but the bombs felt more like a gimmick that didn't have the time to be fully developed. The writing was not as bad as some people claim, and I really enjoyed how Ezio and Altaļr's endings came together.

As for six studios working on the game, there is something called Brook's Law which states that "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later". The general idea is you can't just add more people to a software project and expect it to get finished faster. A related saying is "Nine women can't make a baby in one month". Large numbers of people working on a game can't compete with the benefits that more time brings you. The benefits of extra studios are in working on things in parallel, like the multiplayer game and "secret location" maps being developed at outside studios. But when it comes to features like the Templar Awareness system and bombs, those kinds of things benefit by getting the time to implement them into the game and then evaluate them. Sometimes a feature like that gets tweaked and improved, and sometimes it gets cut altogether. But that can't happen as well if you're under such a tight deadline. The project doesn't get the chance to grow organically and get refined over a period of time. You end up with a product like Revelations, where it looks like lots of features on a design document got implemented in the game, but didn't get the time to be properly evaluated and tweaked to fit just right.

As for the DLC, I don't think that content was "cut" from the game to be resold later, but I do think it was intentionally withheld from the game to be sold at a premium price later. The perfect example is the map pack, which only gives you 3 new maps and several old maps from Brotherhood and then charges a $10 premium.

To say that we can't say the quality of the series is dropping because the sales numbers are still good is just plain silly. For one, many of those sales figures are based on people buying the game in the first two weeks, before many people could reflect back on what they didn't enjoy about the game. It's part of why the video game industry is so preorder driven -- they only get one chance up front to make their money. Many of us were going to buy Revelations no matter what the reviewers said. I would argue Revelations' sales numbers are more a reflection of how people felt about Brotherhood than about Revelations itself, since so many of them were upfront. As for AC3, a lot of people will probably be a little more cautious about their purchase. But just because something continues to enjoy commercial success on the heels of other quality work does not mean it's still as good as the previous work. I believe each AC game has sold very well, but their sales numbers have still dipped with each entry. Even AC1 sold more than AC2 by a little, and Brotherhood's dip from AC2 was a little bit more. Only time will tell how much the dip is from Brotherhood to Revelations, but I bet Revelations sees a bigger dip than Brotherhood did.

I am not bashing anyone's opinions. I am merely pointing out that one's opinion is no indication of the game's general success.

The sales numbers are the most reliable information we've got. Reviews rarely accurately reflect the public's opinion and forums, etc. are just biased by the huge overrepresentation of complainers.

At the very least the sales rates are an indication of the success of the previous installments. I think we all remember just how much ACB was (and still is) bashed, yet ACR still sold very well. It cannot be that such a significant amount of the haters of ACB decided to stick with the series just in case. Surely a significant amount decided to leave. Yet we see no traces of the fact that these people left in the sales rates of ACR. That should say enough. If ACB was truly as much of a failure as the amount of haters on this forum (for example) seemed to reflect, than the sales rates for ACR should've been significantly lower than that of ACB.

SixKeys
02-13-2012, 05:07 PM
I have nothing against the reasons people come up with, but I do have something against using those same reasons to declare that "ubisoft is taking the wrong direction" or that those reasons are enough to say the games have decreased in quality or whatnot.

The games are doing just fine. The only thing that can truly be an indication of any kind of degradation in quality is how well the games sell, and they are selling very well. Your opinion is not the standard of the gaming industry. It's not like the things you dislike are the things that are actually bad game elements. They're just the things you dislike, nothing more.

I disagree that sales figures are the only indication of quality. Lots of sh---y games are sold every year because some fans will remain loyal to the franchise or company despite quality decline.

Revelations was the lowest-rated game in the series critically (not counting the handhelds). Even if critics' opinions are still just opinions, it means that at the very least, even many professional reviewers shared the same complaints as a large part of the fanbase. While that shouldn't stop anyone from enjoying the game, it should at least mean Ubisoft should consider their next move carefully if they want interest for the franchise to remain as high in the future. Even many people who liked the latest game are starting to shown signs of franchise fatigue. Just because the games are still selling well doesn't mean they will keep selling well forever if the company doesn't take fans' criticisms into account.



For instance, I have a certain disgust for what Halo: Reach did to Halo, but I know that my opinion is not shared by the majority. I know that there are many who would agree with me, but that does not make my opinion the standard. The fact of the matter is that Halo: Reach sold very well and was also well received. As much as I can defend my opinion and why I think the game sucks, I absolutely cannot argue that the game is bad in general, because the very fact that it's sold so well means that it isn't.

