PDA

View Full Version : Are we actually that annoyed by the annual releases?



ArabianFrost
02-23-2014, 07:02 PM
With AC5 and "AC:Connor French Revolution which is a bit wasted on current gen tech" coming up, as long time fans of the series, do we actually mind having the game release annually? At this point, all of us know that Ubisoft is adamant about their direction with AC releases, so it would be only be wise to embrace the yearly releases as opposed to keep shouting "stahp releases oobisoft"

Come to think of it, the yearly releases are not that bad. Sure we can get a little burnt out on AC gameplay-wise, but in terms of grand arc (or whatever is bloody left of it), the frequent releases play an advantage to the fans, in that it allows Ubisoft to extend and enrich both the mythological and modern worlds (see: initiates).

Even in terms of gameplay, it's not like the market churns out AC-style games by the minute. AC's gameplay isn't the fps genre. It's not oversaturated. Last two games that remotely remind me of AC are Batman, prototype and Infamous and those are nicely seperated. Maybe with Shadows of Mordor coming up we'll see more AC-style games, but for now, AC is so unique, you can almost identify other games' mechanics as AC-like (again see SOM). AC is too deep into the **** to be an experience as magnificent and fresh as the first couple of games, but provided they put proper effort into rejuvenating mechanics every now and then, I don't see how it can be that tiring, considering rarity of the experience. Afterall, none of you would have kept buying them unless you knew that you were enjoying the gameplay enough to keep you going.

I have and always will be a supporter of at least a 1.5-2 year release window with proper DLC's in-between, but at this point, I sort of grew a tolerance to AC games. Development-wise AC needs a hiatus and an overhaul, but at this point, I can't say I'm that dismayed with the frequency (2 games a year is stretching it though :|)

Also, Hi! How have y'all been doing?

frodrigues55
02-23-2014, 07:09 PM
I love it. I will keep playing them until I get tired of it and move on. Until then, gimme what I want :cool:

It's not to say that I don't get a bit bummed when I think about how much better the games could be if they had a little more development time. Besides, the support for the games drop as soon as the next one is announced, so that's bad too. But if it gets to the point while I can't stand it anymore, I will just say bye and that's it. I had all the fun I could have while it lasted.

Shahkulu101
02-23-2014, 07:14 PM
I don't detest annual releases. With at least 2 year development cycles ubisoft have the resources to make great AC games (see: Black Flag) but can they make the series the absolute best it can be if there is a restraint as big as a set release date? Maybe. Again, look at Black Flag - what else could they have added. Every inch of the game was polished and the only problems gameplay wise were ones that have been prevalent since the series inception. However, things get cut when there are time constraints. AC3 is a prime example (Cut features, missions, events, side-activities. Frozen lakes...) but even AC4 had an entire sequence cut. People wanted more sequences to flesh out the characters - so did Darby himself. If you want to craft the best, in anything, you take as much time as you need. Ubisoft doesn't do this, and the result is missed opportunities, broken promises and unhappy fans.

And hey, where the hell you been?

overdidd
02-23-2014, 07:24 PM
Idk, I thought I was completely done with AC after ACIV. But now ACV can't come fast enough for me. I guess I'm addicted :p

Fatal-Feit
02-23-2014, 07:24 PM
Truth be told, I'm against annual releases but the wait for a new AC game makes me feel guilty for it.

I also agree with OP. The past few titles weren't that bad for being annual. I mean- I thought it was high time to put down the series after AC:R and start boycotting Ubisoft, but the past few years have been genuinely good for us.

oliacr
02-23-2014, 07:25 PM
They should release more per year. I really like it. I liked all games.

Farlander1991
02-23-2014, 07:26 PM
I'm two-fold about the annual releases.

In terms of such a vague thing as 'franchise fatigue', I don't think that matters at all. If you don't feel like buying and playing an AC game, don't buy and play an AC game until you feel like it, as simple as that (for example I haven't played the Liberation HD yet because I don't feel like playing it). And it doesn't really bring any market over-saturation.

That being said. Annual releases have GREATLY messed up the modern day story of Desmond's Saga. However, starting with AC4, the style of modern-day storytelling seems to be more flexible, so at least that's good.

Annual releases don't allow enough time for feedback to be implemented, unless it's something relatively small. When one game is released, the next one is in the middle of production.

