PDA

View Full Version : Do you think AC should skip a year?



sanceman
11-23-2014, 12:59 PM
Just to prevent any kind of flame and stuff like that: I'm just curious. In my opinion the quality of AC titles are getting worse and worse because of the yearly releases so I'd be really okay with it if the next AC game only came out in 2016. A year plus would give a chance for developers to experiment with new mechanics and release a product that is a lot more polished and refined than Unity for example. The one year hiatus could also mean that Ubi would try to fill the void with something new or a sequel to one of their old franchises: I'd love to see a new Prince of Persia, Beyond Good & Evil or simply just something new, fresh and innovative because all of those things were cornerstone's of Ubisoft games before AC took over all of their studios. What do you think? Would you be okay with a 2 year wait if you'd get a game as amazing as AC2 at the end?

LoyalACFan
11-23-2014, 01:35 PM
Yes, absolutely. Unity, while a huge step in the right direction, definitively proved to me that AC needs to take a break and refresh itself. Although, ideally, the gap should have been between AC4 and Unity. Most people loved AC4, while Unity is getting trashed left and right. Better for them to have stopped on the good note that was AC4, and come back two years later in 2015 with an immensely better version of Unity than the one we got. Rogue should never have existed TBH, but if they absolutely needed to release it, they could have made it another cross-gen title like AC4 and had it serve as this year's only AC. Probably would have gotten more spit and polish if they had done it that way.

Jackdaw951
11-23-2014, 01:52 PM
I want Ubisoft to skip a year just to clean house internally, get their priorities straight once more, and come back swinging in 2016 as the innovative game developer they once were.

ModernWaffle
11-23-2014, 03:25 PM
Yes, absolutely. Unity, while a huge step in the right direction, definitively proved to me that AC needs to take a break and refresh itself. Although, ideally, the gap should have been between AC4 and Unity. Most people loved AC4, while Unity is getting trashed left and right. Better for them to have stopped on the good note that was AC4, and come back two years later in 2015 with an immensely better version of Unity than the one we got. Rogue should never have existed TBH, but if they absolutely needed to release it, they could have made it another cross-gen title like AC4 and had it serve as this year's only AC. Probably would have gotten more spit and polish if they had done it that way.

This. Having just finished Rogue and seen Unity's story / gameplay on Youtube, I think its fair to say that both games were really good in their own right, but were severely lacking in one area or another.

Rogue is a mixed bag with me. On the one hand, I felt it was just Black Flag, but with refined gameplay, better unlockables and a well crafted and intersting story to tie the end of the Kenway Saga. However, the story campaign was so short, added to this is the fact that there was actually very little gameplay content added in comparison to the jumps of previous installments, even though the gameplay of Rogue is solid. It feels as if the game shoudn't be charged on retail price as although it's a great game in its own right, you can't help but realise that Ubisoft put far less effort into the game in comparison to previous AC installments. I had no problems with Brotherhood and Revelations for both their campaigns felt just long enough to count as a new AC game. Unfortunately, Rogue leaves me with wanting more, which is the real shame given that everything worked so well, if only it was maximised to its full potential, in terms of the story and the gameplay aspects of being a Templar. Haven't actually played Unity, but a similar feeling. The actual game looks amazing to me, but it's let down by the story and bad publicity it got with the glitches on release. If you're lucky enough not to encounter that many glitches, it seems to be a great game, but likewise to Rogue, it didn't reach its full potential.

I honestly feel that although Ubisoft made good profits from the two games this year, they've really put themselves in a bad postion with the AC series in the long term by disappointing fans. Ideally, I think they either should've took a break this year and released Rogue and Unity together next year or alternatively, just release an improved Rogue this year as cross-gen and a maximised Unity in 2015 when more people have next-gen consoles. In any case, they definitely need to take a break from AC next year for otherwise they might seriously ruin the series (or maybe they already have). Though knowing Ubisoft, I doubt this will actually happen, we will probably get three games next year :p

CoachAssassin
11-23-2014, 03:48 PM
Well, give us a ''rogue'' game for unity (so like a slightly differing sequel) with the improved parts by a bunch of studios like sofia, and let the main studios dedicate on the big project for a while longer. Also involve your community, since they've clearly forgotten what a huge part of the dedicated fanbase was enjoying about AC (the whiteroom conversations, the immersion etc).

bitebug2003
11-23-2014, 03:56 PM
I don't think it would make a difference.

AC: Unity took 4 years to develop but I think they got too ambitious (the majority of the game judging by my test run and looking at the progress tracker - feels like padding).

AC:Rogue feels like an add-on, with a short main campaign and 2/3rds of the game being side-quests (and then there is the boring modern day setting which is as bland as it was in AC4).

I do like both games though but I'll abstain from participating in this poll because I have no idea.

As for BG&E2. . .

.............

those who know me - know what I mean

Razrback16
11-23-2014, 04:17 PM
Yes, no question about it. In the next game they need --

* A solid present-time story like AC1 / AC2 / ACB / ACR / AC3 had that ties together the "why" far more solidly than Unity has done. It doesn't have to be real long, but there needs to be a reason we're going back in time and doing these things. It keeps things mysterious and interesting. I loved the cliffhanger endings to AC1 / AC2 / ACB that made you excited for the next game.
* A better combat system. I understand Ubisoft wanted to make the combat tougher. There are ways to do that without taking away nearly every move and tool we had at our disposal in previous games. They took the lazy way out instead of being more creative. Create more enemy classes where you have to handle them different in combat, but don't eliminate human shields / counter kills and the like. Doing all the different moves in combat is what made it so interesting. Also can use a skills tree to allow players to enable certain skills like human shields, etc. as the progress and gain experience.
* A better story. AC Unity was just lacking in story. It seemed very poorly developed throughout and didn't flow real well. I wasn't a huge fan of Arno, either. Seemed kinda dorky, and wasn't very believable as an Assassin for me. Better than Connor though in the personality department.
* Need far better music. AC2 / ACB were fantastic for many reasons, but one major reason was the music. This has been sorely lacking for a good chunk of time. Please bring back Jesper Kyd to work his magic on the next one.

Fatal-Feit
11-23-2014, 04:27 PM
Yes. If they want to bombard us with more online crap, then at least it should, in theory, work after an extra year of development. Unity's are either broken (companion APP / Microtransactions / Ubicollectibles), unstable (CO-OP), or still a work in progress (Initiates / Clubs).

To be fair, Black Flag also suffered from its broken community and social events (and had Ubicollectibles / Initiates BS), but thank god it was nowhere as intrusive.

king-hailz
11-23-2014, 04:29 PM
I think the should skip a year every year with an AC game!

Maybe have another game in between like watchdogs splinter cell or prince of persia! Or maybe the AC DLC like freedom cry and tyranny!

I also think all the people working on ac should work on other games and create new games to learn from them and expand their creativity.... and basically what everyone else said... They need to refine their games and be a good developer...

Fatal-Feit
11-23-2014, 04:41 PM
I think the should skip a year every year with an AC game!

Maybe have another game in between like watchdogs splinter cell or prince of persia! Or maybe the AC DLC like freedom cry and tyranny!

How about every 2 releases? The sequels (AC:2/IV) are usually, as proven, the most refined. Instead of making a trilogy with every engine innovation, they should just make 2 games. Let's be honest, R and RO are some of our favorite gems, but they aren't necessary. All the time and resources should go towards the main two.

That said, I don't mind more new IPs from Ubisoft.

Sushiglutton
11-23-2014, 04:55 PM
Yes, absolutely. Unity, while a huge step in the right direction, definitively proved to me that AC needs to take a break and refresh itself. Although, ideally, the gap should have been between AC4 and Unity. Most people loved AC4, while Unity is getting trashed left and right. Better for them to have stopped on the good note that was AC4, and come back two years later in 2015 with an immensely better version of Unity than the one we got. Rogue should never have existed TBH, but if they absolutely needed to release it, they could have made it another cross-gen title like AC4 and had it serve as this year's only AC. Probably would have gotten more spit and polish if they had done it that way.


