180°

Assassin's Creed is Dead

This is Rebel's Gaming post by Kirk Deis on why Assassin's Creed is DEAD.

Read Full Story >>
rebelgaming.com
Jackhass3886d ago

They're worn out this franchise quick.

ExposingLames3886d ago

Half assing the game and having major bugs and glitches really turned the series into crap. Especially the MP. After AC3 I swore I would never buy another one and will keep to that. Just don't know if that games quality speaks to all Ubisoft titles.

nick3093886d ago

Yet it sells millions. Why? Pretty much alive and well. Though not the same, still sells great.

Sovereign593886d ago

Unless I stop having hours of fun doing stupid little things like dropping dead guards off of rooftops to cause panic below, Assassin's Creed will never be dead, not to me at least.

starchild3885d ago

Yep, there is so much to do in every game and to me it's a lot of fun. I love the traversal gameplay, the combat, all the various side missions, the historical settings and characters, and the overall storytelling.

They are simply fantastic games in my opinion. But like any successful thing, there is a certain percentage of people who have to be contrarians and start hating on that thing.

BISHOP-BRASIL3885d ago

Specially in AC3, there were a ton of fun stuff to do, some stuff like that assynchronous online beacon hunt by the end and the boat combat actually let me wanting more!

If wasn't for the bugs (and I won't make excuses for it there, they were plenty) it would easily be my best game from 2012. So I think it's as far away from dead as it could be.

It doesn't mean I'm all pumped for AC4, thought... Arguably it's a little too soon (and other great games I have priority will release around the same time), so maybe I'll hold by purchase 'till early next year (by then I'll either already have a PS4 or will be getting one, depending on the price they announce here), but getting it none the less.

GameSpawn3885d ago (Edited 3885d ago )

I wouldn't ever go to the extreme and say the series is dead. The series is suffering from the "Call of Duty" effect though. The series is pumping out games almost yearly and being "subjectively" watered down.

It hard to deny how much Assassin's Creed has changed from AC1 and AC2. I really think the series plateaued around Revelations and Brotherhood. AC3 did bring a lot of new things to the table but it lost the heart and soul the earlier games had in terms of how objectives could be accomplished.

My problem with AC3, glitches aside, existed in the STRICT linearity of the missions and their objectives. You were forced to complete MANY of the missions in a very exacting and specific way, especially when you were attempting a perfect run getting the bonus objectives. In earlier AC games you were simply told to take out an assassination target and, rarely, in addition take them out either without alerting anyone or with a specific weapon like the hidden blade (didn't mean you couldn't dive attack with it or casually stroll by and "poke" them). This exacting form of gameplay meant you were no longer allowed to explore multiple avenues to the same goal. This all to me killed a lot of the "fun factor" previous titles had.

Another minor problem with AC3 was the changes to the notoriety system. They made it far too complex and at times it made running away very difficult. They have noted that AC4 has a more simplified rule-set for notoriety and detection to overcome some of the pitfalls of AC3's system. I don't expect it to be near as simple as AC1, but more like Brotherhood and Revelations (hopefully).

In short, my bullet list of the pros (++/+) and cons (-/--) of AC3's changes/additions are:
++ Ship battles
+ Hunting/Crafting/Trading
+ Weather/Season/Time changes
+ New Assassination/Kill Combos
- Notoriety/Detection System
- Obscure mini-games
- Lack of "parkour" friendly architecture (I realize this is due to the choice of time period/setting)
-- (Forced) Mission Linearity

Does all this mean AC3 is an atrocious game? No, many of the new elements make up for some of AC3's less desirable features. If you're a completionist the forced linearity caused by the optional objectives might get on your nerves in a few missions, but nothing too game breaking.

Kirkusm3885d ago

That's exactly what I'm saying. "It's not the same." It'll always sell but the franchise has become like a record. The more it's played the less the quality can be heard.

medman3886d ago

Of course it's dead. Funny thing though, why does the dead thing sell millions of copy?

