PDA

View Full Version : If Patrice Désilets was still on Assassins Creed, would the series be different?



Radman500
06-06-2014, 10:32 PM
pretty much the "Father of Assassins Creed" as you all know he was the director of AC 1 and 2

and he also did some work on Brotherhood and then he left right after that..


so do you guys think the series would be at a different stage right now if he was still on ac as creative director....

how would revelations, 3, 4 of turned out differently, would he of went another direction with the series

what do you guys think?

marvelfannumber
06-06-2014, 10:36 PM
Assassin's Creed 3 would be the final game in the series and this thread would not exist.

pacmanate
06-06-2014, 10:46 PM
How are we supposed to know :s

Zafar1981
06-07-2014, 12:11 AM
In my view he want's to direct AC 3 and when the project was given to Hutchinson in Jan 2010 he took a leave and finally resigned. And now I am talking about for those fans who were playing the series since 2007(not for those which started the series from AC 3 or 4). The game play, story telling, and all the other stuff in AC 2 were much more advance then AC 1. He left Ubisoft when ACB was in Blue print plans. To know much more watch this video.
<font size="2">
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JbWCLezbLA
So in fact he didn't play much role in the development in ACB. He studied movies and had a degree so he knows how to create a story in Games. All of his games POP Sand of Time, Assassin's Creed 1 and 2 are still considered the best in the series.
I believe that if he is only one director making AC game the series would be much more different. May we won't see annul release. May be we see more polished game. May be we won't see such a dull protagonist like Connor.

LieutenantRex
06-07-2014, 12:22 AM
It'd be way better than it is now. The series went into a sharp decline after Brotherhood, which is why it's the last good AC game. After Patrice left, they began promising stuff they couldn't deliver.

DinoSteve1
06-07-2014, 03:44 AM
Ifa woulda coulda.

Megas_Doux
06-07-2014, 05:24 AM
Let´s see;


He left Ubisoft when ACB was in Blue print plans


Well, Patrice left Ubisoft in June 2010, ACB was released in november 2010. .....Which means that, by the time he left, a pretty big part of ACB was already completed. Besides, many of what ended up being in ACB, was originally meant to be included in AC II, so it is fair to say he was more involved in the projects than what he is admitting, for bad or good.


[SIZE=2]I And now I am talking about for those fans who were playing the series since 2007(not for those which started the series from AC 3 or 4).


I have been a HUGE fan since 2007 and AC IV is my favorite in the series, at least in terms of gameplay, whereas AC I and AC III top the story area......



It'd be way better than it is now. The series went into a sharp decline after Brotherhood, which is why it's the last good AC game. After Patrice left, they began promising stuff they couldn't deliver.


A matter of opinions of course, for example I HEAVILY dislike ACB.....


[SIZE=5]Ifa woulda coulda.

/Thread

Ureh
06-07-2014, 05:32 AM
@LieutenantRex I seem to remember AC1 not delivering on things they "promised" either. A lot of it was removed or unfinished for many reasons.

AherasSTRG
06-07-2014, 07:04 AM
If Patrice wouldn't have left Ubisoft, "we would be living forever in castles in the sky"...

Dev_Anj
06-07-2014, 09:00 AM
@LieutenantRex I seem to remember AC1 not delivering on things they "promised" either. A lot of it was removed or unfinished for many reasons.

Correct, not to mention that Assassin's Creed 1 had a heavily mixed response. In fact, the response it got was similar to the response Watch_Dogs is currently getting, only a little less negative. Honestly, AC 1, 2, Brotherhood are all severely flawed games. AC 4 might not be truthful to the series' concepts, and might have underwhelming mechanics, but it is the best designed game in the series.

LieutenantRex
06-07-2014, 03:45 PM
Correct, not to mention that Assassin's Creed 1 had a heavily mixed response. In fact, the response it got was similar to the response Watch_Dogs is currently getting, only a little less negative. Honestly, AC 1, 2, Brotherhood are all severely flawed games. AC 4 might not be truthful to the series' concepts, and might have underwhelming mechanics, but it is the best designed game in the series.

AC1, AC2, and ACB were the best games in the series. All had stable, contained stories, alright gameplay, and captured the feeling of an open-world game, especially ACB.

Megas_Doux
06-07-2014, 03:50 PM
AC1, AC2, and ACB were the best games in the series. All had stable, contained stories, alright gameplay, and captured the feeling of an open-world game, especially ACB.

AC IV is the most open world game in the series, its sense of exploration is close to that of Red Read Redemption.

LieutenantRex
06-07-2014, 04:12 PM
AC IV is the most open world game in the series, its sense of exploration is close to that of Red Read Redemption.