YES, agree completely!

They should allow at least their "leap"-games (games that make a siginificant leap forward: AC1-2, 3, AC:U) to be completed. These games are much harder to predict when they will be finished, which is the nature of innovation. Ubi has f-ed up two such games in a row now. I think it will hurt them in the long run. I understand the yearly releases for the "copy-paste" games, but let the leap ones get an extra year if needed!

Just like you said it would have been much, much better to take a year off after AC4.




* A better combat system. I understand Ubisoft wanted to make the combat tougher. There are ways to do that without taking away nearly every move and tool we had at our disposal in previous games. They took the lazy way out instead of being more creative. Create more enemy classes where you have to handle them different in combat, but don't eliminate human shields / counter kills and the like. Doing all the different moves in combat is what made it so interesting. Also can use a skills tree to allow players to enable certain skills like human shields, etc. as the progress and gain experience.

Agree!

They made the combat harder in order to sell more microtransactions. The problem is that in order to do so the difficulty needs to be tied to the statistics of your eqipment. Therefor Ubi created a very simplistic system in which your success depends more on the stastics of your gear than player skill. This is unfortunate as the system is super boring for more accomplished players. Like you say they need to increase the complexity (to a reasonable degree obv) of the system and not just tweak parameters.

MakimotoJin
11-23-2014, 05:01 PM
When big franchises take a break,something wonderful always comes out.
GTA,Max Payne,Portal,and many more took some time for the sequel to be released,but when it did,boy was it pretty.
2015 will have many games,and I wouldn't mind having a new AC only 2016.Or 2017.Or never.Look at Half Life.If HL3 is being developed right now or not,it's a legend.

Sushiglutton
11-23-2014, 05:07 PM
When big franchises take a break,something wonderful always comes out.
GTA,Max Payne,Portal,and many more took some time for the sequel to be released,but when it did,boy was it pretty.
2015 will have many games,and I wouldn't mind having a new AC only 2016.Or 2017.Or never.Look at Half Life.If HL3 is being developed right now or not,it's a legend.


Imagine an AC game with GTA V's attention to detail and overall quality *drools*.

VestigialLlama4
11-23-2014, 05:16 PM
Just to prevent any kind of flame and stuff like that: I'm just curious. In my opinion the quality of AC titles are getting worse and worse because of the yearly releases so I'd be really okay with it if the next AC game only came out in 2016. A year plus would give a chance for developers to experiment with new mechanics and release a product that is a lot more polished and refined than Unity for example.

I think most people's debate about annualization is very petty and spiteful. I don't think its really all that relevant to the quality of the end-product. It's mostly a bunch of fans and video-game critics making an issue out of a non-issue. And Ubisoft should stop listening to such vocal minorities and follow the instincts that led them to make their best titles and got them success.

Some of the Annualized Titles - Brotherhood, Revelations, Black Flag - are pretty good titles. Black Flag wasn't even planned until they saw the sailing mechanic developed at Ubisoft Singapore for AC3, and they realized that they have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make the first open-world Pirate game for 7th Gen Consoles. Likewise ROGUE also had a quick development time, being composed entirely off reused assets and it has a good reception, even if the game is pretty repetitive since it doesn't go to a new setting at all, compared to Revelations that gave us Istanbul (my all time favorite AC city).

The games that really divide people are AC3 and UNITY, which are the "Leap" games, the ones that launch the next set of titles, introducing newer assets and gameplay for the annual titles that come after it. And these titles came with some bugs, lack a little polish and have some flaws on release, ideally they should have more time. These games also had more time worked on than the others. So I don't see why the issues have to do with annualization. The reason these games are divisive are obvious. One you have uncharted waters, a new character, a new setting, doubts about whether audiences will latch on to them like with Ezio (who I think was very much a one-time phenomenon for Ubisoft) so regardless you will have fans who compare so-and-so to the earlier character and so on. They made the smart decision with Connor making him completely different from Ezio and Altair, but they made a mis-step with Frenchzio who they clearly wanted to make into a franchise. Likewise with UNITY, they decided to move away from the historical element, introduced co-op and pretty much decided to steamroll on the series' foundations. The titles that come after have the benefit of hindsight and trial-and-failure, they also don't really have to worry too much about setting a foundation and they can pretty much make a standalone game in-essence.


The one year hiatus could also mean that Ubi would try to fill the void with something new or a sequel to one of their old franchises: I'd love to see a new Prince of Persia, Beyond Good & Evil or simply just something new, fresh and innovative because all of those things were cornerstone's of Ubisoft games before AC took over all of their studios.

Beyond Good & Evil was never a cornerstone. It was a cult title that got buried but later people liked. Similar to Psychonauts. As for Prince of Persia, after The Sands of Time, they haven't made a single good game. Whereas with Assassin's Creed I don't think they made a bad game until Unity, or a mediocre game until Rogue. All the games before then, even if they were flawed had something unique and beautiful about it.

Look Assassin's Creed is a franchise, its here to stay. The only problem is defining the franchise. For some the games should be some Medieval HITMAN type of game. Me, on the other hand, I see it as a series with a flexible gameplay and metaphor that can accomodate changes and variety. I mean I like the fact that the games aren't just about stabbing people while moving through crowds of people. Even the first Assassin's Creed, while limited to that, had changes in gameplay that made things unique. For me, Assassin's Creed should be like Zelda, where every now and then you get Majora's Mask and Wind Waker along with Ocarina of Time.


Would you be okay with a 2 year wait if you'd get a game as amazing as AC2 at the end?

Obviously yes. No one wants a bug-eaten monstrosity. But the thing is Unity had all the time, it was in development for longer than AC2. The reasons why the game failed have to do with something else. When AC2 was made, the people behind it didn't think Ezio would be super-popular, they had faith that AC1 is a great game and they had a lore that was a goldmine, so they went ahead and made a complete game. I don't think anyone really wanted to make a trilogy of Ezio games after that.

The fact is in Unity they deliberately tried to create a popular character rather than one that would suit the setting and story like Connor or Edward.

Assassin_M
11-23-2014, 05:18 PM
I was going to vote yes, but saw "if I get a better product". That's not why I want a longer wait. Man, people should stop adding touches to their polls. It should just be a simple yes/no answer, this is what posts are for, Jeez. Vote and THEN everyone can talk about why they voted for that option.

A longer development cycle does not guarantee quality.

VestigialLlama4
11-23-2014, 05:20 PM
Just to prevent any kind of flame and stuff like that: I'm just curious. In my opinion the quality of AC titles are getting worse and worse because of the yearly releases so I'd be really okay with it if the next AC game only came out in 2016. A year plus would give a chance for developers to experiment with new mechanics and release a product that is a lot more polished and refined than Unity for example.

I think most people's debate about annualization is very petty and spiteful. I don't think its really all that relevant to the quality of the end-product. It's mostly a bunch of fans and video-game critics making an issue out of a non-issue. And Ubisoft should stop listening to such vocal minorities and follow the instincts that led them to make their best titles and got them success.

Some of the Annualized Titles - Brotherhood, Revelations, Black Flag - are pretty good titles. Black Flag wasn't even planned until they saw the sailing mechanic developed at Ubisoft Singapore for AC3, and they realized that they have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make the first open-world Pirate game for 7th Gen Consoles. Likewise ROGUE also had a quick development time, being composed entirely off reused assets and it has a good reception, even if the game is pretty repetitive since it doesn't go to a new setting at all, compared to Revelations that gave us Istanbul (my all time favorite AC city).