Also I don't know the effect of annual releases on the technological aspect as well. For example, Assassin's Creed 3 has, overall, much better animation than AC4. Yes, this has to do with the fact that AC3 was developed for longer, but AC4 also started its work using the AnvilNext engine before AC3 was completed, and I don't know how much that affected the development, but I think the engine and its features weren't always exactly synchronized.

And also, annual releases don't really allow for a total rehaul and refocus of the core mechanics, which I think the franchise sorely needs, and because AC4 was such a high-point in combining all the best from previous games, it's a wonderful place to put it on hold, but it won't happen.

ArabianFrost
02-23-2014, 07:30 PM
I don't detest annual releases. With at least 2 year development cycles ubisoft have the resources to make great AC games (see: Black Flag) but can they make the series the absolute best it can be if there is a restraint as big as a set release date? Maybe. Again, look at Black Flag - what else could they have added. Every inch of the game was polished and the only problems gameplay wise were ones that have been prevalent since the series inception. However, things get cut when there are time constraints. AC3 is a prime example (Cut features, missions, events, side-activities. Frozen lakes...) but even AC4 had an entire sequence cut. People wanted more sequences to flesh out the characters - so did Darby himself. If you want to craft the best, in anything, you take as much time as you need. Ubisoft doesn't do this, and the result is missed opportunities, broken promises and unhappy fans.

And hey, where the hell you been?

Pretty much. Ubisoft has the capacity to make good games, but not great ones.

I've had a depressingly great amount of schoolwork. I'll frequent the forums come summer vacation.

ArabianFrost
02-23-2014, 07:31 PM
They should release more per year. I really like it. I liked all games.

:)

STDlyMcStudpants
02-23-2014, 07:38 PM
Never have been..
Yearly is a perfect amount of time..dont think ill ever get fatigued by this series unless it listens to the difficulty babies out there...
THAT is how you get fatigued by a game. When It stresses your mind and body out.

Fatal-Feit
02-23-2014, 07:44 PM
And also, annual releases don't really allow for a total rehaul and refocus of the core mechanics, which I think the franchise sorely needs, and because AC4 was such a high-point in combining all the best from previous games, it's a wonderful place to put it on hold, but it won't happen.

AC:3's AnvilNext was exactly the complete overhaul to the core mechanics fans have been asking for. The problem is AC is a 3rd person action-adventure. Nothing they do can improve our overall experience more other than building around the core mechanics with features like Naval and the RPG elements.--Or possibly a damn crouch feature. The only way to make these games feel refreshin are by dropping the annual releases and make the wait between these games longer, as _M explained in another thread.


Never have been..
Yearly is a perfect amount of time..dont think ill ever get fatigued by this series unless it listens to the difficulty babies out there...
THAT is how you get fatigued by a game. When It stresses your mind and body out.

There's a lot of wisdom in this post.--Err the point of it, at least. From what I gather, people are fatigued by AC not because it's annual or the gameplay, but because it's stressing them out. They jump into the latest entries with the mindset that it's ''hurr duurrr Pirate's Creed'' ''Too much action-- no stealth'' ''The Creed is missing'' ''Not enough Assassins'' ETC ETC, however it's not true. The latest entries have been the complete opposite of these disappointments and have delivered almost exactly what the fans wanted. Or at least what I wanted.

This reason is why I think the people who've been disappointed should either A. Legitimately play the newer games. Or B. Replay the older games only to realize how hypocritical their criticisms are.

ArabianFrost
02-23-2014, 07:53 PM
I'm two-fold about the annual releases.

In terms of such a vague thing as 'franchise fatigue', I don't think that matters at all. If you don't feel like buying and playing an AC game, don't buy and play an AC game until you feel like it, as simple as that (for example I haven't played the Liberation HD yet because I don't feel like playing it). And it doesn't really bring any market over-saturation.

That being said. Annual releases have GREATLY messed up the modern day story of Desmond's Saga. However, starting with AC4, the style of modern-day storytelling seems to be more flexible, so at least that's good.

Annual releases don't allow enough time for feedback to be implemented, unless it's something relatively small. When one game is released, the next one is in the middle of production.

