PDA

View Full Version : Why are we stuck in the 18th century?



RinoTheBouncer
05-07-2014, 12:28 PM
Assassinís Creed III
Assassinís Creed: Liberation
Assassinís Creed IV: Black Flag
Assassinís Creed: Unity

Am I missing anything?

All those take place in the 1700s aka. the 18th century. So why are we stuck there? whatís so special about that era? I know a lot of stuff happened then but why canít there be gaps? I know Hotzio had 3 games in the same period, but are we going to follow that tradition forever? I thought they were gonna break away from giving more than one game to a character but here they are sticking with the same family and the same century and ACUís protagonist is a new person as far as we know, unless he turns out to be Connor or that the grandson of the the husband of the wife of the sister of a manís best friendís daughterís pet who lived in Connorís village.

But the question remains, why is Ubisoft refusing to give a game in a different period of time despite the change of numerical title, despite the change of the protagonist and despite making 4 games that take place in the era? and when will we finally see something far before or after the 18th century?

Locopells
05-07-2014, 12:36 PM
Well Liberation was spin-off III, so it figures. IV was III's grandfather, so self limiting. And people have been asking for the French Revolution for ages, since before a lot of the more Ancient suggestions.

They'll go to other place eventually, don't worry.

oliacr
05-07-2014, 12:40 PM
I've been saying this for a while now thanks for making a thread. Really appreciate.

Ezio had 3 games but those showed at least 2 vastly different cities countries I mean Firenze/Rome and Constantinople and their countries/empires. 2 games would be acceptable in the 18th century but 4? Yeah I know that Liberation was not aimed at the main consoles and PC but whatever.

1 game set before 1200. 3 games set between 1450-1515. 4 games set between 1710-1799. I don't know. I don't like guns in AC I prefer good old swords, bows, hidden blades to those muskets. In AC3 it was a good addition but it is overused now- yes I know that I don't have to use that, but when I have it I'm going to use it accidentally and Didn't they say somewhere that after Black Flag we will be going back in time or is it just my mind? After Unity I really want to see something definitely before 1600 AD or so.

We can even go back to the Ancient times.

Markaccus
05-07-2014, 12:41 PM
I think the time period is a secondary issue for ubisoft. i think they seem more concerned about what type of world suits the basic gameplay of AC titles. (free running, rooftops (and since ac 3 treetops)). As a result i think they only have certain options with regard to time periods and cities that will work. I agree there must be one or two alternatives that would still provide these basic needs, but maybe they dont know enough about these times to meet their usual standard of realism (i.e. they usually partially represent true events and shoehorn the main character into them)

oliacr
05-07-2014, 12:43 PM
I think the time period is a secondary issue for ubisoft. i think if they seem more concerned about what type of world suits the basic gameplay of AC titles. (free running, rooftops (and since ac 3 treetops)). As a result i think they only have certain options with regard to time periods and cities that will work. I agree there must be one or two alternatives that would still provide these basic needs, but maybe they dont know enough about these times to meet their usual standard of realism (i.e. they usually partially represent true events and shoehorn the main character into them)

Then why did they choose AC3's location, because the architecture in 18th century America wasn't that good for AC that's why they introduced frontier with the free-running(I really liked both if I may say.) They might have chosen because of the American Revolution I know just like Unity will be French Revolution but come on.

Sushiglutton
05-07-2014, 12:47 PM
Think there are a couple of reaons:

1) Reuse assets from one game to the next is easier when they take place in the same era.
2) Like you said a lot of things happened in that era which is still very relevant today.
3) The enlightenment ideals mix well with what the assassins are trying to accomplish.


Personally I would like them to go way back after AC:U (Ancient Egypt, or Mesopotamia). If we do I hope they make a couple of games in those eras as well.

ze_topazio
05-07-2014, 12:50 PM
It was a rather busy century.

Markaccus
05-07-2014, 12:51 PM
Then why did they choose AC3's location, because the architecture in 18th century America wasn't that good for AC that's why they introduced frontier with the free-running(I really liked both if I may say.) They might have chosen because of the American Revolution I know just like Unity will be French Revolution but come on.

Like you say, they introduced tree running so they could use that setting. I enjoy the trees more in black flag than i did in ac3, seems to be refined and not excessive, but the townships in black flag are better than the cities in ac3 for the standard free running (imo). It just seems to be a preference for them to keep mostly to what they know, and what they THINK ac fans like.

AherasSTRG
05-07-2014, 12:53 PM
The 18th Century is called by the historians, the century of Revolutions.

RinoTheBouncer
05-07-2014, 12:55 PM
I've been saying this for a while now thanks for making a thread. Really appreciate.

Ezio had 3 games but those showed at least 2 vastly different cities countries I mean Firenze/Rome and Constantinople and their countries/empires. 2 games would be acceptable in the 18th century but 4? Yeah I know that Liberation was not aimed at the main consoles and PC but whatever.

1 game set before 1200. 3 games set between 1450-1515. 4 games set between 1710-1799. I don't know. I don't like guns in AC I prefer good old swords, bows, hidden blades to those muskets. In AC3 it was a good addition but it is overused now- yes I know that I don't have to use that, but when I have it I'm going to use it accidentally and Didn't they say somewhere that after Black Flag we will be going back in time or is it just my mind? After Unity I really want to see something definitely before 1600 AD or so.

We can even go back to the Ancient times.

I’m so glad to see someone who agrees about this. Thank you for contributing here!

I totally agree with your points and I know some will say ACIII frontier is totally different from ACIV ships and islands and that was different from Liberation and now France but no, what I mean about the period is the people, the type of laws, looks, ideologies and techniques. The British, French and Spanish domination was a theme for that period up until the 1900s so that makes enemies all look the same, and same goes for the weapons we use and the looks of the people.

I wish we can go to Sumer or Ancient Egypt, a time where we barely use a dagger and a small sword or a knife, maybe poison and we rely on skill rather than a walking armory. I know it’s all optional but how about a change of theme? as Assassins who spend most of the time on rooftops and only interact with those who you love or those you wanna kill, then every city and every character is gonna look the same and especially with the game engine and interface and the way it presents the game to you, you can’t help but feel the similarities.

I’m well aware that those cities were all unique but when you’re on rooftops, you really can’t tell much and having a landmark doesn’t really change thing. We can only feel like we’re in a new atmosphere when we’re in a whole new period and place. For example from Masyaf to Florence or Venice, and from America and the frontiers to Feudal Japan or China or even from Nassau in 1700’s to Sumer in 4000BC. Now that’s a real difference in time, place, culture, tech, language, ideology, mythology...everything.

That’s what I’d crave to see.

Wolfmeister1010
05-07-2014, 01:01 PM
They said they wanted to finish the Kenway saga, and have said time and time again that they choose time periods based on story. Not only does French Revolution fit well with the story, but it also is an extremely interesting time period, and fans have been begging for it for years and years.