Nonsense. A game, book, movie or play can be bad regardless of sales figures. That's an argument from popularity. "If 1 million people like something, it can't possibly be bad." You're right in that it doesn't make your opinion the standard, but it also doesn't negate your opinion as an invalid criticism.




You can defend your own opinions as much as you want. I completely respect that and I can relate, but you cannot claim anything about the actual success of the games. Certainly not with what little information you actually have.

I never claimed anything about the games' success in regards to sales. I don't think other people have either. It's pretty obvious at this point that Ubisoft could make a board game and slap the title "Assassin's Creed III" on it and people would flock to it in masses. That still doesn't mean the game would necessarily be good or that wouldn't be a visible decline in quality. Critics and fans alike keep complaining about CoD as a prime example of a game series that hasn't been innovative in years, yet it still sells millions every year. It doesn't mean there hasn't been a dip in quality, it just means people are loyal to the franchise or buy it for the multiplayer.

twenty_glyphs
02-13-2012, 05:16 PM
I am not bashing anyone's opinions. I am merely pointing out that one's opinion is no indication of the game's general success.

The sales numbers are the most reliable information we've got. Reviews rarely accurately reflect the public's opinion and forums, etc. are just biased by the huge overrepresentation of complainers.

At the very least the sales rates are an indication of the success of the previous installments. I think we all remember just how much ACB was (and still is) bashed, yet ACR still sold very well. It cannot be that such a significant amount of the haters of ACB decided to stick with the series just in case. Surely a significant amount decided to leave. Yet we see no traces of the fact that these people left in the sales rates of ACR. That should say enough. If ACB was truly as much of a failure as the amount of haters on this forum (for example) seemed to reflect, than the sales rates for ACR should've been significantly lower than that of ACB.

I don't think a lot of us are saying Revelations was a failure. We're just saying it doesn't live up to the quality and fun the series has provided until now for us, long-time fans of the series. As such, we could care less how well it sold -- our only measure is the enjoyment we got out of the game. I know the complaints can get a little louder than the praise, but to say it's hugely over-represented on the forums is probably a mistake and not verifiable. I was lurking around the official forums as well as others last year, and I remember the amount of complaints about Brotherhood. There were a lot last year, but it feels like this year has significantly more complaints, and that's not just here -- it's on several other forums and the wiki as well. A lot of the Brotherhood complainers are gone for good, so this year's complaints are also coming from a lot of new people, including me. The fact that so many long-time series devotees are not happy with Revelations should be taken seriously by Ubisoft.

I also remember a lot of the bugs in Brotherhood last year, and how loud the complaints about them were. But I believe by this time last year, many of the major bugs had been fixed. The same time this year, only one post-launch-day patch has been released, and it's known more for what it broke than what it fixed. The lack of support and communication by Ubisoft is also fueling the negative opinions of the franchise.

LightRey
02-13-2012, 05:20 PM
I disagree that sales figures are the only indication of quality. Lots of sh---y games are sold every year because some fans will remain loyal to the franchise or company despite quality decline.

Revelations was the lowest-rated game in the series critically (not counting the handhelds). Even if critics' opinions are still just opinions, it means that at the very least, even many professional reviewers shared the same complaints as a large part of the fanbase. While that shouldn't stop anyone from enjoying the game, it should at least mean Ubisoft should consider their next move carefully if they want interest for the franchise to remain as high in the future. Even many people who liked the latest game are starting to shown signs of franchise fatigue. Just because the games are still selling well doesn't mean they will keep selling well forever if the company doesn't take fans' criticisms into account.



Nonsense. A game, book, movie or play can be bad regardless of sales figures. That's an argument from popularity. "If 1 million people like something, it can't possibly be bad." You're right in that it doesn't make your opinion the standard, but it also doesn't negate your opinion as an invalid criticism.




I never claimed anything about the games' success in regards to sales. I don't think other people have either. It's pretty obvious at this point that Ubisoft could make a board game and slap the title "Assassin's Creed III" on it and people would flock to it in masses. That still doesn't mean the game would necessarily be good or that wouldn't be a visible decline in quality. Critics and fans alike keep complaining about CoD as a prime example of a game series that hasn't been innovative in years, yet it still sells millions every year. It doesn't mean there hasn't been a dip in quality, it just means people are loyal to the franchise or buy it for the multiplayer.

Fans, yes. Regular gamers, no. Not everyone who buys the game is a fan. In fact, most are just people who sorta liked the (look of) the previous installments or the trailers and decided to buy the game. These people buy the game because they think it's fun and often if it isn't the game is returned. Even if only a small percentage of people would actually do that, the proportional difference between a new installment and its predecessor could be noticed instantly in the sales rates. Especially considering how much time and money (game) companies put in researching these factors.