The games that really divide people are AC3 and UNITY, which are the "Leap" games, the ones that launch the next set of titles, introducing newer assets and gameplay for the annual titles that come after it. And these titles came with some bugs, lack a little polish and have some flaws on release, ideally they should have more time. These games also had more time worked on than the others. So I don't see why the issues have to do with annualization. The reason these games are divisive are obvious. One you have uncharted waters, a new character, a new setting, doubts about whether audiences will latch on to them like with Ezio (who I think was very much a one-time phenomenon for Ubisoft) so regardless you will have fans who compare so-and-so to the earlier character and so on. They made the smart decision with Connor making him completely different from Ezio and Altair, but they made a mis-step with Frenchzio who they clearly wanted to make into a franchise. Likewise with UNITY, they decided to move away from the historical element, introduced co-op and pretty much decided to steamroll on the series' foundations. The titles that come after have the benefit of hindsight and trial-and-failure, they also don't really have to worry too much about setting a foundation and they can pretty much make a standalone game in-essence.


The one year hiatus could also mean that Ubi would try to fill the void with something new or a sequel to one of their old franchises: I'd love to see a new Prince of Persia, Beyond Good & Evil or simply just something new, fresh and innovative because all of those things were cornerstone's of Ubisoft games before AC took over all of their studios.

Beyond Good & Evil was never a cornerstone. It was a cult title that got buried but later people liked. Similar to Psychonauts. As for Prince of Persia, after The Sands of Time, they haven't made a single good game. Whereas with Assassin's Creed I don't think they made a bad game until Unity, or a mediocre game until Rogue. All the games before then, even if they were flawed had something unique and beautiful about it.

Look Assassin's Creed is a franchise, its here to stay. The only problem is defining the franchise. For some the games should be some Medieval HITMAN type of game. Me, on the other hand, I see it as a series with a flexible gameplay and metaphor that can accomodate changes and variety. I mean I like the fact that the games aren't just about stabbing people while moving through crowds of people. Even the first Assassin's Creed, while limited to that, had changes in gameplay that made things unique. For me, Assassin's Creed should be like Zelda, where every now and then you get Majora's Mask and Wind Waker along with Ocarina of Time.


Would you be okay with a 2 year wait if you'd get a game as amazing as AC2 at the end?

Obviously yes. No one wants a bug-eaten monstrosity. But the thing is Unity had all the time, it was in development for longer than AC2. The reasons why the game failed have to do with something else. When AC2 was made, the people behind it didn't think Ezio would be super-popular, they had faith that AC1 is a great game and they had a lore that was a goldmine, so they went ahead and made a complete game. I don't think anyone really wanted to make a trilogy of Ezio games at the time, but then they decided to annualize and so they decided to do the three-part Ezio Biopic but added some amount of unique elements in BROTHERHOOD and REVELATIONS.

The fact is in Unity they deliberately tried to create a popular character rather than one that would suit the setting and story like Connor or Edward. AC3 was the Franchise's most successful game despite having a character that was supposedly not very much liked, and I think the reason it worked is because they told a great story and Connor fit that story well. So they moved on in the next game with Edward since they didn't feel obligated to tell Connor's full story either.

I-Like-Pie45
11-23-2014, 05:22 PM
No need. I think this is the best the series has ever been.

dxsxhxcx
11-23-2014, 05:24 PM
When big franchises take a break,something wonderful always comes out.
GTA,Max Payne,Portal,and many more took some time for the sequel to be released,but when it did,boy was it pretty.
2015 will have many games,and I wouldn't mind having a new AC only 2016.Or 2017.Or never.Look at Half Life.If HL3 is being developed right now or not,it's a legend.

unfortunately, (IMO) AC lost the chance to become a "legend" when they annualized the franchise and screwed up with the MD story.

and I'm starting to think that not even enough development time would help AC at this point, they probably would use this extra time to add more and more content instead of less but more meaningful content..

sanceman
11-23-2014, 05:24 PM
I don't think it would make a difference.

AC: Unity took 4 years to develop but I think they got too ambitious (the majority of the game judging by my test run and looking at the progress tracker - feels like padding).

AC:Rogue feels like an add-on, with a short main campaign and 2/3rds of the game being side-quests (and then there is the boring modern day setting which is as bland as it was in AC4).

I do like both games though but I'll abstain from participating in this poll because I have no idea.

As for BG&E2. . .

.............

those who know me - know what I mean
Just as my bias towards PoP is clear to anyone who's been on the PoP forums in the last few years so yes, no surprises there. :D

As for the 4 years dev time: judging by the final product I don't buy it but let's not get into conspiracy theory territory so I'll just say that even if the 4 years is true it must have been a rough one. :D What I mean by that is you don't need 10 studios for a game if the developers have enough time even if it's something as monumental as AC - and also the series is more of about providing a great illusion of grandeur rather than creating an actually vast gaming world games like Sykrim do (and that's actually for the better if you ask me). In the last few weeks I've replayed AC2 and it's been years since the last time I saw the game so it was very apparent that AC2 has a much more coherent and clearer game design than the later entries in the series. Because of this even though it's a classic example of an AAA production you still feel those slight artistic touches the other games lack and also the quality of the minute-to-minute gameplay is mostly on a consistent level, you just don't feel that the experience has striking differences in its ups and downs. There was not a single time where I was like "wow, this part was really weak compared to the previous one, it was clearly done by a different studio" and that's something any sandbox game should emphasize on achieving in my opinion.

With the current development model of "more studios the better" instead of "more time for development the better" that's just not happening, the newer AC games feel inconsistent in their game design. Also the 4 years may be true but the fact that during that time Ubi releases 3 more AC games and takes the feedback from those into an ongoing development process has to be a huge factor. Developers should have more time to experiment with new mechanics, for example AC desperately needs a new, deeper fighting system and while Unity takes a few steps in that direction it's really lackluster. A few extra months of tinkering and trying things out could have helped a great deal in that.

sanceman
11-23-2014, 05:33 PM
I was going to vote yes, but saw "if I get a better product". That's not why I want a longer wait. Man, people should stop adding touches to their polls. It should just be a simple yes/no answer, this is what posts are for, Jeez. Vote and THEN everyone can talk about why they voted for that option.

A longer development cycle does not guarantee quality.
But the possibility of it is why it is needed. Sure, there are a lot of other reasons why you wouldn't want to play an AC next year: you got tired of the franchise because of the yearly releases, you don't see the release of a new AC title as something you should be excited about anymore (both of those things have an effect on me, I can say that for a fact :D) etc. but from a developer and consumer perspective the possibility of a quality increase is more relevant. In my opinion with more development time Unity would have been more polished and had more meaningful content instead of going through the simple motions of "people want to collect and complete stuff because they are completionists so let's give them a lot of that, it doesn't mean if it's not up to snuff" and that would've meant that the game ends up objectively better. Of course you can disagree but with extended dev time chances are higher for a better product.

Also the main reason why I've put this poll up was Ubi's comment a while ago where they explained that they release AC games every year because there is a clear demand for that. I don't think people need more AC, I think they need a better AC. Let's hope that this year's sales figures will finally project that message.

topeira1980
11-23-2014, 05:36 PM
Well, give us a ''rogue'' game for unity (so like a slightly differing sequel) with the improved parts by a bunch of studios like sofia, and let the main studios dedicate on the big project for a while longer. Also involve your community, since they've clearly forgotten what a huge part of the dedicated fanbase was enjoying about AC (the whiteroom conversations, the immersion etc).

this.


the only reason im not playing ACU at the moment is because of the poor PC optimization. hopefully this will get patched. but as a game - it's my favorite AC game in a long long long while. i'd love to see an expantion of it yearly - roughly the same mechanics and graphics only performs better with more stuff to do, and have the revolutionary stuff show up in 2 or 3 years.

but that's what UBI has been doing all that time. AC1 to AC:R were roughly the same, AC3 was the innovation and AC4 was an expansion. then ACU came and next year maybe we'll see an expansion of ACU and we'll see an overhaul in the next 2 or 3 years.

