PDA

View Full Version : What if Brotherhood and Revelations were constructed as one game?



VictorAviram123
04-10-2012, 04:50 PM
Before you start reading this thread, please consider that English is not my native language so if there any grammar errors I'm truly sorry.

I've just watched the story trailer of Brotherhood when a thought came to my mind. What if Brotherhood and Revelations were one game?
I think that if you think it through, Brotherhood excels in every aspect that Revelations failed, and it's the same the other way too.
Brotherhood had a lot of side-quests and a city worth exploring which made the game repeatable. The game also had a short story yes, but a story that we were "ready" to welcome. By that I mean that we knew about the Borgia family and we knew that the start of the game is a direct result from what we did in the end of AC2. Revelations had a great story indeed, but I couldn't embrace it as a legit Ezio sequel because I didn't saw anything that Ezio had in him before in the old Ezio. In the contrary, Revelations polished many systems from previous games but failed at the new ones (hookblade and bombs). Sure, they were cool features that added fun to the game, but that's it.

So after summering what I think of both of the games, now I will start talking about the idea of this thread.
If you are following the advertising of AC3 (and I'm sure most of you do), you probably read that Alex Hutchinson said that they are trying to make "AC3.5", which make sense because they are almost done with the game and they are trying to polish it. What if the same thing would have happened with Brotherhood and Revelations?
Both of the game's production time was almost a year for each one and I think that if they have waited a year they could have made a long game with two main parts that actually make sense. Now in the beginning I thought that Rome and Constantinople aren't connected to each other and that the change could have been strange and unbelievable, but then I thought - what about Venice and Florence? they are both two big cities with a lot of content in them and we didn't care about the change in the middle of the game. Of course, some of you may think "Venice and Florence are both in Italy and changing from Rome to Constantinople is different and worth of two different games" but I disagree with that thought. I think that as I said, Revelations didn't provide us even with a little way to move to Constantinople as Brotherhood did with Rome (Ezio saying goodbye to his mother and sister in the Battle of Monteriggioni). I'm not saying that because of one scene of goodbye that got removed in Revelations is the reason to make this two game into one but think about what they are doing with AC3. they could have polished it and make it a game that can be compared with AC2.

It's not all of my thoughts but it's most of it. Now I want you to put the fact the Ubisoft is a company that want to make as much many as it can aside and think about this possibility. You think that if it was one game it would make a difference?
And again, i'm sorry if there are any grammar mistakes.

frogger504
04-10-2012, 04:52 PM
But then it'd be AC3 in like, 5 years from now... Why?

TheHumanTowel
04-10-2012, 04:58 PM
I think they just shouldn't have made Revelations. Brotherhood was a great game with tons of interesting stuff to do plus, most importantly, it advanced the overarching plot. Revelations wasn't as polished as Brotherhood and it had a lot less side-quests to do and the story wasn't really relevant to the 2012 storyline.

frogger504
04-10-2012, 05:01 PM
I think they just shouldn't have made Revelations. Brotherhood was a great game with tons of interesting stuff to do plus, most importantly, it advanced the overarching plot. Revelations wasn't as polished as Brotherhood and it had a lot less side-quests to do and the story wasn't really relevant to the 2012 storyline.

That's one less AC... Why?

LightRey
04-10-2012, 05:01 PM
So you're basically suggesting a remake of ACB and ACR into one game? I dunno. I like the games as they are and I don't think Ubi should be wasting its energy on a remake. Imo, the only remakes that work are remakes that only add better graphics and gameplay, maybe with some extra features, not new cutscenes unless they are completely new and don't change the perception of the story of the game. Even with all that, such remakes should be made like 5-10 years after the original's release.

rileypoole1234
04-10-2012, 05:07 PM
So you're basically suggesting a remake of ACB and ACR into one game? I dunno. I like the games as they are and I don't think Ubi should be wasting its energy on a remake. Imo, the only remakes that work are remakes that only add better graphics and gameplay, maybe with some extra features, not new cutscenes unless they are completely new and don't change the perception of the story of the game. Even with all that, such remakes should be made like 5-10 years after the original's release.

Yeah, and if were to be released after AC3, it wouldn't make sense to release a game with Desmond after his story is through.

TheHumanTowel
04-10-2012, 05:07 PM
That's one less AC... Why?
Because I don't think they should make AC games just for the sake of it. They should have a story to tell and gameplay innovations to bring in and I don't think Revelations had those.

LightRey
04-10-2012, 05:09 PM
Because I don't think they should make AC games just for the sake of it. They should have a story to tell and gameplay innovations to bring in and I don't think Revelations had those.
I disagree with that. I think ACR had both.

frogger504
04-10-2012, 05:14 PM
I disagree with that. I think ACR had both.

