PDA

View Full Version : Ubisoft has an end in mind for Assassinís Creed



catkiller97
08-05-2013, 09:53 AM
Ubisoft has an end in mind for Assassin’s Creed

Assassin’s Creed has been an ongoing series since 2007. We’ve seen plenty of games and numerous stories. But even though the franchise continues to expand with more plots, Ubisoft does have some ideas churning when it comes to Assassin’s Creed’s end.
Assassin’s Creed IV game director Ashraf Ismail told Eurogamer:

“We have multiple development teams, then we have the brand team that sits on top and is filled with writers and designers concerned with the series’ overall arc. So there is an overall arc, and each iteration has its place inside this. We have an idea of where the end is, what the end is. But of course Yves [Guillemot, Ubisoft's overall boss] announced we are a yearly title, we ship one game a year. So depending on the setting, depending on what fans want, we’ve given ourselves room to fit more in this arc. But there is an end.”

Ismail also spoke about how letting different Ubisoft teams handle the for hints to be placed in the different Assassin’s Creed releases:
“We’re now able to seed stuff earlier and earlier in our games. So for example in [AC4] we have Edward, who was seeded in AC3. But there’s a lot more stuff in our game that is hinting at other possibilities.”


Source (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-05-ubisoft-talks-assassins-creed-series-ending)

LoyalACFan
08-05-2013, 09:57 AM
ROTFLMFAO

Yeah, there's an end... when people stop buying them.

Somebody photoshop Scumbag Steve's hat onto Yves.

Shahkulu101
08-05-2013, 09:59 AM
Yves gets so much unneccesary hate. He's actually one of the cooler corporate gaming heads.

itsamea-mario
08-05-2013, 10:03 AM
"hey Yves, we're going to end the AC story arc next game, we think it's time to finish it properly, it's for the best"
*Yves blows current Creative director's brains out*
"Now to hire a new CD, and some unpaid labourers to clean this mess"

Spider_Sith9
08-05-2013, 11:19 AM
I'll believe it when I see it.

poptartz20
08-05-2013, 11:23 AM
I call it at AC 7. (the number of completion) --just a guess

I hope I'm still into the series by the time it finishes.

Hans684
08-05-2013, 11:27 AM
Ubisoft did say they could want to make reach ACX/10. We are at ACIV/4.

itsamea-mario
08-05-2013, 11:27 AM
There will be no end, there will never be an end, they'll just keep coming, and coming and we'll have no peace, no closure, people will be born, live and die before it ends. You cannot stop him, Yves, he will never cease, not 'till the name is nought but a whisper of the roar it was borne as, and still he'll continue, his thirst for profit squeazed from this franchise will keep him alive, alive forevermore. It cannot be stopped, there will be no end.

poptartz20
08-05-2013, 11:34 AM
There will be no end, there will never be an end, they'll just keep coming, and coming and we'll have no peace, no closure, people will be born, live and die before it ends. You cannot stop him, Yves, he will never cease, not 'till the name is nought but a whisper of the roar it was borne as, and still he'll continue, his thirst for profit squeazed from this franchise will keep him alive, alive forevermore. It cannot be stopped, there will be no end.


I feel that was somewhat poetic. haha.

TheHumanTowel
08-05-2013, 11:35 AM
Yeah it'll end when it stops selling. I have no respect for Yves after Revelations was hastily developed in less than a year and the mess it made of the storyline.

ACfan443
08-05-2013, 11:44 AM
Yves gets so much unneccesary hate. He's actually one of the cooler corporate gaming heads.

LOOOOOOL.

The man we are talking about destroyed the integrity of a whole franchise, and turned it into the the disjointed mess it is today.

Will_Lucky
08-05-2013, 12:04 PM
Yeah it'll end when it stops selling. I have no respect for Yves after Revelations was hastily developed in less than a year and the mess it made of the storyline.

Truth be told, I still consider Revelations the pinnacle of the series. I'd have thought that would have been the ideal sequel to AC2. Originally they planned to end AC2 in 1503 which would rendered Brotherhood obsolete.

itsamea-mario
08-05-2013, 12:21 PM
Truth be told, I still consider Revelations the pinnacle of the series. I'd have thought that would have been the ideal sequel to AC2. Originally they planned to end AC2 in 1503 which would rendered Brotherhood obsolete.

Neither of them should have existed.
What were they? spin offs? no, they followed the main storyline and the same characters. Continuation of the series? not quite else ACB would be AC3.
They were some silly sub sequel nonsense that ubi seem to have adopted from final fantasy or some such.
Like you said, AC2 should have ended in 1503 with ezio killing the pope, but no, at some point they decided they would make a whole other game. Then revelations which was going to be a portable game, they suddenly decided, nah, let's make it a full console game.

Shahkulu101
08-05-2013, 12:26 PM
LOOOOOOL.

The man we are talking about destroyed the integrity of a whole franchise, and turned it into the the disjointed mess it is today.

It's really not that bad :|

Each game is now getting 2 years + development and that's why black flag looks great. Ubisoft are one of the most innovative and creative developers out there. If Yves didn't co-create ubisoft there would be no such thing as Assassin's Creed or Prince of Persia and other great games. It's really not a disjointed mess--people are exaggerating.

Spider_Sith9
08-05-2013, 12:39 PM
It's really not that bad :|

Each game is now getting 2 years + development and that's why black flag looks great. Ubisoft are one of the most innovative and creative developers out there. If Yves didn't co-create ubisoft there would be no such thing as Assassin's Creed or Prince of Persia and other great games. It's really not a disjointed mess--people are exaggerating.

Then where is Prince of Persia? Where is Patrice and his projects? He's shelved them and is holding the projects hostage.

Jack-Reacher
08-05-2013, 12:57 PM
The AC series should have ended at 3, and it should only have been 3 games long. And it should have ended by NOW.

dxsxhxcx
08-05-2013, 01:10 PM
the end will be announced when the franchise stop making the profit that makes worth the trouble of creating an AC game...



It's really not that bad :|

Each game is now getting 2 years + development and that's why black flag looks great.

AC3 also looked "great" before its release



The AC series should have ended at 3, and it should only have been 3 games long. And it should have ended by NOW.

I don't think it should have ended at 3 but IMO they should've continued the original plan of the trilogy, take their time to make these 3 games and then at AC3 create an excuse to continue the story (a new enemy or something like that) or create games that would make the story of the original trilogy richer (maybe using this Abstergo entertainment excuse), at least this way I believe the story wouldn't be the mess it is right now and MAYBE great characters with a huge potential like S16, Daniel Cross and Desmond would've been handled a lot better (assuming they would exist in the original plan)..

ACfan443
08-05-2013, 01:26 PM
It's really not that bad :|

Each game is now getting 2 years + development and that's why black flag looks great. Ubisoft are one of the most innovative and creative developers out there. If Yves didn't co-create ubisoft there would be no such thing as Assassin's Creed or Prince of Persia and other great games. It's really not a disjointed mess--people are exaggerating.