Assassin_M
11-23-2014, 05:36 PM
but from a developer and consumer perspective the possibility of a quality increase is more relevant.
Sure, to people who think that more time is guaranteed to have more quality. let people say that in their posts. It's no more relevant than being burned out from the series, especially when games that have been in development for 3 and 4 years (AC III and ACU) respectively are shown to be the most bug riddled.

That's why voting makes no sense to me if I know for a fact that Quality is not guaranteed with more time. If I vote, then I'm instantly saying "yes, quality is guaranteed with more time" no matter what I post afterwards.

sanceman
11-23-2014, 05:45 PM
Sure, to people who think that more time is guaranteed to have more quality. let people say that in their posts. It's no more relevant than being burned out from the series, especially when games that have been in development for 3 and 4 years (AC III and ACU) respectively are shown to be the most bug riddled.

That's why voting makes no sense to me if I know for a fact that Quality is not guaranteed with more time. If I vote, then I'm instantly saying "yes, quality is guaranteed with more time" no matter what I post afterwards.
It's not just about more time, it's about more time without the need to worry about the development or the reception of the last title which can really have an effect on development. Sure, Unity could have taken 4 years to develop, maybe 10 people were working on it 4 years ago but that could've been a full studio or I dunno, the QA team behind Rogue during the polishing stages.

Assassin_M
11-23-2014, 05:50 PM
It's not just about more time, it's about more time without the need to worry about the reception of the last title which can really have an effect on development. Sure, Unity could have taken 4 years to develop, maybe 10 people were working on it 4 years ago but that could've been a full studio or I dunno, the team behind Rogue during the polishing stages.
YES, thank you. Had your post been less biased, I would have voted yes and posted something similar to this. They don't get enough time to see feedback as they're making games simultaneously.

Aphex_Tim
11-23-2014, 05:51 PM
Where's the "I don't give a hoot" option?

sanceman
11-23-2014, 05:53 PM
Where's the "I don't give a hoot" option?
Well, if you don't vote you just do that because you have that opinion. :D

Assassin_M: Fair enough. :)

Assassin_M
11-23-2014, 05:54 PM
Well, if you don't vote you just do that because you have that opinion. :D
But I give a hoot and I didn't vote.....

TheIronLotus420
11-23-2014, 06:19 PM
The idea that Ubi would even consider not annualizing the AC franchise is moot. The fact of the matter is, all Ubi sees is $$ and they're going to be making the most money with an annual release. The most terrifying part is their (sort of) recent trend of targeting a younger and younger audience. I do not have any valid statistics on this, but what percentage of sales of the AC games do you all think are to people who are at least 18 years old (which is what the M rating is for)? I'd be willing to wager that greater than 50% of sales go to minors. Let's not kid ourselves here (ahh puns...), the vast majority of gamers in general are of this demographic, so naturally Ubi is targeting its largest consumer base. I don't know if any of you had heard the news recently that Ubi wants to start a line of children toys centered around the AC brand. That in itself is more concerning, IMO, than any of the technical or narrative flaws.

As Assassin_M as already vocally suggested, a longer development cycle does not (strongly) correlate with a "better" game (for lack of a better word). And the development time in no way is tied to annual releases with the resources a large and global corporation such as Ubisoft has.

I think the discussion our community should be having is, in spite of the annualizing AC, how can Ubisoft create a more satisfying game as a whole? I think at the heart of it, it comes down to the creative minds needing to be more focused on their goals set from the beginning.

I'm honestly surprised at the sheer amount of hate Unity is getting; sure it has a myriad of inexcusable bugs, but the ambition of the project as a whole was really trying to raise the bar and move the brand forward. Where they failed is having the decision making process unequivocally revolve around bottom line profits. This can be shown through obtrusive (and frankly, offensive) practices such as microtransactions, companion app, and initiate nonsense. Not to mention the massive baiting for DLC purely to tie up loose ends in the narrative. I can't imagine that the story (as is) was finally decided on with the thought of it being coherent, well paced, and conclusive.

The only unavoidable problem with an annual release of a franchise as big as AC is the fact that consumer feedback from one game may not be implemented until 2 or 3 games down the line, simply because the next game is already basically finished. And if they do try to incorporate feedback into the next title, it seems very rushed and out of place, sort of like an after thought.

Ureh
11-23-2014, 06:31 PM
Even if they don't skip a year, the next game will probably be better.

But I think they should take a serious one year break, every once in a while, just as a refresher. Basically give them more vacations, more time to polish existing stuff, think of new ideas, etc. Sure it might knock them out of the groove for a bit, but they should be able to get back into the rhythm in no time. More time away from the usual AC work might do them some good.

cawatrooper9
11-23-2014, 07:36 PM
They have ton of studios working on games years in advance. If you think an extra year will really make a difference, you're kidding yourself.

Perk89
11-23-2014, 09:31 PM
This is brought up every year by people who want to be "l33t" and don't want their favorite game franchise to be like that CoD games "all dem n00bz like"

skipping a year would have absolutely no effect on the development cycle and by extension, quality, of am AC game.


its a yearly release title. Suck it up. It's the CoD of the action/adventure genre. Accept it.

MakimotoJin
11-23-2014, 09:38 PM
This is brought up every year by people who want to be "l33t" and don't want their favorite game franchise to be like that CoD games "all dem n00bz like"

skipping a year would have absolutely no effect on the development cycle and by extension, quality, of am AC game.


its a yearly release title. Suck it up. It's the CoD of the action/adventure genre. Accept it.

Each year a AC in development has to be released.Doesn't matter if it has something big to be added.If you think it has no effect on development cycle,then you're saying that AC3 was(and kinda still is)full of bugs and felt rushed,Unity has all this problems and Rogue has a short story on purpose.If you're right or not,I don't want to believe it.

topeira1980
11-23-2014, 10:05 PM
ACIII wasnt good because it had some decent innovations and these things take time to "cook". same as ACU. but ACIV is ACIII just with more time in the oven. the next AC, assuming it will be built on the basics of ACU, will also be better. just like UREH said above.

i love ACU for it's graphics, mechanics and improvements. i really want another game like it next year and i can only assume it will be better.
look at Far cry 4. it's pretty much like FC3 just more refined without larger development time, and i think FC4 is brilliant. it's far superior to any FC that came before in almost every way. almost. but that's enough for me.

Sushiglutton
11-23-2014, 10:18 PM
I have a question for those who keep repeating the "four years"-thing:

Do you believe Ubi started to develop new gameplay mechanics for AC:U two years before AC3 launched? In other words do you believe that two years before Ubi rebuilt all mechanics from the ground up, they started to work on brand new mechanics in pararllel for a game to be released four years later?

TO_M
11-23-2014, 11:34 PM
Yeah the "X game has already been in development for Y years" is most likely bogus.

TheIronLotus420
11-23-2014, 11:45 PM
Idk, I try not to be a cynic when it comes to these things. I think just purely looking at the scope of the game that a four year dev cycle is believable. It might just come down to whether they had this vision of co-op that early on, and if they REALLY needed to rebuild the core pillars of the game to accomplish this.

How long did they say the dev cycle for ACIII was? I suppose the same could be said about that game when they were (maybe) making ACII, or ACB, or whatever game that was coming out when ACIII was in the pipeline.

TO_M
11-24-2014, 12:04 AM
Won't having those supposedly long dev cycles while realeasing games anually ruin their ability to listen/react to feedback?

If the naval combat in AC 3 had a poor recievement, I really doubt that AC:BF would have seen the light of day,If we believe in the long dev cycles it should have already been in development during or even before AC:3 and they released it a year after AC:3.
I just really doubt that would Ubi risk centering their next AC game around something of which they did not know if it would have a good reception.

topeira1980
11-24-2014, 12:47 AM
Won't having those supposedly long dev cycles while realeasing games anually ruin their ability to listen/react to feedback?

