PDA

View Full Version : Revelations should have been Yusuf's game?



Assassin_M
09-08-2014, 12:44 AM
I'm currently replaying ACR and i could not help but feel like this should have been Yusuf's game. I realized this when I was salvaging Ishak Pasha's armor and Ezio put it on. I remembered how it was Ishak who recruited Yusuf into the brotherhood and how it would have had a much MUCH more personal connection had it been Yusuf who had salvaged his mentor's armor...really, the whole conflict itself felt disconnected from Ezio in my opinion.

Sure, Revelations was an interesting story as it is but Ezio just messed up...he shoved his nose into politics he had no knowledge of, he risked A LOT (The Guild there, the conflict itself) for personal reasons.

I just got this vibe after replaying the game. Yusuf could have been the guy to try and find the truth and rediscover the origins of his order. A veteran Assassin leader is thrown in the middle of a conflict as he searches for the long lost origins of his order.

JustPlainQuirky
09-08-2014, 12:47 AM
Ew, no.

Not with his gross spaghetti lookin' beard.

Assassin_M
09-08-2014, 12:51 AM
Ew, no.

Not with his gross spaghetti lookin' beard.
Well....thank you for your input. Very enlightening.

Shahkulu101
09-08-2014, 12:52 AM
I recall Sixkeys saying the same thing, and I agree. Thing is, the idea of creating a new protagonist was never in mind - it was Ezio's swan song. The devs might have realised "Oh shoot, this suits Yusuf better" but there's no way in hell they could erase Ezio from the picture and re-fill the blanks in such a short time.

It's a shame, too. Yusuf is a great character. Or he was to me, at least. All round likable dude - gets me cracking smiles. Honestly, Constantinople is such a beautiful setting I'd play a game covering Yusuf's younger years. Just imagine a next-gen Constantinople. Bursa could be included as well.

I-Like-Pie45
09-08-2014, 12:54 AM
but hzs not ezs so dats d problemo

ezs iz da bestist

Xstantin
09-08-2014, 01:06 AM
Ew, no.

Not with his gross spaghetti lookin' beard.

Beards are beautiful

GoldenBoy9999
09-08-2014, 01:16 AM
I really liked Yusuf but I also loved Ezio's final chapter. I thought it was cool to play as his older, wiser,(debatable) version. I do think it should have been Ezio because it wrapped up his story. I was actually thinking about this a few days ago though how Ezio sails to this place and kind of takes over this land he has no part in. I thought Yusuf was the leader but then Ezio was all like, Hey I'm gonna be recruiting some peeps and transform your little brotherhood. I see your point Assassin_M.

Assassin_M
09-08-2014, 01:21 AM
I really liked Yusuf but I also loved Ezio's final chapter. I thought it was cool to play as his older, wiser,(debatable) version. I do think it should have been Ezio because it wrapped up his story. I was actually thinking about this a few days ago though how Ezio sails to this place and kind of takes over this land he has no part in. I thought Yusuf was the leader but then Ezio was all like, Hey I'm gonna be recruiting some peeps and transform your little brotherhood. I see your point Assassin_M.
Did Ezio REALLY need a wrap up, though? Brotherhood could have been a fine wrap up, really...just extend the Apple scene, where he puts the Apple under the Colosseum, have him take one last look and then the Apple glows and then Ezio says "Desmond?" and it goes on from there...he could retire and it would have went the same way as Revelations' ending (barring Altair)

rprkjj
09-08-2014, 01:33 AM
I loved Yusuf, he was one of the highlights of Revelations for me. His death probably hit me harder than Haytham's actually. Yusuf was just a lovable quirky dude who would have been refreshing. Maybe he was the lead when Revelations was supposed to be a DS game?

Assassin_M
09-08-2014, 01:35 AM
Maybe he was the lead when Revelations was supposed to be a DS game?
Nah, t'was still Ezio

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassin's_Creed:_Lost_Legacy

DumbGamerTag94
09-08-2014, 01:39 AM
Did Ezio REALLY need a wrap up, though? Brotherhood could have been a fine wrap up, really...just extend the Apple scene, where he puts the Apple under the Colosseum, have him take one last look and then the Apple glows and then Ezio says "Desmond?" and it goes on from there...he could retire and it would have went the same way as Revelations' ending (barring Altair)

Exactly this!!! Revelations was not necessary. Anyone who claims it is is doing so purely because they like Ezio. It didn't need to happen.

Let's all just be honest a second here and take Revelations for what it really is and was.....it was "oh **** AC3 isn't going to be ready by November what do we do?" "Here we'll just take this DS Ezio game we were working on and cram it into consoles within 10 months". It was a hastily made rushed turd that was only good on the count of the feels it gives from concluding 2 past characters. It was pure fan service. There was no solid reason for Ezio to be in Constantinople. It's kind of far from Masyaf which was his intended location. He gets involved in things he doesn't know. Basically everything that M said as to why it should have been Yusuf's game(and my have been intended to be orginally but replaced with Ezio so that his conclusion would distract from the crap that game was).

It's the truth let's not dance around it because "well I liked it so it doesn't matter #eziorulz". And in before someone says "but look how amazing it was considering it was made in 10 months". Take a moment to read the opening credits....nearly EVERY Ubisoft studio worked on that game. It was a huge drain on resources. It took a ton of people and time and energy to get something decent out of that. In fact imagine if Revelations hadn't happened.......and those assets were used for their original purpose of making AC3 and later ACgames. AC3 may have turned out as intended had they have just taken a year off after Brotherhood. Every person and studio used to cram in Revelations. Was an asset lost that could have made AC3 better.

Just let that sink in a moment....

Ureh
09-08-2014, 01:42 AM
He should've gave the armour and pages to Yusuf.

I-Like-Pie45
09-08-2014, 01:45 AM
Exactly this!!! Revelations was not necessary. Anyone who claims it is is doing so purely because they like Ezio. It didn't need to happen.

Let's all just be honest a second here and take Revelations for what it really is and was.....it was "oh **** AC3 isn't going to be ready by November what do we do?" "Here we'll just take this DS Ezio game we were working on and cram it into consoles within 10 months". It was a hastily made rushed turd that was only good on the count of the feels it gives from concluding 2 past characters. It was pure fan service. There was no solid reason for Ezio to be in Constantinople. It's kind of far from Masyaf which was his intended location. He gets involved in things he doesn't know. Basically everything that M said as to why it should have been Yusuf's game(and my have been intended to be orginally but replaced with Ezio so that his conclusion would distract from the crap that game was).

It's the truth let's not dance around it because "well I liked it so it doesn't matter #eziorulz". And in before someone says "but look how amazing it was considering it was made in 10 months". Take a moment to read the opening credits....nearly EVERY Ubisoft studio worked on that game. It was a huge drain on resources. It took a ton of people and time and energy to get something decent out of that. In fact imagine if Revelations hadn't happened.......and those assets were used for their original purpose of making AC3 and later ACgames. AC3 may have turned out as intended had they have just taken a year off after Brotherhood. Every person and studio used to cram in Revelations. Was an asset lost that could have made AC3 better.

Just let that sink in a moment....

Amancio is the worst thing to happen to AC

rprkjj
09-08-2014, 01:56 AM
Exactly this!!! Revelations was not necessary. Anyone who claims it is is doing so purely because they like Ezio. It didn't need to happen.

Let's all just be honest a second here and take Revelations for what it really is and was.....it was "oh **** AC3 isn't going to be ready by November what do we do?" "Here we'll just take this DS Ezio game we were working on and cram it into consoles within 10 months". It was a hastily made rushed turd that was only good on the count of the feels it gives from concluding 2 past characters. It was pure fan service. There was no solid reason for Ezio to be in Constantinople. It's kind of far from Masyaf which was his intended location. He gets involved in things he doesn't know. Basically everything that M said as to why it should have been Yusuf's game(and my have been intended to be orginally but replaced with Ezio so that his conclusion would distract from the crap that game was).