It's very much a disjointed mess. With the Desmond saga, it's apparent there's no clear vision after AC2, the overarching narrative across the games is incoherent and sloppy - which I blame on the multi team approach and different writers. And AC3 was criticised for trying to do far too much and cramming different elements together which didn't really gel well. It's funny cause they said the multi team approach ensures a 'high level of polish' - lol, no matter how they spin it I'm not buying that.

itsamea-mario
08-05-2013, 01:28 PM
Yeah, this switching between teams really doesn't work too well. It's what Call of Duty, except they can, because each team works on their own story line (treyarch doing BL infinity ward doing MW) But AC it's all the same storyline.

TheHumanTowel
08-05-2013, 01:41 PM
It's very much a disjointed mess. With the Desmond saga, it's apparent there's no clear vision after AC2, the overarching narrative across the games is incoherent and sloppy - which I blame on the multi team approach and different writers. And AC3 was criticised for trying to do far too much and cramming different elements together which didn't really gel well. It's funny cause they said the multi team approach ensures a 'high level of polish' - lol, no matter how they spin it I'm not buying that.
Yep the story has drastically dropped in quality as a direct result of the annualisation. How can you expect AC3 to satisfyingly continue the narrative of a game that was only conceived and written right in the middle of AC3's development. The modern day story is a mess thanks to Yves.

dxsxhxcx
08-05-2013, 01:44 PM
Yeah, this switching between teams really doesn't work too well. It's what Call of Duty, except they can, because each team works on their own story line (treyarch doing BL infinity ward doing MW) But AC it's all the same storyline.

add this to a tight schedule and things only get worse, like important plot points for the story being told in a PAID DLC and (IMO) an awful mission design like we saw in AC3 (every time I remember how the assassination contracts were in AC2 and what they become in AC3, this makes me want to cry)...

TheHumanTowel
08-05-2013, 01:49 PM
add this to a tight schedule and things only get worse, like important plot points for the story being shown in a PAID DLC or (IMO) an awful mission design like we saw in AC3 (every time I remember how the assassination contracts were in AC2 and what they become in AC3, this makes me want to cry)...
It's shocking to me to see the assassination contracts in AC3 and then look at how much effort and time was put in to something so utterly ancillary as the homestead.

salman147
08-05-2013, 02:22 PM
Ubisoft did say they could want to make reach ACX/10. We are at ACIV/4.

Yeah.And each game will have at least three to four extensions like they did in AC2(by extending it by adding brotherhood and revelations.Oh,did I forget Discovery?)
I want to see what Assassin's Creed 20 will look like!
It'll definitely put shame on Call of duty franchise cos' the devs of Ubisoft know how to make each game fresh and unique unlike Activision which now with Next Gen hardware has a brand new ''Next gen'' engine that supports NEXT GEN LINEARITY WITH NEXT GEN REPETITIVENESS AND NEXT GEN FISH AI THAT'LL HEAT UP EVEN THE NEWEST PC HARDWARES REGARDLESS OF WHAT QUALITY COOLING PASTE YOU USE.

Shahkulu101
08-05-2013, 02:37 PM
Granted, they muddled up the Desmond storyline. But that's finished now and they can focus on the next part. I think they are getting at least 2 years to make each game which gives them enough time to polish games and confer with the other teams to make sure there are no contradictions and it's all coherent.

Black Flag looks like it's getting the franchise on it's feet...so far anyway.

Shahkulu101
08-05-2013, 02:40 PM
It's shocking to me to see the assassination contracts in AC3 and then look at how much effort and time was put in to something so utterly ancillary as the homestead.

Yeah I know. In a game called Assassin's Creed they spent more on weddings and pig herding than the assassination contracts.

salman147
08-05-2013, 02:49 PM
Yeah I know. In a game called Assassin's Creed they spent more on weddings and pig herding than the assassination contracts.

AC 3 wasn't a game.It was a virtual reality historical study tour on Colonial America.The only difference is you have a storyline.

itsamea-mario
08-05-2013, 02:51 PM
AC 3 wasn't a game.It was a virtual reality historical study tour on Colonial America.The only difference is you have a storyline.

A heavily biased study tour.
Oh there was some truth in the database, and text, and various speeches. but the actions spoke louder than words, it was so pro america that it hurt.

Hans684
08-05-2013, 02:56 PM
Yeah.And each game will have at least three to four extensions like they did in AC2(by extending it by adding brotherhood and revelations.Oh,did I forget Discovery?)
I want to see what Assassin's Creed 20 will look like!
It'll definitely put shame on Call of duty franchise cos' the devs of Ubisoft know how to make each game fresh and unique unlike Activision which now with Next Gen hardware has a brand new ''Next gen'' engine that supports NEXT GEN LINEARITY WITH NEXT GEN REPETITIVENESS AND NEXT GEN FISH AI THAT'LL HEAT UP EVEN THE NEWEST PC HARDWARES REGARDLESS OF WHAT QUALITY COOLING PASTE YOU USE.

1. Ubisoft said their not going to make more trilogies(Ezio trilogi) with assassin from the past.
2. People need to do more research before saing something.

Ureh
08-05-2013, 03:00 PM
I've seen you grow up from a babe to an adult, you've stumbled along the way but also triumphed through countless trails. Good-bye my child, I will miss you.

salman147
08-05-2013, 03:01 PM
A heavily biased study tour.
Oh there was some truth in the database, and text, and various speeches. but the actions spoke louder than words, it was so pro america that it hurt.

Plus interactive meaningless (meaningful to Connor) cutscenes,aiding Ben Franklin by catching his blown away papers etc.

roostersrule2
08-05-2013, 03:02 PM
Yves is a lovely person.

itsamea-mario
08-05-2013, 03:03 PM
Yves is a lovely person.

He's my hero.

roostersrule2
08-05-2013, 03:04 PM
He's my hero.He can be your hero baby


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

twenty_glyphs
08-05-2013, 06:01 PM
Ugh. Why can't they just tell one story in this universe that has an actual ending? It makes no sense to plan an eventual end to this giant story arc when they don't know when it's coming. They should have planned a 3-act arc for Desmond that concluded in a satisfying way. Then they could use that "innovativeness" and "creativity" they tout so much to come up with a new story idea based in the same universe and dealing with similar themes of history, religion and mythology.

I get the feeling they want to drag out the Eve mystery as long as they can, but they're too afraid to resolve it and then come up with a new concept to drive the story forward. All that's done is frustrate some of the longtime story fans, like me, into not caring about the ongoing mystery anymore at all. Seems kind of counterproductive to me.

And how do they plan on "ending" the series? The most likely "end" will be that the games sales slowly decline over a number of years, and then the next year's game simply gets put on hold. Do they really think they're just suddenly going to decide to "end" the universe and finally reveal the big mystery? If AC4's sales are unimpressive and then AC5 really bombs, are they really going to go to the trouble of making AC6 just to properly end the story? There's no way they would do that, and then we'll still be left with an unfinished story that never got resolved.

luckyto
08-05-2013, 06:24 PM
I don't want it to end. This news sucks.

Spider_Sith9
08-05-2013, 06:32 PM
Ugh. Why can't they just tell one story in this universe that has an actual ending? It makes no sense to plan an eventual end to this giant story arc when they don't know when it's coming. They should have planned a 3-act arc for Desmond that concluded in a satisfying way. Then they could use that "innovativeness" and "creativity" they tout so much to come up with a new story idea based in the same universe and dealing with similar themes of history, religion and mythology.