If the naval combat in AC 3 had a poor recievement, I really doubt that AC:BF would have seen the light of day,If we believe in the long dev cycles it should have already been in development during or even before AC:3 and they released it a year after AC:3.
I just really doubt that would Ubi risk centering their next AC game around something of which they did not know if it would have a good reception.


Won't having those supposedly long dev cycles while realeasing games anually ruin their ability to listen/react to feedback?

If the naval combat in AC 3 had a poor recievement, I really doubt that AC:BF would have seen the light of day,If we believe in the long dev cycles it should have already been in development during or even before AC:3 and they released it a year after AC:3.
I just really doubt that would Ubi risk centering their next AC game around something of which they did not know if it would have a good reception.

i wouldnt be surprised if during the early makings of AC3 they understood that the sea mechanics are great and they wanted to flesh them out but to fully create them the way they wanted to they will need more time so they decided to separate their AC3 vision and fleshed out naval gameplay into two games - whatever they get to create out of the naval gameplay they will put in AC3 while the rest of their vision will be delayed into the following game, ACIV.

UniteUnderPower
11-24-2014, 04:08 AM
I think most people's debate about annualization is very petty and spiteful. I don't think its really all that relevant to the quality of the end-product. It's mostly a bunch of fans and video-game critics making an issue out of a non-issue. And Ubisoft should stop listening to such vocal minorities and follow the instincts that led them to make their best titles and got them success.

Some of the Annualized Titles - Brotherhood, Revelations, Black Flag - are pretty good titles. Black Flag wasn't even planned until they saw the sailing mechanic developed at Ubisoft Singapore for AC3, and they realized that they have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make the first open-world Pirate game for 7th Gen Consoles. Likewise ROGUE also had a quick development time, being composed entirely off reused assets and it has a good reception, even if the game is pretty repetitive since it doesn't go to a new setting at all, compared to Revelations that gave us Istanbul (my all time favorite AC city).

The games that really divide people are AC3 and UNITY, which are the "Leap" games, the ones that launch the next set of titles, introducing newer assets and gameplay for the annual titles that come after it. And these titles came with some bugs, lack a little polish and have some flaws on release, ideally they should have more time. These games also had more time worked on than the others. So I don't see why the issues have to do with annualization. The reason these games are divisive are obvious. One you have uncharted waters, a new character, a new setting, doubts about whether audiences will latch on to them like with Ezio (who I think was very much a one-time phenomenon for Ubisoft) so regardless you will have fans who compare so-and-so to the earlier character and so on. They made the smart decision with Connor making him completely different from Ezio and Altair, but they made a mis-step with Frenchzio who they clearly wanted to make into a franchise. Likewise with UNITY, they decided to move away from the historical element, introduced co-op and pretty much decided to steamroll on the series' foundations. The titles that come after have the benefit of hindsight and trial-and-failure, they also don't really have to worry too much about setting a foundation and they can pretty much make a standalone game in-essence.



Beyond Good & Evil was never a cornerstone. It was a cult title that got buried but later people liked. Similar to Psychonauts. As for Prince of Persia, after The Sands of Time, they haven't made a single good game. Whereas with Assassin's Creed I don't think they made a bad game until Unity, or a mediocre game until Rogue. All the games before then, even if they were flawed had something unique and beautiful about it.

Look Assassin's Creed is a franchise, its here to stay. The only problem is defining the franchise. For some the games should be some Medieval HITMAN type of game. Me, on the other hand, I see it as a series with a flexible gameplay and metaphor that can accomodate changes and variety. I mean I like the fact that the games aren't just about stabbing people while moving through crowds of people. Even the first Assassin's Creed, while limited to that, had changes in gameplay that made things unique. For me, Assassin's Creed should be like Zelda, where every now and then you get Majora's Mask and Wind Waker along with Ocarina of Time.



Obviously yes. No one wants a bug-eaten monstrosity. But the thing is Unity had all the time, it was in development for longer than AC2. The reasons why the game failed have to do with something else. When AC2 was made, the people behind it didn't think Ezio would be super-popular, they had faith that AC1 is a great game and they had a lore that was a goldmine, so they went ahead and made a complete game. I don't think anyone really wanted to make a trilogy of Ezio games at the time, but then they decided to annualize and so they decided to do the three-part Ezio Biopic but added some amount of unique elements in BROTHERHOOD and REVELATIONS.

The fact is in Unity they deliberately tried to create a popular character rather than one that would suit the setting and story like Connor or Edward. AC3 was the Franchise's most successful game despite having a character that was supposedly not very much liked, and I think the reason it worked is because they told a great story and Connor fit that story well. So they moved on in the next game with Edward since they didn't feel obligated to tell Connor's full story either.

Rogue may have been somewhat "mediocre" in some aspects, but it still had arguably one of the most solid storylines in an Assassins Creed game yet, as well as some interesting changes to enemy archetypes. It also put a new twist on most of the mechanics and offered a new world to explore as well.

Unity is not a "bad" game to be quite fair. If it weren't for the bugs and fps problems, the game would be quite solid for the most part. It offered a lot of new, albeit broken mechanics and had some nice set-ups for the assassinations. It made the assassinations probably the most open they have ever been in the series. That is a good thing. There are things lacking in Unity that I am disappointed by, but the game is actually quite good at it's core. It just needed more time in development.



In response to the question being asked, I'm on 2 sides of the fence. On one hand, I like having my AC fix every year in a new city to explore and all of that, but on the other hand I really believe that giving the series some breathing time would really allow them to refine the mechanics/story and create something truly magical. I think that in between "big" releases, they should sit ONE studio aside to create a game ala Liberation or Rogue. This wouldn't require them to invest much into their resources and wouldn't hinder development of the next big game. Rogue's story turned out fantastic and I had a great time with Liberation as well. Seeing at least this level of quality for a year or 2 would satisfy me while I wait on the next innovative game in the series.

VestigialLlama4
11-24-2014, 05:22 AM
Rogue may have been somewhat "mediocre" in some aspects, but it still had arguably one of the most solid storylines in an Assassins Creed game yet, as well as some interesting changes to enemy archetypes. It also put a new twist on most of the mechanics and offered a new world to explore as well.

Unity is not a "bad" game to be quite fair. If it weren't for the bugs and fps problems, the game would be quite solid for the most part. It offered a lot of new, albeit broken mechanics and had some nice set-ups for the assassinations. It made the assassinations probably the most open they have ever been in the series. That is a good thing. There are things lacking in Unity that I am disappointed by, but the game is actually quite good at it's core. It just needed more time in development.

ROGUE has an interesting story and good character with regards to Shay but I take one look at it and see spin-off of prologue of AC3 with very little new gameplay on offer. It has a wonderful plot and it did well but again it didn't provide anything new or interesting with the story. It only looks nice in comparison to UNITY which again isn't saying much.