It's the truth let's not dance around it because "well I liked it so it doesn't matter #eziorulz". And in before someone says "but look how amazing it was considering it was made in 10 months". Take a moment to read the opening credits....nearly EVERY Ubisoft studio worked on that game. It was a huge drain on resources. It took a ton of people and time and energy to get something decent out of that. In fact imagine if Revelations hadn't happened.......and those assets were used for their original purpose of making AC3 and later ACgames. AC3 may have turned out as intended had they have just taken a year off after Brotherhood. Every person and studio used to cram in Revelations. Was an asset lost that could have made AC3 better.

Just let that sink in a moment....

I don't think AC3's problem was a lack of resources.

ajl992008
09-08-2014, 01:57 AM
I agree with this. In fact I would have wanted this to be ac3, the setting in my opinion was just amazing. Picture this, they release brotherhood in February/march 2011, giving them 3/4 more months to polish and add more content to end ezios story. Then In November 2012 we would have ac3 set in 16/17th century Constantinople with Yusuf as the lead and Altair actually getting a DECENT amount of gameplay to end his story properly. With the connor game releasing in 2013 as a next gen exclusive game.it was clear that that game was too ambitious from the get go, an extra year and next gen hardware would have made it perfect, and the "Yusuf game" would have has 19/20 months of dev time, DOUBLE of acr and would have been a much bigger game and all we would sacrifice is an AC game fall 2011. In my head that seems like a good idea.

Fatal-Feit
09-08-2014, 02:09 AM
Revelations wasn't a wrap up, it was closure. That said, I still think Revelations should have been Brotherhood. The developers could have used the time and resources on AC:3.

GreySkellig
09-08-2014, 02:37 AM
Dang it, M. I went from being thoroughly satisfied with AC:Rev to feeling cheated. I would have been sooo much more invested (and the story more compelling) if we had followed Yusuf trying to extricate his city from its political mess, instead of Ezio wandering around occasionally stabbing people who seemed "just to generally have a bad vibe, you know?"

Ureh
09-08-2014, 02:59 AM
It would've been interesting (and maybe also more appropriate) if it was Yusuf who faced off against Vali.

LoyalACFan
09-08-2014, 02:59 AM
No, the last thing we needed was to introduce a brand new protagonist in such a short, rushed game. Revelations was great for an Altair/Ezio wrap-up (though I would have preferred it if there was only one Ezio spinoff combining elements of ACB and ACR) but I don't think it would have been wise to throw in a whole new playable character into the mix, he would have been completely overshadowed by Altair.

Besides, Yusuf was a great supporting character, but I'm unconvinced that he'd be a great lead. He's just sort of a happy-go-lucky fighter guy; really likable but not compelling enough to be the star. He was pretty much just a smarter version of Bartolomeo.

HDinHB
09-08-2014, 03:07 AM
Besides, Yusuf was a great supporting character, but I'm unconvinced that he'd be a great lead. He's just sort of a happy-go-lucky fighter guy; really likable but not compelling enough to be the star. He was pretty much just a smarter version of Bartolomeo.

What he said.

Besides, Yusuf wasn't an ancestor of Desmond, so he couldn't be the lead--there's no way they could fix that plot hole.

dxsxhxcx
09-08-2014, 03:53 AM
Exactly this!!! Revelations was not necessary. Anyone who claims it is is doing so purely because they like Ezio. It didn't need to happen.

Let's all just be honest a second here and take Revelations for what it really is and was.....it was "oh **** AC3 isn't going to be ready by November what do we do?" "Here we'll just take this DS Ezio game we were working on and cram it into consoles within 10 months". It was a hastily made rushed turd that was only good on the count of the feels it gives from concluding 2 past characters. It was pure fan service. There was no solid reason for Ezio to be in Constantinople. It's kind of far from Masyaf which was his intended location. He gets involved in things he doesn't know. Basically everything that M said as to why it should have been Yusuf's game(and my have been intended to be orginally but replaced with Ezio so that his conclusion would distract from the crap that game was).

It's the truth let's not dance around it because "well I liked it so it doesn't matter #eziorulz". And in before someone says "but look how amazing it was considering it was made in 10 months". Take a moment to read the opening credits....nearly EVERY Ubisoft studio worked on that game. It was a huge drain on resources. It took a ton of people and time and energy to get something decent out of that. In fact imagine if Revelations hadn't happened.......and those assets were used for their original purpose of making AC3 and later ACgames. AC3 may have turned out as intended had they have just taken a year off after Brotherhood. Every person and studio used to cram in Revelations. Was an asset lost that could have made AC3 better.

Just let that sink in a moment....


IMO ACR was more necessary than ACB, not because of Ezio but because its story and setting IMO were much more interesting than ACB's that IMO should've been kept as a DLC for AC2 or don't exist at all (it certainly wouldn't have been missed by me), ACR could've also been a much better game if all the resources were put into it instead of ACB.

and like someone else said, AC3's problems had nothing to do with resources, (IMO) it was the mentality of making the biggest and best AC to date that ruined it...

EaglePrince25
09-08-2014, 03:55 AM
No, ACR was perfect the way it was.

Fatal-Feit
09-08-2014, 04:02 AM
IMO ACR was more necessary than ACB, not because of Ezio but because its story and setting IMO were much more interesting than ACB's that IMO should've been kept as a DLC for AC2 or don't exist at all (it certainly wouldn't have been missed by me), ACR could've also been a much better game if all the resources were put into it instead of ACB.

Exactly, well put.

HeedfulMass4856
09-08-2014, 04:09 AM
And it would have been if Ubi wasn't so damn racist.

Revelations sucks bananas. If Yusuf was the main character, it would have been a 10/10 game instead of a 2/10 one.

Megas_Doux
09-08-2014, 04:13 AM
IMO ACR was more necessary than ACB, not because of Ezio but because its story and setting IMO were much more interesting than ACB's that IMO should've been kept as a DLC for AC2 or don't exist at all (it certainly wouldn't have been missed by me), ACR could've also been a much better game if all the resources were put into it instead of ACB.

and like someone else said, AC3's problems had nothing to do with resources, (IMO) it was the mentality of making the biggest and best AC to date that ruined it...

This!!!!

I would skipped Brotherhood as an entire game and instead use it as an episodic DLC based on Da vinci´s machines and Cesare Borgia.



And it would have been if Ubi wasn't so damn racist.

Revelations sucks bananas. If Yusuf was the main character, it would have been a 10/10 game instead of a 2/10 one.


But I thought you disliked all those caucasian protagonists and Yusuf would have been one more of those.....

DumbGamerTag94
09-08-2014, 04:26 AM
IMO ACR was more necessary than ACB, not because of Ezio but because its story and setting IMO were much more interesting than ACB's that IMO should've been kept as a DLC for AC2 or don't exist at all (it certainly wouldn't have been missed by me), ACR could've also been a much better game if all the resources were put into it instead of ACB.

and like someone else said, AC3's problems had nothing to do with resources, (IMO) it was the mentality of making the biggest and best AC to date that ruined it...

Sure ACRs setting was more unique but setting doesn't make it necessary. Story does. And ACB was the logical continuation of AC2s story. And once it ended there was no need for more after Brotherhood. The reason for Ezio being in Constantinople and getting envolved in the strife with the Greeks and the ottoman princes civil war was beyond contrived. He was supposed to be going to the Holy Land(which isn't very close to Constantinople) to find Altaïrs library. So they make up this convoluted reason for the keys to be hidden in Istanbul(wouldn't you spread the most dangerous keys in the world in more than one city?) cuz Polos. Whatever. It was just a farce to me. It was so obviously crammed in and probably was meant for another protag. It just want good. People just like it for the feels from seeing Ezio and Altaïr again. And the city that people love(I didn't so much).

And as for AC3. If the problem was wanting to be the biggest and best AC game. Then wouldn't you want the VAST majority of your assets working on that project at all times to come as close to your goal as possible??? Yet they diverted a LARGE MAJORETY of the company's assets into making ACR within a Year. So AC3 essentially was set back for a year because of ACR. Since every excess staff that could have helped achieve Ubis goal for AC3 was instead assigned to ACR so they could rush out a title that year.

