PDA

View Full Version : Alex Amancio



lothario-da-be
02-26-2013, 06:59 PM
There are rumors that he works for ubi again, this is the official destruction of assassin's creed. Do you want him to work ever on ac again?

ze_topazio
02-26-2013, 07:15 PM
He made Revelations excessively dramatic and tragic, the story itself left much to be desired, it had potential but it felt like it was not properly written.

xbox360gamer89
02-26-2013, 07:17 PM
patrice should do it but didnt he leave?

souNdwAve89
02-26-2013, 07:17 PM
There is no rumor. Amancio's Linkedin shows that he has been back at Ubisoft since July 2012 and he is working on an unannounced AAA title. That is probably AC4 Black Flag

xbox360gamer89
02-26-2013, 07:27 PM
There is no rumor. Amancio's Linkedin shows that he has been back at Ubisoft since July 2012 and he is working on an unannounced AAA title. That is probably AC4 Black Flag

oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Sushiglutton
02-26-2013, 07:31 PM
I think it's a bit speculative to discuss an individual like this, as we have no idea what exactly they have done on the various projects. I mean what parts of AC:R was Alex's ideas? I don't know, so I don't want to judge.

xbox360gamer89
02-26-2013, 07:35 PM
I think it's a bit speculative to discuss an individual like this, as we have no idea what exactly they have done on the various projects. I mean what parts of AC:R was Alex's ideas? I don't know, so I don't want to judge.

den defence was his idea

dxsxhxcx
02-26-2013, 07:37 PM
den defence was his idea

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

Will_Lucky
02-26-2013, 07:38 PM
Interesting...so he presumably is working as Creative Lead, and McDevitt is writing the story....GOOD NEWS everyone the AC Revelations team is back together :D.

Sushiglutton
02-26-2013, 07:38 PM
den defence was his idea

Ok so he has mentally scared me for life once, doesn't mean he is all bad.. :)

Farlander1991
02-26-2013, 07:39 PM
Den Defence wasn't a bad idea in and of itself. The implementation could be a lot better though.

Let's not forget that AC:R had 10 months of development.

xbox360gamer89
02-26-2013, 07:42 PM
and acr the lost archive dlc was originally part of the story but he decided to make it dlc grrr

ZeSpecter
02-26-2013, 07:42 PM
I liked ACR, so sure, I'd like to see him back.

TheHumanTowel
02-26-2013, 08:12 PM
Anyone who voted yes should be ashamed of themselves. This is the guy who decided the actual Revelations in Assassin's Creed Revelations should be moved to DLC which forced it to become a minor plot point in AC3. Essentially he nearly irredeemably ruined Assassin's Creed's story.

Will_Lucky
02-26-2013, 08:14 PM
Anyone who voted yes should be ashamed of themselves. This is the guy who decided the actual Revelations in Assassin's Creed Revelations should be moved to DLC which forced it to become a minor plot point in AC3. Essentially he nearly irredeemably ruined Assassin's Creed's story.

Hey, at least he wasn't the guy who made Brotherhood an entire game instead of a DLC.

Sushiglutton
02-26-2013, 08:21 PM
Anyone who voted yes should be ashamed of themselves. This is the guy who decided the actual Revelations in Assassin's Creed Revelations should be moved to DLC which forced it to become a minor plot point in AC3. Essentially he nearly irredeemably ruined Assassin's Creed's story.

What was the revelation? I only watched the DLC on youtube, while doing other stuff, so I don't really recall :p

TheHumanTowel
02-26-2013, 08:24 PM
What was the revelation? I only watched the DLC on youtube, while doing other stuff, so I don't really recall :p
lol that Lucy was actually a Templar. It was supposed to be the big reveal in ACR but Alex decided it was far more important to tell us Desmond's back-story even though we already knew it.

Sushiglutton
02-26-2013, 08:27 PM
lol that Lucy was actually a Templar. It was supposed to be the big reveal in ACR but Alex decided it was far more important to tell us Desmond's back-story even though we already knew it.

Ah ok yeah I remember that part. They sort of explained her motivations (she felt abandoned by the assassins or something like that).. That was a really awful decision, no way to deny that.