Exactly, also, how is one less game a bad thing? It doesn't have to bring in gameplay innovations anyways. AC is really good as it is now. I don't see any way to improve it further, why try? As of AC3 pretty much everything is perfect, no need to improve it further, I don't think it can. I don't see a problem with the same Game Mechanics, they are good and they work.

What's the point you may ask? Well, sequels, money (for Ubi), and Joy (for the fans).

GLHS
04-10-2012, 05:46 PM
I disagree with that. I think ACR had both.

^ This is my entire view of this topic. AC:B and AC:R needed to be separate. Not only b/c it would be way too huge of a game if they weren't, but it also would've killed the room for improvements and new things that they did. You don't just put 2 completely different games together. The hookblade, the zipline, new things in multiplayer, the new fighting. Everything would've either not been there or been the same as in AC:B. AC:R was different and had a different feel, and there'd be no way to combine that with AC:B's feel. AC:R had a good story and good action, with a decent amount to do. Not as much as AC:B, but still. I find no issue with AC:R being it's own game. It had it's own story to tell, just like the other games did.

TheHumanTowel
04-10-2012, 06:16 PM
I disagree with that. I think ACR had both.
Fair enough. Everbody's entitled to their opinions.

SleezeRocker
04-10-2012, 06:30 PM
I like ACB and ACR just fine.
If this makes sense; I find both games a nice Quick-AC to play..if that makes sense O_o?

TagDoll
04-10-2012, 08:49 PM
when AC3 is complete plus its tie ins (maybe) and when we move to next Gen i wouldn't mind a box set of all the games but AC2,B and R on one disc and AC3 plus on one disc aswell. That would be nice

SixKeys
04-10-2012, 09:46 PM
I probably would have liked Revelations better if it had been part of Brotherhood. They might have had to change some things plotwise and the narrative flow but it's like they poured all their ideas into ACB and left almost none for ACR, making it suffer from lack of content. If the two had been the same game, it would have felt like we were getting more for our money: more locations, more missions, more innovations etc.

Serrachio
04-10-2012, 10:03 PM
Personally, I get the feeling that the only real motivating factor behind making ACR was just to give the audience some way to know that Ezio's bloodline had been progressed.

If you think about it, without that, there was not much need to wrap up Altair's life since he had Darim and Sef, and Ezio hit his prime at the end of Brotherhood in all other areas.

ajl992008
04-10-2012, 11:25 PM
someone said that acb progressed the main plot compared to acr which it didnt but that was never the main goal for acr. acr was meant to give an end to ezio and altair's stories first and for most and was to set the stage for desmond, it gave more insight to the end of the world plotline and told desmond's quest very clearly. you now exactly what you need to do, acb made you go through ezio's memories to find his apple, ezio himself didnt develop as well as a character as he did in ac2 and at the end your left with a cliff hanger of killing lucy with no explanation, thats a plot twist not a progression of the plot. acr gave more progression and on top of that it gave ezio some real progression as a character, think about it, it was a very good end to their stories. say they didnt carry on ezio, i would be annoyed as the ending of acb didnt really give him a conclusion. plus we got backstory to desmond which although the gameplay was not great the information told was. this game was more about character progression and conclusions and it still managed to give more progression in the main plot than acb. in my opinion

VictorAviram123
04-11-2012, 12:25 AM
I'm not saying that they should make a remake, I'm just trying to discuss with you about the possibility that Brotherhood and Revelations were one game with different flow to it. i'm not saying that they weren't good as they were published, I'm just wondering what could be otherwise.

Now that I cleared that out, I want to tell you something that I thought about. AC2 had the hidden gun in the second part of the game so it means that upgrades can happen with progression in AC game. So think of the possibility that the hookblade was one of those upgrades when we moved to Constantinople. The bombs system could be in the start of the game, but the other minor things not. It's like Florence and Venice - only in Venice you got the hidden gun and the departure from Florence was kind of the ending of the first part of the game. Rome and Constantinople could have been the same and even make more logic to add the Leonardo's death scene with Ezio because the game started with Leonardo (The AC:B part) and had Leonardo in the second part of it too.

Pitalla
04-11-2012, 05:10 AM
For starters Brotherhood can hold as a stand alone story and was supposed to be as an expansion but it grew too big. Alas it is so far the best AC game in the series. It could had been the perfect way to close Ezioís story and leave the rest to the imagination or future consoles.

Revelations was done by a completely different writer, different director and different everything, recycling everything from the past ones. Even the story, Maria being Cristina 2 was pathetic, all the game was Ezio/Altair connection and it just made it look like they where into a bromance in a bad way. Heck do you even know why Ezio does not wear a cape in this game?

It is because he has the very SAME animations as Altair.