Again, reviewers' opinions are rarely representative of the general public, which is one of the reasons I generally ignore them (with the exception of a few that I like). Reviewers are in the end journalists, which means that they will often try to be controversial or overly critical, especially when a game isn't as "revolutionary" as its predecessor (ridiculous as such an attitude may be) simply to attract readers.

That is preposterous. The quality of an artform is by definition relative. That means that its "general quality" can only be reflected by the majority's opinion. There are no universal standards in this. There is no solid, scientific definition of "good art".

You didn't, but that is what I was contesting. I was never out to "bash" your, or anyone's opinions. They are irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that the reasoning behind forming an opinion can't be used to reason the (lack of) success of a game (series).

SixKeys
02-13-2012, 05:47 PM
Fans, yes. Regular gamers, no. Not everyone who buys the game is a fan. In fact, most are just people who sorta liked the (look of) the previous installments or the trailers and decided to buy the game. These people buy the game because they think it's fun and often if it isn't the game is returned. Even if only a small percentage of people would actually do that, the proportional difference between a new installment and its predecessor could be noticed instantly in the sales rates. Especially considering how much time and money (game) companies put in researching these factors.

Do you see what you're doing here? You're basically equating successful marketing of a game with how many people actually enjoyed it. Everyone knows trailers often lie. They can make a bad or mediocre game look amazing, so if the marketers do their job well, of course lots of people will go out and buy the game. Then when they find out it wasn't all it was cracked up to be and come to these forums and complain, you say "well, lots of people like you bought the game so obviously it must be good!". The whole point of complaining about a game is that you bought it thinking it would be good and then being disappointed. Lots of people can, in fact, buy a game and be disappointed. All it means is they gave the company lots of money without getting much in return due to being persuaded by ad campaigns or word of mouth. It is not indicative of the game's artistic quality by any means.




That is preposterous. The quality of an artform is by definition relative. That means that its "general quality" can only be reflected by the majority's opinion. There are no universal standards in this. There is no solid, scientific definition of "good art".


If you honestly think an argument from popularity is the most reliable way to measure artistic merit, then I don't think there's much else I can say. Just because almost 100 million people have watched The Annoying Orange on YouTube doesn't mean it is a masterpiece of filmmaking.

LightRey
02-13-2012, 05:59 PM
Do you see what you're doing here? You're basically equating successful marketing of a game with how many people actually enjoyed it. Everyone knows trailers often lie. They can make a bad or mediocre game look amazing, so if the marketers do their job well, of course lots of people will go out and buy the game. Then when they find out it wasn't all it was cracked up to be and come to these forums and complain, you say "well, lots of people like you bought the game so obviously it must be good!". The whole point of complaining about a game is that you bought it thinking it would be good and then being disappointed. Lots of people can, in fact, buy a game and be disappointed. All it means is they gave the company lots of money without getting much in return due to being persuaded by ad campaigns or word of mouth. It is not indicative of the game's artistic quality by any means.




If you honestly think an argument from popularity is the most reliable way to measure artistic merit, then I don't think there's much else I can say. Just because almost 100 million people have watched The Annoying Orange on YouTube doesn't mean it is a masterpiece of filmmaking.

I'm not equating it, I'm saying that one is an indication of the other, which it is. Marketing is all about the appreciation of the product in question. In fact, it is almost (if not completely) a science in getting people to appreciate the product by making minimal changes to said product. The funny thing about appreciation is that it's not rational at all (though many would claim otherwise). The simplest thing such as changing the picture on the box can completely change the appreciation of a product (yes, the actual appreciation). It's 99% subconscious whether you like it or not. You can try to rationalize it all you want, but in the end the reason you liked, say, a game (or not) was mostly dependent on how you were introduced to it, be it a commercial, a (p)review or the packaging.

In a sense, yes. But only in regards of whether it was "successful". In the end, the appreciation of any form of art is completely relative to the beholder. Art cannot be good or bad, it can only be good or bad in the eyes of a specific person. So yes, The Annoying Orange is a masterpiece of filmmaking in the sense that it has successfully entertained millions of people.

SixKeys
02-13-2012, 06:09 PM
In a sense, yes. But only in regards of whether it was "successful". In the end, the appreciation of any form of art is completely relative to the beholder. Art cannot be good or bad, it can only be good or bad in the eyes of a specific person. So yes, The Annoying Orange is a masterpiece of filmmaking in the sense that it has successfully entertained millions of people.