Also I don't know the effect of annual releases on the technological aspect as well. For example, Assassin's Creed 3 has, overall, much better animation than AC4. Yes, this has to do with the fact that AC3 was developed for longer, but AC4 also started its work using the AnvilNext engine before AC3 was completed, and I don't know how much that affected the development, but I think the engine and its features weren't always exactly synchronized.

And also, annual releases don't really allow for a total rehaul and refocus of the core mechanics, which I think the franchise sorely needs, and because AC4 was such a high-point in combining all the best from previous games, it's a wonderful place to put it on hold, but it won't happen.

To be honest, I don't think fan feedback they consider for AC ever went deeper than abstract criticism like "more stealth" or "more rooftops" and you don't need much time to implement changes as such. When you talk about something like AC, it never strikes me as a series where the devs sit on discussion boards and dissect every need, nor do they take them much into consideration. Not like that's the norm anyway, but devs like CDPROJEKTRED and I think DICE do take their fans seriously. Multiplayer games as well, but that's expected.

ArabianFrost
02-23-2014, 07:54 PM
Never have been..
Yearly is a perfect amount of time..dont think ill ever get fatigued by this series unless it listens to the difficulty babies out there...
THAT is how you get fatigued by a game. When It stresses your mind and body out.

Which is weird, cause this is the biggest criticism towards AC.

Mr_Shade
02-23-2014, 07:57 PM
Which is weird, cause this is the biggest criticism towards AC.

well for every person that hates something - always a counter :)

jdowny
02-23-2014, 08:05 PM
I'm not annoyed by the annual releases - AC games are always decent, above-average games and deliver what we like.

I am however, annoyed when I think what they could deliver with another year or two of production time. If they're this good now, then couldn't they be so much better if they were released once every two years? It would stop them feeling so repetitive and similar at any rate.

jayjay275
02-23-2014, 08:15 PM
Well, I'm starting to get series fatigue. :(

Farlander1991
02-23-2014, 08:27 PM
AC:3's AnvilNext was exactly the complete overhaul to the core mechanics fans have been asking for. The problem is AC is a 3rd person action-adventure. Nothing they do can improve our overall experience more other than building around the core mechanics with features like Naval and the RPG elements.--Or possibly a damn crouch feature. The only way to make these games feel refreshin are by dropping the annual releases and make the wait between these games longer, as _M explained in another thread.

When I say 'overhaul' and 'refocus', I don't mean 'make something refreshing and revolutionary!' I mean refocus and polish and make everything more cohesive from a mechanical perspective.

From a technical perspective AnvilNext is indeed a total overhaul, but from mechanical the only things that really have changed is the combat system, and even that could use a lot of mechanical polishing.

There are tweaks and changes and some additions and some removals in every AC game, sure, but holistically the core pillars, have been, and still are, with a bunch of flaws ever since AC1.

SixKeys
02-23-2014, 08:32 PM
I've accepted the yearly releases as a fact. They're going to keep on happening regardless of how I feel about it. I'm definitely getting franchise fatigue though. AC4 was a great "best of" collection, but if the next game is still heavily relying on the same old tired systems after 6 games, there's no real hope of things getting better. I'd rather keep replaying my favorites from the franchise and move on to other titles than hang on in the hopes that maybe in another 5 years they'll have finally addressed basic complaints like combat and AI. These days I hang out on these forums more for the people than genuine excitement for the next game.

GunnerGalactico
02-23-2014, 08:33 PM
I agree 100% with Farlander. You don't necessarily have to buy an AC game if you don't feel like playing it, if you are feeling exhausted by playing AC games.. you can take a break from it. It's matter of choice really.

RinoTheBouncer
02-23-2014, 08:35 PM
Iíve always been happy about it cause it gave the feeling of a series with itís cliffhangers and the annual releases made the wait feel easier and make us even more excited for whatís to come. However, with ACIV, Iíve been pissed because it feels like theyíre favoring quantity over quality. I hope they keep the annual releases and actually give the game enough resources and time to flourish and maintain the original quality of ACII to ACIII.

jayjay275
02-23-2014, 08:41 PM
I've accepted the yearly releases as a fact. They're going to keep on happening regardless of how I feel about it. I'm definitely getting franchise fatigue though. AC4 was a great "best of" collection, but if the next game is still heavily relying on the same old tired systems after 6 games, there's no real hope of things getting better. I'd rather keep replaying my favorites from the franchise and move on to other titles than hang on in the hopes that maybe in another 5 years they'll have finally addressed basic complaints like combat and AI. These days I hang out on these forums more for the people than genuine excitement for the next game.