I get the feeling they want to drag out the Eve mystery as long as they can, but they're too afraid to resolve it and then come up with a new concept to drive the story forward. All that's done is frustrate some of the longtime story fans, like me, into not caring about the ongoing mystery anymore at all. Seems kind of counterproductive to me.

And how do they plan on "ending" the series? The most likely "end" will be that the games sales slowly decline over a number of years, and then the next year's game simply gets put on hold. Do they really think they're just suddenly going to decide to "end" the universe and finally reveal the big mystery? If AC4's sales are unimpressive and then AC5 really bombs, are they really going to go to the trouble of making AC6 just to properly end the story? There's no way they would do that, and then we'll still be left with an unfinished story that never got resolved.

Two things: The Age of Enlightenment. The Templars were Good (considering Ubisoft love their plot twists). Both being done as nearly as bad as AC3's edning.

I understand they want to end it, but if they don't make a Connor sequel/London/Modern/China/Japan game...It'll be war.

Gi1t
08-05-2013, 08:08 PM
Ugh. Why can't they just tell one story in this universe that has an actual ending? It makes no sense to plan an eventual end to this giant story arc when they don't know when it's coming. They should have planned a 3-act arc for Desmond that concluded in a satisfying way. Then they could use that "innovativeness" and "creativity" they tout so much to come up with a new story idea based in the same universe and dealing with similar themes of history, religion and mythology.

I get the feeling they want to drag out the Eve mystery as long as they can, but they're too afraid to resolve it and then come up with a new concept to drive the story forward. All that's done is frustrate some of the longtime story fans, like me, into not caring about the ongoing mystery anymore at all. Seems kind of counterproductive to me.

And how do they plan on "ending" the series? The most likely "end" will be that the games sales slowly decline over a number of years, and then the next year's game simply gets put on hold. Do they really think they're just suddenly going to decide to "end" the universe and finally reveal the big mystery? If AC4's sales are unimpressive and then AC5 really bombs, are they really going to go to the trouble of making AC6 just to properly end the story? There's no way they would do that, and then we'll still be left with an unfinished story that never got resolved.

Yeah, exactly. :)

Look, I have no problem if they want to make more of a game that exceeds expectations sales wise, but they've let their desire for money drive them totally off course; they're way too obsessed with getting every cent out of it. They shouldn't be so afraid of making an ending for the series. Just because you make a game that concludes the story you were working on doesn't mean you can't still make games from other point in the timeline, spinoffs, or new storylines in the same universe. Twenty_glyphs is right. If they were so 'creative' and 'inspiried' etc. they should have been more than capable of finding another subject for an AC game after they successfully tied off the one thay had, but instead they went off track in order to drag out the on they had as long as humanly possible.

One correction though. If Prince of Persia is any indication, AC5 doesn't need to bomb. All they need is for it to do just 'okay' and have something else like Watch Dogs turn out to be a better prospect and they'll drop it. They've already shown they don't have any integrity when it comes to finishing what they start these days. -__-

luckyto
08-05-2013, 08:15 PM
Why end it? It's the perfect set-up to never have an end. If they would just stop with yearly releases, they could milk this cash cow for another 20 years.

Jexx21
08-05-2013, 08:16 PM
can someone tell me exactly how the Desmond storyline got screwed up or something? I felt like it was a fairly clear story-arc. There are of course some differences, where in AC2 they say they're going to a cabin hideout, but they covered that up by saying that it was found by the Templars already. The only glaring mistake I see is the discontinuation of Subject 16's ramblings about Eve and Desmond's son, which was sort of a cop-out, but I have a feeling that it will be brought back in some fashion.

They did screw up with the Daniel Cross and Vidic "assassinations," but they didn't screw up the actual storyline.

I dunno, I just tend to think that you guys are over-reacting at this.

Oleg l Kirrlov
08-05-2013, 08:19 PM
Its not CoD of course it will end... just not for a few years

rileypoole1234
08-05-2013, 08:40 PM
It'll be a happy and sad moment when it ends. It needs to end sometime, but then again I don't want it to. I wonder what other games Ubi has up their sleeve for after AC is over.

Dredmart878
08-05-2013, 08:43 PM
can someone tell me exactly how the Desmond storyline got screwed up or something? I felt like it was a fairly clear story-arc. There are of course some differences, where in AC2 they say they're going to a cabin hideout, but they covered that up by saying that it was found by the Templars already. The only glaring mistake I see is the discontinuation of Subject 16's ramblings about Eve and Desmond's son, which was sort of a cop-out, but I have a feeling that it will be brought back in some fashion.

They did screw up with the Daniel Cross and Vidic "assassinations," but they didn't screw up the actual storyline.

I dunno, I just tend to think that you guys are over-reacting at this.

This kind of thread though is perfect for attracting the people who hate Assassin's Creed or just don't like it very much. The very name is just asking people to come and make jokes about the Never ending yet still ending franchise.

luckyto
08-05-2013, 08:54 PM
The Desmond story is over.

Putting the player as the subject of the Animus is the perfect set-up for never-ending sequels. I would love to see this franchise go on indefinitely. There is SO MUCH HISTORY to explore. The opportunities are limitless. Why end it? I just don't get it.

Spider_Sith9
08-05-2013, 09:03 PM
The Desmond story is over.

Putting the player as the subject of the Animus is the perfect set-up for never-ending sequels. I would love to see this franchise go on indefinitely. There is SO MUCH HISTORY to explore. The opportunities are limitless. Why end it? I just don't get it.

Pretty much this. However, if thye don't do THOSE settings... But my only concern is seeing things via Abstergo's perspective means we'll have more exposure to the Templars and what they do in the shadows. Pretty much leaving the Assassins as one shot characters and I hope that isn't out the Modern Day plays out.

My issue is why are they making the Modern Day, an intergral part of AC. Expanded Universe just because the main gamerbase (not the AC fanbase) hates it. I got much more enjoyment over The Desmond Files, Surveilience and the Comics more than the damn games! Hell I'm pretty sure Jot Sorra is gonna be one of my favorite protagonists just like Daniel Cross.

luckyto
08-05-2013, 09:49 PM
Hell I'm pretty sure Jot Sorra is gonna be one of my favorite protagonists just like Daniel Cross.

I thought I was a hardcore fan, but I feel humbled. Awesome.

Jexx21
08-05-2013, 09:56 PM
pretty sure his name is supposed to be Joyt Sorra, not Jot.

adventurewomen
08-05-2013, 10:20 PM
I understand they want to end it, but if they don't make a Connor sequel/London/Modern/China/Japan game...It'll be war.
I agree! It would be a war from the fan base for sure.


So depending on the setting, depending on what fans want, we’ve given ourselves room to fit more in this arc.
Source (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-05-ubisoft-talks-assassins-creed-series-ending)
YES!! We still have hope! ;)

TheDanteEX
08-05-2013, 10:37 PM
I believe a planned conclusion is a good thing, however, it's clear this series will not end until it loses its profitability. That's problem because if people have gotten tired of the series, then a satisfying ending won't even matter.