Really? So even if, let's say, 60 million of those people just happened to accidentally stumble upon the clip while looking for something else and found it terrible, their opinion doesn't count because it still means they were part of making it popular? Similarly, if I buy a game because the marketing or hype has made me curious about it and it turns out to be poorly made and full of bugs, my opinion doesn't matter because I was still part of the masses contributing to its success. Is it possible to "dupe" people into turning a piece of crap into a masterpiece?

LightRey
02-13-2012, 06:16 PM
Really? So even if, let's say, 60 million of those people just happened to accidentally stumble upon the clip while looking for something else and found it terrible, their opinion doesn't count because it still means they were part of making it popular? Similarly, if I buy a game because the marketing or hype has made me curious about it and it turns out to be poorly made and full of bugs, my opinion doesn't matter because I was still part of the masses contributing to its success. Is it possible to "dupe" people into turning a piece of crap into a masterpiece?

Of course it counts, but it's not about views alone. You know as well as I that Youtube videos can be "liked" or "disliked". The sheer abundance of "likes" regarding the Annoying Orange videos should be enough of an indication. Their opinion counts, but they're clearly outnumbered even if we assume there is a bias (which there likely is, considering the subscribers, but the amount of likes far outweighs the amount of subscribers).

Your opinion does matter, but for one apparently you didn't hate it enough to stop buying the games or to return them, which should be indication enough that you still like it, and by far not all who dislike a game will still buy the next. As I said before, by far not all who actually buy the games are "loyal fans" and they will stop buying the games if they don't like them. There's also a significant percentage of "fresh" players, who start the series with the latest installment, to which the same applies of course.

ShaneO7K
02-13-2012, 06:52 PM
I wouldn't really think it is fair to take punches at Ubisoft just for reasons like the cost of DLC or just the fact that there is DLC. Yes I myself would benefit with a bigger wallet without it, but realisiticly the people who work at Ubisoft, or any other developer for that matter, are no different than you or me. They work just as hard as everyone else here if not harder. They also have bills to pay and mouths to feed. I really don't get how if a Developer brings out plenty of sequels/ DLC they will automatically be claimed as "stealing our money". As long as there is enough interest in a product, the sales rates go up and there can be more done with it, we will always see a developer at least try and bring more to the shelves because it is obviously what they are paid for. Obviously sales with AC have been going up with each release and it has been picking up interest since day 1 so of course more games will be made.

We are assured of AC3 and the end for Desmonds story, if there is truly nothing left for us after that then so be it. Most people here need to realise there are 2 sides to each coin and not to complain because the guy next to you is. If you really don't like a game then simply don't buy it, don't go waving hard earned money in the air at the first sign of a good trailer. That doesn't only apply to games, look into something before you waste your own money and find out it doesn't suit your tastes and then think it's the person who made it the products own fault.

I know I am ranting on a bit too much here but the stupidity of most people right now. I hate to mention this but I am using it as an example, CoD. In my own opinion people would buy by only seeing "Call of Duty" and nothing else. Release day comes, you pay for it and then realise that you have basically thrown your money down the drain and say "**** you *developer", I paid for this and it's crap". By now people should know what to expect and not buy something entirelt based on the name of the brand. For something like that you can't blame the developer, it is your own fault. As long as they make millions each year they will keep doing this because the game will still be successful.

/Rant over.

People need to have a little more sense.

D.I.D.
02-13-2012, 07:57 PM
I wouldn't really think it is fair to take punches at Ubisoft just for reasons like the cost of DLC or just the fact that there is DLC. Yes I myself would benefit with a bigger wallet without it, but realisiticly the people who work at Ubisoft, or any other developer for that matter, are no different than you or me. They work just as hard as everyone else here if not harder. They also have bills to pay and mouths to feed. I really don't get how if a Developer brings out plenty of sequels/ DLC they will automatically be claimed as "stealing our money". As long as there is enough interest in a product, the sales rates go up and there can be more done with it, we will always see a developer at least try and bring more to the shelves because it is obviously what they are paid for. Obviously sales with AC have been going up with each release and it has been picking up interest since day 1 so of course more games will be made.

We are assured of AC3 and the end for Desmonds story, if there is truly nothing left for us after that then so be it. Most people here need to realise there are 2 sides to each coin and not to complain because the guy next to you is. If you really don't like a game then simply don't buy it, don't go waving hard earned money in the air at the first sign of a good trailer. That doesn't only apply to games, look into something before you waste your own money and find out it doesn't suit your tastes and then think it's the person who made it the products own fault.