RinoTheBouncer
05-07-2014, 01:03 PM
They said they wanted to finish the Kenway saga, and have said time and time again that they choose time periods based on story. Not only does French Revolution fit well with the story, but it also is an extremely interesting time period, and fans have been begging for it for years and years.

I know but fans have been begging for Japan, China, Russia and Ancient Egypt for ages too. I wonder if they’ll move on forever from this century after AC:U or they’ll make a 5th game right afterwards or in the future...

Markaccus
05-07-2014, 01:14 PM
I know but fans have been begging for Japan, China, Russia and Ancient Egypt for ages too. I wonder if they’ll move on forever from this century after AC:U or they’ll make a 5th game right afterwards or in the future...

Maybe they could base a game on events after a second, unexpected solar flair. There would be no animus this time, just the remnants of the Assassins and Templars fighting it out in the remains of burned cities, looking for the tools to rebuild (obv. the templars wanting to rebuild and enslave et.c). Just a thought.

Shahkulu101
05-07-2014, 05:49 PM
Waa waa waaaaa! The reason there are a number of different games in the 18th century is because each of the settings are actually different. The Caribbean is vastly different from colonial America, Revolutionary Paris has several qualities unique to itself - all the setting are diverse. No amount of tricorn hats and flintlock pistols can change that. The three settings offer different experiences in terms of gameplay and historical tourism.

Unless of course you're pretentious and self entitled, believing that only superficial details like language, weaponry and architecture are the be all and end all of a setting.

Locopells
05-07-2014, 06:08 PM
Forcefully put, but I agree.

Shahkulu101
05-07-2014, 06:11 PM
Forcefully put, but I agree.

I'm not very good at being nice when I disagree strongly, so I hope no one takes it the wrong way - kinda hard I know...

cawatrooper9
05-07-2014, 06:15 PM
I understand your issues with this, but it's really all on how you look at it. You might see us as being "stuck" in the 18th century, but I see it as "focusing" on that time. It might be cool to have a more dramatic variety between games, but that really would be hard to tie together in conducive plots and character development. For example, even if Connor and Aveline are not present in Unity, I'm certain that the past few games will still be tied in somehow- after all, many historians cite the American revolution and the French involvement in it as one of the contributing factors for Frances own movement toward disestablishing the monarchy.

In my opinion at least, ACR did a fairly decent job of thematically tying together three different Assassins from very different eras. I'm not sure we can have every game be like that, though. Having one game set in Ancient Mesopotamia, the next in the British Raj, and the following in Feudal Era Japan might sound appealing- but it would be very difficult for Ubisoft to maintain a coherence within the franchise. Heck, some people argue that the franchise isn't coherent as it is, and they might well have a point, but the solution surely isn't to make it less focused.

All that being said, though, I think Unity should be a good way for us to leave this century. I'll absolutely be hoping with you for a drastic change in setting for next year!

LoyalACFan
05-07-2014, 06:17 PM
Like others have said, there was a lot of really important stuff happening in that century that dovetail perfectly with Assassin ideology, so I think it's natural that they spent a lot of time on it. I do kind of think that the colonial era was beginning to stagnate, but I think urban France should be enough of a departure from the last few games that it'll feel fresh, even though it's set in almost exactly the same time period as AC3.

Admittedly, I am a little sick of flintlocks though.

lothario-da-be
05-07-2014, 06:24 PM
Because they were making ac3 and were planning ac Unity. Then the Vita was announced and they wanted to make an easy game. So they took the same time period as ac3. Then they got greedy again and decided to make a new game out of the Naval aspect. Thats how they got from 2 to 4 I think.

DumbGamerTag94
05-07-2014, 06:46 PM
I know but fans have been begging for Japan, China, Russia and Ancient Egypt for ages too. I wonder if they’ll move on forever from this century after AC:U or they’ll make a 5th game right afterwards or in the future...

I really don't see what else is left to cover, after pirates, American War of Independence, and French Revolution, I don't really see anything left in the 1700s of significance enough for AC.


1 game set before 1200. 3 games set between 1450-1515. 4 games set between 1710-1799.

Well if you are going to count AC Liberation(which is a handheld spin off then you have to count the others as well

That makes: 3 games set in Altair's time(Altair's chronicles,AC1,Bloodlines), 4 games set in 1450-1515(AC2,Discovery,ACB,ACR), and 4 in 1710-1799(AC3,Liberation,AC4,Unity) So if you are going to do that kind of analysis where you lump in spin offs you should at least be fair. there has been 3-4 games set in every time period we've seen so far so I don't understand this whiny nonsense that "waahhh wahhhhh were stuck in the 18th century:(" Because as far as main Console releases go we were stuck in the Renaissance just as long and nobody's whining about that.

You cant twist the data that way just because you don't like something. I mean by that logic saying that you're mad that there's 4 games set in the 1700s with guns is tantamount to someone who prefers the gun periods saying that "well weve had 4main games with no muskets, and if you count spin offs theres 7 games without guns....That's not fairrrrrr....wahhhh waahhhh wahhhh.:("(I really wish there was a crying emoticon)


I don't know. I don't like guns in AC I prefer good old swords, bows, hidden blades to those muskets. In AC3 it was a good addition but it is overused now- yes I know that I don't have to use that, but when I have it I'm going to use it accidentally

The fact is that when it comes to guns they've been a major part of history and civilizations since the 1500s, so if we inevitably get AC set in the 19th or 20th or even 17th or 16th centuries I would get used to guns. I personally don't really mind guns being there since it was a major part of the periods these games are set, I also don't mind if we went to a period without them next. I also don't understand your argument that if its optional you "will accidentally end up using it" that makes no sense that's just a self control problem. I personally like the guns, but I'm not angry if it goes away for a few games. Im sure there are people out there that prefer the modern settings, yet a few people on these forums just Whine and act as if their OPINION is the only way that fans feel, as if they are the mouthpiece for everyone, when I'm sure there are a great number of people who disagree with them.

And as for the argument that AC2 wasn't as bad because they went to two different cultures(i.e. Italy and Ottomans). That is nonsense as well. Firstly we had already had middle eastern cultures in AC1 so Constantinople wasn't exactly groundbreaking. In the 1700s games we had far more drastic differences. The temperate climate of Colonial America(snow, trees, Colonial Architecture), The Swamps of Louisiana, Jungle, Islands, and Open Sea of the Caribbean, and now the Urban metropolis of Paris, all VASTLY different. The cultures were different, Americans wanting independence, The race situation in Louisiana, Pirates("A short life and a merry one"), and I guarantee you the people of Europe in ACU will be different from the people of the Colonies.


what I mean about the period is the people, the type of laws, looks, ideologies and techniques. The British, French and Spanish domination was a theme for that period up until the 1900s

They may also be the same century, but they are different Eras. Pirates reflects a period of lack of control by the Europeans on the colonies and Pirates ran free and lived their short and merry lives, AC3 represents a time when Europeans began to take too much control over the colonies so they revolt, and ACU is about how the people are being too oppressed by their own monarchs that they must depose them. Different times, different places, different themes. Saying 1710 is the same as 1789 is like saying 1910 is the same socially, politically, and culturally as 1989. Its an absolutely ludicrous statement. To many enemies with swords weather they be in 1066 or 100BC are still another enemy with a sword so the same thing in a different color uniform(the same problem you have with 18th century enemies). And in those ancient times everyone is going to be wearing either a toga or some kind of Egyptian skirt, that's not exactly diversification, they chose the Renaissance and later because of all the artistic diversity peoples cloths look different, you can tell a wealthy man on the streets of NYC in AC3 from a poor man. AC1 was back farther and what do we see? your options are either A:dress as a Monk, B:dress in crumbling Rags, C:Nobel Clothes(which oddly don't seem to be worn by anyone but targets). So its really all perspective and preference and to say otherwise is a Joke.