So yes if you're going to claim the main problem was being too ambitious and too big of a project then yes the problem was the lack of assets and resources. They didn't have done what needed to be done by the dead line so things got cut. Things that may have been achievable had they not diverted so many assets away from that project for a year.

Even if they didn't take anything from the AC3 staff.....it was still ONLY them working on it. Had those others not been making ACR they could have instead have helped with AC3.

Landruner
09-08-2014, 04:56 AM
I'm currently replaying ACR and i could not help but feel like this should have been Yusuf's game. I realized this when I was salvaging Ishak Pasha's armor and Ezio put it on. I remembered how it was Ishak who recruited Yusuf into the brotherhood and how it would have had a much MUCH more personal connection had it been Yusuf who had salvaged his mentor's armor...really, the whole conflict itself felt disconnected from Ezio in my opinion.

Sure, Revelations was an interesting story as it is but Ezio just messed up...he shoved his nose into politics he had no knowledge of, he risked A LOT (The Guild there, the conflict itself) for personal reasons.

I just got this vibe after replaying the game. Yusuf could have been the guy to try and find the truth and rediscover the origins of his order. A veteran Assassin leader is thrown in the middle of a conflict as he searches for the long lost origins of his order.

I do not think that ACR was necessary at least the way is had been made (we know the story how that games came alive), however; I liked that they closed the Ezio chapter and found it was an interesting idea that had never done before (Player an old Ezio was a cool concept) However: I did not like the way the game turned, and I think that AC Ember should had been indeed included as the last chapter in the game for more impact on the closing chapter of Ezio and after reading the book I believe it was better much better than the game.

Regarding yusuf, his character was interesting but alas it was in second plan, and he should have been more involved in the story (Imagine how the game would have been better if we could have played some part of the game with him)
Altair parts they were superficial and should have been expended I did not feel any connection really,
Okay is out of topic but the ACR modern days turned as canned poop! After the mega ACB cliffhanger I was expecting a big amazing revelation about Lucy, Juno and Desmond and else, what we got was an "Portalish unexpired platformer and Desmond in Limbo....mehhhh!

Kakuzu745
09-08-2014, 06:01 AM
to be honest I did not mind Ezio being the main protagonist but you certainly have a good point. The whole setup was more suited for Yusuf...as you said Ezio got involved in a big political game where honestly he had no part to play. How did they solve that? Turning Ezio into some kind of best friend/adviser to the prince...

I I liked Ezio but Yusuf would have fitted better.

Assassin_M
09-08-2014, 06:33 AM
No, ACR was perfect the way it was.
A perfect argument, I concede. I am convinced.


What he said.

Besides, Yusuf wasn't an ancestor of Desmond, so he couldn't be the lead--there's no way they could fix that plot hole.
They could make Yusuf an ancestor of Desmond...the files in Abstergo say that he had an ancestor in 16th Ottoman Empire anyways, so


No, the last thing we needed was to introduce a brand new protagonist in such a short, rushed game. Revelations was great for an Altair/Ezio wrap-up (though I would have preferred it if there was only one Ezio spinoff combining elements of ACB and ACR) but I don't think it would have been wise to throw in a whole new playable character into the mix, he would have been completely overshadowed by Altair.

Besides, Yusuf was a great supporting character, but I'm unconvinced that he'd be a great lead. He's just sort of a happy-go-lucky fighter guy; really likable but not compelling enough to be the star. He was pretty much just a smarter version of Bartolomeo.
ACR was rushed but so what? it was pretty well written, not a master piece but well enough to fit Yusuf and besides, Yusuf having that sort of spiritual relationship with Altair (through reliving his memories) would have made people see both of them as compelling characters. Altair is BY FAR a more legendary mentor than Ezio but people still drooled on Ezio and vastly prefer him over Altair.

You mean the Bartolomeo pre-ACB:rolleyes: anyway, spice it up a bit, change his attitude slightly and we'd have a lead Yusuf. It's not like Ezio was any better in AC II.


It would've been interesting (and maybe also more appropriate) if it was Yusuf who faced off against Vali.
A LOT more appropriate, since it's Yusuf's country and later truce that led Vali to his defection.


Dang it, M. I went from being thoroughly satisfied with AC:Rev to feeling cheated. I would have been sooo much more invested (and the story more compelling) if we had followed Yusuf trying to extricate his city from its political mess, instead of Ezio wandering around occasionally stabbing people who seemed "just to generally have a bad vibe, you know?"
Well, i'm sorry haha but yes, that was basically Ezio in ACR "You collude with the Sultan's enemies, what did you expect to come from such treachery" Uhhhh...what? and who are you to carry out the Sultan's bidding, mate?


I agree with this. In fact I would have wanted this to be ac3, the setting in my opinion was just amazing. Picture this, they release brotherhood in February/march 2011, giving them 3/4 more months to polish and add more content to end ezios story. Then In November 2012 we would have ac3 set in 16/17th century Constantinople with Yusuf as the lead and Altair actually getting a DECENT amount of gameplay to end his story properly. With the connor game releasing in 2013 as a next gen exclusive game.it was clear that that game was too ambitious from the get go, an extra year and next gen hardware would have made it perfect, and the "Yusuf game" would have has 19/20 months of dev time, DOUBLE of acr and would have been a much bigger game and all we would sacrifice is an AC game fall 2011. In my head that seems like a good idea.
Beautiful...so...beautiful


I don't think AC3's problem was a lack of resources.
If ACR had ALL of the teams working on it, then AC III either had skeleton team or was put on hold for a year....yeah, it was

Namikaze_17
09-08-2014, 06:49 AM
I Agree...

I currently am playing the Ezio Trilogy pack for the first time, and it's just a handful that I gotta get past THREE games about the same exact character.
( I'll have my opinion on it soon ;) )

But I agree with M, what he said about how Revelations Ending should've been Brotherhood's ending with the Revelations book detailing Ezio's later life/ death would've made a ton of sense.

By that Logic, it would've gave AC3 more time to become the Masterpiece it was designed/ had the potential to be.... TT-TT

Regarding Yusuf, I like the guy. I really do. But I honestly don't really see what's the big deal about him really. Him being in that "Adviser" spot would've been WAY more entertaining than Ezio doing it because his Battles were in Italy really.

I mean, people got on Connor for potentially being in France
( A place he doesn't belong in) yet Ezio does this and.......no one cares. Yes, he had his motivations and reasons, but all of that couldn't have been solved in a book or Comic? What was the point of having Old Ezio say: "Freedom is Messy, but it is Priceless" when Yusuf could've said a morally gray response to what Ahmet's Philosophy?

But atlas, what's done is done.





And so am I.

king-hailz
09-08-2014, 07:42 AM
100% NOOOO, and not because I don't like yusuf but because Ezio connection with Altair was amazing to me... and also that ending when Ezio actually meets Altair and then speaks to Desmond is probably one of my all time favorite moments in ACR... Ezio needed that ending... It would have been wrong to end it in brotherhood...

Namikaze_17
09-08-2014, 07:47 AM
100% NOOOO, and not because I don't like yusuf but because Ezio connection with Altair was amazing to me... and also that ending when Ezio actually meets Altair and then speaks to Desmond is probably one of my all time favorite moments in ACR... Ezio needed that ending... It would have been wrong to end it in brotherhood...

It would've been right...Three games of Ezio felt Overkill, and his Connection with Altair out of 7 Billion people is so unrealistic to me. Personally, I don't even think Ezio should've met Altair, all Assassins should've had their separate part to play instead of having a Connection with one another.

This is why I'm happy Ubi didn't do this with Connor or Edward even though they were Family.

king-hailz
09-08-2014, 07:58 AM
It would've been right...Three games of Ezio felt Overkill, and his Connection with Altair out of 7 Billion people is so unrealistic to me. Personally, I don't even think Ezio should've met Altair, all Assassins should've had their separate part to play instead of having a Connection with one another.

This is why I'm happy Ubi didn't do this with Connor or Edward even though they were Family.

That still doesn't matter to me... its just that revelations has my favorite ending to a game ever!!! So if it was yusuf's game we wouldn't have gotten such an emotional ending saying goodbye to two amazing characters that fans had grown to love... maybe not you lot but I did... so it was a good ending... However if this was made as AC3 instead of Connor since it is a new character and would have been a different location I would be happy since they wouldn't have started Connor at all... but I guess I'm just dreaming now...