AC4 was repetitive. Painfully so. Just collecting this and that and doing weak contracts. The story was all over the place, and I just couldn't bring myself to replay a third time. Everything felt so redundant.

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-07-2014, 04:18 PM
AC4 was repetitive. Painfully so. Just collecting this and that and doing weak contracts. The story was all over the place, and I just couldn't bring myself to replay a third time. Everything felt so redundant.

I slightly agree with this. I just couldn't get into the story, and partly because I don't technically like pirate games. Long story short, I don't like it nor hate it, but I just couldn't get immersed.

Megas_Doux
06-07-2014, 04:26 PM
Templar Hunts, a rather advanced version of killing some of the multiplayer characters of ACB.
Forts.
Plantations, that refill by the way
Boarding tons of ships.
Those "weak" contracts, that were kinda meh indeed, but work EXACTLY the same as the ones present in AC II, and you seem to like.

Again, or course there are filler collectibles, such as in ANY assassins creed game. Flags throughout the holy land, Feathers?, remember those???? And dull activities that include beating up husbands- I MEAN, REALLY!!!- and deliver cards, what a blast.....NO!!!.

However AC IV, at least for me, is a step in the right direction in terms of side content that matters.

The story, even though I like, I prefe AC I´s, AC III´s in its core and even AC II for the narrative, but I find it better that the cartoonish plot and execution of ACB.

Dev_Anj
06-07-2014, 04:29 PM
Templar Hunts, a rather advanced version of killing some of the multiplayer characters of ACB.
Forts.
Plantations, that refill by the way
Boarding tons of ships.
Those "weak" contracts, that were kinda meh indeed, but work EXACTLY the same as the ones present in AC II, and you seem to like.

Again, or course there are filler collectibles, such as in ANY assassins creed game. Flags throughout the holy land, Feathers?, remember those???? And dull activities that include beating up husbands- I MEAN, REALLY!!!- and deliver cards, what a blast.....NO!!!.

However AC IV, at least for me, is an step in the right direction in terms of side content that matters.

You're absolutely correct Megas_Doux.

Seriously, how can you accuse AC 4 of being repetitive and not acknowledge how repetitive and shallow AC 1, 2 and Brotherhood were? Granted Brotherhood is somewhat less repetitive than 1 and 2 but still.

m4r-k7
06-07-2014, 04:33 PM
You're absolutely correct Megas_Doux.

Seriously, how can you accuse AC 4 of being repetitive and not acknowledge how repetitive and shallow AC 1, 2 and Brotherhood were? Granted Brotherhood is somewhat less repetitive than 1 and 2 but still.

Agree with you. There was so much to do in AC 4, more so than any other AC game. Secondly, I felt Edward was one of the coolest Assassins. To me he was just as likeable as Ezio, I had very little complaints about the story. Definitely a step in the right direction after the disapointing AC 3.

Hans684
06-07-2014, 05:05 PM
Consider how much things he changed in AC2 I have to say, no.

Rugterwyper32
06-07-2014, 05:17 PM
Templar Hunts, a rather advanced version of killing some of the multiplayer characters of ACB.
Forts.
Plantations, that refill by the way
Boarding tons of ships.
Those "weak" contracts, that were kinda meh indeed, but work EXACTLY the same as the ones present in AC II, and you seem to like.

Again, or course there are filler collectibles, such as in ANY assassins creed game. Flags throughout the holy land, Feathers?, remember those???? And dull activities that include beating up husbands- I MEAN, REALLY!!!- and deliver cards, what a blast.....NO!!!.

However AC IV, at least for me, is a step in the right direction in terms of side content that matters.

The story, even though I like, I prefe AC I´s, AC III´s in its core and even AC II for the narrative, but I find it better that the cartoonish plot and execution of ACB.