Leaving aside all the bugs and glitches, Unity is a game with a shallow story and a bad lead character with very few of the awesome supporting cast we got in earlier titles, absolutely no interesting villains. Nothing can patch those problems. Even III, even among people who don't like Connor, they will admit that the plot is great and that the villains were cool and supporting cast like Achilles was interesting. In terms of the gameplay, the game is laughably predictable, go here, enter building, press B and take document. Cool, now go there and stab these dots guarded by this squadron of five guards. The mission design was open to the point of being superfluous, there was very little style and originality there, no mix between open-ended and scripted moments like in Black Flag or II.

topeira1980
11-24-2014, 10:44 AM
its impressive how many of you take story into such high importance in how good a game is.
not that it's bad. not at all. a good story can be really important.... but to me its gameplay first.... and if a story isnt that good it doesnt impact a game negatively. characters are a little more important but still.... it's the gameplay that matters to me most in games. story is for movies and TV shows (and books if i ever cared for that) so even though ACU's story isnt that good it doesnt make it a bad game. and AC:RO might have a nice character but that doesnt make it a good game (but that's probably because it has a lot of similarities to ACBF and i didnt like ACBF for the same reasons i didnt like most ACs that much and i just wished ACBF would be different).

a longer development cycle doesnt mean a better story. a good story idea can come up in a very short time. even in development cycle of a year you can come up with a good story and good characters. there is no correlation with that. a longer development time helps bring out more innovative gameplay, like AC3 and ACU. to lay down foundations for a new direction.

i find the new foundations of ACU (as apposed to AC3) to be all in the right track. a lot of long overdue improvements (combat, stealth, parkour, missions design and costumization) and i think ACU is a great collection of design choices wrapped in bugs and performance issues. and that game had more than 3 years in the stove.
if the next AC games are built upon the good things ACU improved upon than they will not need more dev time. not nessesarily.

DaveyNorton
11-24-2014, 11:21 AM
More development time doesn't guarantee quality and innovation. It helps, but it's not the ultimate savior. Look at GTA V. That game was in development for about four years too and, unlike Ubi Montreal, it was the main focus of R* North all the time. Yet it's another divisive title among the fanbase and in many, even gameplay, aspects, it took a step back from IV and RDR. And in terms of raw innovation, AC IV, for example, blows V completely out of the water. And while were at it, I could talk at lenght how foolish the chase of "innovation for the sake of innovation" is, as some of the best games of last generation, like Fallout: New Vegas or Batman: Arkham City were heavily derivative.

Who does need more time to do their job is the QA.

But anyway, like someone else already mentioned, the titles that really raise this sort of conversation are the "transition" titles, like III was and Unity is now. I can't comment on Unity in full extent, as I don't have a next-gen console yet, but I can comment on III. III was a mess, because it sprang in a thousand different directions, many of them new. You had core mechanics retooled, you had naval gameplay, you had Frontier, Homestead management and so on. It was an incredibly rich and ambitious game, but I don't really think another year or two in the pipeline would help it that much. It would be better, no doubt about that, but I don't think it would live up to its full potential anyway. Why? It was the lack of focus what bit III in the butt. Instead of focusing on one or two things and doing them properly (like IV did), they decided to do ten of them. This lack of focus would remain, no matter how long in development the game would be.

Like I said, my opinion on Unity is based on what I've seen and read and not first hand experience, but what I believe hurt the game most (in my eyes) is lacking story and historical aspect. Yet again, this is something you can't fix with longer development time.

Mathias_Borealis
11-24-2014, 11:21 AM
Yes i hope they skip the next year. I don't care that they say that they have different developing teams on each game that overlap each other to bake a title each year.
I don't like the standardized 12 sequences story that in the end is always just a short rush, don't like the idea that they diluited the game spreading thousands of chests, i don't like the fact that they go quantity over quality at all. I didn't play Rogue at all and since i've heard it's only 6 sequences i'll just watch the walkthrough on youtube because i'm not a thief, i don't have infinite money.
My dream ac would be a title every 2 years, with a solid 16 to 20 sequences main story, solid co-op (this is the only very good idea of the title), pvp and no ships. I hate playing ship simulator when i want to be an assassin. This is why i bought unity on day one, this is why i'll never buy rogue or any assassin creed title with even a boat on it. It was funny on ac3, was cool on black flag because it was just a pirate game, but rogue...god it's another diluited thing...
Quality guys, different weapons, possibility to have 2 types of blades (this has been removed in ac unity, you can choose between one handed, heavy or long and that's all) like the old titles..

Look at Rockstar and how money they make out of every GTA...

killzab
11-24-2014, 12:09 PM
They don't need to systematically skip a year, they just need to release the game when it's ready, unlike ACU ...

Pr0metheus 1962
11-24-2014, 12:20 PM
Skipping a year won't make any difference. These games get a certain amount of resources, so it doesn't matter if the game takes a year or 5 years. Unity took 4 years and it's still crap.

I do have one suggestion: if Unity is all they can manage after 4 years of development, maybe it's time for Assassin's Creed to end.

wvstolzing
11-24-2014, 01:22 PM
Unity took 4 years and it's still crap.

What the art team achieved is phenomenal; *the rest might be crap*, but not the work of the people who modelled the city.


I do have one suggestion: if Unity is all they can manage after 4 years of development, maybe it's time for Assassin's Creed to end.

I've been thinking the same. Just as PoP ended to make way for AC, AC should probably end to make way for several new, historical-fiction oriented series. (One of which needs to be naval, obviously.)

One problem with that suggestion, though, is that they'd have to keep characters as mobile as they were in AC; undeniably their mobility (the 'vertical', most notably) shapes the player's whole experience of those historical cities ---- and that means they'd need to shape the narrative such that it makes some sense that the player character is agile as a ninja chimpanzee. But how do you do that without sounding too much like AC?

Pr0metheus 1962
11-24-2014, 01:37 PM
What the art team achieved is phenomenal; *the rest might be crap*, but not the work of the people who modelled the city.

You're right, of course. And if the city was what took 3 1/2 of those 4 years of development time, that would explain a lot about how the rest of the game is such a disappointment.

If walking around a perfect recreation of 18th Century Paris was all that was needed in order for a game to be enjoyable, Unity would be a triumph. But a game needs more. As I've said before, the shoddy work that went into the rest of the game basically betrayed the team that built the city, because it makes their magnificent accomplishment effectively meaningless (at least in terms of the game).

If I had built part of the city, I'd have some choice opinions to share about the people who had messed up rest of the game. I wish I knew where to pin the blame. A large portion of the blame for Unity must rest on the shoulders of Alex Amancio. I was never a fan of his - I think he did a mediocre job on Revelations, but I didn't think he'd screw up Unity this badly.

dimbismp
11-24-2014, 05:14 PM
If they eventually produce an AC that not only is the best ever,bbut also it is GOTY material,then yes.
Plus,that would mean +1 yearfor all the ACs in production.

Shahkulu101
11-24-2014, 05:18 PM
I think that Ubisoft shouldn't have set release dates so they can take as much time as they need, and that they shouldn't work on titles simultaneously. Cut down on the number of devs on each game to a more sensible number to maintain quality and structural design.

ShadoeKat
11-24-2014, 07:23 PM
Y'all do know this game was in development for years, right? All of them far in progress long before we hear about them. Nothing will ever be perfect or the way anyone on this board wants it to be, this is a fact of life. Look at the games for what they are, a major accomplishment if you look at all the years of video gaming. Where it was with Atari all the way to know and seeing what could happen down the road. The programmers and artists and researchers do a fantastic job at creating these worlds. This is technology folks... things go wrong. People are human folks... things go wrong. Nothing and no one is perfect. I haven't had the issues some people are having, the only thing I had was I got stuck in one hay stack but not in any others. So the game isn't fully broken for everyone. If that is all I have issues with after 7 Sequences, from the first day of release, then I think that's pretty good. IMHO

Pr0metheus 1962
11-24-2014, 07:29 PM
Y'all do know this game was in development for years, right? All of them far in progress long before we hear about them. Nothing will ever be perfect or the way anyone on this board wants it to be, this is a fact of life... IMHO

No one is looking for perfect. But we paid $60 for a game that is nowhere near as good as other games we paid $60 for. This is also a fact. There's a big difference between a decent game and a mediocre game, and Unity is a mediocre game. Also, there's a big difference between defending a decent game against unfair criticism, and defending a mediocre game against criticisms from people who paid enough money that they deserve better.

In defending what Ubisoft gave us with Unity, all you're doing is making it more likely that they'll do this again. In defending the shoddy release of Unity, you are a big part of the problem. If no one like you existed, they would never get away with stuff like this.

