PDA

View Full Version : Are you guys okay with a new Assassin each game?



Zero_Regen
12-17-2014, 06:39 PM
I feel it can have it's pros and cons. We can really get a lot from a character by giving him/her a sequel, but if he's not well received then a sequel could hurt. Thanks for any replies.

ze_topazio
12-17-2014, 06:45 PM
Yes, I won't say no to direct sequels but I prefer a new main character every year.

Shahkulu101
12-17-2014, 06:47 PM
I prefer it, but dislike the fact we're left with a lot of unanswered questions after one game with the protagonist.

JustPlainQuirky
12-17-2014, 06:48 PM
I honestly feel Brotherhood wasn't necessary. And upon reflection, Revelations wasn't necessary either (as much as I loved being Altair again).

AC2 was great as a standalone.

Same as AC1.

Same as ACIV

Even AC3 (though it was too open ended i admit. As if it had more to say. Same applies to Rogue)

However these characters get expanded on in novels and such (with exception of Connor and Shay)

I'm not sure how I feel about it TBH.

As long as it feel full like my previously stated games, then I don't mind. (and i would very much like a novel per protagonist)

But if it ends in a way where it feels like there is no closure, then I might speak up

king-hailz
12-17-2014, 06:50 PM
Give us a sequel if the protagonist is a success like ezio however if he is a character like Connor give who has haters but also many fans make a dlc however if the characters like arno then give us a new one... However remember that having the the same character makes the historical aspect harder. But if it's a time which allows more then do it!

Pr0metheus 1962
12-17-2014, 06:54 PM
I feel it can have it's pros and cons. We can really get a lot from a character by giving him/her a sequel, but if he's not well received then a sequel could hurt. Thanks for any replies.

I want the best of both worlds - I'd prefer a well-liked protagonist to get a sequel, while whiny and disrespectful jerks (I'm looking at you Connor) should be killed in messy or embarrassing ways in later unconnected games.

Since the developers don't know whether a character will be liked or hated, and since game development takes years these days, the sequels would need to be done a couple of years after the original game in which they appeared.

JamesFaith007
12-17-2014, 06:56 PM
I prefer different heroes because it means more freedom with changing geographic setting and time era.

DeanOMiite
12-17-2014, 07:09 PM
I'm ok with whatever the story and the history demand. With Ezio it made sense to have multiple titles because there were multiple stories to tell in the renaissance and multiple locations where those stories could be told. With Arno it makes sense to have one story/assassin/game because the French Revolution was such an interesting period of history and the surround years pale in comparison...unless you play as Napoleon or something I guess, which I don't want to do. Most often though I'd probably prefer a new assassin each game. Aside from the fact that I think it's dumb to have an assassin I've already played have to learn all these new techniques (as i expect in any new game, no matter how many iterations there are in the franchise) when he should already know them (suck it, AC1), forcing a character into too many times/cities makes a game feel forced. Like...Ezio was awesome, and Florence/Venice were wonderful settings for a game, and Rome was a city that deserved it's own game. But then with Revelations, it was cool to still have Ezio but Constantinople did nothing for me. The story of the game was weak too so I didn't feel compelled to learn about the city at all, but generally I prefer they take one interesting time period, a handful of interesting cities (or one city if there is enough content) and then give me everything they can in that one game, rather than spread it out.

Hans684
12-17-2014, 07:18 PM
I'm ok with it, I just want them to spice things up a little and add more new perspectives. I was bored to death by Arno.

Namikaze_17
12-17-2014, 07:22 PM
I prefer it.

Staying with one character again will only make things stagnant.

No offense to Ezio, but Brotherhood & Revelations were not necessary.



I just want them to spice things up a little and add more new perspectives. I was bored to death by Arno.

This.

Pr0metheus 1962
12-17-2014, 07:25 PM
...the French Revolution was such an interesting period of history and the surround years pale in comparison....unless you play as Napoleon or something I guess, which I don't want to do.

