Is it Time Ubisoft Stop Using the Assassin’s Creed Name?

When I got an Xbox 360, alongside Halo 3, the other game I first played was Assassin’s Creed 2. What would spawn from that was over a decade of admiration for the Assassin’s Creed franchise. With the new games departing so far away from that, ThisGenGaming asks if it’s time Ubisoft stop slapping the Assassin’s Creed name onto the new games.

[NewMonday]

I can't play any Ubisoft game anymore. 90% of their games are a copy paste of the same mechanics with stories that go nowhere.

[jaymacx]

That maybe true for most of their games but the newer AC games are very good. My main complaint however is the lack of things to do in the open world ( a problem most open world games have). Hopefully this new game can take the series a step higher and flesh out the world a bit more. I also hope they have more stealth missions.

[Adexus]

There was too much to do in Origins and Odyssey I'd say, Black Flag had the right amount of content without it feeling overwhelming.

[jaymacx]

When I say things to do I am not talking about side quests. I am talking about interaction with NPCs, objects, etc.

[-Foxtrot]

@Adexus

I agree. It's a false sense of content because even though on the surface it's huge, there's massive chunks of land where you might only get only collectible in it or one small little settlement, long stretches of ocean and the rest is filled with repetitive same old side quests, not something like The Witcher 3 where you get a sense of variety or uniqueness when you go to the next one.

They think bigger means better, and even though I like to see huge maps for the next GTA game or something it's mostly because I know Rockstar has a better chance of delivering and the games don't come out every 2-3 years..

[NewMonday]

@Foxtrot

I think Witcher 3 ruined open world games for me. that game had stories that made you push along. even though the actual combat was average at best. Yakuza games are annual but they still manage to interest you and forget about their archaic game design. Because they have very interesting characters. On the other hand Assassins Creed has high concepts but the actual writing is just bad.

[IMissJimRyan]

Well, I don't think thats completely true. Some games share some similiarities but thats what make their style. And they are very influentual. Look how much Zelda BOTW took from Assassin's Creed and Far Cry.

But South Park, Rainbow Six Siege, Mario and Rabbits, Just Dance, The Crew, Anno, For Honor, Trials, Rocksmith... The list goes on and on. The veriety is trully amazing.

Of course I understand that hating Ubisoft is a important rule from the manual of how to be a cool gamer in 21st century. But hey, I like them a lot.

[Eamon]

Mate, Breath of the Wild revolutionized Open World. I think we live in a post Breath of the Wild world now and any OW game that doesn't learn from it is outdated.

[Imalwaysright]

BoTW is designed to be completely different than Ubisoft's open world games. BoTW is open world design done right as it offers freedom, sense of adventure, exploration and far more player agency while Ubisoft's games wich give an illusion of freedom as they're constantly telling the player where to go and what to do.

[RazzerRedux]

"Mate, Breath of the Wild revolutionized Open World. I think we live in a post Breath of the Wild world now and any OW game that doesn't learn from it is outdated."

How did BoTW "revolutionize open world" again?

[-Foxtrot]

Breath of the Wild is just a bunch of other great open world games smashed into one lets be honest, the best things the game did were the little things, but even then that dosen't make it superior. I got more out of Horizon Zero Dawn that year then that.

Lets not forget the Witcher 3 and even Skyrim at times (when it's not a buggy mess) have done things better, especially in terms of variety.

It's only made to look like it revolutionized stuff because it's Zelda and Nintendo and developers who go on about it, like most fans still have that nostalgia sense of Nintendo being there for them when they were at a young age, the golden years and they still need to thank them based on that.

[silenthillstrangler]

Shit cool gamers say.

[Black-Helghast]

ASSASSins creed. The name itself says its a$$. I lost interest in that milked story after black flag and tbh the only good ones were black flag and assassins creed 2. The rest were pure dunkey doodoo.

[MeteorPanda]

interesting. u lost interest after black flag so u never tried the rest so theyre shit because u didnt play them? lol

[Rachel_Alucard]

After Breakpoint and Division 2 bombed, they completely revamped the editorial team responsible for it and all their games were delayed or canceled to make changes. I agree that all their previous games were blending too hard with content and systems. But Valhalla is the first title they're releasing since that change and already they've removed the stupid diablo style loot, so everything is unique and gear score from the game
That alone is a huge difference.

[ApolloTheBoss]

If I may, AC Odyssey's Story is surprisingly good. Though, it may be far too long for some.