So what this comes down to is not that people are upset because of the time period being stuck(we've been stuck this long every time), and its not about the places being the Same(they are not by any means), Its not because of the cultures/way people dress(theres been more variety in the past 4 games than ever, Native Americans, Spanish, British, French, Native Tiano peoples, Pirates, Voodoo, Maroons, Soon French Royalty and the desperately poor of Paris so that argument is BS), Its not about any of that stuff. What it boils down to is 2 real reasons why there are a handful of people whining about this.

1.They don't like guns. Well guess what Booo Hoooo, some people do, and others(including myself) don't mind as long as there is something interesting about the period.

2.They just don't LIKE the time period: Well its like History class in school theres going to be stuff you really don't give a **** about but guess what other people might like it so get over yourself and deal with it, its not just about you, we will move on eventually and cover something else, it cant be everyone's favorite period all the time.

I apologize for being a little harsh and ranty with this, but I absolutely cant stand people making up bogus arguments, complaining about things yet making exceptions for things they like that are just as guilty, and trying to speak as if their opinions are facts, or that their opinions somehow are the only thing that matters and therefore they speak for everyone. When in all truth they are only upset because THEY personally do not like something, not that any of their arguments are true(that's just how they justify it) but they just simply do not prefer it to other things which they like. Nobody is entitled to anything here you take what you get and if you don't like it don't buy it. Everything doesn't have to be specifically tailored to a small group of people who Whine every time they don't get what they want like a child.

I'm sure we will get an ancient setting at some point Egypt is one of the most popular requests after all, but you're not going to get it simply because its what YOU want. It might be the next game, or 5 games down the road but it will come, and other people may enjoy everything else that is covered in between, so just stop being so selfish, and stop Whining because all of your "I want"s and "I would just like_____ for once"s aren't met. Just relax and enjoy what is there, learn something about something you don't like, experience periods you thought were boring, I'm sure we will eventually get to something that you like, just be patient and stop whining.

oliacr
05-07-2014, 07:56 PM
Well if you are going to count AC Liberation(which is a handheld spin off then you have to count the others as well

That makes: 3 games set in Altair's time(Altair's chronicles,AC1,Bloodlines), 4 games set in 1450-1515(AC2,Discovery,ACB,ACR), and 4 in 1710-1799(AC3,Liberation,AC4,Unity) So if you are going to do that kind of analysis where you lump in spin offs you should at least be fair. there has been 3-4 games set in every time period we've seen so far so I don't understand this whiny nonsense that "waahhh wahhhhh were stuck in the 18th century:(" Because as far as main Console releases go we were stuck in the Renaissance just as long and nobody's whining about that.

You cant twist the data that way just because you don't like something. I mean by that logic saying that you're mad that there's 4 games set in the 1700s with guns is tantamount to someone who prefers the gun periods saying that "well weve had 4main games with no muskets, and if you count spin offs theres 7 games without guns....That's not fairrrrrr....wahhhh waahhhh wahhhh.:("(I really wish there was a crying emoticon)


I don't twist anything, I counted only the GAMES GAMES that were available on main consoles and PC.

STDlyMcStudpants
05-07-2014, 08:11 PM
Well for 1 (Nah nah nah boo boo stick your head in doo doo)
The Kenway trilogy slipped from devs mouths before black flag (everyone swore i was wrong but el oh el)
We are getting the kenway trilogy..and while we're here, why not say hello to mr bonaparte
Hopefully AC is getting its gun craving out of its system..hopefully ac 5 will take place during the civil war and then we are done with guns for good....
I want an abraham lincoln game lol...
But I want to visit biblical times :D

DumbGamerTag94
05-07-2014, 08:39 PM
I don't twist anything, I counted only the GAMES GAMES that were available on main consoles and PC.

But AC Liberation is not a main game yet you counted it? It is available on Consoles but only as a download and wasn't intended to be a console game, so there are only 3games in the 1700s by that standard and you said 4, 3 is the same number as the 1450-1515 games but nobody gives that nearly as much flak. That's what I meant. Including Liberation means you would have to include the other handheld games(if not it is twisting data, because it unfairly weights the 18th century games) which bring the count to 3 or 4 games per era not just in the 18th century.

I was pointing out how your argument was flawed. In that post I point out all of the holes in the arguments you and others are making as to why 18th century is bad/overdone. It's purely a matter of opinion and preference at the core of it. Everything many posters have said about the 18th century setting in relation to the rest of the series is simply not true or pure opinion. The only consistencies that are present in all of those posts are "I wish"s or "I want", "I think", "they should", or other nitpicks like "ancient times" this or "no guns in AC" that.

Essentially it is not any issue with the games or the time period. It is purely as simple as that some people prefer a different time period, be it newer or older, and some people just don't like guns per say, and therefore they hate on the 18th century just because it doesn't fancy them, while we can have 3 main games in 1450-1515 and hardly a whimper out of them "I didn't mind the Ezio Trilogy(because reasons)". But three in an era they don't like? "Whats happening to AC?", "I've lost faith in AC", "Why are we STUCK in 18th century?(not hearing that about Ezio)", "AC needs to get back to its roots".

Its all baseless preferences and opinion. Trying to make it sound better by making biased arguments or elaborating opinions as though they are fact doesn't change that, it just means people aren't admitting it. But I feel if we had 3 ancient games in a row say, 1 Egypt, 1Greece, 1Rome, these same people wouldn't be complaining, but we would see new group of people start to do the same thing with an anti ancient bias asking why we haven't gone to the 1600s or the 1800s.

Cant people just admit that they are just whining because they haven't gotten what they want, rather than trying to justify it by making up baseless arguments as to why the current series sucks?

I'm not saying that all of this applies to you or any one particular person, I don't mean this as a personal attack on you or anything. its just a trend I've noticed in these forums

Its fine to talk about what you want, or what you would like to see, There's a whole Future AC titles thread for that and its pretty interesting. but complaining because what we have now isn't what you like is childish, and acting like what we have is somehow inferior is pure rubbish and its called Whining.

Rugterwyper32
05-07-2014, 08:50 PM
I have to admit, to a degree I'm glad they're staying in the same century so far. It gives them more thematical consistency so far with the idea of revolution and how it all affects each other. Heck, if they decided to do the Peninsular War and the South American Wars of Independence after this, it'd all come full circle thematically. So I do appreciate that. Sure, I'd like things to jump around a little bit more, but I'm fine with this. Two of my top three settings are between the 16th-18th centuries anyway. The other one is in the late 10th century.