CoachAssassin
09-08-2014, 08:28 AM
Make Ezio a small character at the end or w/e, but yeah. I can agree with you.

pacmanate
09-08-2014, 08:34 AM
No, would rather it have been Ezio's game. It was about Ezio finding his purpose in life.

I wouldn't give 2 ****s if it was about someone I didn't know or that wasn't established.

killzab
09-08-2014, 08:57 AM
No :

Revelations was MADE especially to close Ezio's story (and Altair's). Amancio said so in an interview, having a different protagonist was never even considered. They put Ezio in a different country for variety, to avoid people getting bored of Italy.

And to say that without Revelations, ACIII would have gotten more resources is completely wrong as well. Revelation's team was made of new people, who had never worked on the franchise before. This team then became the Black Flag team. But they could never have worked on ACIII because the game wouldn't have had the budget for so many people.

OpticSpecs
09-08-2014, 09:15 AM
Did Ezio REALLY need a wrap up, though? Brotherhood could have been a fine wrap up, really...just extend the Apple scene, where he puts the Apple under the Colosseum, have him take one last look and then the Apple glows and then Ezio says "Desmond?" and it goes on from there...he could retire and it would have went the same way as Revelations' ending (barring Altair)

I like the way you think, I didn't really like revelations because of Ezio, It just didn't suit him.

Yusuf would have been a better choice.

But they couldn't make Yusuf the main character because he isn't related to Desmond.

Shame.

GunnerGalactico
09-08-2014, 12:53 PM
Don't get me wrong, when Ezio got a second game... I was ecstatic as hell. Having a third game with him just felt like overkill to me, it would have made more sense if ACRe. was Yusuf's game. But for what it is worth, ACRe. was a good way to close Ezio's chapter. The library scene kind of gave me the feels.

DumbGamerTag94
09-08-2014, 01:06 PM
No :

Revelations was MADE especially to close Ezio's story (and Altair's). Amancio said so in an interview, having a different protagonist was never even considered. They put Ezio in a different country for variety, to avoid people getting bored of Italy.

And to say that without Revelations, ACIII would have gotten more resources is completely wrong as well. Revelation's team was made of new people, who had never worked on the franchise before. This team then became the Black Flag team. But they could never have worked on ACIII because the game wouldn't have had the budget for so many people.

So you me that they hired all new people at over 5 different Ubisoft Studios around the world. Just for Revelations??? I find that extremely hard to believe.
Also either way those new hires could have all helped with AC3 instead of making that redundancy of a game ACR. They still hired a ton of new people either way(supposedly) weather they spent their time on ACR or AC3 Ubi would have been paying the same amount. Those assets were bought and used to rush out a turd that wasn't needed rather than to make AC3 as close to the masterpiece it was intended to be. Also I need a source.

So what I'm gaining from this is that Revelations was a hastily set up turd(Amancio said he was brought to Ubi for Unity near the end of Brotherhood and was also asked if he'd like to work on Revelations(I'm assuming this was at 11-10 months out since it was made in 10 months) so essentially it's a fact that Revelations was conceived at the last minute and didn't have a creative director yet so they just asked their new hire for unity(that's how much they cared about rev). Then to accomplish this goal they supposedly hire a ton of people at every studio in the world to get this crap project crammed in. Assets that instead could have been dispersed to work on AC3-4-and Unity.

So that means to me that Revelations=disgustingly obvious cash grab/parasite to other AC projects.

And oddly enough a disgusting cash grab that was an obvious rushed turd is the exact criticism that Rogue is getting right now from a lot of people....yet for some reason it's defensible with Revelations???? That makes no sense. Especially since Rogue is supposed to be much bigger than Black Flag and MORE THAN LIKELY was produced longer than the pathetic 10 months they squeezed out that revelations turd in. And it also is more necessary too since it will actually fill blanks and answer a few unknowns from AC3. Whilst Ezio's story could have easily ended with brotherhood. Just adding his little chat with Desmond at the end when he stashed the apple.

So Rogue= necessary, large, provides new protag and perspective, but reused a few assets. Yet it's despised already by many before it's even hit shelves.

But Revelations= hastily made, drain on Ubi resources, detrimental to other games in development, the same recycled protag for the 3rd time, short story, one city(that either you love or you hate), tower defense BS, irrelevant/nonsensical reasoning to be there. Yet it's praised by tons of people for some unknown reason I can't explain.

Personally I feel it's this:

Rogue hate= people who hate NA settings(typically Euro Elitists), It doesn't have Ezio, and it reused some assets.

Revelations Praise= #lolomgeziorulz, fan service(#thefeels), a city that is supposedly amazing(subjective I personally hate it but I know I'm a minority there)

killzab
09-08-2014, 01:16 PM
So you me that they hired all new people at over 5 different Ubisoft Studios around the world. Just for Revelations??? I find that extremely hard to believe.
Also either way those new hires could have all helped with AC3 instead of making that redundancy of a game ACR. They still hired a ton of new people either way(supposedly) weather they spent their time on ACR or AC3 Ubi would have been paying the same amount. Those assets were bought and used to rush out a turd that wasn't needed rather than to make AC3 as close to the masterpiece it was intended to be. Also I need a source.


Well that's what Alex Amancio and Jean Guesdon have said for Black Flag and Unity interviews


And they couldn't have paid the same amount, since Revelations was still a massive source of income for Ubisoft.

More people working on ONE game means less margin in the end because they wouldn't have sold more games.

CoachAssassin
09-08-2014, 01:18 PM
Revelations had a new city, new gameplay and introduced us to a lot of new ****. Ezio in ACR was an entirely different Ezio then in AC2 and ACB.

And yeah, call me euro elitist but I can't say that the re-used asset named New York excites me at all considering it looks like a ****ty small town with nothing to do, as where to the european cities already contained culture and art and all of that. You can't blame the NA setting, as it was fairly new back then. But to compare it with Europe is utter madness, because European cities already had everything when it came to that.

I had the feeling with Revelations that it was a rather rushing project to make sure AC kept a yearly release, considering that AC3 probably wasn't there where they wanted it to be.

It still felt more fresh and new then Rogue to me though. Rogue literally feels like a last gen cash grab that uses it's only surprising feature of being a Templar as it's prime reason to play, and kind of throws in a few snowy mountains to make sure it's not completely 100% recycled from AC3.. I can almost 100% tell you that the river valley will be utterly disappointing and will feel like one of those rivers in AC3...

But hey, atleast ziplines are back :D!

SixKeys
09-08-2014, 01:22 PM
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2014/250/7/5/yusuf_tazim_in_ishak_pasha_armor_by_sunsetagain-d7y9xsi.jpg
http://fav.me/d7y9xsi

In short, yes.

I thought Yusuf was a boring character in his own right, they didn't do enough with him. If he had the entire game to himself, maybe he would have been more memorable. It also would have made more sense for him to be at home with the hookblade, Ottoman politics and bombs. Ezio was an old man and realistically shouldn't have picked up on them as easily as he did, it was done purely to make the plot work.

Farlander1991
09-08-2014, 01:23 PM
So you me that they hired all new people at over 5 different Ubisoft Studios around the world. Just for Revelations??? I find that extremely hard to believe.

New team doesn't mean hiring lots of new people just for Revelations. It means getting on board people from the company that haven't worked on the franchise before. Which is what happened with ACR, it had very few people out of those who worked on AC1/AC2 or ACB.


Also either way those new hires could have all helped with AC3 instead of making that redundancy of a game ACR.

What I will say right now is more of an educated opinion rather than facts, as I don't know for sure (neither does any one of us, to be honest) how AC3 development went exactly, but... not necessarily. Most likely not at all, to be honest. Game development is not a strategy mechanic were you send more workers to complete a building and it gets made faster. It's not enough just to have more people, it's where you can allocate them to without hindering the development process flow. In terms of game mechanics, look at it like at 'slots'. I.e. let's say a mission has got one slot, just because you get 5 people on it doesn't mean it will be made better or faster (most likely neither as it will be a pain to coordinate the process). And honestly, I'd say considering the amount of people the team, more people would do very little to make the game better, as pretty much all 'slots' for effective development would be taken.