Yes, the 1800s to 1820s in Europe were a snooze-fest. The Napoleonic wars were filled with endless tedium. And the only possibility is to play as Napoleon - there is no one else in France. Then there's the restoration of the monarchy and the July Revolution of 1830 - YAWN! - I mean that whole period was one filled with absolute and desperate boredom! :rolleyes:

STDlyMcStudpants
12-17-2014, 07:26 PM
I'm actually kinda p'd off at the way the story telling is...
Every character is just used to get what abstergo is after (why Connor and Arno wont have a sequel)
It's bs we know the whole story for
Desmond
Altair
Ezio
Haytham
Achillies
Edward
Adawale

But Connor, Shay, and Arno... who are better and more interesting than every other character (ill put arno behind edward and Ezio though)
It doesnt make sense to me...
Connor and Shay especially have great story potential in the Assassin's Creed world itself let alone history...

Megas_Doux
12-17-2014, 07:33 PM
Annual games with different protagonists make the writers run out of ideas...........

VestigialLlama4
12-18-2014, 01:08 PM
Yes, the 1800s to 1820s in Europe were a snooze-fest. The Napoleonic wars were filled with endless tedium. And the only possibility is to play as Napoleon - there is no one else in France. Then there's the restoration of the monarchy and the July Revolution of 1830 - YAWN! - I mean that whole period was one filled with absolute and desperate boredom! :rolleyes:

It was a time of Romantic poetry and literature though. But again hard to put a game around that.

I think they can tackle Napoleon in his Egyptian adventure but beyond that there's no need.

Minsooky
12-18-2014, 01:44 PM
i'm rather indifferent towards it. i don't actually mind if one assassin appears in more than one game if it feels that the first story/game didn't really complete the assassin's story.

ze_topazio
12-18-2014, 02:02 PM
Peninsular war.

http://oi48.tinypic.com/1e0091.jpg

Zero_Regen
12-18-2014, 02:10 PM
i'm rather indifferent towards it. i don't actually mind if one assassin appears in more than one game if it feels that the first story/game didn't really complete the assassin's story.

I completely agree. If his/her story wraps up a sequel isn't necessary.

Will_Lucky
12-18-2014, 02:13 PM
I don't mind it, but I am annoyed if a Assassins story is wrapped up. Altairs story for me was finished with Revelations, Ezio got a trilogy and a film which ties his story up wonderfully. Edward had his story tied up I feel quite well combined with the book.

As for Connor and Shay, I have yet to play Unity. Connor I feel needs an ending of some sort be it through another game, book or like Ezio a film. Likewise I feel there is a large gap in Shays life another game or other form of media could take care of.

I like a new character every year but I appreciate having the previous characters loose lines being taken care of.

RinoTheBouncer
12-18-2014, 02:26 PM
I personally prefer something like the Ezio Trilogy, but they gotta be different from one another. If a character is proven worthy enough like Ezio or Connor and their story wasn’t conclusive, why not continue? I just prefer that they make the Assassin travel to another country, to make sure that the games won’t feel repetitive.

STEALTH SNAKEY
12-18-2014, 02:52 PM
i like new assasins and if the game is good enough they can allways add more games like they did with ezio i would just like to see a female assasin for once

JustPlainQuirky
12-18-2014, 06:43 PM
Just tell me what happens to Connor, Shay, Aveline, and Eseosa and I'm good.

I don't even care about bothering to finish Arno's story anymore.

There is no hope for the new generation

VoXngola
12-18-2014, 06:57 PM
I'm not against the idea, I actually support it. What I want, though, is to have him or her to have a complete story. It worked out with Edward, do it again. Don't let them have open endings like Connor, Shay or Arno and it'll be good.

Minsooky
12-18-2014, 08:12 PM
I don't mind it, but I am annoyed if a Assassins story is wrapped up. Altairs story for me was finished with Revelations, Ezio got a trilogy and a film which ties his story up wonderfully. Edward had his story tied up I feel quite well combined with the book.