Assassin_M
02-26-2013, 09:14 PM
Who the hell said yes ?

UrDeviant1
02-26-2013, 09:16 PM
Who the hell said yes ?

xD bagsy not me.

LoyalACFan
02-26-2013, 09:16 PM
Hey, at least he wasn't the guy who made Brotherhood an entire game instead of a DLC.

Oh, please. I've heard this argument before. You could (easily) argue that Brotherhood and Revelations could have been merged into one 2011 release, but creating the entire city of Rome for a DLC that would never sell anywhere near as well as a full game would be ludicrous.

Anyway, I think Amancio's bad reputation is somewhat undeserved. Revelations was lackluster in many ways (though better than ACB in my opinion) but give the man a break, the game wasn't even planned until like ten months before it was supposed to ship. And I severely doubt that pushing the Lucy revelation into a DLC was solely his idea. It sounds to me like the higher-ups at Ubi wanted a DLC for this game, and pinned it on Amancio so it it could be passed off as a creative decision rather than a corporate one.

That said, I'm not exactly clamoring for him to return either. The new stuff Revelations added was pretty uninspired and gimmicky. Looking at you, hookblade and Den Defense.

Assassin_M
02-26-2013, 09:20 PM
xD bagsy not me.

now it`s 5 ?? DA HELL ??

Erindesh
02-26-2013, 09:24 PM
I'm glad he's back , even Revelations is better than AC3.

Assassin_M
02-26-2013, 09:28 PM
I'm glad he's back , even Revelations is better than AC3.

I don`t even...

lothario-da-be
02-26-2013, 09:46 PM
now it`s 5 ?? DA HELL ??
7 now???? I expected it to be 64 NOOOO 2 yes :nonchalance:

TheHumanTowel
02-26-2013, 09:49 PM
I've never been more baffled in my life.

Assassin_M
02-26-2013, 09:50 PM
I've never been more baffled in my life.

Maybe they do not know that Alex basically screwed the "Revelation" from Assassins Creed Revelations ?

Now you know :|

YOU MAD !!!

lothario-da-be
02-26-2013, 09:52 PM
Maybe they do not know that Alex basically screwed the "Revelation" from Assassins Creed Revelations ?

Now you know :|

YOU MAD !!!
I hope they realise then they made a big mistake voting yes.

TheHumanTowel
02-26-2013, 09:53 PM
Maybe they do not know that Alex basically screwed the "Revelation" from Assassins Creed Revelations ?

Now you know :|

YOU MAD !!!
The general public needs to be better informed of Amancio's dastardly behaviour.

UrDeviant1
02-26-2013, 09:54 PM
I hope they realise then they made a big mistake voting yes.

Yes, the consequences of their actions will have far reaching catastrophic effects :O

Assassin_M
02-26-2013, 09:55 PM
yes, the consequences of their actions will have far reaching catastrophic effects :o

shaaaaaaaaakh booooooom taraloliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

lothario-da-be
02-26-2013, 09:55 PM
Imagine him getting fired because of this lol.

twenty_glyphs
02-26-2013, 11:43 PM
I wouldn't outright ask for him to work on the franchise, but I'd give him another chance. Revelations seems better and better the further away I get from it. It certainly wasn't as disappointing as AC3 was. The AC3 team had 3 years and freedom to do almost whatever they wanted to do, while the Revelations team had one year to create their product and had to shoehorn it in between Brotherhood and AC3. I think the Revelations team did more with what they had to work with and created a more cohesive, if smaller, product.

Sure, emphasizing Desmond's boring, already known past over the answers to Lucy's death was incredibly stupid and showed a misunderstanding of basic storytelling tenets as well as a lack of respect for what the fans wanted to know. But anyone can learn from that mistake. I chalk up the mistake of Den Defense and the Desmond first person sequences to the hazards of trying to create a game in a year. Den Defense might have been scrapped and something else better introduced in its place if the game had a longer development time. That's similar to how the AC3 team scrapped a hidden blade on a chain idea and brought some of its ideas into the rope dart. When you're just blowing and going and only have a year, you're kind of stuck with what you've got, so I don't blame them for keeping Den Defense and trying to do something different with it. Desmond's first person sequences seem to just be them taking this idea another studio had and trying to use it to pad out the gameplay and try something new. Again, I think if they'd had more time enough people would have realized these were bad ideas that needed to be replaced with something better. Bad ideas are a necessary step on the way to great ideas that work in all kinds of great pieces of art. Without the proper time, you can't prune those bad ideas away.