I know I am ranting on a bit too much here but the stupidity of most people right now. I hate to mention this but I am using it as an example, CoD. In my own opinion people would buy by only seeing "Call of Duty" and nothing else. Release day comes, you pay for it and then realise that you have basically thrown your money down the drain and say "**** you *developer", I paid for this and it's crap". By now people should know what to expect and not buy something entirelt based on the name of the brand. For something like that you can't blame the developer, it is your own fault. As long as they make millions each year they will keep doing this because the game will still be successful.

/Rant over.

People need to have a little more sense.

I never accused them of stealing, and I don't think anybody else on here has done that either. I accused them of nickel-and-diming, because I see these practices as a price hike by stealth. Like I said, these are not things the development team create and decide on themselves. These are operational decisions from the publishing office, who decide the marketing strategy. People are confusing "developer" and "publisher", understandably so in this case, since we're talking about the same company in this instance.

Developers don't really see this money from extra sales. In the case of a developer which has more distance from its publisher, they see only a tiny fraction of any extra money through a hit game. The publisher gets that, because they finance the project and therefore shoulder the risk. I don't know how Ubisoft handle it, but it's probably no different from the rest of the industry - the people who actually built the game take home their salary as normal, possibly with a bonus, and of course they get greater job security and a fantastic entry on their CV. At best, to a developer, a hit game means a greater budget to play with on the next title.

As you might detect from my tone, I'm not buying these DLCs. I might grudgingly buy the single-player DLC, but I will want to know that it's truly worth it, so I'll ask people who felt the same way I did about ACR first. I pre-ordered ACR Collectors Edition months in advance, and I waved that money in the air because I loved the previous three games. As you suggest, I won't be doing that next time. I will go into the next purchase very carefully, and if I have any doubts then I'll wait for a price drop or leave it. I agree that people should think carefully about these purchases, but I also think people should voice their problems with it in order that customers and companies hear what each other are thinking. I'm not into multiplayer games anymore, but I hear complaints from other people about certain MP titles which effectively shut you out if you don't buy the latest map pack. A company which implements such things is unlikely to puzzle out what went wrong simply by checking the bank balance.

What I will do about DLC is not really relevant to my point, which is an industry-wide problem. It's not about what I'll buy or what I won't, and what I'm trying to highlight here is what this tells us about the largest games companies' approach to business from now on. It's a kind of destructive short-termism, where the profit always justifies the action, and the profit must be maximised no matter what. Customers shouldn't have to pay for that culture. It's not greed, as such - the CEO of Ubisoft is not Scrooge McDuck, and he's not cackling to himself as he swims through his money pit - but it is a focus on competition which has been driven to an extreme, and the biggest companies are engaged in a race to the bottom in terms of how far they'll stretch the use of DLC. The concepts of "bills to pay" and "mouths to feed" is completely out of place in a conversation about companies of this size.

Ghost prices are a problem. Games are already expensive, which narrows the market, and additional top-ups narrow the market still further. Every extra dollar a customer spends on unnecessary extra purchases for an existing game is a dollar they can't spend on another new title.

twenty_glyphs
02-13-2012, 08:08 PM
Of course it counts, but it's not about views alone. You know as well as I that Youtube videos can be "liked" or "disliked". The sheer abundance of "likes" regarding the Annoying Orange videos should be enough of an indication. Their opinion counts, but they're clearly outnumbered even if we assume there is a bias (which there likely is, considering the subscribers, but the amount of likes far outweighs the amount of subscribers).

Your opinion does matter, but for one apparently you didn't hate it enough to stop buying the games or to return them, which should be indication enough that you still like it, and by far not all who dislike a game will still buy the next. As I said before, by far not all who actually buy the games are "loyal fans" and they will stop buying the games if they don't like them. There's also a significant percentage of "fresh" players, who start the series with the latest installment, to which the same applies of course.

If Revelations was the first AC game that people didn't like, there's nothing for them to have stopped buying yet because it's the most recent game. Maybe you can count DLC sales as some indication, but so far the only DLC has been non-essential multiplayer content. You can't return a video game once it's opened, so that's not a valid reason to say someone still liked the game. If you open the game, it's yours, even if you realize you hate it within the first hour. You can sell it to a used game shop, but that number won't count against the number of game sales. I'd argue that it barely decreases the number of new copies sold just because you traded in the game.

When a narrative starts to form that a lot of people are disappointed with something, that is usually the correct assessment of how that thing was received. Some people were disappointed with Brotherhood, but the general consensus was that it was a great follow-up to AC2. You didn't see as many articles saying AC needed to take a break last year.