As for Connor and Shay, I have yet to play Unity. Connor I feel needs an ending of some sort be it through another game, book or like Ezio a film. Likewise I feel there is a large gap in Shays life another game or other form of media could take care of.

I like a new character every year but I appreciate having the previous characters loose lines being taken care of.

i def. feel the same way. ac3 did not feel like the end of his story at all and it's driving me nuts. same with shay, i feel like ubi isn't going to do anything more with him (i hope that's not the case).

i wouldn't mind a book but good god don't make oliver bowden write it

Assassin_M
12-18-2014, 08:15 PM
Yes but it should be as well done as Edward's. Doesn't show their death but gives them a complete character arc and a proper send off. Every once in a while we should have enigma characters, like Altair before Revelations. We knew nothing about how he died or if he even did. After AC II, speculation began arising that Altair stored his consciousness in the apple, going by the codex in AC II but alas.

Altair1789
12-18-2014, 09:23 PM
Yes but it should be as well done as Edward's. Doesn't show their death but gives them a complete character arc and a proper send off. Every once in a while we should have enigma characters, like Altair before Revelations. We knew nothing about how he died or if he even did. After AC II, speculation began arising that Altair stored his consciousness in the apple, going by the codex in AC II but alas.

I agree with this, just give us a protagonist, then end his story. I liked Altaïr's ending though, and wouldn't mind to see Connor get something similar.

D.I.D.
12-18-2014, 09:43 PM
I'd like it if the stories were well tailored enough to fit in one game. I'm greatly in favour of the games showing us the most interesting portion of the character's life, and leaving us guessing about the rest. I have no interest in the books, but I think that's a good place to expand the stories for the people who want them. I really dislike the superhero comics' model of wringing every last drop out of a character, especially the fad for "Origins" editions. I don't think it makes a character any more enduring or epic, and it has more pitfalls than benefits.

However, there's a problem created by the new standards in graphics and sound, where scenes are much more costly in development expenditure and system resources than ever before. Every section of the game is fighting every other for space in the installer, so the allowance for story has to be very tight. There could be a solution in putting a lot more story into the missions themselves, and not as cutscenes, but I can see why there could be more interest now in making sequels and trilogies again to allow stories to breathe more. Also, if the modern day is being minimised, maybe there's more reason than ever to make more of each ancestor, given that they are the sole faces of the game now.

Ultimately, I think the single game principle probably wins, just for the sake of variety. It's never going to be possible for Ubisoft to respond to fan reaction with a sequel in less than one year, and it would be disastrous if they invested two or three years in advance to support a character that not enough customers like.

Hans684
12-18-2014, 09:43 PM
As for protagonist deaths, just finish some and hint about others awhile before returning to some of them after a decent time.

killerman_2012
12-18-2014, 10:04 PM
I prefer to have a sequel instead of leaving unfinished stories. What is the idea of changing characters each game? Maybe not all the characters deserve a sequel, but some of them have too many potential. For example, Arno. He has the Sword of Eden, and Napoleon has the Apple of Eden. With that kind of stuff they can do a nice story. Also, there are many things to tell after the French Revolution. The Napoleonic Wars were very important, Ubisoft can do a nice AC in that time period and we could visit many European places (even we could go out Europe and visit Egypt).

I'm sick of unfinished stories and unanswered questions.

Assassin_M
12-18-2014, 10:07 PM
I prefer to have a sequel instead of leaving unfinished stories. What is the idea of changing characters each game? Maybe not all the characters deserve a sequel,
Ah ah ah, no. If they're going to do it with one, it should be done with all. This crap fest is Ubisoft's fault in the first place. They made it a standard that death = conclusion and anything else is incomplete.