Besides, it's not like the AC3 team made any effort to rectify the Lucy mistake. They brushed over it themselves and barely acknowledged that Lucy or Subject 16 had ever existed. It's like the entire AC brand team realized what a muddled mess the story had become and started trying to distance the franchise from the past as much as possible so they can start fresh, as well as keep milking the story for all it's worth. Blaming Lucy's ultimate story resolution on Alex Amancio alone hardly seems fair.

Farlander1991
02-26-2013, 11:55 PM
Besides, it's not like the AC3 team made any effort to rectify the Lucy mistake. They brushed over it themselves and barely acknowledged that Lucy or Subject 16 had ever existed.

Considering the timeframe of how the development went, I think it went down something like this:
1. AC3 started pre-production after AC2's release, Lucy's betrayal was planned to be revealed and elaborated on there, as well as Subject 16.
2. Pieces started coming up together, and suddenly Revelations appears on the radar.
3. AC3 team transfers the Lucy/Subject 16 plotline to Revelations.
4. Revelations does the best it can, but not enough due to the small development window.
5. By that time, pretty much most of the dialogue for AC3 must've been recorded already (to make cutscenes). and AC3 team had enough problems on their plate that they had to deal with to think about how to shoehorn in more clarifications about 16 and Lucy.

Which is precisely the reason why I think that parallel development like AC has is bad for an over-arching storyline that the modern day story was.

Will_Lucky
02-27-2013, 12:53 AM
Actually I can sum the Brotherhood-Revelations saga up more or less from guess work and my own theories over the past 3 years.m

Originally AC2 was given a timeframe of 1459-1503 the death of Rodrigo Borgia and virtually all of Brotherhood. Then all of a sudden they a month before release it was scaled back to 1499. Likely scenario is originally Rodrigo was killed by Ezio and he entered the vault but it was rewritten fast and instead we got the 1499 ending with Ezio sparing him and entering the vault. Sequence 12/13 may have been different requiring their rewrite

Now fast forward one year and we have Brotherhood, 1499-1503 gives them enough time to create a story within using the Borgias. In June 2010 we also have the announcement of Assassins Creed Lost Legacy for 3DS. So both games were in production together which would span 1499-1508. Originally Lost Legacy featured Ezio a few years younger. Odds are originally before the Revelations rewrite it was going to feature Ezio in his 40's going to Constantinople instead after the Rodrigo assassination lets say theoretically. (I've actually just realized, in the novel of Assassins Creed 2 the author has Ezio spare Rodrigo in 1503 and then poison himself. This must be where things were changed as that novel will have been finished weeks before the game was released the game story changed but the novel was too late to be altered.)

A few months ago a forum member also brought up the fact that Constantinople artwork from Revelations had actually already featured in the AC2 artwork that was released over production. Constantinople was either based on AC2 stuff, or they had other intentions originally. Now as I said Lost Legacy was supposed to feature Ezio a few years before 1509, I'd guess it would be immediately after 1503. Brotherhood all of a sudden enters and becomes its own game, with a new city, a new story and of course a new modern chapter and it expands the timeframe to 1507.


This is of course all guess work, but originally the game did end in 1503. Brotherhood was never supposed to happen or was entirely different. And one way or another Revelations, or Lost Legacy had been in production since at least June 2010 probably earlier. The Modern Story throughout all of this never got a chance by AC3.

twenty_glyphs
02-27-2013, 12:56 AM
Considering the timeframe of how the development went, I think it went down something like this:
1. AC3 started pre-production after AC2's release, Lucy's betrayal was planned to be revealed and elaborated on there, as well as Subject 16.
2. Pieces started coming up together, and suddenly Revelations appears on the radar.
3. AC3 team transfers the Lucy/Subject 16 plotline to Revelations.
4. Revelations does the best it can, but not enough due to the small development window.
5. By that time, pretty much most of the dialogue for AC3 must've been recorded already (to make cutscenes). and AC3 team had enough problems on their plate that they had to deal with to think about how to shoehorn in more clarifications about 16 and Lucy.

