ASSASSIN'S CREED is set to get another instalment next year set in Victorian era London, but some fans are not so keen to see such a quick return for the franchise.
Push Square: "It's rare for a renowned series such as Assassin's Creed to get tagged with middling review scores, but we slammed the disappointing Assassin's Creed Unity when it deployed last year. While there was a reasonable experience buried at the release's beating heart, the Parisian escapade also had a laundry list of flaws – the title's copious bugs and glitches securing the most column inches. With the forthcoming Assassin's Creed Victory – thought to be subtitled Syndicate officially – the French publisher needs to respond by righting its predecessor's many wrongs. But what are the five most important things that it needs to address?"
Replies(1)
We did it twice last year, Rogue and Unity, also twice this year as well with the chinese themed 2d scroller.
Oh we'll be doing this for years to come. Same with CoD articles that will be almost identical to the ones after AW came out but instead it'll be BO3. This cycle has been going on since both series got a sequel.
Ubishit baby. Handing you half finished games year after year and charging you for it. Lol!
I'm looking forward to this release. I can't wait to read all of the rage just like I did with Watchdogs and the other AC games. It's fun when you refuse to buy the games and get to enjoy the train wreck.
I would like it if they totally revamped the movement and combat to feel less mechanical. It's just pretending to be fluid and since every movement is kind of scripted your character ends up acting differently from what you input. Another thing...they should really diversify with the settings more. The whole Victorian, Elizabethan, Renaissance, Revolution type settings are nice, but too often it feels like more of the same mundane cities. Something like feudal Japan or medieval Europe or ancient Athens would blow minds.
Finally, they should take a break with the franchise. Same with CoD. Take one of the three or so teams and throw them at a new IP. No one wants to play these franchises for two generations straight and you know theyre all pushing for a third one.
"Finally, they should take a break with the franchise. Same with CoD. Take one of the three or so teams and throw them at a new IP. No one wants to play these franchises for two generations straight and you know theyre all pushing for a third one."
Why? What would not making the games accomplish except keeping games away from people that want to play them? And speak for yourself, I want to play these games for as long as they are made so long as they aren't absolutely horrible and so far the most disappointing game to me in the series was AC3, but even that was still an overall decent game.
I honestly can't understand the mentality of people that keep saying X series needs to die. You don't like it, don't play it, that simple. I don't play CoD at all. I also don't say it needs to die. The only time I could ever see legitimately saying that for a series you can easily stop playing is if the success of said series has a detrimental effect on the genre as a whole, and how many stealth parkour games exist?
I also don't understand this take a break for a year. Its like saying Game of Thrones tv series needs to take another year break. I buy the game when it comes out and play it. One year is a good enough wait. Especially AC games are different in production. They got more teams working on different AC games and have a longer development to compared to CoD. I believe they have up to 3 or 4 different teams working on different games and take 3 to 4 years to make.
Well, there's people that just hate what's popular.
Sometimes though, things just aren't given enough breathing room. Even though each studio works on their game for three years, they're not given time to iterate on what was released the previous year.
It's not the best situation. If someone sees promise in the series and likes the concept, they may be turned off by the frequent releases and lack of iteration.
Actually Ubisoft consistently puts out good products...they just need that extra time and a little bit of a push to make some of them really great.
Their games overall are usually well received and score really well and sell well. Pretty impressive actually, especially with how many games they push out every year.
But they should take just a bit more time on some to really push them to really improve them.
Why? Will keeping the games from people willing to play them prevent you from enjoying other games or force you to play any AC game?
Right...cause having the option to buy the game is so bad..You dont like the game? Dont buy it, not sure how this is effecting you...
Paul Tassi from Forbes writes: "Ubisoft has scheduled a grand reveal event for this Tuesday, which promises to unveil this fall’s Assassin’s Creed: Victory, which very well may be called Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate now, because maybe “Victory” implies some sort of hard ending. Which we know isn’t happening.
Rather, Assassin’s Creed will continue on until we beg it to stop, and the Call of Duty-esque annualization of the series is something that few can get behind, as Erik Kain wrote yesterday. But I wanted to explore a little bit about why COD’s yearly formula is so hard to repeat, and why Assassin’s Creed struggles with generating excitement for annual releases so consistently."
I don't think AC Does it to be like Call of duty. Ac does it because there fans want more AC. The lore alone brings me back over and over again everything has a link to the bigger story. Comics, novels, movies and games they have legions of fans out there that want more. I'm one of those fans so if you dont like the AC games just stop buying them but for me and millions of others we are going keep enjoying what we like. Ac unverse feels like starwars or marvel unverse...everything is conected and that makes it all that more fun.
I doubt that, even hardcover fans of assassin creed wants the series to take a break for a year or 2.
Ubi loves money like all other publishes, I am not so naive to think only ubi are this way. Bottom line is this is a business so all publishers would release their big games yearly if it meant more money
The provoke isn't ubi, it's the gamers. They keep buying these games even though the best games in the series were around assassin creed 2 and that story
Assassin creed just isn't that good anymore and for it being a single player game, look how bad the story has been for last few games
I also know that each AC game gets 3 years of development. But issue if the teams keep on growing. It's like each AC game is being made by 6 different developers
That more chefs in one kitchen that's why the quality gas fallen off
Part of me wonders how taking just one year off and release the next AC game in fall 2016 will do great for this series.