RinoTheBouncer
08-06-2013, 01:12 AM
ROTFLMFAO

Yeah, there's an end... when people stop buying them.

Somebody photoshop Scumbag Steve's hat onto Yves.

eXACTLy!

Like look at Resident Evil and Tomb Raider. Great franchises that had faltered at some points yet they're still making more games and giving them more touches and the latest TR entry was very well received an now a next gen. sequel has been announced and RE6, though wasn't very much praised by critics yet it definitely did sold over 4 million copies, as far as I know which isn't bad after all, so I don't see any reason for a franchise that is adored by millions to just end.

Of course they have a clue on how to end it and what the conclusion might be and I'm certain that it'll be something related to Modern Day story more than history because the sole reason for going back through the Animus is to find clues to progress through the modern day story which they've been going step by step with. I'm sure they'll do 6 or even 10 more numbered titles. At first they said "We could do 10 games" and then said "we can even do 35 of these" referring to AC games, so there you go.

Here in this thread, they're only indicating how the team is thinking and that the games are planned yet modified according to feedback, not just written when there's demand.

pirate1802
08-06-2013, 04:52 AM
I understand they want to end it, but if they don't make a Connor sequel/London/Modern/China/Japan game...It'll be war.

Oh god.. now I do want to see them ending the series without a Connor sequel

http://img.pandawhale.com/43033-Troll-face-gif-qj4v.gif

twenty_glyphs
08-06-2013, 05:44 AM
To be clear, I don't want the Assassin's Creed story to necessarily end. But I do want more coherent stories in the present that have endings. Dragging the Eve and Juno story lines out for years has caused me to lose interest in a story I was once incredibly invested in. They've done a great job of creating a universe and framework that can continue with new stories indefinitely. I just don't see why they can't tell stories with satisfying endings every 3 games or so before moving onto a new story concept.

@Jexx: For me, the story was messed up because they had been setting up Abstergo to be this all-knowing, manipulative threat that was presented as basically incompetent in AC3. Desmond was set up to accomplish something interesting, and then his whole journey turns out to prepare him to touch a glowing orb. Historical myths and conspiracies were teased as having a lot of importance in the universe and were then ignored by AC3. Subject 16 was this interesting, mysterious figure trying to tell us this giant secret and then just fizzles out as nothing particularly interesting. For me, they set up a lot of interesting threads and then did not resolve them in satisfying, meaningful ways.

dxsxhxcx
08-06-2013, 07:28 AM
To be clear, I don't want the Assassin's Creed story to necessarily end. But I do want more coherent stories in the present that have endings. Dragging the Eve and Juno story lines out for years has caused me to lose interest in a story I was once incredibly invested in. They've done a great job of creating a universe and framework that can continue with new stories indefinitely. I just don't see why they can't tell stories with satisfying endings every 3 games or so before moving onto a new story concept.

@Jexx: For me, the story was messed up because they had been setting up Abstergo to be this all-knowing, manipulative threat that was presented as basically incompetent in AC3. Desmond was set up to accomplish something interesting, and then his whole journey turns out to prepare him to touch a glowing orb. Historical myths and conspiracies were teased as having a lot of importance in the universe and were then ignored by AC3. Subject 16 was this interesting, mysterious figure trying to tell us this giant secret and then just fizzles out as nothing particularly interesting. For me, they set up a lot of interesting threads and then did not resolve them in satisfying, meaningful ways.

and (while of minimal effect compared to S16 but IMO still important to be mentioned) there's also Daniel, who was portrayed as this badass templar agent (and looked like the perfect antagonist for Desmond) in the comics but in the game looked like a ******ed, the modern days are an important part of the game just like the historical times are and those who don't like this aspect of the game should just deal with it, it's about time for Ubisoft to grow some balls and fix this damn story for once instead of ignore it even more...

Jexx21
08-06-2013, 07:46 AM
modern day story of AC3 was rushed, I have to admit that. But the plotline overall still made sense.

Hans684
08-06-2013, 09:21 AM
can someone tell me exactly how the Desmond storyline got screwed up or something? I felt like it was a fairly clear story-arc. There are of course some differences, where in AC2 they say they're going to a cabin hideout, but they covered that up by saying that it was found by the Templars already. The only glaring mistake I see is the discontinuation of Subject 16's ramblings about Eve and Desmond's son, which was sort of a cop-out, but I have a feeling that it will be brought back in some fashion.

They did screw up with the Daniel Cross and Vidic "assassinations," but they didn't screw up the actual storyline.

I dunno, I just tend to think that you guys are over-reacting at this.

Agree with everything.

People always over-react if they don't gett what they want, If most fans would deside it would be:

Lucy is still a live and was never a Templar.
Desmond survived his sacrifice in some in a way that make less sence.
Maybe more Ezio games since "AC died with Ezio."
Maybe no more modern day becouse the story is now "destroyed" and "makes no more sence."
TWCB never existed wich means their technologi never existed.
All assassin's is charismatic all loves the creed and never goes agains it.
Assassin's can't assassinate people on ships and with ships.
They have to say "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" & have the imitation sermoni if not all Assassin's skills are useless.
The Templars would have been derstroyed.
They can't be something before joining the assassin order: Pirate, Mohawk, Banker...ect.
Maybe Animus would never exist.
Daniel Cross would turn assassin again.

Was that everything? Or did i forget something?

itsamea-mario
08-06-2013, 09:28 AM
Agree with everything.

People always over-react if they don't gett what they want, If most fans would deside it would be:

Lucy is still a live and was never a Templar.
Desmond survived his sacrifice in some in a way that make less sence.
Maybe more Ezio games since "AC died with Ezio."
Maybe no more modern day becouse the story is now "destroyed" and "makes no more sence."
TWCB never existed wich means their technologi never existed.
All assassin's is charismatic all loves the creed and never goes agains it.
Assassin's can't assassinate people on ships and with ships.
They have to say "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" & have the imitation sermoni if not all Assassin's skills are useless.
The Templars would have been derstroyed.
They can't be something before joining the assassin order: Pirate, Mohawk, Banker...ect.
Maybe Animus would never exist.
Daniel Cross would turn assassin again.

Was that everything? Or did i forget something?

You're right, i didn't get wanted. I wanted a well written story that was given the correct amount of time and resources to become a great game. But i didn't get it :(

Hans684
08-06-2013, 09:36 AM
You're right, i didn't get wanted. I wanted a well written story that was given the correct amount of time and resources to become a great game. But i didn't get it :(

It may be rushed but i have to agree with Jexx21 it is well written.

itsamea-mario
08-06-2013, 09:44 AM
It may be rushed but i have to agree with Jexx21 it is well written.

He said it made sense.
Lots of things make sense, a maths textbook makes sense, terrible story, but you can't flaw the sense.
No good can come out of this whole switching between teams with 25 different writers each trying to put their own spin on things.

Ac3 was good, could have been better, should have been better.

Hans684
08-06-2013, 10:33 AM
He said it made sense.
Lots of things make sense, a maths textbook makes sense, terrible story, but you can't flaw the sense.
No good can come out of this whole switching between teams with 25 different writers each trying to put their own spin on things.