Which is precisely the reason why I think that parallel development like AC has is bad for an over-arching storyline that the modern day story was.

You make a good point about the overlapping development being bad for an ongoing storyline. Too many different cooks in the kitchen to get a good, consistent storyline that's supposed to move between installments in a cohesive way. I don't buy that AC3 couldn't have recorded dialogue to address Subject 16 and Lucy -- they had nearly an entire year after Revelations' release to get any dialogue recorded that they wanted. Subject 16 in Revelations constantly seems to be holding back from spoiling any big story moments in AC3. That was a double disappointment because he was dull and disconnected from the character we had learned to know before Revelations, and the big story revelations it seemed they were keeping from spoiling never came in AC3.

It seems to me that either they were making things up as they went along and then the story with Subject 16 and Lucy just fell apart at the end when they didn't know the answers to the mysteries they raised themselves, or they just felt like it was dragging the series down and decided to move on from it. Or maybe Patrice was really driving that part of the plot and his departure caused it to fall by the wayside when no one else knew quite what to do with it.

twenty_glyphs
02-27-2013, 01:23 AM
Actually I can sum the Brotherhood-Revelations saga up more or less from guess work and my own theories over the past 3 years.m

Originally AC2 was given a timeframe of 1459-1503 the death of Rodrigo Borgia and virtually all of Brotherhood. Then all of a sudden they a month before release it was scaled back to 1499. Likely scenario is originally Rodrigo was killed by Ezio and he entered the vault but it was rewritten fast and instead we got the 1499 ending with Ezio sparing him and entering the vault. Sequence 12/13 may have been different requiring their rewrite

Now fast forward one year and we have Brotherhood, 1499-1503 gives them enough time to create a story within using the Borgias. In June 2010 we also have the announcement of Assassins Creed Lost Legacy for 3DS. So both games were in production together which would span 1499-1508. Originally Lost Legacy featured Ezio a few years younger. Odds are originally before the Revelations rewrite it was going to feature Ezio in his 40's going to Constantinople instead after the Rodrigo assassination lets say theoretically. (I've actually just realized, in the novel of Assassins Creed 2 the author has Ezio spare Rodrigo in 1503 and then poison himself. This must be where things were changed as that novel will have been finished weeks before the game was released the game story changed but the novel was too late to be altered.)

A few months ago a forum member also brought up the fact that Constantinople artwork from Revelations had actually already featured in the AC2 artwork that was released over production. Constantinople was either based on AC2 stuff, or they had other intentions originally. Now as I said Lost Legacy was supposed to feature Ezio a few years before 1509, I'd guess it would be immediately after 1503. Brotherhood all of a sudden enters and becomes its own game, with a new city, a new story and of course a new modern chapter and it expands the timeframe to 1507.


This is of course all guess work, but originally the game did end in 1503. Brotherhood was never supposed to happen or was entirely different. And one way or another Revelations, or Lost Legacy had been in production since at least June 2010 probably earlier. The Modern Story throughout all of this never got a chance by AC3.

I saw these theories myself and posted about AC2 originally ending in 1503 a long time ago as well. The novel likely has Rodrigo poison himself in 1503 because that was the original ending to AC2 before it was changed at the last minute. It makes so much more sense than the confrontation happening in 1499 the way AC2 plays out. And since the change was made at the last minute, there was no time left to change the book. Phillipe Bergeron mentioned in an interview just before Brotherhood's release (with Gamespot Australia I believe) that Rome was originally planned for AC2, but the scope of the game just got too big to contain it. I believe that, considering how big AC2 already is. They likely started planning Brotherhood as either a huge DLC or a standalone game just before AC2 finished, and someone realized that they wanted the Borgia family to continue as the antagonists for the story. Someone cleverly just changed the year of the Vatican confrontation to 1499 and removed Rodrigo poisoning himself.