GunnerGalactico
05-07-2014, 08:58 PM
I have to admit, to a degree I'm glad they're staying in the same century so far. It gives them more thematical consistency so far with the idea of revolution and how it all affects each other. Heck, if they decided to do the Peninsular War and the South American Wars of Independence after this, it'd all come full circle thematically. So I do appreciate that. Sure, I'd like things to jump around a little bit more, but I'm fine with this. Two of my top three settings are between the 16th-18th centuries anyway. The other one is in the late 10th century.

^^ Agreed.

oliacr
05-07-2014, 09:00 PM
It is available on Consoles but only as a download and wasn't intended to be a console game.

You answered everything here. Third time and for last: I counted every games that has been released on main consoles and PC. So don't twist data- just to use your words.


There's a whole Future AC titles thread for that and its pretty interesting. but complaining because what we have now isn't what you like is childish, and acting like what we have is somehow inferior is pure rubbish and its called Whining.
I think you misunderstood. I don't hate the games at all. Just don't like the time period. You are a bit offensive with calling this childish and a whining, but you know everybody has his or her personal opinions and you call that Whining? So what it is if not childish behaviour. If you want to quarrel do it somewhere else I'm not interested in that at all.

DumbGamerTag94
05-07-2014, 09:28 PM
You answered everything here. Third time and for last: I counted every games that has been released on main consoles and PC. So don't twist data- just to use your words.


I think you misunderstood. I don't hate the games at all. Just don't like the time period. You are a bit offensive with calling this childish and a whining, but you know everybody has his or her personal opinions and you call that Whining? So what it is if not childish behaviour.

My point is that Liberation WAS NEVER INTENDED as a console game. It is a Download only game. You cant go out and buy a disc unless its for the Vita, it was designed for that system. The console version is an HD remake, and cannot be purchased in the same way as the main titles are. Therefore it is not a main game it is supplementary. Which means to be fair, if you include it you must include all other handhelds as well as they are cannon, and are available for purchase on The PSP and Nintendo DS. Not counting them and counting Liberation is abusing a technicality(that it is technically available for console and not a main game) which is a form of data twisting. A balanced look at things would be to either take all the playable games be they handheld, PC, Console or what have you, or to only focus on titles that are part of the main series(i.e. the yearly reased ones)

That system leaves: Altair:1(AC) Ezio:3(AC2,ACB,ACR) 1700s(AC3,AC4,ACU) It is still equal for renaissance and 18th century.

And I know you don't hate the games. As I said in my post it didn't apply specifically to you or anyone in particular, it applies to a trend across the entire forum. I apologize for any offense you may have taken, but I tend to just call things as they are, I'm not a politically correct person, I call things as they are and I don't sugar coat them because people get offended by it.

whine: 2. to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way 5. a feeble, peevish complaint. (courtesy Dictionary.com)

It is certainly peevish because people have made multiple threads about it. This one, the "I've lost my faith" pity party one, among many others, and some of these complaints have made it in several other threads.

Its self pitying because of all the uses of phrases like "I want", "I wish", "I've lost faith in AC", "I wish we could see Ancient Civs", "I hate the 18th century", "Guns ruin AC for me" etc, etc, and so on.

And they are certainly feeble complaints as I have pointed out before all of the arguments against them are based almost entirely on opinion and bias with very little to back it up.

So I felt I was within reason for calling it that.

I personally like the Ancient times suggestions, but I don't go around hating on existing games and begging for what I want and giving reasons why 18th century or whatever is bad in comparison, that by definition is whining. I'm not accusing you specifically of it, just that there are a lot of people who are.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, and I like to hear about what places people want, but there is a difference when they are whining because what we have gotten isn't what they want do you understand what I am saying? Its different to say "I think we should try an ancient Civ like Greece in a future game what do you guys think?" than it is to say "I want an AC in Ancient Greece. Why hasn't it happened yet? why are we stuck in 18th century? Ubi is such a money grubbing mainstream poser. Ancient Greece is soooo much better than the 18th century because I don't like it." There's a big difference there. The first is a proposal, opens discussion, the second is Whining, and it does not open discussion it is written as if it were fact and MUST happen, and if you disagree your will start a fight or be called not a true AC fan or something.

SixKeys
05-07-2014, 09:57 PM
Because Ubi likes reusing assets. /thread



Kidding, but only sort of. I do believe that's the biggest reason. No need to design vastly different crowds when you can just plop the same period clothing on them and you can recycle the same musket and pistol animations for several games. They don't radically have to rethink each assassin's combat moves when they can just use Connor's animations for Edward and Aveline. Of course they have to design new locations and assets for each game, but it's not as radical of a jump as AC1's Middle East vs. AC2's Renaissance Italy.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
05-08-2014, 05:19 AM
Assassinís Creed III
Assassinís Creed: Liberation
Assassinís Creed IV: Black Flag
Assassinís Creed: Unity

Am I missing anything?

All those take place in the 1700s aka. the 18th century. So why are we stuck there? whatís so special about that era? I know a lot of stuff happened then but why canít there be gaps? I know Hotzio had 3 games in the same period, but are we going to follow that tradition forever? I thought they were gonna break away from giving more than one game to a character but here they are sticking with the same family and the same century and ACUís protagonist is a new person as far as we know, unless he turns out to be Connor or that the grandson of the the husband of the wife of the sister of a manís best friendís daughterís pet who lived in Connorís village.

But the question remains, why is Ubisoft refusing to give a game in a different period of time despite the change of numerical title, despite the change of the protagonist and despite making 4 games that take place in the era? and when will we finally see something far before or after the 18th century?

Ugh, right?

I'm so sick of the 18th century. It's getting rather dull now. My only hope is that Unity will be sufficiently different to AC3 and 4 due to being in Europe-proper and so, will hopefully have more of an AC2 feel with the city. One of my biggest problems with the locations chosen thus far in the 18th century is that they've all been rather lame for parkour and thus, one of the CORE mechanics fell flat. The cities in AC3 were rather bland and the ones in IV... well, apparently they were underused and took a backseat to naval and island shenanigans.

Hopefully Unity corrects that issue with a game focused on urban exploration and movement. I'm still not thrilled with the time period since there are plenty of options because they literally have all of history to play around with: China being my number one choice for a new location just because ancient china was cool, it'll be very different from all of the more european-based culture, and the architecture would be BRAND new and would be NOTHING like the architecture in europe or european-styled cities of the new world.

Farlander1991
05-08-2014, 05:36 AM
I think you misunderstood. I don't hate the games at all. Just don't like the time period.

Hating or not, you kinda proved his point there.

Speaking in general, most people don't like the time periods just because they don't like the time periods, not because there's anything particular wrong with them or not suiting for AC. Just a matter of personal preference.