This post I agree with entirely.

silvermercy
02-23-2014, 08:51 PM
I don't mind yearly releases either. In fact, I'm looking forward to them! If I ever get fatigued there's a simple solution: skip them until I feel like playing them again.

Of course, there seems to be some concern about feedback having enough time to become implemented (an 1.5 year release cycle would help with it), but I suppose the solution is similar again: skip the game you feel that hasn't improved a lot. And maybe continue with the next one.

(lol that's irrelevant to the post but the captcha I was just given was aRRRR)

GunnerGalactico
02-23-2014, 09:10 PM
To be honest, I don't buy any new AC game fresh from release. I always wait 2 or 4 months then buy it. I always play other games on the interim. But I will admit that having new AC games released annually is getting rather tiresome. I might never feel excited about a new AC game as I felt with AC 2.

jdowny
02-23-2014, 10:40 PM
But the very fact that even the series' fans are saying they'd prefer to wait longer between each game is surely worrying? Not that this will change - Ubisoft seems set on AC being an annual thing.

C_G_01
02-24-2014, 01:27 AM
The time interval between the releases is not the real issue, it's the quality of the game. It's just common sense would indicate, the more time they spend developing a game, the higher chance of it being a great one. But again, more development time, is not always tantamount to a great game. I don't care if they release AC every week or every 10 years, as long as it's epic. Alas, it's far from epic though, and going downhill, but still keeping the faith. C'mon ubisoft, you can do it!

AdamPearce
02-24-2014, 01:54 AM
The problem with the yearly releases of AC is that it doesn't fit with the franchise purpose, at all, it is not meant to be released yearly. Why ? Because AC has a huge universe that is all tied altogether, it's a saga, not just a franchise. Just like Metal Gear Solid, Mass Effect, Halo, it has it's stories, it's core. And the thing is, it doesn't change, it will always be the same conflict, with the same stories and the same feeling. And that is why it gets boring, it's always the same universe, it feels like a long and straight road you have to follow.

But, let's take Call of Duty for example, in Call of Duty, we have 3 universe. Modern Warfare, Black Ops and Ghosts. Each year, a new game set in one of these universe launches, so by the time we get to know what happened to let's say Price in MW4, 2 years passes, in those two years, you get to miss the characters and wanting to know what happened to them. The same thing goes for every other sagas, they need to have a gap between each game, we need to miss the ACUniverse. If you are on the road and their is an accident, and you're stuck there for 2 hours, when you finally get to drive, you are happy, even if it's a basic straight road. Yes it is an illusion, but isn't what AC is all about ?

+ they are no other sagas that have yearly releases, there is a reason for that.

Megas_Doux
02-24-2014, 03:02 AM
Yes and no!

The problem with AC is that THE star game is not the necessarily the gameplay but the setting.....Assassins Creed has become THIS big because the historic part of the game.

Sure, I love the parkour, I love the looks of this hooded menacing group of people and do whatever I like- sort of-, but interacting with Leonardo Da vinci and Blackbeard, climbing famous landmarks while some distinctive music take me to another place, into another time just does not bore me, and Ubisoft is able to create a, more or less, immersive atmosphere with "ease", once a year, so......

For example I LOVED AC IV, I think that the devs did a pretty good job with what they had, You know, the same old mechanics. I do understand that in order to change the yearly releases policy , is by NOT buying the game, but the thrill of setting and the stale mechanics that I still like, always get me....

LoyalACFan
02-24-2014, 07:11 AM
It's never been a question of "fatigue" for me. I'll never get burned out on AC. If Ubisoft had a hundred full teams and a trillion dollars dedicated solely to this franchise, then hell, they could release an AC game every three months for all I care. The problem is that they don't have (or at least haven't had in the past) enough manpower to allow for a yearly release while still having enough time to properly develop each of them. If they staggered their dev cycles to allow for a three to four-year cycle for each game, they could still put out great games once every year, but I don't think they have enough hands to pull it off. AC4 was the best one since AC2 and probably the best of the series IMO, but even still, it suffered from cut content (i.e. the planned sequence with Anne and Mary pirating with Rackham or whatever) though admittedly not to the extent of AC3. Two years is a mighty slim margin to pull off a game as big as an AC game, and even then it only works if it doesn't take risks, because there isn't enough time to properly develop them into new features.