Regardless of that, you donít need to know the story of revelations in order to get to AC3. It is pointless and considering that Desmond was in a glitched, comatose state, it could be very well be ret coned in future games and stuff.

Phenom13117
04-11-2012, 06:17 AM
For starters Brotherhood can hold as a stand alone story and was supposed to be as an expansion but it grew too big. Alas it is so far the best AC game in the series. It could had been the perfect way to close Ezio’s story and leave the rest to the imagination or future consoles.

Revelations was done by a completely different writer, different director and different everything, recycling everything from the past ones. Even the story, Maria being Cristina 2 was pathetic, all the game was Ezio/Altair connection and it just made it look like they where into a bromance in a bad way. Heck do you even know why Ezio does not wear a cape in this game?

It is because he has the very SAME animations as Altair.

Regardless of that, you don’t need to know the story of revelations in order to get to AC3. It is pointless and considering that Desmond was in a glitched, comatose state, it could be very well be ret coned in future games and stuff.

I disagree about everything you said about ACR. I'm not even sure you played it fine, Maria was being Cristina 2 ? Maria, as in Ezio's mom, Seriously?I
I'm assuming you meant Sofia, I had no problem with her being in the story, it provided closure to Ezio's story.

pirate1802
04-11-2012, 08:46 AM
For starters Brotherhood can hold as a stand alone story and was supposed to be as an expansion but it grew too big. Alas it is so far the best AC game in the series. It could had been the perfect way to close Ezioís story and leave the rest to the imagination or future consoles.

Revelations was done by a completely different writer, different director and different everything, recycling everything from the past ones. Even the story, Maria being Cristina 2 was pathetic, all the game was Ezio/Altair connection and it just made it look like they where into a bromance in a bad way. Heck do you even know why Ezio does not wear a cape in this game?

It is because he has the very SAME animations as Altair.

Regardless of that, you donít need to know the story of revelations in order to get to AC3. It is pointless and considering that Desmond was in a glitched, comatose state, it could be very well be ret coned in future games and stuff.

Any and every AC game can be reduced to such simple lines if you wish. For example you don't need to know the story of AC2 to play AC3, just think that desmond goes into the animus to learn cool tricks from some italian dude and escapes capture in the end. And Ezio and Desmond has been sharing the same animation as Altair since AC1, Desmond even had the exact same face as Altair in AC1. So these "problems" have always existed. Nothing new to crucify ACR on. And yes I do agree there weren't many huge and awesome gameplay changes, there were still some good changes, and I personally don't play AC for gameplay anyways. I play for the story.

Coming to which, how is Maria Cristina 2 and why is it pathetic? I assume you mean Sofia. She had a totally different character than Cristina, and it was quite fulfilling to see an old man finally find the love he deserves. And if you mean Maria by Maria Thorpe them I have no idea how those two are connected. I also don't get the bormance thing.. Does a male having respect and reverence to another male count as bromance?

pirate1802
04-11-2012, 09:04 AM
^ This is my entire view of this topic. AC:B and AC:R needed to be separate. Not only b/c it would be way too huge of a game if they weren't, but it also would've killed the room for improvements and new things that they did. You don't just put 2 completely different games together. The hookblade, the zipline, new things in multiplayer, the new fighting. Everything would've either not been there or been the same as in AC:B. AC:R was different and had a different feel, and there'd be no way to combine that with AC:B's feel. AC:R had a good story and good action, with a decent amount to do. Not as much as AC:B, but still. I find no issue with AC:R being it's own game. It had it's own story to tell, just like the other games did.

I agree!

Lass4r
04-11-2012, 01:58 PM
I agree. I think they definitely should have made them one game. They could easily have merged them and end up with a game not much bigger than AC2. I think it would be brilliant, a true AC sequel, rather than 2 spinoffs (or atleast 1, brotherhood was great).
I don't see why some of you wouldn't want that, this ezio trilogy has hurt the AC series badly. Luckily, AC3 came along =)

pirate1802
04-11-2012, 02:25 PM
Because the two games don't match up. There is about ten years after Brotherhood where Ezio does nothing (nothing of importance at least). The jump in the story would be too much. Both the games have different settings, different characters, almost everything different save for Ezio and some central characters. I'm not suggesting it, but for example, AC2 and ACB would be much easier to merge. both had many returning characters, the location was almost the same and the story too was a continuation of AC2. By contrast ACR was a different story set in a different land separated a huge chunk of land and time. Just because the two games are small doesn't mean its easy to merge them.