And the gun issue that is mentioned a bunch of times during discussions like these is really a strawman's argument, as there's only one AC game that doesn't have guns - and that's AC1. And there's only TWO AC games that don't have enemies with guns - and that's AC1 and AC2. ACB and ACR has tons of snipers with rifles, and in AC2/ACB/ACR we have the hidden gun which is much more powerful and faster reloading than any gun from the 18th century games.

marvelfannumber
05-08-2014, 05:46 AM
Guys, guys. We all know that AC will go further back in time sooner or later, can't we just enjoy the 18th century while it lasts. I bet when they pick the next time period some of you are gonna be there complaining about that, just like there were people complaining about so many Ezio games, but when AC3 came out they suddenly wanted him back.

This is an annual release here, I expect just a little bit of patience and gratefulness

RinoTheBouncer
05-08-2014, 08:07 AM
Maybe they could base a game on events after a second, unexpected solar flair. There would be no animus this time, just the remnants of the Assassins and Templars fighting it out in the remains of burned cities, looking for the tools to rebuild (obv. the templars wanting to rebuild and enslave et.c). Just a thought.

I honestly like the idea. I’ve always wondered if the devs will have the guts to take the games where the story demands rather than tailor the story to suit the atmosphere of the “classic” style. For me, I’d embrace a fully modern day AC, a first civ. AC and a historical AC. Because they games have spent a lot of time convincing us that the Assassins have existed since the dawn of humanity not in a certain period between 1200 to 1800, not to mention that it’s called “Assassin’s Creed” not “The Historical Adventures of the Assassins between 1200 to 1800 using the Animus” so I believe any game revolving around Assassins and Templars is gonna be great if written and directed well, whether it involves or does not involve an Animus or a historical setting.

So I like your idea. I’d also welcome a game that is set as a “different possibility”. I mean Minerva created The Eye to show different possibilities, different futures, so perhaps we can get a game in a possibility where Assassins have always got the upper hand or Desmond never died and now has children to he chose to end the world...etc. I think it would make a great game, if not a main game then a handheld one, at least.


Waa waa waaaaa! The reason there are a number of different games in the 18th century is because each of the settings are actually different. The Caribbean is vastly different from colonial America, Revolutionary Paris has several qualities unique to itself - all the setting are diverse. No amount of tricorn hats and flintlock pistols can change that. The three settings offer different experiences in terms of gameplay and historical tourism.

Unless of course you're pretentious and self entitled, believing that only superficial details like language, weaponry and architecture are the be all and end all of a setting.

I wasn’t talking about the periods looking the same, I was talking about the style of the gameplay, the mechanics. After all, this is a video game not a historical tourism simulator. When you compare ACIII and ACL, there won’t be as many differences as there are between ACI and ACIII or ACIV and ACII. There’s a vast difference in time, culture, location, enemies and allies. In the 17th century, most of the enemies are either British or Spanish. Compare that to the enemies of ACIII and ACI, you’ve got a whole new set of enemies.

As an Assassin, most of the time you’re on rooftops and only interact during fight or talking to allies. There isn’t much focus on interiors or the hardly noticeable details. I’m not saying the differences between French Revolution era and the Caribbean are barely noticeable but it takes a large time difference to feel that the game is actually changing. I’d rather have as big of a difference in gameplay and historical tourism as that between ACI and ACII, than that between ACIII and ACIV. As the two offered extremely variable weapons, characters, cities, architecture, language, mythologies. I’m sure anyone can agree that there’s not much comparison between ACI and ACII or ACII and ACIII. They offered whole new experiences and it wasn’t just some landmark.


Ugh, right?

I'm so sick of the 18th century. It's getting rather dull now. My only hope is that Unity will be sufficiently different to AC3 and 4 due to being in Europe-proper and so, will hopefully have more of an AC2 feel with the city. One of my biggest problems with the locations chosen thus far in the 18th century is that they've all been rather lame for parkour and thus, one of the CORE mechanics fell flat. The cities in AC3 were rather bland and the ones in IV... well, apparently they were underused and took a backseat to naval and island shenanigans.

Hopefully Unity corrects that issue with a game focused on urban exploration and movement. I'm still not thrilled with the time period since there are plenty of options because they literally have all of history to play around with: China being my number one choice for a new location just because ancient china was cool, it'll be very different from all of the more european-based culture, and the architecture would be BRAND new and would be NOTHING like the architecture in europe or european-styled cities of the new world.

Yeah, I totally agree with you. In addition to that, I just personally don’t like that era. I mean I personally never liked sword games or games that take place in times between 1200 to 1800 but AC1 to AC:R changed that for me. I never liked movies about renaissance period but I LOVED Ezio’s games. Why? because the game had more to offer than historical tourism. There was a very interesting and likable protagonist, there was an intriguing plot, and a connected one, in terms of modern-modern, modern-historical, historical-historical.

I know that Ubisoft doesn’t make games according to my opinion but I think ACI, ACII, AC:B and AC:R had a lot more to offer than weapons or good-looking locations. The 18th century have been done a trillion times in film, and I know renaissance was overdone too but again, Ezio’s trilogy had more to offer than just a cool looking location.

As you said, ACIII and ACIV cities weren’t anything special. Almost every city in ACIII looked the same and they all looked bland and pale and no good for parkour and as for ACIV, don’t get me started about all the islands could be gathered in one island because they all felt like they’re part of one place. I know that this is geography but they choose something that didn’t have much diversity nor was it that interesting in the first place.

oliacr
05-08-2014, 08:19 AM
Guys, guys. We all know that AC will go further back in time sooner or later, can't we just enjoy the 18th century while it lasts. I bet when they pick the next time period some of you are gonna be there complaining about that, just like there were people complaining about so many Ezio games, but when AC3 came out they suddenly wanted him back.

This is an annual release here, I expect just a little bit of patience and gratefulness

Give that man a medal!


Hating or not, you kinda proved his point there.

Speaking in general, most people don't like the time periods just because they don't like the time periods, not because there's anything particular wrong with them or not suiting for AC. Just a matter of personal preference.

And the gun issue that is mentioned a bunch of times during discussions like these is really a strawman's argument, as there's only one AC game that doesn't have guns - and that's AC1. And there's only TWO AC games that don't have enemies with guns - and that's AC1 and AC2. ACB and ACR has tons of snipers with rifles, and in AC2/ACB/ACR we have the hidden gun which is much more powerful and faster reloading than any gun from the 18th century games.

Yes you are right but hidden gun for me wasn't a real weapon, I used it sometimes and sometimes I don't. In AC3 I liked guns but it will be the 3rd game with guns - yeah I said it a lot of times but nah... I must accept it.

Dev_Anj
05-08-2014, 10:03 AM
Yeah, I totally agree with you. In addition to that, I just personally don’t like that era. I mean I personally never liked sword games or games that take place in times between 1200 to 1800 but AC1 to AC:R changed that for me. I never liked movies about renaissance period but I LOVED Ezio’s games. Why? because the game had more to offer than historical tourism. There was a very interesting and likable protagonist, there was an intriguing plot, and a connected one, in terms of modern-modern, modern-historical, historical-historical.