OGz-Cowboy
11-24-2014, 07:37 PM
I cannot believe the methods that people come up with to hate on Ubisoft as if it is going to give them some satisfaction or maybe hurt Ubis feelings. I have finished the storyline without one single in-game issue other than I cannot go online. The corrupt friends list has been my only issue. [I play on PC btw], I think you should have your attention pointed mostly at them repairing what is broken on this game before worrying about how they release the next game. With all the bad press they are getting from this release it may be the end of AC. Remember they do this for the money and if this wrecks there reputation then, well, there ya go. The maintenance that they do today will tell the story I think.

I have been lost in FarCry4 for the past 5 days and it helps past the time while I wait on the online issue to get repaired, I suggest you do the same.

king-hailz
11-24-2014, 07:38 PM
I don't understand why they wouldn't do it, business wise it is better for them, they wouldn't need as many workers and teams working on the game, saving money. They wouldn't have to spend so much on marketing so soon, saving money. The would make more by bringing out a game after a wait! Everyone will get excited for it and be like WOOOAAHHH! The better quality game will also help them sell more! Making more money!...

Pr0metheus 1962
11-24-2014, 07:47 PM
I cannot believe the methods that people come up with to hate on Ubisoft as if it is going to give them some satisfaction or maybe hurt Ubis feelings.

What? Are you kidding me? It's not about that. It's about trying to make sure they don't do this crap again. I mean, do you really think no one at Ubisoft knew that this game had problems? Are you really so naive that you think the review embargo was just business as usual for every game, and not a tactic to prevent folks who had pre-ordered Unity from seeing how bad it was? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

Heck, the first listing of a Google search for "Unity Review" is this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/11/22/assassins-creed-unity-makes-the-case-for-video-game-recalls/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/11/22/assassins-creed-unity-makes-the-case-for-video-game-recalls/)

...and the image they use is Arno with NO FRICKEN FACE! It literally looks like something out of a horror show - and this is a known issue with the game. And you claim there's no problem?


I have finished the storyline without one single in-game issue other than I cannot go online.

So does that mean everyone else who is having issues is lying? No. Just because you don't see the problems does not mean they don't exist, and anyone who spends a few seconds searching the net for critical reviews can see that this game has BIG problems.

Again, people like you who downplay these issues make it more likely that they'll happen again. Stop being part of the problem.

The_Kiwi_
11-24-2014, 08:48 PM
Rogue should never have existed TBH.

What's your problem with Rogue?
It bridges the enigmatic gap between AC4 and AC3, I feel it was very necessary for that story to be told
And it was told better than Unity

But I do agree, Rogue should have been cross gen this year and Unity next year

Or even the year after

I wouldn't really mind if it skipped a year, it would be easier on my wallet
Especially seeing as the next game will be next-gen too

Ygdrasel
11-24-2014, 10:01 PM
Back when AC3 came out, people were tossing about the idea that Ubisoft would start developing the series in 'trilogy' installments. AC2, Brotherhood, Revelations. AC3, followed by two more Connor adventures...

Two more is a bit much. I loved Revelations but I could see how Ezio was getting tired. But I wouldn't mind every other year being a lesser 'continuation' title with the bigger ones taking longer. But then, I very much enjoyed seeing Ezio and Altair's lives play out to their ends. They'd definitely need interesting assassins to make that work.

IDJ_PunkI
11-24-2014, 10:02 PM
Definitely. Yearly releases to try and be like Call of Duty is killing the industry. There are so many games that come out every year that lack features that made their predecessors great. Videogames are art and art can't be rushed.

ShadoeKat
11-25-2014, 03:51 PM
No one is looking for perfect. But we paid $60 for a game that is nowhere near as good as other games we paid $60 for. This is also a fact. There's a big difference between a decent game and a mediocre game, and Unity is a mediocre game. Also, there's a big difference between defending a decent game against unfair criticism, and defending a mediocre game against criticisms from people who paid enough money that they deserve better.

In defending what Ubisoft gave us with Unity, all you're doing is making it more likely that they'll do this again. In defending the shoddy release of Unity, you are a big part of the problem. If no one like you existed, they would never get away with stuff like this.


LMAO and if there were people like you still buying what you think is bad, they wouldn't keep doing what they do. It wasn't a shoddy release, again you miss the point of what you have in your hands. Also, don't like it, return it for another game, sell it on ebay and stop buying Ubisoft products. You obviuosly have some issues with people who are not having issues and who appreciate the effort put forth and let me know what kind of game you come up with in 10 years because I look forward to something with no issues. Let me know how great of a research, programmer and designer you are because if you think you are perfect... because you come off as thinking as you are, gosh can't wait to see your game!

ShadoeKat
11-25-2014, 03:58 PM
Again, people like you who downplay these issues make it more likely that they'll happen again. Stop being part of the problem.

Boy you are really into giving blame to everyone who bought the game, well gosh, better blame yourself also. Did you buy all the previous AC game too? And it's not that people have not seen the issues are possibly having... but some people make super mountains out hills. Have you ever done a major release of software? Do you know what goes into a release? AC III had more issues than Unity. Did you happen to buy that one? Got an issue with Ubisoft, get over it, don't buy anything anymore and move on. Be grateful that you had the money to buy the game so you could complain about something. That's much of what people do in this world is complain.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-25-2014, 04:13 PM
LMAO and if there were people like you still buying what you think is bad, they wouldn't keep doing what they do.

Erm... I didn't buy it thinking it was bad. I mean, do you really think I'm a fricken moron? I bought it thinking it would be good. It was only after I played it that I realized it was bad.


It wasn't a shoddy release, again you miss the point of what you have in your hands.

It wasn't a shoddy release? Have you seen any reviews of this game? Did you not hear about Ubisoft losing 12% of the company's value on the first day after release because Unity was so incredibly bad? Are you living in some kind of fantasy world?


Also, don't like it, return it for another game, sell it on ebay and stop buying Ubisoft products.

I would return it, but I bought both the digital download and a hard copy because I love this franchise so much. But I can't return either one because you can't return digital downloads and no one accepts returns of opened games these days. And even if I sold it on eBay I'll still be out of pocket $50 or more because used games sell for pennies on the dollar.


You obviuosly have some issues with people who are not having issues and who appreciate the effort put forth

Yes, I do. Because those people are working to ensure that the developers of poor quality games don't improve.


and let me know what kind of game you come up with in 10 years because I look forward to something with no issues.

Straw man. No one is requiring that games have no issues.


Let me know how great of a research, programmer and designer you are because if you think you are perfect... because you come off as thinking as you are, gosh can't wait to see your game!

Another straw man. If I come off as thinking I'm perfect, that's all in your head.


Got an issue with Ubisoft, get over it, don't buy anything anymore and move on.

Don't you get it at all? I love Ubisoft. I want them to get back to developing and releasing great games like they used to do. I mean, how on Earth do you come to the conclusion that I don't want to buy Ubisoft products. The whole reason I'm complaining is that I want the old competent, customer-focused Ubisoft back.


Be grateful that you had the money to buy the game so you could complain about something. That's much of what people do in this world is complain.

Yeah, because if we go through life with your attitude, we end up seeing the things we love get steadily worse and we have to be happy with mediocrity.

You realize that you're not helping Ubisoft with your attitude, right? No one ever helped a company to stay relevant by accepting it when they produced an inadequate product. Your attitude is killing the Assassin's Creed franchise and destroying Ubisoft. I mean, are you blind? Do you really not see that?

Pr0metheus 1962
11-25-2014, 04:26 PM
Definitely. Yearly releases to try and be like Call of Duty is killing the industry. There are so many games that come out every year that lack features that made their predecessors great. Videogames are art and art can't be rushed.