D.I.D.
12-18-2014, 10:10 PM
I prefer to have a sequel instead of leaving unfinished stories. What is the idea of changing characters each game? Maybe not all the characters deserve a sequel, but some of them have too many potential. For example, Arno. He has the Sword of Eden, and Napoleon has the Apple of Eden. With that kind of stuff they can do a nice story. Also, there are many things to tell after the French Revolution. The Napoleonic Wars were very important, Ubisoft can do a nice AC in that time period and we could visit many European places (even we could visit Egypt).

I'm sick of unfinished stories and unanswered questions.

This is where DLC can be the answer.

We've only had three games in which to test this, where the recent DLCs have been a game's worth of content in themselves. Connor got TOKW. ACIV gave it to Adéwalé. Dead Kings is likely to be a pretty big thing as well (although perhaps it'll be scaled back, given that the Season Pass package includes a 2.5D game for Shao Jun this time).

Victory could cover a story in the 1880s and 1890s, and then have an interesting DLC covering the death of Victoria and the beginning of the Edwardian age. I'd like that kind of thing because, if anything, I'm more interested in seeing how the cities and their circumstances change than I am in the characters, but this would kill two birds with one stone.

Megas_Doux
12-18-2014, 10:12 PM
Ah ah ah, no. If they're going to do it with one, it should be done with all. This crap fest is Ubisoft's fault in the first place. They made it a standard that death = conclusion and anything else is incomplete.

This!

killerman_2012
12-18-2014, 10:18 PM
This is where DLC can be the answer.

We've only had three games in which to test this, where the recent DLCs have been a game's worth of content in themselves. Connor got TOKW. ACIV gave it to Adéwalé. Dead Kings is likely to be a pretty big thing as well (although perhaps it'll be scaled back, given that the Season Pass package includes a 2.5D game for Shao Jun this time).

Victory could cover a story in the 1880s and 1890s, and then have an interesting DLC covering the death of Victoria and the beginning of the Edwardian age. I'd like that kind of thing because, if anything, I'm more interested in seeing how the cities and their circumstances change than I am in the characters, but this would kill two birds with one stone.


Maybe, but a DLC not always can be enough because it's too limited. For example, they can't do a DLC set in the Napoleonic Wars, that time period deserves an entire new game because of its big magnitude.

killerman_2012
12-18-2014, 10:59 PM
Maybe, but a DLC not always can be enough because it's too limited. For example, they can't do a DLC set in the Napoleonic Wars, that time period deserves an entire new game because of its big magnitude.


Ah ah ah, no. If they're going to do it with one, it should be done with all. This crap fest is Ubisoft's fault in the first place. They made it a standard that death = conclusion and anything else is incomplete.

I think one game is not enough to see a good evolution of a protagonist. For example, if Ubisoft had not done Brotherhood and Revelations, we never could have seen how Ezio evolved from a young playboy into a great leader of the Italian assassins or how Altair evolved from an arrogant master into the wiser Mentor of all times.

On the other hand, Connor evolution was very poor. He ends as he starts: idealistic, naive, suffered, overconfident. etc. But, what we could see in a sequel? We could see how he rebuilt the American Brotherhood, how he became Mentor and how he changed his personality after all the things he lived in AC3. In the same way we could see a very different Arno in a sequel after Elise death. It would be very interesting to see a mature Connor and/or a mature Arno. If they made it possible with Ezio and Altair, I don't see the problem to do the same with other characters.

I don't understand why all of you are reluctant about the sequels. Do you prefer to have incomplete characters?

Assassin_M
12-18-2014, 11:25 PM
I think one game is not enough to see a good evolution of a protagonist. For example, if Ubisoft had not done Brotherhood and Revelations, we never could have seen how Ezio evolved from a young playboy into a great leader of the Italian assassins or how Altair evolved from an arrogant master into the wiser Mentor of all times.
That's AC II's poor writing, it has nothing to do with Ezio's character. Ezio's ENTIRE arc from II to Revelations could have been done in AC II. FFS, the games lasts over 25 years and the only change the man shows is saying a few fancy words in Italian to people he killed.