I know that Ubisoft doesn’t make games according to my opinion but I think ACI, ACII, AC:B and AC:R had a lot more to offer than weapons or good-looking locations. The 18th century have been done a trillion times in film, and I know renaissance was overdone too but again, Ezio’s trilogy had more to offer than just a cool looking location.

As you said, ACIII and ACIV cities weren’t anything special. Almost every city in ACIII looked the same and they all looked bland and pale and no good for parkour and as for ACIV, don’t get me started about all the islands could be gathered in one island because they all felt like they’re part of one place. I know that this is geography but they choose something that didn’t have much diversity nor was it that interesting in the first place.

Islands don't have diversity? I thought there were quite a few stand outs, like Tulum, Great Inagua, and the island with a huge Mayan ruin, during the last Templar contract. Sure most of the islands look the same, but they don't lack diversity that much.

Also when are you getting AC 4 Bob? You haven't played the game, and are saying negative things about it.

Markaccus
05-08-2014, 11:01 AM
I honestly like the idea. I’ve always wondered if the devs will have the guts to take the games where the story demands rather than tailor the story to suit the atmosphere of the “classic” style. For me, I’d embrace a fully modern day AC, a first civ. AC and a historical AC. Because they games have spent a lot of time convincing us that the Assassins have existed since the dawn of humanity not in a certain period between 1200 to 1800, not to mention that it’s called “Assassin’s Creed” not “The Historical Adventures of the Assassins between 1200 to 1800 using the Animus” so I believe any game revolving around Assassins and Templars is gonna be great if written and directed well, whether it involves or does not involve an Animus or a historical setting.

So I like your idea. I’d also welcome a game that is set as a “different possibility”. I mean Minerva created The Eye to show different possibilities, different futures, so perhaps we can get a game in a possibility where Assassins have always got the upper hand or Desmond never died and now has children to he chose to end the world...etc. I think it would make a great game, if not a main game then a handheld one, at least..

I like the idea of a "possible future" animus. Opens up all sorts of options. even if a game only has a few missions forward in time. Example.... Assassins use normal animus to find out the location of something from the past, they then use the "forward animus" to formulate the best course of action to recover it. so a game with say three or four past mem sequences to every future one. Quick, Call ubisoft dev team! :D

RinoTheBouncer
05-08-2014, 11:47 AM
Islands don't have diversity? I thought there were quite a few stand outs, like Tulum, Great Inagua, and the island with a huge Mayan ruin, during the last Templar contract. Sure most of the islands look the same, but they don't lack diversity that much.

Also when are you getting AC 4 Bob? You haven't played the game, and are saying negative things about it.

I do have ACIV both for PS3 and PS4 and got both on release day. Why do you claim that I don’t have it and saying negative things about it?

Even if I didn’t have the game, there’s a reason why they release trailers and promo materials so people can either feel into the game so they go and pre-order/buy it or not. Not saying the trailer is the first and and last judge on game quality, but most of the time, people can spot major negative stuff and positive stuff from promo material.


I like the idea of a "possible future" animus. Opens up all sorts of options. even if a game only has a few missions forward in time. Example.... Assassins use normal animus to find out the location of something from the past, they then use the "forward animus" to formulate the best course of action to recover it. so a game with say three or four past mem sequences to every future one. Quick, Call ubisoft dev team! :D

PLEASE DO! I really wanna have such an idea. Fans really do have the best ideas and the most original. Definitely more than the developers. I mean from fan speculations and suggestions about AC games, endings and sequel ideas, fans have written so many better alternatives which is probably why the developers can’t please everyone cause there’s always a better fan fiction.

I hope this happens, though. It saddens me that they introduced a lot of concept that they could’ve used in various perfect and smart ways and they didn’t, so far.

Dev_Anj
05-08-2014, 12:26 PM
I do have ACIV both for PS3 and PS4 and got both on release day. Why do you claim that I don’t have it and saying negative things about it?

Even if I didn’t have the game, there’s a reason why they release trailers and promo materials so people can either feel into the game so they go and pre-order/buy it or not. Not saying the trailer is the first and and last judge on game quality, but most of the time, people can spot major negative stuff and positive stuff from promo material.


I was referring to BoBwUzHeRe, not you. Sorry for the confusion.

I understand that you don't need to buy the game to get a good idea of how it will play out, and I know that BobwUzHeRe doesn't like naval battles that much, so he's hesitant to get AC 4, but his negative posts about it just irritated me for a while. I can understand his viewpoint though.

GunnerGalactico
05-08-2014, 12:38 PM
I really enjoyed both 16th and 18th century setting. I wouldn't say one is better than the other. At the end of the day... everyone has their individual preferences.

alientraveller
05-08-2014, 04:00 PM
Eh well it's not surprising. The 18th century is the most interesting era of history (here in the UK there's currently lots of documentaries and exhibits to mark 300 years since George I ascended to the throne).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Sir_Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington.png
Like a boss!

SpiritOfNevaeh
05-08-2014, 07:32 PM
I'm sure the 18th century has a lot of history behind it and AC wants to tell them in the many games that it takes to get it all out :)

GunnerGalactico
05-08-2014, 08:09 PM
Eh well it's not surprising. The 18th century is the most interesting era of history (here in the UK there's currently lots of documentaries and exhibits to mark 300 years since George I ascended to the throne).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Sir_Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington.png
Like a boss!


I'm sure the 18th century has a lot of history behind it and AC wants to tell them in the many games that it takes to get it all out :)

With all due respect, I also like ancient and medieval settings for AC, but the 18th century was a good time period and it provides a lot of ideas for the game devs. There are so many events and historical figures in that era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_century

pirate1802
05-09-2014, 03:37 AM
Sorry but I have to, with every atom of my being, disagree with the notion that islands didn't have enough diversity and you can group them as one single island. Wut?? For starters you an group them into fishing villages, ruins, or just empty islands. Even then, one fishing village might be different than another. The one near Nassau is a vertical village, with houses piled on top of one another. Cayman islands on the other hands is a spread out village. The coconut island near Nassau (the one with the ship) is totally different from Cayman Sounds which is a horseshoe type structure. If someone didn't take time to explore all the island types then maybe, otherwise can't agree with this statement. AC4's open world (by that I mean the whole world, not just the cities) was one of the most beautiful and diverse I've seen in a game and it is doubtful we'd be seeing anything like this in an AC game again.

xaventh
05-10-2014, 08:57 AM
Why? Naval.
/Thread

Hans684
05-10-2014, 09:07 AM
Why? Naval.
/Thread

Incorrect until we see naval in Unity.

RinoTheBouncer
05-10-2014, 01:34 PM
I was referring to BoBwUzHeRe, not you. Sorry for the confusion.

I understand that you don't need to buy the game to get a good idea of how it will play out, and I know that BobwUzHeRe doesn't like naval battles that much, so he's hesitant to get AC 4, but his negative posts about it just irritated me for a while. I can understand his viewpoint though.