Unity took 4 years to complete. No one can seriously argue that it was rushed. It's not as if yearly releases mean that games have to be produced in a year. Each game gets a set amount of resources based on development cost, not time. A yearly schedule has nothing to do with Unity's failure. The failure is most likely caused by incompetent leadership, not yearly scheduling.

Journey93
11-25-2014, 04:28 PM
hell yes after the debacle with Unity I couldn't be more sure
I like AC but Ubisoft has to skip a year
overkill is the right word for their greedy policy

Imagine how awesome Unity would have been if the team had more time
and don't come with Ubisofts lies: the game has been in development for four years
yeah right ubi!

Journey93
11-25-2014, 04:33 PM
Unity took 4 years to complete. No one can seriously argue that it was rushed. It's not as if yearly releases mean that games have to be produced in a year. Each game gets a set amount of resources based on development cost, not time. A yearly schedule has nothing to do with Unity's failure. The failure is most likely caused by incompetent leadership, not yearly scheduling.

sry but you must be naive or just stupid to believe that
how can a mess like Unity have been four years in development???

Pr0metheus 1962
11-25-2014, 04:38 PM
sry but you must be naive or just stupid to believe that

Must we launch into ad hominem attacks? I mean, really - are we forced to get that childish?


how can a mess like Unity have been four years in development???

Simple: incompetence at the top. And 4 years is what the developers claimed. But even if it's not true, my point still stands - no developer bases their development process on a yearly schedule - it's all about money. They budget resources up to a limited budget, THEN they slot in a completion date based on that budget and how long development of the game is projected to take. A big company like Ubisoft has a number of teams all producing different games at the same time, and games like AC:Unity take at least two years of full-time work to complete. The yearly schedule has nothing to do with how much time they actually get to develop a game. That's just not how it works.

The_Kiwi_
11-25-2014, 08:57 PM
Ubisoft didn't lie, it was in development for four years
But that's timing it from the day they thought of it to the release date
It's kinda cheating, but it's not a lie

ShadoeKat
11-26-2014, 05:19 PM
Erm... I didn't buy it thinking it was bad. I mean, do you really think I'm a fricken moron? I bought it thinking it would be good. It was only after I played it that I realized it was bad.



It wasn't a shoddy release? Have you seen any reviews of this game? Did you not hear about Ubisoft losing 12% of the company's value on the first day after release because Unity was so incredibly bad? Are you living in some kind of fantasy world?



I would return it, but I bought both the digital download and a hard copy because I love this franchise so much. But I can't return either one because you can't return digital downloads and no one accepts returns of opened games these days. And even if I sold it on eBay I'll still be out of pocket $50 or more because used games sell for pennies on the dollar.



Yes, I do. Because those people are working to ensure that the developers of poor quality games don't improve.



Straw man. No one is requiring that games have no issues.



Another straw man. If I come off as thinking I'm perfect, that's all in your head.



Don't you get it at all? I love Ubisoft. I want them to get back to developing and releasing great games like they used to do. I mean, how on Earth do you come to the conclusion that I don't want to buy Ubisoft products. The whole reason I'm complaining is that I want the old competent, customer-focused Ubisoft back.



Yeah, because if we go through life with your attitude, we end up seeing the things we love get steadily worse and we have to be happy with mediocrity.

You realize that you're not helping Ubisoft with your attitude, right? No one ever helped a company to stay relevant by accepting it when they produced an inadequate product. Your attitude is killing the Assassin's Creed franchise and destroying Ubisoft. I mean, are you blind? Do you really not see that?


Wow you really have issues because you continously try to belittle people and get on them personally. My attitude is far better than yours on the issue. No matter what you say, or anyone says Ubisoft is going to make the improvements or not that they feel are necessary yes. And they should, but is there a real reason to be so negative on all of this. Does negativity actually work and be the best way to handle the issues? No. Maybe logically pointing out issues without the negativity to Ubisoft would be better instead of complaining. You don't know me to think anything you seem to think and spout off about concerning me. Which is rather rude. Maybe YOU should be more of the solution than a problem. I personally have sent in any issues through their support tickets that I've had with any of their games and they have done a good job in response. That is the proper way of doing something and is likely going to impact change than running around complaining and whining on these forums. They can keep track of issues better.

Reviews, I take those with a grain of salt... everyone has an opinion, doesn't mean they are right, correct? Everyone has their choice to be offer constructive criticism that can actually make a different in the tone used etc. and bring about change. Or I guess people can rant and rave like crazy with major attitude towards people and Ubisoft and just become a complainer. It's not people like me making it alright to be okay with shoddy work. It's people like me who appreciate what goes into it and how difficult it is to get everything right for everyone without having an issue. I'm a huge supporter of the AC franchise, obvious from my major collection. So I do have an invested interest in this franchise but I'm not going to complain to just hear my own voice on this forum, I deal with it on a level of constructive input to Ubisoft. And I applaud them for all the effort that has put forth. It's the good thing to do for all the work I'm sure the employees have put in, I appreciate it.

Good luck with your attitude towards folks on this board and the need to complain about things your way. Each to their own.

Megas_Doux
11-26-2014, 05:33 PM
Yes!

In retrospective I would go as far as saying that Brotherhood, Revelations, Liberation, Rogue and even Black Flag -my favorite by the way- should NOT exist at all:

1 One of the most difficult parts of the whole creative process of making either a game or a movie is find a good, solid scrypt. Many sequels are on hold, delayed or just not released because the company cannot come up with a good story. Poor writers are running out of ideas, Im not a "story guy", however Unity in its later parts suffers because the lack of a focused plot.

2 The overall fatigue.

3 I know having many years does not guarantee instance quality, however it is more plausible than rushing everybody into fit in the annual sequels.

Ygdrasel
11-27-2014, 01:12 AM
Yes!

In retrospective I would go as far as saying that Brotherhood, Revelations, Liberation, Rogue and even Black Flag -my favorite by the way- should NOT exist at all

...Why? =\

The_Kiwi_
11-27-2014, 02:00 AM
...Why? =\

Because the story ended with Desmond, so no AC4
And ACR+ACB are just unnecessary filler between 2 and 3, and weren't necessary at all

AC was supposed to be a trilogy, so AC1, 2 and 3 should be the only games

MakimotoJin
11-27-2014, 02:20 AM
But how could Ubisoft end a franchise that prints money?They won't stop releasing ACs.And that worries me.What if Ubi becomes remembered just like CoD?
Ubi should've done like Rockstar did.Go slowly.Hell,Max Payne took 10 years to have a sequel,and isn't that a masterpiece.One thing I don't have much is memories of a game.Some are just a blur.I play it,beat it,get some more trophies,and forget about it.I can barely remember what was Black Beard's real name.

wvstolzing
11-27-2014, 04:24 AM
I can barely remember what was Black Beard's real name.

In the game they called him "Edward Thatch"; though the correct prononciation of the last name is probably "Teach".

Megas_Doux
11-27-2014, 04:42 AM
...Why? =\

Fatigue!

Because those are either DLCs turned into games- ACB- ,a Nintendo 3DS turned into a game within 10 months -Revelations-,a rather mediocre hand held game -Liberation- and a reskinned AC IV that even reuses locations from past games -Rogue-.


AC IV is my overall favorite in the franchise, but still......

The_Kiwi_
11-27-2014, 05:24 AM
I wouldn't compare AC with CoD

Every AC game is a part of the same universe, the story is always connected

But with CoD, you could kinda treat it as a biannual release, seeing as only every second game is connected
And then some years you get ones that start a whole new universe, which will only see a sequel in 2 years, if at all
And seeing as a third company has entered the rotation, there'll be even more universes

If you think of it this way, you could call Shadow of Mordor "Assassin's Creed: Rangers", they're both very similar, and are under the same title, but are still different games

This is where AC suffers with annual releases, because since they're all connected, the story seems rushed and dry