DumbGamerTag94
09-08-2014, 01:24 PM
Well that's what Alex Amancio and Jean Guesdon have said for Black Flag and Unity interviews


And they couldn't have paid the same amount, since Revelations was still a massive source of income for Ubisoft.

More people working on ONE game means less margin in the end because they wouldn't have sold more games.

Well yes they could have paid the same amount-just not made as large profit margins. Also even if they hired only 1/4 of revelations team to disperse among the other projects productivity would have skyrocketed. Revelations Staff was HUGE. just watch the credits. That's why I find it extremely hard to believe Everyone from Rev was a new hire and nobody was diverted from other projects. It just doesn't seem possible. We can prove it by cross referencing names in the credits with ACR and AC3. If there's matches. Assets were diverted for a year.

And also you've proven my point. Revelations was an unnecessary game made at the last second to milk the franchise for money.

CoachAssassin
09-08-2014, 01:25 PM
Does anyone notice how Yusuf & Arno have a nearly similar scar on their face? Ermagawd new bloodline discovered!

killzab
09-08-2014, 01:28 PM
Well yes they could have paid the same amount-just not made as large profit margins. Also even if they hired only 1/4 of revelations team to disperse among the other projects productivity would have skyrocketed. Revelations Staff was HUGE. just watch the credits. That's why I find it extremely hard to believe Everyone from Rev was a new hire and nobody was diverted from other projects. It just doesn't seem possible. We can prove it by cross referencing names in the credits with ACR and AC3. If there's matches. Assets were diverted for a year.

And also you've proven my point. Revelations was an unnecessary game made at the last second to milk the franchise for money.

The game needed more TIME, certainly not a bigger staff.

Some of the best games in the last year have been made with relatively small teams. I think Rocksteady isn't that big for example.

DumbGamerTag94
09-08-2014, 01:35 PM
The game needed more TIME, certainly not a bigger staff.

Some of the best games in the last year have been made with relatively small teams. I think Rocksteady isn't that big for example.

Theres a trade of between time and efficiency. It's basic economics. If you want something done at a faster rate in good quality. You have to increase workers and technology.

Of corse there is always a point of diminishing returns where you begin to lose productivity due to coordination problems and overspending.

However that point was not reached by AC3 as evidenced by the fact that some things just plain were never gotten to. Such as male deer, frozen lakes, canoes, several cut scenes, etc. All of which was eliminated because they did not have the assets to get them done in the time specified.

So yes Time would have also helped but they could have used more assets as well.

And yes a lot of really good games are made by small teams. Yet those aren't yearly releases with 2-3 year dev cycles. They have a lot more time to work with a lot less than Ubi.

killzab
09-08-2014, 01:42 PM
Theres a trade of between time and efficiency. It's basic economics. If you want something done at a faster rate in good quality. You have to increase workers and technology.

Of corse there is always a point of diminishing returns where you begin to lose productivity due to coordination problems and overspending.

However that point was not reached by AC3 as evidenced by the fact that some things just plain were never gotten to. Such as male deer, frozen lakes, canoes, several cut scenes, etc. All of which was eliminated because they did not have the assets to get them done in the time specified.

So yes Time would have also helped but they could have used more assets as well.

And yes a lot of really good games are made by small teams. Yet those aren't yearly releases with 2-3 year dev cycles. They have a lot more time to work with a lot less than Ubi.

Considering the insane amount of people who worked on AC3 and the fact that many parts of the game feel disjointed, I'd say they had already reached the point of diminishing returns.

Farlander1991
09-08-2014, 01:45 PM
Such as male deer, frozen lakes, canoes, several cut scenes, etc. All of which was eliminated because they did not have the assets to get them done in the time specified.

What you call 'evidence' is pure speculation at best, frankly.
Canoes being cut was a design choice (mentioned either in one of the interviews or GDC talks). Frozen lakes - we have absolutely no information why they were cut. Recorded audio that is not in the final product MIGHT mean that there weren't enough resources to do that part, but it doesn't necessarily mean that, might as well have been a choice.

The things that you want to use for arguments are things like assassination contracts, that technically were done but their quality was abysmally low. Though, assets wouldn't have necessarily helped as per reasons I already stated, but we can't say for certain due to lack of info.

DumbGamerTag94
09-08-2014, 01:59 PM
Ok so we can't 100% prove those things weren't cut for "reasons".

But we can use process of elimination. A game where hunting is a main feature......let's take the male deer(something that people would want to hunt) out.....doesn't sound like a creative choice to me.

Frozen lakes. Advertised but never materialized. We aren't sure why. But I'd reckon that ther either was nobody working on that/ he didn't have enough time because he was overextended working on something else like Rogue Waves for the naval parts for example.

Cutscenes. They had voices recorded and some of those REALLY needed to be in game because they explained things that were left just kinda unsaid in game. It's most likely deadline was coming and they didn't have the time to get the mocap etc. and all the refining done for those in time for the deadline.

And as you said Farlander the Virtually non existent assassin contracts were a farce at best. Most likely rushed in there by someone who not only did those but perhaps also worked on Frontiersmen missions or Hunting society which were finished.

It has a lot of tell tale signs of inefficient/ overextended workers. Predominantly characterized by a lot of similar features either being partially done or one removed. Like for example there are male elk but no male deer....most likely assets worked on by the same person/team....but if there were more people on said team or they were given more time. They could have completed all the tasks assigned to them.

So I don't believe it is a situation of diminishing returns occurring. It has more of the tell tale signs of overextension of resources allotted.

Farlander1991
09-08-2014, 02:12 PM
But we can use process of elimination. A game where hunting is a main feature......let's take the male deer(something that people would want to hunt) out.....doesn't sound like a creative choice to me.

Do we have screenshots where male deer existed? Personally, I enjoyed hunting in AC3 but the absence of male deer never bothered me at all.


Frozen lakes. Advertised but never materialized. We aren't sure why. But I'd reckon that ther either was nobody working on that/ he didn't have enough time because he was overextended working on something else like Rogue Waves for the naval parts for example.

It also could be the fact that they found the feature didn't have enough gameplay viability to really put resources into to polish it. The Frontier map works just as fine without frozen lakes, there's really no gameplay need for it (at least snow, for example, has got a direct gameplay impact).


They had voices recorded and some of those REALLY needed to be in game because they explained things that were left just kinda unsaid in game. It's most likely deadline was coming and they didn't have the time to get the mocap etc. and all the refining done for those in time for the deadline.

If it would have been because of mocap, then we wouldn't have had those lines at all. We know that mocap cutscenes and voices for them were recorded at the same time.

So those lines would be for something out of a cutscene, which the game already has plenty of, and the reason behind their absence is not necessarily time/asset-related. (I never felt that the destruction of the Assassin Order had really had to be explained, and the epilogue worked as well as Connor's Soliloquy, if not better as it was much more nuanced... and the Benjamin Church song was simply not needed... I don't know of any other lines that were cut).


And as you said Farlander the Virtually non existent assassin contracts were a farce at best. Most likely rushed in there by someone who not only did those but perhaps also worked on Frontiersmen missions or Hunting society which were finished.

Yes, but the point I'm trying to make is not that there was enough time (there wasn't for the ambitions of AC3) but that more people wouldn't necessarily have helped. We don't know how the game is structured technically to say if that would really matter.

SHADOWGARVIN
09-08-2014, 02:32 PM
I like Yusuf, but I'm glad it was Ezio's game.

DumbGamerTag94
09-08-2014, 02:33 PM
There were male deer in the CGI trailer. I don't know if they ever existed in game. If so I don't know why they would remove them. As someone that actually hunts I can tell you that the fun of hunting deer is pretty much gone when there's no horns to brag about or in AC3s case sell or craft.

Shooting a doe in real life is only good for the meat not the sport IMO. And since I can't eat a digital deer. Taking out the antlers ruined the fun. At least there were elk though.