In short, I'm down for an AC every year, but I'm afraid that if they keep going with that model (or God forbid the rumored two-per-year model) the games we get will be disappointments.

ACLexter
02-24-2014, 07:23 AM
I don't mind yearly release. because I love this game.

but as a collector, I need quite a bit break. its hard to keep track of the collectibles.

Farlander1991
02-24-2014, 08:46 AM
AC4 was the best one since AC2 and probably the best of the series IMO, but even still, it suffered from cut content (i.e. the planned sequence with Anne and Mary pirating with Rackham or whatever) though admittedly not to the extent of AC3.

Literally every game has cut content (in all different manner of ranges of development stage), and I would say almost always it's a significant amount relative to the scope of the project, and I assure you, even games like AC1 and AC2 with the longest dev times and non-parallel cycles would've had quite a lot of significant cut content (for that matter, we do know that a whole city, Rome, and years 1499-1503 were cut from the game, and there's certainly more than that, just as is there more cut from AC4 and all other games that we don't know about). The difference is that things like AC4 sequence was cut during early stages of production so with the exception of the script it never even started being made (a decision was made that there should be a focus on some other location in the world at this point, which allowed Darby to properly rewrite things) while AC3 had to ax Great Fire of New York after it was at the least partially made, which has a great difference on the effect of production.

The nature of cut content is normal (heck, I'd even say that it's healthy for production since it means the devs know what to focus on and prioritize), and far from always is 'suffering', the flip side is that it's got different effects depending on when it was cut, at what stage, what is its scale and how much manpower already went into it (and naturally sometimes choices have to be made to cut something when it's really not in favor of the developers, but, honestly, in case of the same Great Fire, I personally prefer no Great Fire to insanely buggy Great Fire).

dxsxhxcx
02-24-2014, 12:09 PM
yes

Hans684
02-24-2014, 12:20 PM
Always disliked the yearly releases but without them we properly never would have W_D, The Division and many more new IP's. If it hadn't happen to AC it would have happend with either SC, FC etc. So what is consider the best, give yearly releases to this series and have fans screaming or another series and have their fans screaming. A hard bisness desitions isn't it? Either way it does not matter, the result is the same anyway. This series keeps Ubisoft alive becouse of the yearly relsease, it gives them the money they need to create new IP's yearly, a desitions I'm willing to accept even trouth I don't like it entirely. A prize to pay for the greater good.

Sushiglutton
02-24-2014, 01:01 PM
Since AC4 was imo a great step in the right direction where they opened up the missions, focused on improving stealth and added solid side content I feel a lot more at peace with the yearly release schedule. I think most of my issues with AC could be solved within this model. It's more about the creative will to do it (meaning the devs have a few more people than me to please).

LoyalACFan
02-24-2014, 05:40 PM
Literally every game has cut content (in all different manner of ranges of development stage), and I would say almost always it's a significant amount relative to the scope of the project, and I assure you, even games like AC1 and AC2 with the longest dev times and non-parallel cycles would've had quite a lot of significant cut content (for that matter, we do know that a whole city, Rome, and years 1499-1503 were cut from the game, and there's certainly more than that, just as is there more cut from AC4 and all other games that we don't know about). The difference is that things like AC4 sequence was cut during early stages of production so with the exception of the script it never even started being made (a decision was made that there should be a focus on some other location in the world at this point, which allowed Darby to properly rewrite things) while AC3 had to ax Great Fire of New York after it was at the least partially made, which has a great difference on the effect of production.

The nature of cut content is normal (heck, I'd even say that it's healthy for production since it means the devs know what to focus on and prioritize), and far from always is 'suffering', the flip side is that it's got different effects depending on when it was cut, at what stage, what is its scale and how much manpower already went into it (and naturally sometimes choices have to be made to cut something when it's really not in favor of the developers, but, honestly, in case of the same Great Fire, I personally prefer no Great Fire to insanely buggy Great Fire).