Ac3 was good, could have been better, should have been better.

You expect to much Mario, nothing is perfect and Everything has a flaw. Anything can be better then it all ready is, should be better then it is. Cars is a great example, they are just boxes and is a expensive to have. High price, low value.
And a maths textbook don't make sence if it is written by some that is bad at math unless you under stand the bad math.
If AC3 is good or not is an option so we don't need to argue there.

ACfan443
08-06-2013, 12:40 PM
modern day story of AC3 was rushed, I have to admit that. But the plotline overall still made sense.

One major thing they left out was Lucy at the end of ACB saying they had to find the lost temples to stop the apocalypse. They didn't do that at all, they went to one temple and looked for a damn necklace. Then there was loads of stuff left out from AC1's emails such as, I don't know, 95% of (africa's?) the population being dead?

There's a lot of stuff which didn't make sense, it was told and executed in an extremely lazy fashion. I don't want a story to just 'make sense' I want them to make it a decent, engaging and well developed story. It's these oversights and disruptions in continuity which make the overall experience frustrating.

roostersrule2
08-06-2013, 01:35 PM
You expect to much Mario, nothing is perfect and Everything has a flaw. Anything can be better then it all ready is, should be better then it is. Cars is a great example, they are just boxes and is a expensive to have. High price, low value.
And a maths textbook don't make sence if it is written by some that is bad at math unless you under stand the bad math.
If AC3 is good or not is an option so we don't need to argue there.No .

Raibuscus
08-06-2013, 02:38 PM
I want ninjas and samurais in the last game, JAPAN! :D

roostersrule2
08-06-2013, 03:13 PM
I think it needs to end with a Batman and Spiderman crossover.

Ureh
08-06-2013, 03:14 PM
It'll be like PoP's "time is like a river that flows..." ending.

dxsxhxcx
08-06-2013, 03:33 PM
Agree with everything.

People always over-react if they don't gett what they want, If most fans would deside it would be:

Lucy is still a live and was never a Templar.
I'm fine with Lucy being dead and a Templar

Desmond survived his sacrifice in some in a way that make less sence.
I'm fine with Desmond dying, it just could've been handled A LOT better


Maybe more Ezio games since "AC died with Ezio."
after ACB all I wanted was a new protagonist, Ezio was boring as hell in that game..


Maybe no more modern day becouse the story is now "destroyed" and "makes no more sence."
I want more focus on the modern days and not less


TWCB never existed wich means their technologi never existed.
TWCB fit in the universe they created, so I'm OK with their role.


All assassin's is charismatic all loves the creed and never goes agains it.
I prefer Altair/Connor over Ezio/Edward


Assassin's can't assassinate people on ships and with ships.
IMO this naval system should've been used in a new IP, but since it's in AC I'll deal with it. I also would've prefered if the focus was put in the cities instead of naval, but this is just a matter of personal preference, I loved the naval gameplay in AC3 and I'll certainly enjoy it in AC4, even thinking it should've been used in a new IP instead of AC.



They have to say "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" & have the imitation sermoni if not all Assassin's skills are useless.
I didn't understand very well what you tried to say here but IMO the Creed should be remembered in every game, not because some people think is a must, but because IMO is an important part of being an Assassin and I would like to see how each ancestor deal with it.


The Templars would have been derstroyed.
I like the Templars, without them the game would've been boring.


They can't be something before joining the assassin order: Pirate, Mohawk, Banker...ect.
I'm completely fine with it, in fact I would like to see more of the Assassin previous life (on side missions) and see how this affect him as an Assassin, it's not because you're an assassin that you previous life will dissapear.


Maybe Animus would never exist.
I love the concept of the Animus

Daniel Cross would turn assassin again.
I'm fine with him being the enemy, he was a great character in the comics but was poorly used in the game and I couldn't care less if in the end he had continued at the Templar side or joined the Assassins again.

Was that everything? Or did i forget something?

but even saying all that I still think they screwed up with the modern day story, where's your god now? :p

luckyto
08-06-2013, 05:03 PM
To be clear, I don't want the Assassin's Creed story to necessarily end. But I do want more coherent stories in the present that have endings. Dragging the Eve and Juno story lines out for years has caused me to lose interest in a story I was once incredibly invested in. They've done a great job of creating a universe and framework that can continue with new stories indefinitely. I just don't see why they can't tell stories with satisfying endings every 3 games or so before moving onto a new story concept.
.

I don't think the modern story is necessary. Desmond's was good, but as you suggest, I do also feel that it dragged on too long. Revelations Desmond content could have been cut to one scene tacked on to Brotherhood and work just as well.

I personally think making the player be the person in the Animus solves that problem. There isn't much of a modern story at all. And since they have Desmond's DNA, Abstergo can effectively choose any Assassin in history to go back in time and recreate.

Gi1t
08-06-2013, 05:15 PM
modern day story of AC3 was rushed, I have to admit that. But the plotline overall still made sense.

I haven't really seen that many people claiming it didn't "make sense" as far as plot points not lining up etc. What most of them are saying is that it didn't make sense to the player as they were playing it. They didn't have a problem with what they were trying to do, but rather how they went about it. Because it was rushed, a lot of stuff apparently didn't have the gravitas it was implied to have in earlier games. Instead of revealing the truth behind a lot of major plot points, and having these epic confrontations, they sort of glazed over a lot of it in an effort to get it all wrapped up so they could shove it out of the way. People got answers, sure, but in a really unremarkable way.


It'll be like PoP's "time is like a river that flows..." ending.

"Most people think time is like a river, that flows swift and sure in one direction. But I have seen the face of time, and I can tell you: they are wrong.

Time is and ocean in a storm.

You may wonder who I am and why I say this. Sit down, and I will tell you a tale like none you have ever heard." :)

Locopells
08-06-2013, 06:35 PM
pretty sure his name is supposed to be Joyt Sorra, not Jot.

Who?

Hans684
08-06-2013, 08:58 PM
but even saying all that I still think they screwed up with the modern day story, where's your god now? :p

Drunk at a bar.

lothario-da-be
08-06-2013, 09:04 PM
I don't see assassin's creed ending before 2020.

Assassin_M
08-06-2013, 09:06 PM
Ubisoft having an end for AC in mind, like Nicki Minaj having a good single

Hans684
08-06-2013, 09:07 PM
I haven't really seen that many people claiming it didn't "make sense" as far as plot points not lining up etc. What most of them are saying is that it didn't make sense to the player as they were playing it. They didn't have a problem with what they were trying to do, but rather how they went about it. Because it was rushed, a lot of stuff apparently didn't have the gravitas it was implied to have in earlier games. Instead of revealing the truth behind a lot of major plot points, and having these epic confrontations, they sort of glazed over a lot of it in an effort to get it all wrapped up so they could shove it out of the way. People got answers, sure, but in a really unremarkable way.

So it "made sence" but people are crying and complaining since they did not like how they went about it, therefor it's "rushed". Did gett that right?
And Desmond never did anything big? Okay, so any modern assassin can walk in to Abstergo and kill Widic and Cross? And save the world? Well that makes Desmond useless since any assassin can do that and since any assassin can do that then all the games are useless and can you give some names of modern assassins who can do what Desmond did?