Bzone243886d ago

People love the dead. Walking Dead is a perfect example of this.

theWB273886d ago

Each game gets a 2-3 year dev cycle and the storylines are better than 90% of games released. I'm biased though, it's by far my favorite franchise.

CultOfPersonality3885d ago

Same here, AC is my favourite franchise!, but the MP has never Interested me, but ac4 is looking like the best AC since 2 IMO

starchild3885d ago

I agree with you. If the development cycles were only 1 year long the games would suffer and likely be crap. But they give the games the care and attention they deserve and as long as they continue to be good, I will continue to buy them.

I love the historic settings, characters and story lines in these games. And I love the variety of gameplay in each game. Most games don't have nearly the variety that the Assassin's Creed games do. Assassin's Creed 4 looks like it will be the best of all.

hankmoody3886d ago

Having trouble finding the urge to play through AC3. I will admit though that the multiplayer is still a hell of a lot of fun. And also, AC4 looks more and more interesting. Releasing one of these things every year is just too much AC in general if you ask me. The series felt special at first but now it just feels like overkill.

ZBlacktt3886d ago

AC3 is absolutely nothing like AC4. Please keep that in mind.

kneon3885d ago

I found getting through AC3 to be a slog. I just didn't care about the story or characters so I ignored nearly all optional missions just to get through it.

Show all comments (29)
60°

PureArts & Ubisoft Announce Assassin’s Creed Hunt for the Nine 1/6 Scale Diorama

This should make fans and collectors very happy. PureArts & Ubisoft Announce Assassin’s Creed Hunt for the Nine 1/6 Scale Diorama Assassin's Creed Hunt for the Nine 1/6 Scale Diorama available for pre-order on January 25.

260°

Can We Finally Admit Assassin's Creed 3 Deserves an Apology?

AC3 was released during a turbulent transition period for Ubisoft and the Assassin's Creed series. It ventured into uncharted territory, narratively and mechanically, which caused it to receive mixed reviews. At its core, though, it's a damn good stealth game.

Read Full Story >>
thenerdstash.com
isarai195d ago

Nope, I hated 3, connar was bland, literally the most flat character in the entire game. Not to mention to myriad of bugs, camera issues, and that annoying thing where he automatically ditches his weapon you payed for for the sake of a cool finishing move forcing you to trek back to your base after almost every encounter just to re-equip your own weapon. It just didn't work as fluidly as the others like 2 and 4

Samonuske195d ago

The series peaked at AC3 for me. It’s been my favourite in the series. Connor will always be one of my favourite video game protagonists.

Becuzisaid195d ago

No. Game was BORING. Connor was really dull. Environments, while impressive, because of the geographic location and time period were not really exciting to be in. I would love some kind of game set in there colonial American time period, but a game like AC that back then centered around parkour and vertical traversal really didn't fit those environments.

-Foxtrot195d ago

Nope

There was a lot of issues but mine is how they handled the war

They told us Connor was not going to get involved, that the war was more of a background setting for the real story and it wasn’t going to be one sided

They lied, even the cinematic E3 trailer showed Connor emerge from the Colonist side and slaughter the red coats to get to his target, inspiring the Colonists to fight back

I just thought it would have made more sense lore wise that the red coats were mostly compiled of Assassins fighting the Colonist templars who wanted to take the new world for themselves.

Since the Red coats lost the war, it would then explain how the Templars started to gain the upper hand and how on the future the assassins were mostly killed off and the Templar’s had pretty much taken over everything.

Instead it just felt like they didn’t want to p*** off the American audience

Even Haytham was cool, he should have been an Assassin through and through and should have been the main lead.

toxic-inferno195d ago

The game even seems to lack the humour of the other games. It almost seems as though the idea of even slightly making fun of American history wouldn't be acceptable.

-Foxtrot195d ago

Exactly

It just felt super safe

“Better not make the colonists look super bad incase people boycott our game”

jeromeface194d ago

someone missed the whole point

-Foxtrot194d ago

There was literally no point

What I've just said above would at least make sense lore wise and why the Assassins start to loose their war, die off and how the Templars are in control in the future of almost everything....what they did was just, pointless

CrimsonWing69195d ago

I’m one one of those weird people that liked Ass Creed 3, but to be fair I never got around to finishing it.