I know you always have to cut things, but my point was that the story suffered for it. AC2's story wasn't affected in the slightest by them chopping off the four years that were eventually incorporated into Brotherhood, but AC4's story did feel sort of disjointed and weird after Blackbeard's death, and I think it's because of the missing sequence with Bonny and Read. In any case, they built Anne up as a major character in the advertising and the ending obviously assumed that we were supposed to care about her, but she got what, like ten minutes total screen time? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Sure, cuts have to be made, but it sucks when they're at the expense of the story.

GunnerGalactico
02-24-2014, 06:18 PM
I know you always have to cut things, but my point was that the story suffered for it. AC2's story wasn't affected in the slightest by them chopping off the four years that were eventually incorporated into Brotherhood, but AC4's story did feel sort of disjointed and weird after Blackbeard's death, and I think it's because of the missing sequence with Bonny and Read. In any case, they built Anne up as a major character in the advertising and the ending obviously assumed that we were supposed to care about her, but she got what, like ten minutes total screen time? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Sure, cuts have to be made, but it sucks when they're at the expense of the story.

I know what you mean.. in AC2 I didn't get the feeling that there were a lot of missing scenes, dialogue or content because the plot and character arc unfolded quite nicely. In AC3, I felt that there were a lot missing and unexplained bits for example, Achilles talks about Connor's mother being an ally of the Assassins and Ubi excluded that dialogue from the actual game, not that it would have made a difference only that we would have had a better understanding of story. That was just one of many things that Ubi excluded from the game. With AC4, I also felt indifferent about Blackbeard's death and Anne Bonny not having enough screen time.

I suppose sometimes cuts work and fast forward the story... sometimes it doesn't work.

Ureh
02-24-2014, 06:23 PM
I think they're doing a decent job with the series. The stories, settings, and music are quite refreshing, and they make an adequate number of changes to gameplay. The world and its history really is an endless playground for Ubi and us. Not sure if the dlc is satisfying though.... I watched some of the older dlc on youtube and I didn't feel tempted to buy them (bonfire, battle, tokw, and several lairs/tombs). Actually I'm almost glad that I didn't get the dlc... but perhaps that might change with Freedom Cry and Liberation.

They are starting to release the games faster than I can play them ; I haven't touched AC4 , Freedom Cry, and Liberation. And with potentially two games on the horizon! It's both exhilarating and daunting. :D:eek:

poptartz20
02-24-2014, 11:03 PM
I know what you mean.. in AC2 I didn't get the feeling that there were a lot of missing scenes, dialogue or content because the plot and character arc unfolded quite nicely. In AC3, I felt that there were a lot missing and unexplained bits for example, Achilles talks about Connor's mother being an ally of the Assassins and Ubi excluded that dialogue from the actual game, not that it would have made a difference only that we would have had a better understanding of story. That was just one of many things that Ubi excluded from the game. With AC4, I also felt indifferent about Blackbeard's death and Anne Bonny not having enough screen time.

I suppose sometimes cuts work and fast forward the story... sometimes it doesn't work.

I would say that this is the reason I would personally be upset with yearly releases. while I think that they do, do a great job with a Triple A title coming out every year and always maintaining a game on a large scale to a point where it always manages to score an 8+ on major sites such as ign, kotaku, metacritic, etc. I do believe that sometime the story suffers on the time constraints with things getting constantly cut. I didn't eve know about the fire was suppose to be in the game. That and nothing ever explained how Haytham did away with all the assassins of Achilles's time. (the book didn't even explain)

other than that. Umm.. I have mixed emotions. Like with AC4 I was finding it hard to get into until I went down to San Fran to actually get to play it before it came out! I got to see how fun it was and loved it gameplay wise! with AC3 I was glad it wasn't Ezio anymore so I was excited about that too! well actually I've been happy for the last 2 years with it. so I'm curious to see where it goes.

Farlander1991
02-24-2014, 11:08 PM
AC2 I didn't get the feeling that there were a lot of missing scenes

Ehhhh.... While can't necessarily argue, AC2 had things like Rosa suddenly disappearing, characters that appear just for one sequence like Ugo (we have to gain his trust only to never see him again?), and then there are things like Nicollo Machiavelli suddenly being the Assassin Order leader (he's younger than Ezio, somehow got inducted in it earlier than him and became the leader? WTF?!) and some other things that make the narrative feel very disjointed. If you ask me, AC2 didn't have cut enough :p