For an example of something that was wildly commercially successful but not very well-received, just look at the Star Wars prequels. People lined up to see them mostly based on how much they liked the original movies. Even when the first one was a disappointment, a lot of people still came back because of how badly they wanted the movies to be good. Certainly a lot of people enjoyed the movies, a lot of people were lukewarm, and a lot of people hated them. They made a lot of money, but any time they're mentioned today, it's in the context of how they were disappointing and not as good as the original movies that made people like the series. This is a perfect example of why you can't say something must have been liked by a majority of people just because it made a lot of money.

LightRey
02-13-2012, 08:14 PM
I never accused them of stealing, and I don't think anybody else on here has done that either. I accused them of nickel-and-diming, because I see these practices as a price hike by stealth. Like I said, these are not things the development team create and decide on themselves. These are operational decisions from the publishing office, who decide the marketing strategy. People are confusing "developer" and "publisher", understandably so in this case, since we're talking about the same company in this instance.

Developers don't really see this money from extra sales. In the case of a developer which has more distance from its publisher, they see only a tiny fraction of any extra money through a hit game. The publisher gets that, because they finance the project and therefore shoulder the risk. I don't know how Ubisoft handle it, but it's probably no different from the rest of the industry - the people who actually built the game take home their salary as normal, possibly with a bonus, and of course they get greater job security and a fantastic entry on their CV. At best, to a developer, a hit game means a greater budget to play with on the next title.

As you might detect from my tone, I'm not buying these DLCs. I might grudgingly buy the single-player DLC, but I will want to know that it's truly worth it, so I'll ask people who felt the same way I did about ACR first. I pre-ordered ACR Collectors Edition months in advance, and I waved that money in the air because I loved the previous three games. As you suggest, I won't be doing that next time. I will go into the next purchase very carefully, and if I have any doubts then I'll wait for a price drop or leave it. I agree that people should think carefully about these purchases, but I also think people should voice their problems with it in order that customers and companies hear what each other are thinking. I'm not into multiplayer games anymore, but I hear complaints from other people about certain MP titles which effectively shut you out if you don't buy the latest map pack. A company which implements such things is unlikely to puzzle out what went wrong simply by checking the bank balance.

What I will do about DLC is not really relevant to my point, which is an industry-wide problem. It's not about what I'll buy or what I won't, and what I'm trying to highlight here is what this tells us about the largest games companies' approach to business from now on. It's a kind of destructive short-termism, where the profit always justifies the action, and the profit must be maximised no matter what. Customers shouldn't have to pay for that culture. It's not greed, as such - the CEO of Ubisoft is not Scrooge McDuck, and he's not cackling to himself as he swims through his money pit - but it is a focus on competition which has been driven to an extreme, and the biggest companies are engaged in a race to the bottom in terms of how far they'll stretch the use of DLC. The concepts of "bills to pay" and "mouths to feed" is completely out of place in a conversation about companies of this size.

Ghost prices are a problem. Games are already expensive, which narrows the market, and additional top-ups narrow the market still further. Every extra dollar a customer spends on unnecessary extra purchases for an existing game is a dollar they can't spend on another new title.

If people buy it then evidently the DLC is worth the money. This is how economics work. The total cost to the consumer increases until a balance is reached where there is optimal net profit. This is the case with every product.

Also, I think your theory about the DLC is flawed. It's not to much a way to "milk" more money out of the product (though I'm sure it's at least a contributing factor), but much more likely it's a way to have a more continuous stream of releases to keep the games in the public's eye and therefore keep them excited for the next installment. It's basically a way of advertizing, but with te consumer benefiting as well, so I'd say that it's more than fair.


If Revelations was the first AC game that people didn't like, there's nothing for them to have stopped buying yet because it's the most recent game. Maybe you can count DLC sales as some indication, but so far the only DLC has been non-essential multiplayer content. You can't return a video game once it's opened, so that's not a valid reason to say someone still liked the game. If you open the game, it's yours, even if you realize you hate it within the first hour. You can sell it to a used game shop, but that number won't count against the number of game sales. I'd argue that it barely decreases the number of new copies sold just because you traded in the game.

When a narrative starts to form that a lot of people are disappointed with something, that is usually the correct assessment of how that thing was received. Some people were disappointed with Brotherhood, but the general consensus was that it was a great follow-up to AC2. You didn't see as many articles saying AC needed to take a break last year.


