PDA

View Full Version : Maybe an AC with 2 periods switchable?



Reptilis91
02-26-2014, 06:38 PM
Hey,

Do you think it's possible? (two past periods obviously) Look at the last ACinitiates tweet : https://twitter.com/acinitiates/status/438674626197979136

Who was subject 15 ? She was a pregnant female subject. The fetus confused the Animus, so, hop BUG, the "combined-memory-effect" processus began. In other words, it kept attempting to read the father's and the mother's genetic histories simultaneously.

Even if AC5 doesn't use two periods switchable, maybe for another AC ! Unfortunately, this would require more work from Ubi.^^

Wolfmeister1010
02-26-2014, 06:41 PM
There was a survey a while ago, asking if we wanted:

London as a setting
Co Op
More interior locations
Switch between two Protagonists/time periods in the same city


I feel like one or more of these are possibilities for AC5.

I guess we will see! Wow, I have always thought co op would be great in AC. Of course, it should be optional. Fingers crossed!

Aphex_Tim
02-26-2014, 06:42 PM
I think if a single game would follow more than two time periods simultaneously (including modern day), it would become a right mess. Unless perhaps the two historical periods took place at the same locations.

Hans684
02-26-2014, 06:52 PM
If we gett a game with 20+ sequence it can work.

Dome500
02-26-2014, 09:00 PM
If we gett a game with 20+ sequence it can work.

Although this will never happen I see what you mean and agree.

The problem is if we have 2 different characters the time is not enough to flesh out both of them.

Unless we get character 1 in game 1 and character 2 in game 2 (same location(s)), each their own game.

Sushiglutton
02-26-2014, 09:07 PM
I would like a game with two historical parts and no present day. Say something like Paris in two different eras. Think it could be awesome. Present day means a third part, which is too much imo (see AC3).

Iceternal6
02-26-2014, 09:16 PM
I think a game where you can free roam in the past and the present in the same city would be cool.

Imagine being able to back and forth between 18th century's Paris and modern Paris in the same game.

But since it's modern day, they won't do it...

Hans684
02-27-2014, 10:39 PM
Although this will never happen I see what you mean and agree.

The problem is if we have 2 different characters the time is not enough to flesh out both of them.

Unless we get character 1 in game 1 and character 2 in game 2 (same location(s)), each their own game.

It's actually sad that it won't happen.

With 20+ sequences there will be enough time becouse each AC had around -10+ sequences. It would be two games in one, to make it even more easy, the game(as you said) can be in the same location(s), just centuries apart but in one game. A game with 2 charecters(plus present day(us)) with 20+ sequences. That would take too much power, so maybe the next Next-Gen or the next next Next-Gen.

Dome500
02-27-2014, 10:48 PM
It's actually sad that it won't happen.

With 20+ sequences there will be enough time becouse each AC had around -10+ sequences. It would be two games in one, to make it even more easy, the game(as you said) can be in the same location(s), just centuries apart but in one game. A game with 2 charecters(plus present day(us)) with 20+ sequences. That would take too much power, so maybe the next Next-Gen or the next next Next-Gen.

I would be satisfied if it was spread across 2 games.

Like this (only and example):

"Assassins Creed 8: Title"
"Assassins Creed 8: Subtitle" or "Assassins Creed: Title"

Pretty much like Brotherhood and Revelations were an expansion of AC2's story.

alekiratu
02-27-2014, 11:00 PM
There was a survey a while ago, asking if we wanted:

London as a setting
Co Op
More interior locations
Switch between two Protagonists/time periods in the same city


I feel like one or more of these are possibilities for AC5.

I guess we will see! Wow, I have always thought co op would be great in AC. Of course, it should be optional. Fingers crossed!

I don't remember them mentioning London in the survey...

dxsxhxcx
02-27-2014, 11:01 PM
they don't have enough time to make something like this work...

Hans684
02-27-2014, 11:04 PM
I would be satisfied if it was spread across 2 games.

That can work.


Like this (only and example):

"Assassins Creed 8: Title"
"Assassins Creed 8: Subtitle" or "Assassins Creed: Title"

So 2 charecters with two games with 5+ sequences each in both games. Can work with the current consoles since it would and with the standard -10+ sequences per game. But it would be a standard AC with 2 charecters and 2 games, might as well give them their own game becouse of the little time they gett each game.


Pretty much like Brotherhood and Revelations were an expansion of AC2's story.