But the fact there are male elk is really suspicious

And while I can't prove it wasn't a time resource problem(which I'm 99.9999% confident it was it I learned anything at all from working in businesses and taking Econ classes)

What I do know is if I have 10 people and each makes one thing like doe, male deer, elk, etc and so on. That person will make a quality version of said thing in a shorter amount of time than if instead I only had 5 people. And now each person is responsible for two things with the same time constraint. So perhaps I get a very nice elk out of that but that person didn't have enough time to perfect the deer and it just isn't ready so we have no choice but to cut it to make deadline.

The latter scenario seems to me to be A LOT closer sounding to what happened. Of course on a larger scale I would assume a person can make more than one animal. But each staffer/team was more than likely juggling multiple tasks it's an obvious cost saving measure I'm sure ubisoft utilized.

But to say the primary problem was not enough time to realize the ambitions is essentially saying the exact same thing worded differently.
If my ambition is to build cars at a good rate and high quality I can do a few things.

1: have one person put on doors that takes about 5 mins and another person put on wheels that takes about 5 mins. Simultaneously. So I have two tasks completed in 5 mins.

2: the cheaper route. I have just one employee do both tasks at his stations. Which now takes him 10 minutes due to him doing both tasks. Now I've gained 5 mins of time and have to slow my entire assembly like by 5 minutes due to this measure.

3: I have 1 guy do both tasks but still require 5 minutes. Thus I ship cars that either are missing wheels or doors because he couldn't complete both in said time. It's safe to say customers wouldn't be too satisfied with the product but I'd have made that the cheapest way possible(AC3 cough cough)

So if you say they needed more time to meet their ambition. Then example 3 is essentially your problem which is solved by......adding that extra worker to meet the goal effectively. The down side to that is I lose the most money. But I meet my deadline.

Farlander1991
09-08-2014, 02:50 PM
Shooting a doe in real life is only good for the meat not the sport IMO.

Connor wouldn't hunt for sport, though, only to make a real use out of an animal.


What I do know is if I have 10 people and each makes one thing like doe, male deer, elk, etc and so on. That person will make a quality version of said thing in a shorter amount of time than if instead I only had 5 people. And now each person is responsible for two things with the same time constraint. So perhaps I get a very nice elk out of that but that person didn't have enough time to perfect the deer and it just isn't ready so we have no choice but to cut it to make deadline.

You're forgetting a very important factor, though, that it's not a matter of just art. It's also a matter of programming, space, and lots of other things. You're looking at the problem very locally.

This is going to be a very simplified example, but let's say we have 5 animal artists, 1 animal programmer, 10 days and 10 animals that need to be implemented.
It takes 5 days to model and animate an animal.
It takes 1 day for the animal programmer to properly implement and do the main debugging of the animal in the animal class of objects (for the purposes of this example, let's say that model and animation placeholders already exist so the programmer wouldn't work with something totally ethereal for some time).
In this configuration, we'd have 10 animals ready in 10 days. Each artist would make an animal per 5 days, and the programmer would take a day to implement each.

Now let's say we add five more artists to, so to speak, increase the workflow.
Now, the animals will be ready in five days, because each artist takes one animal.
The programmer still finishes the animal in 10 days, because he can't magically work faster.
And you can't add another programmer to the fold, because two people doing active changes in the same class would hinder the production more than help it.
So the result is the same - we'd have 10 animals ready in 10 days. And we'd also have five people without work for five days, they'd have to do something else, which might also not be implemented due to different reasons (in this example it would be the fact that everybody's working on something to make the most things in the least amount of time :p ). It's not efficient.

Now, I'm not saying that this is EXACTLY what happened, and I don't know how technically the game is structured to say what is and what is not a possibility, but the point is, this is not the only possible problem and the only example. Yes, game development process follows the standard 'time-money-resources' triangle, but it's also not as simple as that - providing more resources wouldn't necessarily decrease time or increase quality.

RinoTheBouncer
09-08-2014, 03:00 PM
Yusuf is great and he’s handsome too. I believe he deserved to have a DLC of his own, or even a whole new game, had he not died in AC:R, which really saddened me, but I think Revelations was essential for Ezio because it was part of the growth process. My most favorite Ezio is the one from Revelations.

DumbGamerTag94
09-08-2014, 03:19 PM
@Farlander

In my example I was accounting for each person to fully complete the entire thing. From art to programming.

And as for your model. You're being extremely foolish I never said to only hire people in one sector. That creates the diminishing returns you just elaborated.
However the problem with your model is still manpower. Your effective productivity ratio is 5 artists for 1 programmer. That's my 100% productivity range.

So to increase production speed I wouldn't hire 5 artists. Instead I would hire one programmer and keep the artists as is. Now I have 5 artists and 2 programmers. Now if my artists make 1 animal in 5 days then in ten days I still have 10 animals completed. Only now with two programmers it takes 1/2 the time to program the new animals. So only 5 days for all 10 animals.

That just increased my productivity by 100%. I am now creating animals at 200% efficiency. Thus I can create my final product in half the original time. Increasing likelihood I meet deadline.

Not only that but now since I can program 10 animals in 5 days and get one new animal every 5 days. I could if I wanted to hire up to 5 more artists and still run at 100% efficiency and meet my original time constraint.

I don't know where you were getting this hire more artists nonsense. That doesn't even rationally come out as a solution to anyone. So as I said your problem is still not enough assets/staff. You were just not adjusting the proper factor(programmers).

By hiring 1 programmer vs your 5 extra artists. I doubled productivity. While hiring only 1/5 as many people.

No matter how you shake it what you keep handing me is asset/time management issues. Almost always resolvable by increasing assets. You have to maintain your efficiency ratio. Which in your example was 5/1. And by the easy hire of one man made it 5/2 doubling efficiency.

You don't just hire 100000000 at the most basic level to increase efficiency. You hire across the board to maintain your ratio or reduce it.

What you elaborated would make about as much sense as(using my car example) hiring 20 extra door people and keeping only one wheel guy. I gain nothing but expenses from that deal because the wheel guy only works so fast.

Division of labor.

ze_topazio
09-08-2014, 03:20 PM
Wouldn't have mind, besides he has the Arab version of my name, I automatically like any character with my name, even if it's a local version.

I-Like-Pie45
09-08-2014, 03:23 PM
Americans are a superstitious and cowardly lot

No Muslim protagonist would ever be financially viable in a nation like America

Farlander1991
09-08-2014, 03:28 PM
So to increase production speed I wouldn't hire 5 artists. Instead I would hire one programmer and keep the artists as is. Now I have 5 artists and 2 programmers. Now if my artists make 1 animal in 5 days then in ten days I still have 10 animals completed. Only now with two programmers it takes 1/2 the time to program the new animals. So only 5 days for all 10 animals.

How is it when we argue you always manage to miss or plainly ignore things I said? In the post you're arguing against I said precisely that two programmers working on one object class would NOT help the process as they'll be actively hindering each other's progress. 2 programmers wouldn't make things go faster. In fact it might as well make things go slower. Have you ever seen the mess that code merging might do when two people make active changes in one and the same class? I have.

My example was to prove that the best case scenario as per my example to have the most efficiency was to leave it as is and not hire anybody. Your spherical horse in a vacuum examples of hiring 1/5 of the force to increase effeciency 200% have merit on their own, but they also don't take into account realities of making and structuring a game.

DumbGamerTag94
09-08-2014, 03:32 PM
How is it when we argue you always manage to miss or plainly ignore things I said? In the post you're arguing against I said precisely that two programmers working on one object class would NOT help the process as they'll be actively hindering each other's progress. 2 programmers wouldn't make things go faster. In fact it might as well make things go slower. Have you ever seen the mess that code merging might do when two people make active changes in one and the same class? I have.

You don't simply make efficiency 200% by doubling the force and keeping the ratio, it doesn't work like that in game development.

How is it a problem though if they don't work on the same animals? Programmer one has beavers, rabbits, deer(male and female), and bears. And programmer 2 does wolves, elk(male and female), seagulls, and eagles.

They wouldn't work on the exact same thing. So I don't see how they would harm eachother. I don't understand how that would hinder anything?