Oh I see, Iím sorry for the confusion :)

Ureh
05-10-2014, 03:13 PM
Sorry but I have to, with every atom of my being, disagree with the notion that islands didn't have enough diversity and you can group them as one single island. Wut?? For starters you an group them into fishing villages, ruins, or just empty islands. Even then, one fishing village might be different than another. The one near Nassau is a vertical village, with houses piled on top of one another. Cayman islands on the other hands is a spread out village. The coconut island near Nassau (the one with the ship) is totally different from Cayman Sounds which is a horseshoe type structure. If someone didn't take time to explore all the island types then maybe, otherwise can't agree with this statement. AC4's open world (by that I mean the whole world, not just the cities) was one of the most beautiful and diverse I've seen in a game and it is doubtful we'd be seeing anything like this in an AC game again.

I agree with you too except for the part "it's about we'd be seeing anything like this again". I think some fans want skyrim-esque islands/villages where everything is super unique and all the differences are evident. But it does seem like the devs were aiming for realism and creative freedom, simultaneously. The differences were probably a bit too nuanced for those that don't take the time to study the map and explore. But maybe it's also good to make some of the islands and villages super-duper-obvious in distinction cause some people want to only play the game once and rush through it and they want to be impressed in that short time. They want their jaws to drop at the first glance (which might also be their last). But I think the AC devs will make another open world like the Caribbean... they're pretty ambitious. If we can think and imagine the next world then they probably thought about it too right? :P

I think the coconut island's name was/is abacco island? abocco? abacco? That was their first stop after taking the jackdaw right? :O

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 05:24 PM
I'm scared for the future of this franchise when I read that people want it to go to the moon and become just another futuristic game :|

if that happens, i'm done with the series...if it so much becomes AT LEAST 60% modern/future, i'm done with this series...

Hans684
05-10-2014, 05:44 PM
I'm scared for the future of this franchise when I read that people want it to go to the moon and become just another futuristic game :|

if that happens, i'm done with the series...if it so much becomes AT LEAST 60% modern/future, i'm done with this series...

They could blow up the moon instead.

Dead1y-Derri
05-10-2014, 08:37 PM
I think because the technology is much more advanced in those times. Plus records are kept very well in the 18 century and thus they have more history to play with whereas you're kind of flying blind like the AC1 because records of that time period are much more vague. I think also because Naval Combat was really big in the 18 century and obviously they're wanting to push the Naval combat to the max.

Dead1y-Derri
05-10-2014, 08:39 PM
They could blow up the moon instead.

Please never mention this again...we aren't Call of Duty (I'm sure in Black Ops zombies there was something about blowing up the moon in an easter egg. Plus you did go to the moon)

Rugterwyper32
05-10-2014, 09:00 PM
They could blow up the moon instead.


http://youtu.be/EVHpL9yutLg

And then proceed to ignore it ever happened throughout the rest of the series

Hans684
05-10-2014, 09:14 PM
http://youtu.be/EVHpL9yutLg

And then proceed to ignore it ever happened throughout the rest of the series

Yes:p


Please never mention this again...we aren't Call of Duty (I'm sure in Black Ops zombies there was something about blowing up the moon in an easter egg. Plus you did go to the moon)

Please don't say what I can or can not say. I know this is not COD but it was mean as a joke. In one article from GI there is an interview with someone that works on COD:AW, they mention blowing up the moon.

I-Like-Pie45
05-10-2014, 09:20 PM
I have a better idea

what if it turns out like Juno's plan is to like bring the moon crashing down on the Earth, and the moon like has a face on it for some reason so like Aiden Pearce is like plucked from Watch Dogs universe into the AC universe to stop her

but he like fails the first time so the moon like destroys the world but then Yves Guillemot shows up and gives Aiden the special Smartphone of Time which he can use to rewind time by three days in order to stop Juno which he like does by going onto the moon where it turns out there's like grass and trees and the spirits of everybody Aiden has killed

and then he has an epic kung-fu space fight with Juno and everything ends by blowing up including your choice of gaming platform along with your house

Locopells
05-11-2014, 12:06 AM
Contract J.A.C.K

RinoTheBouncer
05-11-2014, 05:19 PM
I’d welcome any fully modern/futuristic AC game. If the developers have the guts to make a good game, they can make games where the story and title leads them to rather than where it’s more orthodox or more profitable to do so. I don’t want a game on the Mass Effect-themed AC following Templars on different planets, but having a fully modern day or 60% modern day AC story wouldn’t be such a bad idea because the game has been convincing us since day one that the Assassins and Templars have existed since the dawn of humanity and the fight is still on till this very moment, so why limit the games strictly to historical periods, let alone to 1200 to 1900 that we’ve been stuck with since day one.

The developers are afraid of creating anything new and daring. It’s the case with most franchises. They’re daring and original with the first title and then the game keeps cloning itself or keeps playing it safe and tries way too hard to appeal to people who weren’t interested in the first place, morphing itself into something it’s not.

I don’t see anything wrong with viewing the fight of the Assassins and Templars in an ancient history era, in a modern day era, in a futuristic era, around religious figures, fictional figures or political ones. This is AC. It’s called ‘Assassin’s Creed” not “The story of the Assassins and Templars, set strictly between 1200 to 1900”.

Assassin_M
05-11-2014, 05:40 PM
I’d welcome any fully modern/futuristic AC game. If the developers have the guts to make a good game, they can make games where the story and title leads them to rather than where it’s more orthodox or more profitable to do so. I don’t want a game on the Mass Effect-themed AC following Templars on different planets, but having a fully modern day or 60% modern day AC story wouldn’t be such a bad idea because the game has been convincing us since day one that the Assassins and Templars have existed since the dawn of humanity and the fight is still on till this very moment, so why limit the games strictly to historical periods, let alone to 1200 to 1900 that we’ve been stuck with since day one.

The developers are afraid of creating anything new and daring. It’s the case with most franchises. They’re daring and original with the first title and then the game keeps cloning itself or keeps playing it safe and tries way too hard to appeal to people who weren’t interested in the first place, morphing itself into something it’s not.

I don’t see anything wrong with viewing the fight of the Assassins and Templars in an ancient history era, in a modern day era, in a futuristic era, around religious figures, fictional figures or political ones. This is AC. It’s called ‘Assassin’s Creed” not “The story of the Assassins and Templars, set strictly between 1200 to 1900”.
I'm sorry but to me, more than 50% of AC's appeal lies in the historical aspect. it's what they set out to create in the first place, it's what makes me want to keep going with AC and give it more chances. AC without History = Watch Dogs, nuff said and I'm not NEARLY as excited for Watch Dogs as I am for the new AC (and i'm not THAT excited for the new AC)
You keep saying that the developers are afraid of making something new and daring and suggest that modern day or a futuristic setting are the synonyms of new and daring but I just can't see that when SO MANY games and franchises have futuristic and/or modern settings. What other games present an open world historical element? what other games give you the chance to roam in 15th century Italy and Turkey? make me a list...meanwhile, if you count the amount of futuristic/modern games, then you'll make a very very long list.