Gi1t
08-06-2013, 10:14 PM
So it "made sence" but people are crying and complaining since they did not like how they went about it, therefor it's "rushed". Did gett that right?
And Desmond never did anything big? Okay, so any modern assassin can walk in to Abstergo and kill Widic and Cross? And save the world? Well that makes Desmond useless since any assassin can do that and since any assassin can do that then all the games are useless and can you give some names of modern assassins who can do what Desmond did?

Well, no. That's not right. Basically, you're talking about PLOT, they're talking about gameplay and story interaction. What Desmond does is one thing. What the PLAYER gets to do, and how the story is presented to them is something entirely different.

Desmond's accomplishments in the game may have been significant, but what I keep reading in comments is that people were really unimpressed with those missions and while Desmond may have saved the world, for the player, it all got broken down to "press X to do significant thing".

THAT'S the difference. You're talking about what Desmond did--->They're talking about what the player got to do. The way you present your story is more important than just 'what happens'. Having it all add up on paper doesn't mean much to someone in the middle of playing the game. I really haven't seen anyone say they just loved the way they did Vidic's assassination, and for such an important moment in the game, that's a problem.

The feeling of being 'rushed' indicates specifically what bothered most people about the way they did a lot of major plot points. They felt like a lot of them were abbreviated and the player barely did anything.

(On a side note, someone did say that in AC3, Abstergo came off as really incompetent, so infiltrating Abstergo to take out Vidic would have suffered there as well. Defeating a bunch of bumbling morons doesn't feel like much of an accomplishment even if the game acts like they're supposed to ber really scary. )

ACfan443
08-06-2013, 10:18 PM
^even what Desmond did was extremely unimpressive and a massive anticlimactic let down.

Spider_Sith9
08-06-2013, 10:24 PM
Well, no. That's not right. Basically, you're talking about PLOT, they're talking about gameplay and story interaction. What Desmond does is one thing. What the PLAYER gets to do, and how the story is presented to them is something entirely different.

Desmond's accomplishments in the game may have been significant, but what I keep reading in comments is that people were really unimpressed with those missions and while Desmond may have saved the world, for the player, it all got broken down to "press X to do significant thing".

THAT'S the difference. You're talking about what Desmond did--->They're talking about what the player got to do. The way you present your story is more important than just 'what happens'. Having it all add up on paper doesn't mean much to someone in the middle of playing the game. I really haven't seen anyone say they just loved the way they did Vidic's assassination, and for such an important moment in the game, that's a problem.

The feeling of being 'rushed' indicates specifically what bothered most people about the way they did a lot of major plot points. They felt like a lot of them were abbreviated and the player barely did anything.

(On a side note, someone did say that in AC3, Abstergo came off as really incompetent, so infiltrating Abstergo to take out Vidic would have suffered there as well. Defeating a bunch of bumbling morons doesn't feel like much of an accomplishment even if the game acts like they're supposed to ber really scary. )

Abstergo was only like that because gamers didn't want people shooting rapidly so you die instantly.

ladyleonhart
08-06-2013, 10:34 PM
AC's end...? Well... All good things must come to an - What!? That's not true at all! >_< I don't want AC to end!! Why should it...? o_0;

lothario-da-be
08-07-2013, 10:48 AM
AC's end...? Well... All good things must come to an - What!? That's not true at all! >_< I don't want AC to end!! Why should it...? o_0;
I am sure you will think different about this in the next 3 years. I thought the same before ac3, but its too much now. A new ac game every year that will be played more then 100 hours in that 1st year is too much.

Legendz54
08-07-2013, 10:50 AM
I dont know how i feel about it ending, its like a system now.

Hans684
08-07-2013, 11:52 AM
Well, no. That's not right. Basically, you're talking about PLOT, they're talking about gameplay and story interaction. What Desmond does is one thing. What the PLAYER gets to do, and how the story is presented to them is something entirely different.

Desmond's accomplishments in the game may have been significant, but what I keep reading in comments is that people were really unimpressed with those missions and while Desmond may have saved the world, for the player, it all got broken down to "press X to do significant thing".

THAT'S the difference. You're talking about what Desmond did--->They're talking about what the player got to do. The way you present your story is more important than just 'what happens'. Having it all add up on paper doesn't mean much to someone in the middle of playing the game. I really haven't seen anyone say they just loved the way they did Vidic's assassination, and for such an important moment in the game, that's a problem.

The feeling of being 'rushed' indicates specifically what bothered most people about the way they did a lot of major plot points. They felt like a lot of them were abbreviated and the player barely did anything.

(On a side note, someone did say that in AC3, Abstergo came off as really incompetent, so infiltrating Abstergo to take out Vidic would have suffered there as well. Defeating a bunch of bumbling morons doesn't feel like much of an accomplishment even if the game acts like they're supposed to ber really scary. )

What is it the player is so desperate to have to that they cry and complain if it does not happen? So the player want more choices? Is that it? Save the world or not. Do they want to make charecters to? Sounds more like Fallout, a game that is build on choices.

Do the want to press A,O or B instead of X to save the world? Or do they want a happy ending? Well since ther is so much wrong about why don't they make a better story them selfs. Since AC3 was made in 3 years i'll give you three years to make a better modern story then the one in AC3. What do you say? Deal or No Deal.

What Desmond do and what the players do is the same in gameplay and QTE other then cutscenes. The story is and drives "what happens", unless all we did never happened. It depends on how it all ad up to paper, if you like how it ads up or not is an option and if you liked Widic's assassination or not is an option to. If you see it as a problem or not is up to you.

A game that is used tree years on is called "rushed" becouse the player Feels it's rushed, sensitive players. They Felt it was abbreviated and the player barely did anything. How would you put together the major plot points the? Tell me, sounds really interesting.

(On a side note, we have used used enemy clothing before so infiltrating Abstergo that way would have been fine. Also can you give me the name of a game where the A.I is where they are not a bunch of bumbling morons that the game acts like they're supposed to be really scary while letting you think you have fell like you have accomplished something?)

Gi1t
08-07-2013, 02:19 PM
What is it the player is so desperate to have to that they cry and complain if it does not happen? So the player want more choices? Is that it? Save the world or not. Do they want to make charecters to? Sounds more like Fallout, a game that is build on choices.

Do the want to press A,O or B instead of X to save the world? Or do they want a happy ending?

What Desmond do and what the players do is the same in gameplay and QTE other then cutscenes. The story is and drives "what happens", unless all we did never happened. It depends on how it all ad up to paper, if you like how it ads up or not is an option and if you liked Widic's assassination or not is an option to. If you see it as a problem or not is up to you.


What I'm trying to clarify is that that is NOT the sole issue here. The dissatisfaction with the game is not derived entirely from a desire to have the plot go the way they want. (I'm sure you'll see plenty of people who take issue with the plot, but that's a different discussion.)

I'm starting to see one of the main issues in communication between fans that are really happy all the recent games and fans that aren't. The fans that are positive about the latest games seem to keep hitting on this notion that the players who don't like it just don't like how things turned out and are too stupid to really grasp the greatness of the game because they're all butthurt over the game having a different ending than the one they wanted.