But as long as you guys keep buying broken games yearly than defending the fact it's not broken
Nothing will change
No most hardcore fans dont feel that way IMO and one bad game dont break them all. I think the last one needed more AC lore in it. They sell and they will keep selling because there good. My proof of that is the millions ubi makes off it btw. Safe bet causul gamers don't by these games or the misinformed. Just saying....If you dont like them stop buying them. btw i was a big fan of AC3 and 2 and think connor should of got another game.
More power to you and others, it's your time and money. I don't buy Ac or Cod games but I also don't hate on them. But don't tell me only the last one was bad, when si ce AC2 and it's side stories we haven't had a good AC game
Now all ubi dues is show graphics and that's it
And many and I do mean many friends I know who are huge AC fans say that they don't mind if the series takes a little break. And if I am not wrong AC series was suppose to end at 3. But why atop like you said millions of dollars
But if sales meant quality than COD is the best game ever year
Assassin creed unity was still a good game, but no, brotherhood and even assassin creed 4 was pretty good and I think better than two. AC has a huge fanbase, which is why its an annual release now.
You know I used to be exactly like you, but then I played AC IV. The series has moved so far away from what it's actually supposed to be it's not even funny. You keep buying your one, two or three AC titles every year, while I spend my money on games that actually have quality work put into them.
I am a fan, too. I would meet you in the middle and request at least a 2 year release schedule. There is a lot to enjoy about the games and the IP as a whole. At their core, they have a solid mechanic that is quite fun.
More and more, however, each new entry feels rushed. I continue to play them, but now I either wait several months after release to pick it up at a greatly reduced price, or I rent the newest installment. Each game feels like it could be really great, but ends up with too much unrealized potential.
We are getting less and less of the AC Universe as you mentioned. I say slow it down. Take the time (or new staff) to really lay out a compelling story that fleshes out the present timeline as well as the past. Ironing out the bugs by release day would be nice, too.
Apparantely the writer believes AC can never be like CoD...because AC actually put effort into their worlds and stories and characters and not a half assed rehash like CoD?
In my opinion, there is no justifying a yearly release besides the developer taking an opportunity to milk that cash cow. I mean, how on earth could a series not grow stale and become repetitive if it is being released year after year. Unity is the latest example of this - A poorly optimized game clearly not ready for release which could have been so much better in all departments if it had another year or so. The fact that it was developed for 3 years is irrelevant as it seems 60 different development work on the series at a time, destroying any chance of true consistency and momentum.
The transition from AC 1 to AC 2 was perfect, it's a pity that ubisoft are first and foremost out to make a profit.
The non-progressing MD is contradictory to what you said. Ubisoft doesnt know what to do with MD.
Clipping Error discuss if the next Assassin's Creed game will mark a big change to the series, one that potentially opens it up to new fans.
The change from AC4 to Unity was definitely the biggest change in the franchises history thus far, I'm not saying the best change, but definitely the biggest.
Not really. AC 3 had more changes than any AC games ever had. It first introduced forest exploration, rock climbing, combat on uneven terrain, huge crowds (A deadly performance), it introduced life-like animations,realistic facial character animation, weather cycle, snow, smooth combat, huge scaled battles,naval combat,dual wielding, animal hunting, introduced a character that wasn't Ezio 2.0 (Looks at Arno) and tried to be original which gave Connor so many unwanted hates,the ONLY game to have an action packed serious Modern day, it introduced tree climbing etc... The game even has those annoying children! No other game in the series has that does it?
It's not the same, though. Because AC3, which I thought was the the worst until I played Unity, felt like the logical next step. I hated it, but not because of the changes. For instance, the tree climbing felt great and epic, but the maps were so badly designed that you had to go out of your way to go up a tree and in most cases the trees didn't take you anywhere, something Black Flag fixed.
Unity, on the other hand, took the series in a different direction. Yes, the setting is familiar and Arno looks like Ezio. That said, the game plays like crap. I'm not even talking about the glitches, because I played the game for the first time a month ago or so. It's how broken the climbing mechanic is, how bad the combat is, the microtransactions. They also took out hidden blade combat (why? It was so sweet), or the ability to have two. Likewise, it feels like they took many steps back.
All they did is remove most of your abilities and make you have to level up to re-learn them.
Terrible.
You'd think due to unities many set backs they'd skip a year and take thier time...
Depend's on the story. It should me more like AC4 than Unity.
Infact, they should just make another pirate game. I couldn't get enough of it in AC4.
Naval combat, looting ships, singing shanties in the ocean breeze. Unreal.
Yeah man. I loved AC4. Just make a new one called pirates creed. Same universe maybe? Either way AC4 is my fav of them all. Or at least on par with 2.
I appreciate what unity strived for. But they removed hidden blade combat AND knife combat. Plus I played in day 1. The glitches were unbearable and nothing seemed optimized. I beat it and the same day traded it in. Never looked back. Play AC4 when I get the itch.
Hopefully this new one pushed back on track. It seems like every other game is really good. So maybe...
Defiantly for the best. I like the games and all but releasing a new one yearly is just to much.
Wanna a break? DO NOT BUY IT!
Ubisoft responds: "You want Assassin's Creed: Break? Sure, we can make that game too."
It just doesn't sit right with me to have such a huge game with yearly iterations.
If you were to play the whole game with all the side missions you'd probably only be done with it a short time before the next game is released. That's just milking the franchise to death.
If you want a break, wait for the game to Drop to $20 and pick it up then. If no one truly wants it, you'll see that price tag drop a lot quicker than normal.