On the other hand, Connor evolution was very poor. He ends as he starts: idealistic, naive, suffered, overconfident. etc.
No, it wasn't. Connor had a complete character that saw him change from an idealistic young man to a more cautiously positive individual who learns to compromise and see the faults in humanity. He started out wanting freedom only for his people but that outlook changes when he sees that his people are not the only ones being oppressed, he realizes that the Templars' reach can harm everyone, not just his people. He also sees the Patriots for who they really are but that doesn't stop him from helping colonists achieve independence because his duty as an Assassin tells him that freedom is for all and the world will not stop for his people, so he continued to fight. He was impatient and impulsive but he heeded Achilles' advices. He wanted to share what he knows with GW but realized the dangers of this thanks to Achilles and decided against it in the end. He wanted to hunt Lee and find his father but again, he pursued more pressing matters for the better of everyone, not just himself.


But, what we could see in a sequel? We could see how he rebuilt the American Brotherhood, how he became Mentor and how he changed his personality after all the things he lived in AC3. In the same way we could see a very different Arno in a sequel after Elise death. It would be very interesting to see a mature Connor and/or a mature Arno. If they made it possible with Ezio and Altair, I don't see the problem to do the same with other characters.
We don't *need* to see their maturity, the story's ending implies it. We don't see Edward as the fully fledged and devoted Assassin but the ending of his story implies it. it's a complete arc with no need for continuation.


I don't understand why all of you are reluctant about the sequels. Do you prefer to have incomplete characters?
Again, FULL LIFE =/= complete and lack of it =/= incomplete. Edward had a full and fulfilling character arc, so did Altair in AC I. I didn't need to see Altair in ACR to see how wise he became, I already knew the extent of his evolution in AC I from an arrogant, spoiled golden boy to a more humble and wise soldier. ACR was not necessary AT ALL, it added NOTHING to Altair.

SixKeys
12-18-2014, 11:34 PM
Yes, I want a new assassin each game. It's how things should have been from the start.

D.I.D.
12-18-2014, 11:36 PM
I don't understand why all of you are reluctant about the sequels. Do you prefer to have incomplete characters?

Generally, yes. "What if?" is an extremely powerful question, and it's not always a good idea to answer it. The potential is part of the energy of a story, what keeps it appealing and alive. Sequels tend to spoil great ideas, and AC is already on thin ice with that risk since it's a sequel-heavy saga. You mention Ezio's maturation, but really every single one of those games did a rehabilitation job on Ezio before their close. You could have stopped anywhere and got your mature Ezio.

Frankenstein was the first great horror novel, and the first to begin at the end. It returns to the ending in the finale, but you never see exactly what happens to the creature. Intriguingly, it gives its final speech, announces a wish to burn itself to death, and then disappears into the darkness. Modern audiences would think, "Monster! In the North Pole! Does it change its mind and come back to Europe? SEQUEL PLEASE", and they would have completely missed the point.

Alien was an amazing film. The creature was terrifying, because you didn't know its limits, or where it came from. It represented the unknown, a reminder to humanity that conquering space travel would not mean conquering the universe. Then Aliens' story demanded a bigger film, which meant the aliens had to be killable, and they added more information about what the aliens were and how they worked. From that point forward, the creature was weaker and weaker, until you get to Prometheus. Ridley Scott had to pretend he had a story to tell in order to get paid. I have to pretend Prometheus doesn't exist so that I can still enjoy Alien. They ruined two great monsters in that one film, because they gave them origins stories. Think about the effect sequels had on TWCB, and how much less interesting they became with the more you knew about them.

Blade Runner was an amazing film. It's better than its source book in many ways, and left fans with an enthralling idea to mull over at the end of the story regarding its main character. People demanded a sequel. Other people called those people stupid, pointing out the power of BR's ending. Ridley Scott decided the idiots had a point and disposable income, and announced plans for a sequel. Then he talked about Harrison Ford's role, and just like that, Blade Runner's status as an all-time classic was over.