Show all comments (28)
240°

5 Of the Most Unlikeable Video Game Protagonists

There are good video game protagonists, and there are bad video game protagonists.

Read Full Story >>
gameluster.com
206d ago
GhostScholar206d ago (Edited 206d ago )

I disagree that max is unlikable. Chloe is infinitely more unlikable in my opinion.

gold_drake206d ago

omg chloe was awful. i really hated her at the end haha

Cacabunga206d ago

Abby was absolute trash protagonist in every way..
Tidus was so meh to me..
On villain side, the one i didn’t like wa Micah, because they wanted him to be that way and it was brilliant👍🏽

Rancegamerx206d ago

I agree, I liked Max, Chloe was a horrible friend and a bad influence.

Cacabunga205d ago

Everyone agrees on chloe, I’m sure even ND do.

H9206d ago

Both are horrible, granted Chloe is infinitely worse, it feels like Chloe is just fanservice for people who too over the edge and wasn't written to be a character that makes sense

GooGobbler206d ago

What about that Forspoken Tw*t

MrChow666206d ago

exactly I was expecting it to be a the top of the list

ravens52206d ago

Ye I was expecting her too. Guess they actually played the game. Unlike you and whoever agrees.

gpimlott205d ago

I played through the whole game and think she is one of the worst character Ive ever played as

ravens52205d ago (Edited 205d ago )

gpimlott. How?

Stanjara195d ago

Why would I payed and played the game if the whole internet is making fun of a character?

-Im here to kill Chaos...are you Chaos?

Yeah, I didn't play that game either.

Christopher205d ago (Edited 205d ago )

She's actually not bad. It's the writing itself that is bad overall, but she's fine overall. She's no worse than Miles Morales IMHO. Both thrust into a spotlight and receiving both praise and blame and dealing with it.

Forspoken is a bland game because it's 75% bland, boring, repetitive going through the motions and diversions that add nothing of the value with purposefully gated memory moments that don't feel organic or like you're discovering things but waiting for others to reveal things.

ravens52205d ago

Exactly Chris. Even though I liked the game. I kno u played it. People who actually played it and went thru her dream saw she was a good likeable person who really just acted out due to being alone and unloved. I think your problem is it was open world, I think if it was more linear you may have liked it better.

savedsynner205d ago

Oh no she's bad. Very unlikable even before you add on the bad dialogue. The game could have been quite good with a good protagonist

ravens52205d ago

For all the people like synner. Shes actually half white lol. Inferior complexity is a hell of a thing. You'll be ok.

Nerdmaster206d ago

Most of these aren't even that bad. Especially comparing to others like Squall "Whatever" Leonhart, Forspoken's Frey, and the guy from Atomic Heart.

-Foxtrot206d ago

Squall is one of the best developed main FF characters so...

People talk about his "whatever" thing thats at the start of the game, not the character he eventually becomes in the end.

Nerdmaster205d ago

No amount of "character development", (especially the ones that for me feels sudden and undeserved like Squall's), will justify him being a d**k to my girl Quistis. Even if he found the cure for cancer, from that moment on, I would never like him.
The article is about being unlikeable, and he was indeed unlikeable for at least half of the game.

BrainSyphoned206d ago

Squall is the best protagonists in FF so you can go whatever yourself.

H9206d ago

My good sir, I need to steal that "you can go whatever yourself" because it's gold

BlaqMagiq1206d ago

Except Squall has actual character development.

gold_drake206d ago (Edited 206d ago )

the "watever" is only present in the english localisation.
so your argument doesnt rly ... stand imo.

Nerdmaster205d ago

Good for you that you could enjoy the japanese version. That's not the case for me and the majority of people here, though.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 205d ago
gold_drake206d ago (Edited 206d ago )

i had to stop reading after the "blatant misogyny" in the Dantes inferno section.

i actually liked Max haha.

the forspoken chick is missing tho

Show all comments (49)