For an example of something that was wildly commercially successful but not very well-received, just look at the Star Wars prequels. People lined up to see them mostly based on how much they liked the original movies. Even when the first one was a disappointment, a lot of people still came back because of how badly they wanted the movies to be good. Certainly a lot of people enjoyed the movies, a lot of people were lukewarm, and a lot of people hated them. They made a lot of money, but any time they're mentioned today, it's in the context of how they were disappointing and not as good as the original movies that made people like the series. This is a perfect example of why you can't say something must have been liked by a majority of people just because it made a lot of money.

Maybe so, but then there's ACB. We all know how much it was criticized, probably more so than ACR. If ACB was hated more than ACR, why don't we see any reflection of that in the sales of ACR? Just because a great number of people have lots of criticism on the game, doesn't mean that they're part of the majority. If the amount of complainers about ACB is any indication of the general reception of AC games and we look at the amount of complaints about ACR, which is significantly less, I'd say that ACR did even better. Also, you can return a video game once it's opened. It cannot be refunded, but most retailers allow a customer to trade in the game for a game of equal or lower price. Even if most people would not do such a thing, the amount that would would be noticeable.

Wrong. First of all there is no adequate data to support your theory that ACB wasn't well received. You are basing your theory purely on what people on the internet wrote, which is a poor, and as I explained before extremely biased, source. Second, "A narrative" will only adequately represent how well the game was received by the one who wrote it, not an entire community. Until a full statistical analysis is done I see no reason to believe your deduction based on heavy bias instead of the much more trustworthy sales rates, which haven't even decreased, but actually increased.

Again wrong. Most people who disliked the movies were the old Star Wars fans who had become fans by watching the 3 original movies. I would not be surprised at all if a good general poll would show that the first three parts were generally well received. Regardless, once again you cannot make such claims without doing a proper poll with eliminated bias.

twenty_glyphs
02-13-2012, 09:26 PM
When I said that a narrative was emerging, I meant an overall narrative after reading many opinions, not one person's criticism. According to your memory, Brotherhood was more heavily criticized while my perception is that Revelations is being much more criticized. Am I biased but you're not? What a sad world where we have to do a statistical analysis and scientific polling with bias elimination to argue any point or prove anything. That stuff is great, but sometimes a little common sense and looking out the window will get you more bang for your buck. Sales numbers for AC are enough to prove to Ubisoft that it's worth continuing making the games, probably every year. It's just not enough to prove that the quality of the games are at a level that people want or expect right now.

@DoubleclickTF: Your point about nickel and diming is an excellent way of describing how a lot of people feel. I had no problem buying AC2's DLC because the game was so long and good already, and the prices of the DLC were very reasonable. I had no issue with Brotherhood's Da Vinci Disappearance DLC because there was a lot included in that package that helped extend my enjoyment of the game and make it feel fresh for a while longer. It also had some pretty good and important story moments, as well as refined gameplay missions. I will not buy multiplayer DLC unless it's really significant, which it hasn't been yet for Revelations. I will likely buy singleplayer DLC for Revelations, but I can imagine people being upset if it has important story revelations that weren't included in the main game. That feels like a bait and switch — "Just pay us $10 more, and we'll let you see the really important story parts that your $60 didn't get you."

notafanboy
02-13-2012, 10:34 PM
i do agree AC needs to rest for awhile but seriously !,wherever i go people complain, some people seriously just needs to calm their tits and stop being so negative

LightRey
02-13-2012, 10:47 PM
When I said that a narrative was emerging, I meant an overall narrative after reading many opinions, not one person's criticism. According to your memory, Brotherhood was more heavily criticized while my perception is that Revelations is being much more criticized. Am I biased but you're not? What a sad world where we have to do a statistical analysis and scientific polling with bias elimination to argue any point or prove anything. That stuff is great, but sometimes a little common sense and looking out the window will get you more bang for your buck. Sales numbers for AC are enough to prove to Ubisoft that it's worth continuing making the games, probably every year. It's just not enough to prove that the quality of the games are at a level that people want or expect right now.

@DoubleclickTF: Your point about nickel and diming is an excellent way of describing how a lot of people feel. I had no problem buying AC2's DLC because the game was so long and good already, and the prices of the DLC were very reasonable. I had no issue with Brotherhood's Da Vinci Disappearance DLC because there was a lot included in that package that helped extend my enjoyment of the game and make it feel fresh for a while longer. It also had some pretty good and important story moments, as well as refined gameplay missions. I will not buy multiplayer DLC unless it's really significant, which it hasn't been yet for Revelations. I will likely buy singleplayer DLC for Revelations, but I can imagine people being upset if it has important story revelations that weren't included in the main game. That feels like a bait and switch — "Just pay us $10 more, and we'll let you see the really important story parts that your $60 didn't get you."