That's just not all there is to it. I haven't really seen people shouting for the ability to make choices in these games. I haven't seen anyone say they DON'T want to assassinate Vidic, etc. What I AM seeing is a dissatisfaction with the mission design; the GAMEPLAY. This clearly goes beyond a subjective dissatisfaction with the plot and can't just be diluted to 'they're butthurt about how the plot turned out.'

What people are looking for isn't choice in terms of what happens in the plot, it's control over the gameplay associated with those plot points. Think of it this way: plenty of games have scripted boss battles. Does having control of the character mean you can change the plot? Nine times out of ten, NO. Does someone expressing dissatisfaction with the boss fight automatically mean they were annoyed that the main character won? NO. It IS possible for people to express dissatisfacation with the gameplay, whether they liked the plot or didn't.

Now, AC isn't a 'boss battle' type of game, so in this case, people are most likely looking for an unscripted assassination sequence like what you got in the first game. The target is an enemy present in the room and your task is to take that enemy out as you would any other enemy in the game. The challenge is to get around the guards, obstacles, etc. But the point would be to actually be controlling the character normally throughout the assassination instead of having cutscenes that decide how you perform the assassination. To use an example: say you're in a mansion preparing to assassinate a target and you see them, walkk toward them and then, even though you could easily run over and kill them yourself, the gmae cuts to a scene where the character goes up to the ceiliing and then you get a prompt to cut the chandelier so it lands on them. That's no fun. You didn't get to do anything. You didn't get to decide the method of attack, you didn't get to deal with the task of assassination yourself etc. BUT you still killed the person. No plot change.

So again, you can't just boil this argument down like that. You have to deal with both issues: plot AND gameplay.


Well since ther is so much wrong about why don't they make a better story them selfs. Since AC3 was made in 3 years i'll give you three years to make a better modern story then the one in AC3. What do you say? Deal or No Deal.

If it were possible to make a high-profile game yourselff, there wouldn't be much use for forums. I'm sure plenty of people have written their own ffs on that subject and as always I'm sure the quality varies from pretty bad to 'why didn't they hire THIS guy to write it?'.



A game that is used tree years on is called "rushed" becouse the player Feels it's rushed, sensitive players. They Felt it was abbreviated and the player barely did anything. How would you put together the major plot points the? Tell me, sounds really interesting.

Yes, that actually IS what I'm saying there. Players are saying it felt like they glazed over a lot of things that were supposed to be a big deal and the game itself really lacked technical polish and good mission design. If it wasn't rushed, then that's a problem. I think a lot of players like to thinkl that AC3 WAS rushed because if it wasn't, that's a really bad sign. XD


(On a side note, we have used used enemy clothing before so infiltrating Abstergo that way would have been fine. Also can you give me the name of a game where the A.I is where they are not a bunch of bumbling morons that the game acts like they're supposed to be really scary while letting you think you have fell like you have accomplished something?)

Too true. XD There are a few out there like Ninja Gaiden, but they're all too rare. However, it IS possible to have enemies that may not be that tough to deal with, but still come off as serious foes. I think Prince of Persia is an example of a series where the enemies don't usually come off as 'stupid' per se, but are still pretty easy to take out. I think games are still way too stuck on the generic 'human enemy' stereotype: cocky, idiotic, always making snide remarks no matter how outmatched they are, and just all around lame. The Templars in AC1 are a great example of a human enemy that doesn't come off as pathetic. Even if ou kick their ***** they still die like warriors. :)

Hans684
08-07-2013, 03:54 PM
What I'm trying to clarify is that that is NOT the sole issue here. The dissatisfaction with the game is not derived entirely from a desire to have the plot go the way they want. (I'm sure you'll see plenty of people who take issue with the plot, but that's a different discussion.)

I'm starting to see one of the main issues in communication between fans that are really happy all the recent games and fans that aren't. The fans that are positive about the latest games seem to keep hitting on this notion that the players who don't like it just don't like how things turned out and are too stupid to really grasp the greatness of the game because they're all butthurt over the game having a different ending than the one they wanted.

That's just not all there is to it. I haven't really seen people shouting for the ability to make choices in these games. I haven't seen anyone say they DON'T want to assassinate Vidic, etc. What I AM seeing is a dissatisfaction with the mission design; the GAMEPLAY. This clearly goes beyond a subjective dissatisfaction with the plot and can't just be diluted to 'they're butthurt about how the plot turned out."

What people are looking for isn't choice in terms of what happens in the plot, it's control over the gameplay associated with those plot points. Think of it this way: plenty of games have scripted boss battles. Does having control of the character mean you can change the plot? Nine times out of ten, NO. Does someone expressing dissatisfaction with the boss fight automatically mean they were annoyed that the main character won? NO. It IS possible for people to express dissatisfacation with the gameplay, whether they liked the plot or didn't.

Now, AC isn't a 'boss battle' type of game, so in this case, people are most likely looking for an unscripted assassination sequence like what you got in the first game. The target is an enemy present in the room and your task is to take that enemy out as you would any other enemy in the game. The challenge is to get around the guards, obstacles, etc. But the point would be to actually be controlling the character normally throughout the assassination instead of having cutscenes that decide how you perform the assassination. To use an example: say you're in a mansion preparing to assassinate a target and you see them, walkk toward them and then, even though you could easily run over and kill them yourself, the gmae cuts to a scene where the character goes up to the ceiliing and then you get a prompt to cut the chandelier so it lands on them. That's no fun. You didn't get to do anything. You didn't get to decide the method of attack, you didn't get to deal with the task of assassination yourself etc. BUT you still killed the person. No plot change.

So again, you can't just boil this argument down like that. You have to deal with both issues: plot AND gameplay.

If it were possible to make a high-profile game yourselff, there wouldn't be much use for forums. I'm sure plenty of people have written their own ffs on that subject and as always I'm sure the quality varies from pretty bad to 'why didn't they hire THIS guy to write it?'.

Yes, that actually IS what I'm saying there. Players are saying it felt like they glazed over a lot of things that were supposed to be a big deal and the game itself really lacked technical polish and good mission design. If it wasn't rushed, then that's a problem. I think a lot of players like to thinkl that AC3 WAS rushed because if it wasn't, that's a really bad sign. XD

Yes, that is a diffrent discussion(I'm ACsenior from AC wiki, deliver news. Becouse of that job i read the comment in the articles, that where i have heard all that but thats a diffrent discussion.)

Remember what Shaun said: Change is life, if tings become static it means it's dead(something like that.) Thats what makes me by the games, they change so much when jumping to a new charecter. It changes to fit each new setting.

I have seen people shouting becouse they wanted the "Desmond as Jesus ending" instead is "Save the world ending". I bett everyone wanted to assassinate him but in a more stealty way. If they are dissatisfaction; the GAMEPLAY with the mission design it's up them. When it comes to the plot it has been planed all the way to the ending but Ubisoft just want to fill the pages. Cover as much history as possible untill the end and like all companies: money.

Thats a mix betwen Cory May(story writher of AC3) and Alex(can't remember his last name, AC3's Creative Director) and if they like it or not is up to them.