Isn't ACB and ACR considerd "spin-offs" and cash cows? If so then this aprotch would be considerd an even worse "spin-off"/cash cow becouse the little time they get per game and becouse it's 2 games.

Dome500
02-27-2014, 11:31 PM
Isn't ACB and ACR considerd "spin-offs" and cash cows? If so then this aprotch would be considerd an even worse "spin-off"/cash cow becouse the little time they get per game and becouse it's 2 games.

Not really.....

In fact the whole AC series is considered a cash cow since ACII.

Why? Because it was originally planned as a trilogy and after Ubisoft announced yearly releases and did deliver a lot of people got bored of it after a while.

In fact, ACB and R are good additions to what we call the Ezio trilogy.

So if you want 2 protagonists in the same loaction at different times, and you still want to give both characters enough time to be fleshed out AND have a modern-day story, which every AC game has (even if it has been tones down in the last game) then you need 2 games. 1 game to introduce character 1 (and maybe character 2 shortly towards the end) and 1 to deal with character 2 (and maybe mention character 1 once in a while). OR you make 2 games where both characters get 50% of the cake. That way you flesh both out and have 1 game and a follow-up game (no real spin-off but the second game will not be a game with a big number behind it).

I don't see why you should call that a "spin off" or "cash cow", at least not more than any other Assassins Creed game that is released every year.

Fatal-Feit
02-28-2014, 08:52 AM
Not really.....

In fact the whole AC series is considered a cash cow since ACII.

Why? Because it was originally planned as a trilogy and after Ubisoft announced yearly releases and did deliver a lot of people got bored of it after a while.

In fact, ACB and R are good additions to what we call the Ezio trilogy.

So if you want 2 protagonists in the same loaction at different times, and you still want to give both characters enough time to be fleshed out AND have a modern-day story, which every AC game has (even if it has been tones down in the last game) then you need 2 games. 1 game to introduce character 1 (and maybe character 2 shortly towards the end) and 1 to deal with character 2 (and maybe mention character 1 once in a while). OR you make 2 games where both characters get 50% of the cake. That way you flesh both out and have 1 game and a follow-up game (no real spin-off but the second game will not be a game with a big number behind it).

I don't see why you should call that a "spin off" or "cash cow", at least not more than any other Assassins Creed game that is released every year.

Well AC:2 is also part of the cash cow. During production, it was clearly sliced and dissected for future spin-offs. The only genuine title is AC:1.

Don't get me wrong, I sort of agree with your point. But I disagree about AC:B and AC:R being good additions and neither was the Trilogy concept. One major problem with the Ezio trilogy is that they made AC:B. A ridiculously unnecessary sequel that other than progressing Desmond's arc, offered nearly NOTHING. All it have done was make Ezio more cliche and too iconic (which is a bad thing for a franchise based on multiple protagonists), held the series back a year, and it severely worsened the story's strength while adding to the mentality that the series is about high & mighty Assassins-like warriors running errands and fending off high crowns, nothing of the Creed. What should have happened was AC:2 could have had parts of AC:B already built in and as a replacement DLC for the Battle of Forli & Bonefire of the Vanities(which if I may add, were useless). That way the main Desmond arc could have progressed more sufficiently in AC:R while keeping Ezio as an already fleshed out character and leaving fans with less of a ''milked'' image because of an additional 6-12 month delay and the same engine for only a 3rd usage. The rest of the time and resources that had gone into AC:B would have been new additions with AC:R, not copy&pastes. Assassins recruits, a combat rescope (specifically double kills), better textures, a more organic open-world, hook-blade and all of these joined with an AC story that didn't feel too unnecessary or cartoony. The Altair and Ezio saga would have ended with more justice and better regarded by the fans. What I see now isn't good additions or a Trilogy. Just large DLCs or what Hans called--''spin-offs'' and ''cashcows''.

Farlander1991
02-28-2014, 11:08 AM
I remember I thought we'd see Constantinople in two different periods of time as some trailers have shown Altair there (mostly in shots where there would be some editing between Altair and Ezio, like Ezio runs behind a column and when he's on the other side it's Altair who's running, etc.). Was very disappointed when that didn't happen.

Of course, at the time I also didn't know that the whole production timeframe of the game was 11 months, otherwise I wouldn't expect this to happen.

Dome500
02-28-2014, 03:01 PM
I liked the Bonfire. That speech of Ezio was just awesome.

But the battle of Forli was boring I agree.