But that's just the thing. The complainers are overrepresented. Not everybody takes the time to write down their opinion and generally people who aren't satisfied are much more motivated. Overall narrative is a pathetic sample. Especially on the internet. You have to do a good, well construced and well distributed poll in order to get a good sample and even then you have to do data reduction. "Your perception" makes it even worse. Even if we were to ignore any potential bias on your part, one's "perceotion" is not enough to come to such a conclusion in the slightest. First of all we'd have to make sure that your "field of vision" is not biased on its own (which it is sure to be considering once again the overrepresentation of the complainers). Then we'd have to check just how much data you've actually gathered with your "perception" and finally we'd have to do some actual statistical analysis instead of your "impression". You can't just claim that a game isn't well received based on people bashing it on the internet. Hell, look at Halo or CoD, both are bashed immensely, but we all know both game series are very well received in general.

In conclusion, actual data (and an adequate analysis) or it didn't happen. Meanwhile, as long as the games sell well, the majority clearly appears to enjoy the series.

D.I.D.
02-14-2012, 12:43 PM
Also, I think your theory about the DLC is flawed. It's not to much a way to "milk" more money out of the product (though I'm sure it's at least a contributing factor), but much more likely it's a way to have a more continuous stream of releases to keep the games in the public's eye and therefore keep them excited for the next installment. It's basically a way of advertizing, but with te consumer benefiting as well, so I'd say that it's more than fair.

Yes, that (the publicity and sales boost) is the secondary benefit. I didn't mention that here because I was already writing too much, but I have mentioned that here before when talking about this. It only bolsters my point about publishers benefiting much more from this than customers do.


Maybe so, but then there's ACB. We all know how much it was criticized, probably more so than ACR. If ACB was hated more than ACR, why don't we see any reflection of that in the sales of ACR? Just because a great number of people have lots of criticism on the game, doesn't mean that they're part of the majority. If the amount of complainers about ACB is any indication of the general reception of AC games and we look at the amount of complaints about ACR, which is significantly less, I'd say that ACR did even better. Also, you can return a video game once it's opened. It cannot be refunded, but most retailers allow a customer to trade in the game for a game of equal or lower price. Even if most people would not do such a thing, the amount that would would be noticeable.

(I realise this part wasn't aimed at me, but I'll have a go with it anyway)

I don't know if it was hated, or hated more than ACR, so I can't answer that. I also don't have sales figures yet on ACR, and many accounts at this stage will be misleading. Headlines will often tell you a figure which turns out to be how many copies the game shipped, rather than how many it sold, and we're still not even three months after the launch yet. There's always an influx of new people after heavy marketing.

I can't return games. Perhaps it's different in the Netherlands. If it works, it's not returnable here. It's all academic in my case, since my PC code-locked copy can never be sold or returned.

LightRey
02-14-2012, 04:33 PM
Yes, that (the publicity and sales boost) is the secondary benefit. I didn't mention that here because I was already writing too much, but I have mentioned that here before when talking about this. It only bolsters my point about publishers benefiting much more from this than customers do.



(I realise this part wasn't aimed at me, but I'll have a go with it anyway)

I don't know if it was hated, or hated more than ACR, so I can't answer that. I also don't have sales figures yet on ACR, and many accounts at this stage will be misleading. Headlines will often tell you a figure which turns out to be how many copies the game shipped, rather than how many it sold, and we're still not even three months after the launch yet. There's always an influx of new people after heavy marketing.

I can't return games. Perhaps it's different in the Netherlands. If it works, it's not returnable here. It's all academic in my case, since my PC code-locked copy can never be sold or returned.

Look, in the end people choose to buy the DLC. If it were truly unfair people wouldn't buy it. Some people who don't have as much money to spare on such luxuries will be at a disadvantage, yes, but it's clearly considered a fair (enough) price to a significant part of the players, so it's no more unfair than with any product. If people are willing to pay more, I'd say the actual value should be higher to be fair and in a sense that is the case here.

I can assure you that at the very least on these forums ACB received a lot more hate than ACR. Trust me, complaints on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter, are a very bad indicator for how well a game is received. Complainers are very much overrepresented (and that is not limited to games obviously). Think about it. People will much sooner go out of their way to complain about something than to praise something. Just look at the "Assassin's Creed is Doomed" thread. Half the first page consists of posts from members that joined only to post their complaint in that thread.

natsuto
02-15-2012, 03:34 AM
I took them to consider what to say, but most of the time they are too picky, I would like to witness. I mainly take into account the feeling of the fans as a whole, because the fans in their opinion is more accurate.