Ahh, do you not see. When i said choices it was an example that it may change the plot or not, i didn't rule the possibility of stealt og frontall attack.

No Deal then? Did not mean you should make a high-profile game, what I mean is if the modern day part really was that bad. I'll give you tree years(game was made in 3) to write a better modern story for AC3.

So the players are saying(don't believe everything you hear) it felt(far to sensitive players) Ubisoft glazed over a lot of things that where supposed(how do they know?) to be a big deal. I rather trust Ubisoft to make the story instead of some sensitive players. Ubisoft them self has said when they make the games the like to have many possibilities, one example is Desmond's son. S16 talk about his son has been marked as the talk of a mad man. Before that it was just in case thay wanted him to survive he would have a son.

ladyleonhart
08-07-2013, 04:10 PM
I am sure you will think different about this in the next 3 years. I thought the same before ac3, but its too much now. A new ac game every year that will be played more then 100 hours in that 1st year is too much.

Yeah, you're probably right. Take "Final Fantasy" for example. It was FF's 25th Anniversary last year and I just love the franchise very much and I know I always will!! :D Of course, it has received it's fair share of criticism, but I always see past it. :) The thing is, as you mentioned about AC, FF is different in that respect. Then, a game isn't released every year. When one is announced then, it just makes it all the more exciting!! xD Then, I look forward to it every time. Also, I do think it does help not to have too much information about the game before release either. Then we usually have a couple of trailers and a few snippets of information, which makes you wonder what it is going to be like... in a good way. I guess then, maybe having too much information, as well as a game every year, has made everyone here quite negative before an actual game has even been released. Then, not having something for a while probably does make you want it more.

lothario-da-be
08-07-2013, 04:42 PM
Yeah, you're probably right. Take "Final Fantasy" for example. It was FF's 25th Anniversary last year and I just love the franchise very much and I know I always will!! :D Of course, it has received it's fair share of criticism, but I always see past it. :) The thing is, as you mentioned about AC, FF is different in that respect. Then, a game isn't released every year. When one is announced then, it just makes it all the more exciting!! xD Then, I look forward to it every time. Also, I do think it does help not to have too much information about the game before release either. Then we usually have a couple of trailers and a few snippets of information, which makes you wonder what it is going to be like... in a good way. I guess then, maybe having too much information, as well as a game every year, has made everyone here quite negative before an actual game has even been released. Then, not having something for a while probably does make you want it more.
FF13 is my only FF game, and i hated it with passion, only played it for 5 hours. The combat was so boring.But i am planning to give it a 2nd chance.

ladyleonhart
08-07-2013, 05:01 PM
FF13 is my only FF game, and i hated it with passion, only played it for 5 hours. The combat was so boring.But i am planning to give it a 2nd chance.

You've missed all the best ones!! xD FFXIII is nothing like the originals. I can't believe you haven't tried the others. I was disappointed by some aspects too. You really need to play Final Fantasy X!! :D It is truly amazing!! ;) One of the greatest examples of FF!!! xD Trust me, if you give it a chance you'll love it!! :) FFX was originally on PS2. It was one of the first games for PS2, but definitely one of the greatest FFs!! Also, they are actually re-releasing it in re-mastered HD on PS3!! Then, I'm definitely buying it again!! xD Honestly, you really have to give that one a go!! I will be very, very surprised if you don't fall in love with it!! :D

As for combat, they changed it in FFXIII! :( Then, regarding combat in FFX, you get to see "true FF" combat!! I promise. ;)

lothario-da-be
08-07-2013, 07:38 PM
You've missed all the best ones!! xD FFXIII is nothing like the originals. I can't believe you haven't tried the others. I was disappointed by some aspects too. You really need to play Final Fantasy X!! :D It is truly amazing!! ;) One of the greatest examples of FF!!! xD Trust me, if you give it a chance you'll love it!! :) FFX was originally on PS2. It was one of the first games for PS2, but definitely one of the greatest FFs!! Also, they are actually re-releasing it in re-mastered HD on PS3!! Then, I'm definitely buying it again!! xD Honestly, you really have to give that one a go!! I will be very, very surprised if you don't fall in love with it!! :D

As for combat, they changed it in FFXIII! :( Then, regarding combat in FFX, you get to see "true FF" combat!! I promise. ;)
idk yet, maybe i'll give FF a 2nd chance. But i hate rpg's in general. I bought both dragon age origens and oblivion and sold both. And yes i know ff is a jrpg, but its the same for me.

ladyleonhart
08-07-2013, 08:01 PM
idk yet, maybe i'll give FF a 2nd chance. But i hate rpg's in general. I bought both dragon age origens and oblivion and sold both. And yes i know ff is a jrpg, but its the same for me.

Well, you do kind of have to have an open mind. :) Also, I've never played "Dragon Age" or "Oblivion" so I can't really make a comparison. However, from what I can tell they are nothing like Final Fantasy. Then I am certain that FF is unique!! :D

Gi1t
08-07-2013, 08:12 PM
You've missed all the best ones!! xD FFXIII is nothing like the originals. I can't believe you haven't tried the others. I was disappointed by some aspects too. You really need to play Final Fantasy X!! :D It is truly amazing!! ;) One of the greatest examples of FF!!! xD Trust me, if you give it a chance you'll love it!! :) FFX was originally on PS2. It was one of the first games for PS2, but definitely one of the greatest FFs!! Also, they are actually re-releasing it in re-mastered HD on PS3!! Then, I'm definitely buying it again!! xD Honestly, you really have to give that one a go!! I will be very, very surprised if you don't fall in love with it!! :D

As for combat, they changed it in FFXIII! :( Then, regarding combat in FFX, you get to see "true FF" combat!! I promise. ;)

Oh yeah. :D I've never played FF, but I've seen all of FFX and it really shows off the best of turn based combat. :) I love what you can do with stuff like reflect. :)

lothario-da-be
08-07-2013, 08:35 PM
Oh yeah. :D I've never played FF, but I've seen all of FFX and it really shows off the best of turn based combat. :) I love what you can do with stuff like reflect. :)
The problem for me is with turn based combat that it is more strategy orientated, i grew up with prince of persia and god of war.

pirate1802
08-07-2013, 08:37 PM
The problem for me is with turn based combat that it is more strategy orientated, i grew up with prince of persia and god of war.

Filthy casual..

ladyleonhart
08-07-2013, 08:42 PM
The problem for me is with turn based combat that it is more strategy orientated, i grew up with prince of persia and god of war.

Well, I guess that can't be changed. It is turn-based in earlier games but you also can use 3 characters at a time. Additionally, you can adjust the 'Active Time Battle' so that you don't have to wait for your opponent and your opponent doesn't have to wait for you either. That makes it have a much faster pace. :)

As for playing games such as POP. Maybe you might enjoy "Lightning Returns" (2014) more. Then, you only use Lightning and I think the battles might not be turn-based. At least it seems quite different. Then, Square Enix have been trying to mix things up a bit. I'm not so sure about the combat in FFXV on PS4 yet. It seems it could be different...

lothario-da-be
08-07-2013, 09:38 PM
Filthy casual..
yeah, i am 100% casual...