Your suggestions would be similar to suggesting that GTA have an ancient history setting, when that would not make much sense or suggest that Call of Duty be set in Ancient Rome...each franchise has established itself with a genre and specific element that attracts players, it can't do something weird like COMPLETELY abandoning a focal element (in AC's case, history) and call it new and daring.

to me, it IS the story of Assassins and Templars throughout history till the 1900s. You like futuristic and modern periods? good for you, all the respect to your opinion, just don't suggest that AC is bad for NOT going that route because I would beg to differ..

Megas_Doux
05-11-2014, 09:27 PM
Modern and/or futuristic Assassinsī Creed???????
UBER FAIL!!!!!!!

Ubisoft already tried this approach with Call of Juarez: The Cartel, and well..........

Black_Widow9
05-11-2014, 09:30 PM
I agree. I don't think it is a case of fear or lack of daring whatsoever. AC games are "based" on historical events and that's kind of the premise for all of them. If there was a future AC game it would completely take away that aspect which I think is part of the reason we find them so fascinating. We get to see and participate in history, even though it isn't completely true, that we would never have the chance to otherwise. Just my opinion.

oliacr
05-11-2014, 10:14 PM
I'm sorry but to me, more than 50% of AC's appeal lies in the historical aspect. it's what they set out to create in the first place, it's what makes me want to keep going with AC and give it more chances. AC without History = Watch Dogs, nuff said and I'm not NEARLY as excited for Watch Dogs as I am for the new AC (and i'm not THAT excited for the new AC)
You keep saying that the developers are afraid of making something new and daring and suggest that modern day or a futuristic setting are the synonyms of new and daring but I just can't see that when SO MANY games and franchises have futuristic and/or modern settings. What other games present an open world historical element? what other games give you the chance to roam in 15th century Italy and Turkey? make me a list...meanwhile, if you count the amount of futuristic/modern games, then you'll make a very very long list.

Your suggestions would be similar to suggesting that GTA have an ancient history setting, when that would not make much sense or suggest that Call of Duty be set in Ancient Rome...each franchise has established itself with a genre and specific element that attracts players, it can't do something weird like COMPLETELY abandoning a focal element (in AC's case, history) and call it new and daring.

to me, it IS the story of Assassins and Templars throughout history till the 1900s. You like futuristic and modern periods? good for you, all the respect to your opinion, just don't suggest that AC is bad for NOT going that route because I would beg to differ..
Very well said. Exactly. Just like my thoughts.

ze_topazio
05-12-2014, 01:53 AM
After so many games how can people still not realize that the historical recreation is a core element of this franchise, too modern or futuristic would be like Resident Evil dropping the survival horror thing and turn in to a action heavy shooter, oh wait, that happened... :nonchalance:

RinoTheBouncer
05-12-2014, 09:08 AM
I'm sorry but to me, more than 50% of AC's appeal lies in the historical aspect. it's what they set out to create in the first place, it's what makes me want to keep going with AC and give it more chances. AC without History = Watch Dogs, nuff said and I'm not NEARLY as excited for Watch Dogs as I am for the new AC (and i'm not THAT excited for the new AC)
You keep saying that the developers are afraid of making something new and daring and suggest that modern day or a futuristic setting are the synonyms of new and daring but I just can't see that when SO MANY games and franchises have futuristic and/or modern settings. What other games present an open world historical element? what other games give you the chance to roam in 15th century Italy and Turkey? make me a list...meanwhile, if you count the amount of futuristic/modern games, then you'll make a very very long list.

Your suggestions would be similar to suggesting that GTA have an ancient history setting, when that would not make much sense or suggest that Call of Duty be set in Ancient Rome...each franchise has established itself with a genre and specific element that attracts players, it can't do something weird like COMPLETELY abandoning a focal element (in AC's case, history) and call it new and daring.

to me, it IS the story of Assassins and Templars throughout history till the 1900s. You like futuristic and modern periods? good for you, all the respect to your opinion, just don't suggest that AC is bad for NOT going that route because I would beg to differ..

I didn’t say it’s bad just because it’s not going to a fully modern day game, nor am I suggesting that the historical portion is bad.
Of course, no game can change it’s style 100% to a different style because it’s gonna alienate everyone. However, modern day was part of the game since day one, and I personally loved the game for that because it was that way for the past 5 games and I believe that removing that portion completely (which I know it’s not what you’re suggesting) would be a big disappointment for me, because it was one of the main elements that made me like it, in the first place.

I’m not suggesting that the developers will only do something great and daring when they make AC in space or modern day but I just want them to make a game that is more about the story than showing off a well-known historical event. In ACI, I felt like Altair and Al-Mualim where the biggest event the game is offering and the rest felt more like a background while in other AC’s, the game gradually began focusing more on the atmosphere and the background than on the story of the Assassins and that what influenced me to say “they’re not being daring with their choices” because they seem to rely heavily on a setting that everybody knows and wants to see recreated in 3D than crafting a story that is rich enough to stand it’s ground even if it takes place in one room.

AC is an outstanding franchise that presented something other games could not, we can agree on that and the historical tourism they offer is very well made, but I feel like the decision to make the games more self-contained and more reliant on showing off a well-known faction or gang or revolution is not a good one. How about a game pre-Altair? how about something before 1200, hell even in BC times? that would be original. We’ve been stuck between 1200 and 1900 for ages and there’s a lot more to explore in history, a lot more beautiful cities to visit, for example Sumer or Ancient Egypt could make a great and original new setting and one game that has 30-70 modern-historical wouldn’t be bad after all. It will give an insight on what’s going on today without obliterating the historical portion, completely. It will still be the major part of the game.

Perhaps if they can make a hand-held game that is fully modern and see the reaction to it. But I, in no way demand something like GTA being set in ancient history or COD set in ancient rome. GTA and COD is more of a fixed theme of war, armies and settings in the 1900s and GTA is all about cars and guns, so changing that would be like removing Lara Croft from Tomb Raider but AC have always told us that the Assassins and Templars aren’t some fad that showed up for a limited period of time, but a ongoing struggle since ancient times, so giving a larger insight in a game or two about the modern day struggle or perhaps a whole new setting in ancient history isn’t bad after all.

Maybe AC is known to be set before 1900 but it shouldn’t be always be set after 1200. Of course, I respect your taste and your opinion, I’m just sharing thoughts with you, my friend.

NINJAman552
05-14-2014, 04:12 AM
I feel like it could be a gameplay thing. I remember back when ACII came out people were all thinking of how we could get guns into the series in future games after seeing the hidden gun. Now guns seem to be fairly natural in the series without disrupting the mainly melee combat. But who knows.

Realistically we're probably not 'stuck' in the 18th century. It's probably just the time the devs happened to think of and decided to use. I doubt they said, "alright lets stay in the 18th century for x amount of games."

But again, who knows. As long as the games are quality and feel like AC, I'm fine with it.