Another piece of evidence suggesting this is the AC2 database entry for the Sistine Chapel. It specifically says that Michaelangelo hadn't painted the ceiling by 1503, suggesting they forgot to change the database entry when they changed the year. Then Brotherhood has the same database entry, but the reference to the year 1503 was completely removed. Also, Corey May said AC2 covered the years 1476-1503 in a developer diary, further proof that was the original intention.

I don't know how much Lost Legacy changed when it became Revelations, but to me the year it takes place in doesn't matter. I assume they chose the year because of the date that Prince Ahmet died more than anything.

All of this still only addresses Ezio's part of the story, not Desmond's story. It's clear that AC2 gave birth to hasty ideas for Brotherhood and Revelations, and was changed a little itself to make the transition smoother. I think they did a very good job with the spinoff stories in the past given their constraints. To me the real problem may be that Brotherhood expounded too much on the mysterious elements and set up a monster cliffhanger. Brotherhood might have been making more promises than the writers of the series could keep in AC3, no matter what happened in Revelations. It set up Subject 16 to be even bigger than he already seemed, and made us think the Eve mystery was something big and important. It also ended with Lucy's sudden death, and we thought we would get a profound explanation to all of these mysteries. So while the mystery of Brotherhood was something I loved, it may have also been what ultimately killed my interest in the story because they have failed to deliver any payoff for the wonderful mystery set forth in Brotherhood, and to a lesser extent, AC2 and AC1.

Farlander1991
02-27-2013, 01:26 AM
I don't buy that AC3 couldn't have recorded dialogue to address Subject 16 and Lucy -- they had nearly an entire year after Revelations' release to get any dialogue recorded that they wanted.

Well, it's not like you can always call up a voice actor whenever you want to record a number of lines. And, hell, for all we know, maybe the dialogue bits about Lucy and 16 that we've got in AC3 were in fact recorded in the timeframe between Revelations and AC3 release, as a manner of 'crap, we don't have much time to add something and we need something'.


All of this still only addresses Ezio's part of the story, not Desmond's story

That's also what I was thinking about, because Desmond's story is not explored in handheld spin-offs. Meaning that AC3 originally had to start with Desmond in a coma.

(And, I think Desmond falling unconscious thanks to the bleeding effect in the temple is actually a leftover from the coma-thing... maybe originally they had Haytham memories appear by themselves, and now that Desmond wasn't in a coma anymore, they needed to create a reason for him to, you know, relive Haytham, so they added a 'temple causing bleeding effect' thing)

RatonhnhakeFan
02-27-2013, 01:39 AM
The hyperboles and some nearly-straight-out insults at devs in this thread are ridiculous. What are you people, 5?

SixKeys
02-27-2013, 01:47 AM
Another piece of evidence suggesting this is the AC2 database entry for the Sistine Chapel. It specifically says that Michaelangelo hadn't painted the ceiling by 1503, suggesting they forgot to change the database entry when they changed the year. Then Brotherhood has the same database entry, but the reference to the year 1503 was completely removed. Also, Corey May said AC2 covered the years 1476-1503 in a developer diary, further proof that was the original intention.

Good call. The Sistine Chapel entry detail pretty much clinches this theory to me.

Assassin_M
02-27-2013, 01:49 AM
it`s not really a theory...it`s a fact

AC II was orginally intended to go until 1503...

I`m pretty sure Corey`s words were very clear in the dev diary

SaintPerkele
02-27-2013, 02:12 AM
A few months ago a forum member also brought up the fact that Constantinople artwork from Revelations had actually already featured in the AC2 artwork that was released over production. Constantinople was either based on AC2 stuff, or they had other intentions originally.
Never seen that one before, can i get a source? I believe you, I just want to see said artwork.

Mr_Shade
02-27-2013, 02:25 AM
The hyperboles and some nearly-straight-out insults at devs in this thread are ridiculous. What are you people, 5?
Indeed...

lets not start witch hunts on the forums please, especially about people who are not here to defend themselves.

a poll?


really...?

ps I voted yes - just to upset you guys :p


Serous note, lets wait and see information before people start lighting the fires.......