Farlander1991
09-08-2014, 03:38 PM
How is it a problem though if they don't work on the same animals? Programmer one has beavers, rabbits, deer(male and female), and bears. And programmer 2 does wolves, elk(male and female), seagulls, and eagles.

They wouldn't work on the exact same thing. So I don't see how they would harm eachother. I don't understand how that would hinder anything?

Because technically speaking animals would be part of the same class as they're doing practically similar things with different variables, it would be less efficient to divide them like you're saying.

Yes, you can have child classes divisions, but child classes would be effective for things only unique to certain types of animals, i.e., let's say, animal as parent class with birds, wild aggressive, wild passive and domestics as child classes (which would take all traits of the parent class and also have some of their own unique ones), but this is work that would still be more effeciently done by the same person, as he'd know which thing he'd need in the parent class and which he would need in the child one. A second programmer might add something to a child class that should've been added to the parent class so everybody would have it, for example. Or lots of other different things. Constant communication would be required to not mess things up, especially when working with the parent class, when you could have the second programmer doing something different and therefore have both working more efficiently.

DumbGamerTag94
09-08-2014, 03:53 PM
Ok that makes a little more sense thank you for elaborating that.

But wouldn't in that case the most efficient thing be for those two programmers to take those sub categories of animals and program those. And the next guy up in the food chain(idk let's call him animal director/program team head) would be responsible for making sure the two benieth him are working together effectively, and to ultimately stitch the two together for the final product. He'd be the guy to smooth those kinks out and implement the whole of the animals into the game.

Sure you would have a few hiccups and such but it would still be the most efficient way of production. Because with the time they'd be saving dividing that work among 10 artists, 2 programmers, and one team leader/supervising programmer. Would save a massive amount of time over having 3 or 4 people doing the entire animal project from start to finish. And with that extra saved time and extra hands they'd be able to work out the kinks. Ultimately creating something of the same quality as the small team of 3-4. But on a Vastly larger scale. Making them far more efficient based in Yeild/time allowed.

For a hypothetical example given the same technology and time:

3-4 person multitasking group makes an ACR sized game.

In the same time the. 10artist 2programmers 1team program head. Could produce something like Red dead in scale.

So basically they wouldn't exactly gain the full 200%. But increase to at least well above 100% perhaps in the 150-200% productivity range.

Kakuzu745
09-08-2014, 04:24 PM
Altair is BY FAR a more legendary mentor than Ezio but people still drooled on Ezio and vastly prefer him over Altair.


and I will never understand why :S

Bastiaen
09-08-2014, 05:12 PM
Ew, no.

Not with his gross spaghetti lookin' beard.

ARRGGGHHH!!!! Yusuf had a beautiful, thick manly beard! (This coming from a man with a manly beard.... totally straight).
I can't say really, I think it would have been really cool to have Revelations be Yusuf's story, but I would have wanted more of Yusuf, and I like it being Ezio's story too. I totally get you though, M. Ezio had no business interfering with the Ottoman politics. He was uneducated about what was going on, which was why he ended up murdering so many innocents.

SlyTrooper
09-08-2014, 05:28 PM
I think it would have been better, but they didn't have enough time.

Sushiglutton
09-08-2014, 06:31 PM
Haven't read the whole thread, but I would have gone in the "opposite" direction! A lot more focus on Ezio and instead cutting the political intrigues completely. The cool thing about Revelation to me was the aging hero reaching the end and the Altair connection. They should have gone all in on these two characters and their personal journey.

If they wanted to tell the story of the Ottoman's I agree Yusuf would have been a better protagonist.

Edit: I'm super tired again, can't make proper sentences lol. Hope it's clear what I mean.

Assassin_M
09-08-2014, 08:18 PM
I love how everyone is like "No, Revelations was made to finish Ezio's story, it couldn't have been anything else" You people realize that you're only saying that because Ubisoft said it, right? Revelations was never going to be a main game. Revelations only seems like Ezio's swan song because Ubi said so. It's hindsight.
There was no connection between Altair and Ezio whatsoever--People say the codex this, the codex that, so what? Ezio himself described the codex as an old man's fantasy in his youth. There was no connection between Ezio and Altair at all...there was as much connection between both as there is between Volpe and Ezio, they're both Assassins.
Yusuf could have had a connection too, he could have been his descendant for all I care, it wouldn't be far fetched. As for Ezio's ending, Brotherhood was JUST fine as an ending--You people also realize that by saying that Revelations HAD to be Ezio's story because it was Ezio's ending that you're supporting Ubisoft's constant notion of "closure of story means death"? That's a stupid notion.

As for ACR taking time at the cost of more time for AC III, since it's all speculation, I do think that Revelations took time from AC III. Revelations was arguably a bigger game than Brotherhood (COMPLETELY new setting, COMPLETELY new characters..etc) in the span of 10 months--I don't see how it could have been done unless they took something from AC III's development. That's also not mentioning that at the time, Unity was ALSO in development and so was AC IV Black Flag.

EmbodyingSeven5
09-08-2014, 08:21 PM
Did Ezio REALLY need a wrap up, though? Brotherhood could have been a fine wrap up, really...just extend the Apple scene, where he puts the Apple under the Colosseum, have him take one last look and then the Apple glows and then Ezio says "Desmond?" and it goes on from there...he could retire and it would have went the same way as Revelations' ending (barring Altair)

I liked that we had another game with him. besides revelations trailer wouldn't be as epic without ezio

Assassin_M
09-08-2014, 08:22 PM
besides revelations trailer wouldn't be as epic without ezio
Yeah yeah, sure okay.

Shahkulu101
09-08-2014, 08:25 PM
It should have been Prince Suleiman's game.

EmbodyingSeven5
09-08-2014, 08:31 PM
Exactly this!!! Revelations was not necessary. Anyone who claims it is is doing so purely because they like Ezio. It didn't need to happen.

Let's all just be honest a second here and take Revelations for what it really is and was.....it was "oh **** AC3 isn't going to be ready by November what do we do?" "Here we'll just take this DS Ezio game we were working on and cram it into consoles within 10 months". It was a hastily made rushed turd that was only good on the count of the feels it gives from concluding 2 past characters. It was pure fan service. There was no solid reason for Ezio to be in Constantinople. It's kind of far from Masyaf which was his intended location. He gets involved in things he doesn't know. Basically everything that M said as to why it should have been Yusuf's game(and my have been intended to be orginally but replaced with Ezio so that his conclusion would distract from the crap that game was).

It's the truth let's not dance around it because "well I liked it so it doesn't matter #eziorulz". And in before someone says "but look how amazing it was considering it was made in 10 months". Take a moment to read the opening credits....nearly EVERY Ubisoft studio worked on that game. It was a huge drain on resources. It took a ton of people and time and energy to get something decent out of that. In fact imagine if Revelations hadn't happened.......and those assets were used for their original purpose of making AC3 and later ACgames. AC3 may have turned out as intended had they have just taken a year off after Brotherhood. Every person and studio used to cram in Revelations. Was an asset lost that could have made AC3 better.

Just let that sink in a moment....

why do all Connor fan boys blame ezio for every thing? stop trying to illogically protect AC 3 from people who criticized that it is flawed. Ubi had plenty of resources for AC 3 and should have spent more time on polishing it.

Assassin_M
09-08-2014, 08:32 PM
why do all Connor fan boys blame ezio for every thing? stop trying to illogically protect AC 3 from people who criticized that it is flawed. Ubi had plenty of resources for AC 3 and should have spent more time on polishing it.
Someone is confused.

Stop trying to illogically call someone out for something that's illogical.

Shahkulu101
09-08-2014, 08:35 PM
Connor.

Ezio.

Cezio.

Assassin_M
09-08-2014, 08:36 PM
Connor.

Ezio.

Cezio.
Connor suckzio

EmbodyingSeven5
09-08-2014, 08:37 PM
Someone is confused.

Stop trying to illogically call someone out for something that's illogical.

Stop trying to illogically call someone out for saying something illogical when you are being illogical ilagicolated for being too illogical!!:p

Shahkulu101
09-08-2014, 08:38 PM
Connor suckzio

Connor sucks Ziio?