Agreed in all respects. Side content in 4 was a very strong asset of it. Even collectibles, for the most part, had more meaning to them (except Data Fragments. Those were as absolutely useless as flags in AC1 or feathers in Brotherhood). You know what collectibles I like? Emblems in Sonic Adventure DX. Sure, Sonic Game Gear games might not have been the greatest thing ever, but the fact you can unlock many smaller games within the game really does add value to things, I feel. Those were some satisfying rewards. And that's what the series needs if it keeps collectibles, meaningful rewards. Shanties were certainly a step forward.
Let's see what the open worlds of AC1 through Brotherhood have for us
AC1:Nice little Masyaf with really not much to do other than talk to Al Mualim here and there and cool intro and final segments for the game, 3 fragmented cities which opened up as the story progresses (understandable, but annoying) with only investigations and the 3 assassinations per city to do, and a whole, huge hub area known as the Kingdom which had a whole lot of potential and it's... a whole lot of nothing. Wow. The epitome of what we'd all want in open world games. The Kingdom also falls into being useless as soon as you get the ability to instantly head to another city in Sequence 4 and the segments of the city you get to explore with each target are really just Rube Goldberg machines for you to choose which investigations you want to do to unlock the assassination.
AC2: 2 cities that work similarly to AC1's cities, fragmented and opening up as the game progresses, but with the issue that you tend to do all in them at once keeping you in the city and that being it. In fact, once you hit Venice, there's really no reason for you to leave as everything else important in the game until the finale (or the DLC, if you have it) happens there and the rest of the game has absolutely nothing to offer unless you feel like doing assassination contracts (which are every bit as weak as AC4's), beating up unfaithful husbands or randomly race across the city just because. Then you have San Gimignano and Forli which are completely open from the start, but both give you little to do except for Sequence and a bit in the case of San Gimignano, or less than a sequence (and Sequence and a bit if you have DLC) in the case of Forli. Forli might as well not have been there in the base game, it's entirely pointless. And then you have the mountains which... Yeah, it's like taking one of those conga lines from the Kingdom map. And there's Monteriggioni, which is cool to see change and it has a few intriguing things here and there but it really doesn't have much to do there. Not to mention there's no main mission replay, so once you've finished the game you're stuck with a pretty dead world.
ACB: Rome has some great side-content, actually, second to AC4. Out of the games from AC1 through AC3, it probably is the strongest in open world terms. But it has its fair share of issues. First of, Rome itself, apart from the landmarks, suffers from a certain sense of drabness. It's not exactly the most wonderful city to explore. And then you have about 2/3ds of the map being countryside. Doesn't sound like much of a problem at first, except that your main way of movement is freerunning. And there was no treerunning then, so running around took forever. And then there's the lack of good horse controls, which makes even the better way of traveling through the countryside annoying. Moving through Rome manages to stay somewhere between "boring" and "incredibly annoying". Seriously, the Frontier might have a few flat areas that are annoying to go through, but I find it less annoying than moving through the Rome countryside. Besides, there's at least animal AI which makes some things interesting sometimes. Plus, you still have that incredibly absurd decision to segment the city through memory walls. What. Were. They. Thinking. Seriously, if you're gonna give me most of the city to roam through and let me get almost all the viewpoints at once, might as well just open it all up at once and not annoy me with all those areas that remain off-limits until the very end of the game. It's incredibly frustrating to have that one viewpoint you can't touch or stuff like that. At least in AC1 and AC2 it made more sense, the memory limits in Brotherhood feel incredibly arbitrary.

AC4 definitely had the strongest open world of the bunch, and while you still have to deal with those really absurd map limits, at least they don't bother me as much as you have so much more to explore and it feels more justified. And I felt the world opened up quickly enough anyway and there was actual stuff to do in the areas that opened up (blocking up baths that had absolutely nothing for you other than a landmark to buy and a Templar Agent target. Really?) so there wasn't much for me to complain about. The world is a blast to explore in AC4.

As for story, AC3 had very good concept but a pretty weak execution (and all the cut content sure didn't help), AC2 was a pretty cliche'd revenge story that grew to something bigger but it ended up having good execution, and AC1 is very strong because of the philosophical core it has. AC4 is one that I don't know how I feel about, but I know it was enjoyable enough for me to work with it and with how great the world was to explore, it didn't really matter much to me in the end.

pacmanate
06-07-2014, 07:13 PM
I slightly agree with this. I just couldn't get into the story, and partly because I don't technically like pirate games. Long story short, I don't like it nor hate it, but I just couldn't get immersed.

I got immersed in AC4, but its the only game where I didn't really care for the modern day which is odd for me. I love the game, as a pirate game, not as an AC game. Agreed on the story being wonky. Just annoying that they wont take a break for one year, thats all I need for my hype to actually be a thing. Now I just expect AC games every year and they never go up in quality, they always waver or get worse.

Megas_Doux
06-07-2014, 09:26 PM
AC4 definitely had the strongest open world of the bunch, and while you still have to deal with those really absurd map limits, at least they don't bother me as much as you have so much more to explore and it feels more justified. And I felt the world opened up quickly enough anyway and there was actual stuff to do in the areas that opened up (blocking up baths that had absolutely nothing for you other than a landmark to buy and a Templar Agent target. Really?) so there wasn't much for me to complain about. The world is a blast to explore in AC4.

.

Indeed, I am curious to see how the open world in Unity will be.