Lass4r
04-11-2012, 02:44 PM
Because the two games don't match up. There is about ten years after Brotherhood where Ezio does nothing (nothing of importance at least). The jump in the story would be too much. Both the games have different settings, different characters, almost everything different save for Ezio and some central characters. I'm not suggesting it, but for example, AC2 and ACB would be much easier to merge. both had many returning characters, the location was almost the same and the story too was a continuation of AC2. By contrast ACR was a different story set in a different land separated a huge chunk of land and time. Just because the two games are small doesn't mean its easy to merge them.
But they were building this game as they went along, they could have easily changed stuff up slightly and it would have mixed perfectly. I think it's exciting for a game to span alot of time and land, like we did in AC2. We jumped many years at a time in AC2, and if they just showed some of the stuff that went on between Brotherhood and Revelations aswell they would have been compatible I think.

ajl992008
04-11-2012, 08:39 PM
if we are talking about wants, i think they should have ended ezios story with brotherhood and introduce a new ancestor in revelations, they should have left altair and make the game similiar to ac2 where the main aim was to kill templars with the "revelations" inside a vault hidden in constantinople, they should have based it all in constantinople and made it 4 times the size of florence so 33% larger than rome with all the upgrades, and they should have done desmonds sections 3rd person, if they did this instead of using ezio and altair then it would have definately beaten ac2, acb should have had ezios end and we could see altairs end in a spin off or something for those who care for the character. that is what i would have wanted. didnt happen tho, which to me was abit disappointing as out of all settings used (even ac3) i liked the ottomon empire the most, wasted opportunity.

beatledude210
04-11-2012, 08:46 PM
I actually quite enjoyed Revelations.

Serrachio
04-11-2012, 11:26 PM
No-one needed to see Altair's death. We already knew that his bloodline had progressed. All that we got from Revelations (bar Lost Archive) is that Ezio met Sofia and had Flavia and Marcello, Altair's Apple and Ezio's Apple were seperate and Jupiter's message was given.

Part of what I dislike about Revelations is basically that for the Altair sequences, if they had been created with additional detail according to The Secret Crusade, they would have been more exciting.

pirate1802
04-12-2012, 08:05 AM
Well I needed to see. The point of seeing his death is not about whether his bloodline progressed or not (we already know that), but to provide a closure for the Altair chapter. After AC1 they virtually left off that storyline. And I agree, i was hoping They'd put more of Altair in the game, but the bits that were there were good.

crash3
04-12-2012, 01:13 PM
I reckon Ubisoft should have spent 2 years on making a combined, more polished version of ACB/ACR, that way it would have been as long as AC2 and not have felt so rushed, also the graphics would have been better overall and the chain kill combat system would have still felt fresh. I think ACB and ACR were released one year after the other on purpose to get as much feedback as possible so they could perfect AC3 as much as possible. Personally I would love to have another AC game set in the Crusades with the improved graphics, combat and varied storyline

LieutenantJojo
04-12-2012, 01:53 PM
I've been thinking about some kind of 'Ezio Trilogy'-game. It would be AC2, ACB and ACR combined with perhaps better graphics and a few new scenes and missions (like a scene where you leave Rome,...).

Wouldn't it be awesome to revisit Florence, Venice and Rome as an older Ezio? Climbing the Colosseum with the hook-blade, throwing bombs in Venice,...

Ezio did say that his brothers in Rome would love the hookblade, so you could make an epilogue where Ezio shows the others about the hookblade and bombs, before putting someone else at the head of the Order and retiring.

I know it's very unlikely, but I would definitely pay for that.

notafanboy
04-12-2012, 02:14 PM
I've been thinking about some kind of 'Ezio Trilogy'-game. It would be AC2, ACB and ACR combined with perhaps better graphics and a few new scenes and missions (like a scene where you leave Rome,...).

Wouldn't it be awesome to revisit Florence, Venice and Rome as an older Ezio? Climbing the Colosseum with the hook-blade, throwing bombs in Venice,...

Ezio did say that his brothers in Rome would love the hookblade, so you could make an epilogue where Ezio shows the others about the hookblade and bombs, before putting someone else at the head of the Order and retiring.

I know it's very unlikely, but I would definitely pay for that.
iīve never liked re-makes but this sounds quite good actually.

Animuses
04-12-2012, 06:13 PM
I don't think Brotherhood should've have been a full game and I don't think Revelations should've even existed.

Brotherhood seemed like it should've been $20 DLC for ACII or just a $20 mini-game. A lot of unnecessary crap was added into it to make it feel like it should be an all-out game. Like the tedious economic system, crap load of side missions, war machines and Bartolomeo's war with the French. A lot of the game seems rushed and the story isn't fulfilling. Instead of keeping it straight to the point (the Borgias), the whole rebuilding Rome and rebuilding the Brotherhood was added into it to extend the duration of the story. Ubisoft was in it for the money, so they went with the option that benefited them financially.