That's bang out of order.

Sushiglutton
09-08-2014, 08:40 PM
I love how everyone is like "No, Revelations was made to finish Ezio's story, it couldn't have been anything else" You people realize that you're only saying that because Ubisoft said it, right? Revelations was never going to be a main game. Revelations only seems like Ezio's swan song because Ubi said so. It's hindsight.
There was no connection between Altair and Ezio whatsoever--People say the codex this, the codex that, so what? Ezio himself described the codex as an old man's fantasy in his youth. There was no connection between Ezio and Altair at all...there was as much connection between both as there is between Volpe and Ezio, they're both Assassins.
Yusuf could have had a connection too, he could have been his descendant for all I care, it wouldn't be far fetched. As for Ezio's ending, Brotherhood was JUST fine as an ending--You people also realize that by saying that Revelations HAD to be Ezio's story because it was Ezio's ending that you're supporting Ubisoft's constant notion of "closure of story means death"? That's a stupid notion.

I have no idea what the intention was. All I said was that the parts of the story I liked all had to do with an aging Ezio + an aging Altair. Ezio's romance with Sophia and his decision to stop fighting and walk away. Brotherhood was fine as an ending, but Revelation had a better one. I just wish more of the game would have built towards the ending. Instead it got sidetracked by plotlines I never felt invested in.

Assassin_M
09-08-2014, 08:54 PM
I have no idea what the intention was. All I said was that the parts of the story I liked all had to do with an aging Ezio + an aging Altair. Ezio's romance with Sophia and his decision to stop fighting and walk away. Brotherhood was fine as an ending, but Revelation had a better one. I just wish more of the game would have built towards the ending. Instead it got sidetracked by plotlines I never felt invested in.
I wasn't specifically referring to you with my post:p

killzab
09-08-2014, 09:37 PM
I have no idea what the intention was. All I said was that the parts of the story I liked all had to do with an aging Ezio + an aging Altair. Ezio's romance with Sophia and his decision to stop fighting and walk away. Brotherhood was fine as an ending, but Revelation had a better one. I just wish more of the game would have built towards the ending. Instead it got sidetracked by plotlines I never felt invested in.

I agree, I didn't care about the political plot at all, all I cared about was Ezio's personal story and character development and Altair's memories.

And I'm glad the game exists.

Namikaze_17
09-08-2014, 09:39 PM
That still doesn't matter to me... its just that revelations has my favorite ending to a game ever!!! So if it was yusuf's game we wouldn't have gotten such an emotional ending saying goodbye to two amazing characters that fans had grown to love... maybe not you lot but I did... so it was a good ending... However if this was made as AC3 instead of Connor since it is a new character and would have been a different location I would be happy since they wouldn't have started Connor at all... but I guess I'm just dreaming now...

Revelations Ending was only so good because of the Cutscene that followed after it and Altair. Take that away, and it's just the same as the Brotherhood ending with Ezio giving a speech.

Don't get me wrong, Revelations Ezio is my Fav,and his ending was great...but once again, I thought it just felt Overkill.

DumbGamerTag94
09-08-2014, 10:02 PM
why do all Connor fan boys blame ezio for every thing? stop trying to illogically protect AC 3 from people who criticized that it is flawed. Ubi had plenty of resources for AC 3 and should have spent more time on polishing it.

You couldn't have pegged me more wrong lol. I am not a Connor fan boy. I just defend it because I think it gets way more hate than it deserves.

In fact Ezio is my favorite character. Connor isn't even in my top 3. 2 is Edward and 3 Haytham.

I just can't justify Revelations. Even as an Ezio fan. I've explained rationally why it wasn't needed. It was a cash grab. Nothing more. People keep trying to irrationally make it something it was not.

It is literally exactly the same if not worse than Rogue yet people demonize that game like it's the plague.

Yes I am an Ezio fan. I just can't use his presence as the only reason to justify something so dumb as Revelations.

It doesn't matter how you shake it. The fact of the matter is that if revelations hadn't been made and ubi had only hired a fraction of the team they did to squeeze out that 10 month turd. And put those assets to work making AC3 the masterpiece they intended. We probably would be better off today.

Although Connor still wouldn't be as good as Ezio but he's alright for his own reasons.

But yeah I'm an Ezio fan. I just refuse to make him my Godzio and blind me to how bad ACR really was. I mean that old argument "but it's pretty good considering what they had to work with" doesn't do it for me. I hated it when it came out....still is a chore every year when I replay the series.

Will_Lucky
09-08-2014, 10:41 PM
I tend to consider Brotherhood the mistake, but thats from a gameplay perspective. I do wish to this day that AC2 had ended in 1503 as was originally intended and Revelations was the follow up as Ezios second and last game.

I do love Brotherhood for how it refined the game, but christ that story.

EaglePrince25
09-08-2014, 11:00 PM
Haven't read the whole thread, but I would have gone in the "opposite" direction! A lot more focus on Ezio and instead cutting the political intrigues completely. The cool thing about Revelation to me was the aging hero reaching the end and the Altair connection. They should have gone all in on these two characters and their personal journey.

If they wanted to tell the story of the Ottoman's I agree Yusuf would have been a better protagonist.

Edit: I'm super tired again, can't make proper sentences lol. Hope it's clear what I mean.

Yes. Even, that being said, I still thought they did a good job of showing how both characters had aged and developed since their younger years, and how seeing Altair's life effected Ezio, but I would have loved to get more memories of Altair. I don't think the political intrigue was bad, and think it could have worked, but it kind of felt like a separate story that Ezio was also involved in.

Jexx21
09-08-2014, 11:14 PM
Revelations should have been an Ezio and Yusuf/Altair and Malik(or Maria) co-op game

Journey93
09-08-2014, 11:58 PM
no just no
Revelations was a great send off for Ezio and Altair even though it wasn't the most innovative AC game I still like it for the story

Fatal-Feit
09-09-2014, 02:36 AM
I tend to consider Brotherhood the mistake, but thats from a gameplay perspective. I do wish to this day that AC2 had ended in 1503 as was originally intended and Revelations was the follow up as Ezios second and last game.

I do love Brotherhood for how it refined the game, but christ that story.

/Thread

Actually, Revelations had better game-play than AC:B. Let alone the hook-blade, the combat was more balanced, you had more diverse counters, and the setting was a better playground. If they scrapped Brotherhood and used its resources on AC:R, the side-content could have been on par, if not better.

Assassin_M
09-09-2014, 05:05 AM
no just no
Revelations was a great send off for Ezio and Altair even though it wasn't the most innovative AC game I still like it for the story
Send off =/= death. Ezio's send off was in Brotherhood. He had abandoned the Apple for Desmond to find, He established a strong brotherhood and eliminated the Templars--He had played his part, move the speech from Revelations to Brotherhood's ending as Ezio left the Apple and voila, you have Ezio's send off.

souNdwAve89
09-09-2014, 06:26 AM
lol, all this talk about AC3's development and resources reminds me of that January 2014 Reddit post about the game being in semi-development hell, which may or may not be true.

Farlander1991
09-09-2014, 06:43 AM
But wouldn't in that case the most efficient thing be for those two programmers to take those sub categories of animals and program those. And the next guy up in the food chain(idk let's call him animal director/program team head) would be responsible for making sure the two benieth him are working together effectively, and to ultimately stitch the two together for the final product. He'd be the guy to smooth those kinks out and implement the whole of the animals into the game.

Eh, the answer to this would be 'it depends'. Mostly on how the game is structured. Though as a general rule of thumb, even though communication is super important regardless, the less people have to keep tabs on being synchronized with each other on smaller stuff, the better. And the team head's time would be better off supervising the programming code on a somewhat higher level, i.e. instead of making sure that birds, domestic animals and wild animals all work together fine, keep making sure that, for example, animals, people, AI work together good. But as it concerns AC3, this is a super-hypothetical territory as we don't know the structure of the game and the team and how they worked (with the exception of the general lines that Singapore was naval, Annecy - multiplayer, Kiev - PC port, Montreal - main land part of the game).