[TGGJustin]

They really are and that's exactly why they went and delayed all of their upcoming games and formed new groups internally to help bring more creativeness to their titles. Now whether that actually ends up happening we'll see. I was especially disappointed in how they ruined Ghost Recon by turning it into a Division clone.

[xTonyMontana]

I'd say they have a better shout for removing Tom Clancy from their names.

[RavenWolfx]

I would be fine with them changing it to Warrior's Creed instead, based on the last couple of games and this new one.

[IMissJimRyan]

Yeah! And Nintendo should remove Pokemon as well.

[greywolf39]

Last 2 or 3 games have nothing to do with Assassins creed we all know. They are good games, but they should not be called assassins creed cause they are not

[RazzerRedux]

"Valhalla as a new IP could have ditched the crammed in animus stuff and focused solely on delivering a great story that could stand on it’s own two feet, as the predecessors did before it."
" Abandoning the Assassin’s Creed name not only protects the older games, but also unlocks the shackles on the new ones. "

It doesn't make sense to ditch the AC name to get rid of the animus which is the only "shackle" being described here. The animus in Odyssey and Origins was an afterthought and didn't have nearly as much disruption as previous entries. Frankly, they could have left it out of both and it wouldn't have made any difference so I don't see how they were "anchored down" at all. You could make the argument AC should just ditch the animus altogether (and plenty of others would agree) and have a better point.

The game still involved plenty of assassinations in Origins and Odyssey so the name still works. And it involved a lot more than "press triangle to assassinate". So what changed? Adding big battles and conquest doesn't negate the assassin missions. The lack of "stealth"? The stealth aspects of hiding in bushes or suddenly becoming invisible to guards because I'm standing in a group of 3 or more people? All that "stealth"? I'm all for more stealth missions, but the previous games had become so repetitive in this aspect that it lost the thrill. If they were going to take the game back to bona fide card-carrying members of the Assassin's Creed organization then they would have to rethink all of it because frankly, it got stale.

I like the new direction AC has taken, personally. And the games still feel like AC games to me. They are clearly in the AC universe even if the main characters are not properly hooded assassins. Ultimately, the AC franchise is clearly the vehicle that brings these games to us in the first place. Seems silly to abandon the name because the devs dared take the game in a different direction.

[Saijahn]

AC is the only game ubi gets right these days.

[Cha0tik]

No

[micdagoat19]

After recently completing Origins I can say it was a great game but way too many side quests and stuff to collect. it became a hassle at the end and still didnt even come near 100% completion. I'm scared to start odyssey now lol

[Xaevi]

If they wanted to make an RPG that's fine, but Assassin's Creed was never an RPG. It's obvious they used the name to make sure it sold, otherwise people wouldn't have bothered. So long as it continues being an RPG I'm not interested

[MrVux000]

YES! A thousand times yes!

Origins and especially Odyssey have almost no connection to the AC lore. Even the gameplay doesn't feel like you are playing as an Assassin.

[jbull]

Yes they should and while there at it bring back Splinter Cell proper.

[DragonWarrior19]

No, they have been going back in time before the Assassin's Clan was formed into what we know from AC1 and on. They've been showing how the Assassin's came to be and how the Templars came to be. The games (Origin and Odyssey) have a ton of stealth in them but they leave the door open for other play styles as well.

[Positivelypositive]

I have not liked them since Assassin's Creed: Revelations, Odyssey is an okay game but it is in no way assassin's creed. The black sheep Unity is actually a very good assassin's game just has weak storytelling. I think Assassin's creed 4 was not assassin's creed at all. Since that game they have only made a couple I would call that. Syndicate, Rogue and Unity. Though none imo compare to the Ezio was the crowning jewel so good it has us still playing the games. They made some great ship battle system but I really don't enjoy it and think it takes the game series in an entirely different direction which should have just been called something else but then the sales would not have had the Assassin's Creed numbers. Since Ezio the stories have all been terrible which is the biggest turn off to me to play them anymore.

[Mikedzines]

From someone whos developed brands -- here is my two cents. Keep the "creed" lose the assassins.

Vikings Creed
Warrior's Creed
Spartan's Creed
Soldier's Creed
Samurai's Creed
Pirate's Creed
Assassin's Creed
Ninja's Creed
Officer's Creed

You can retain your core mechanics of climbing, and eagle vision and all that jazz and create streams of titles under those banners. Return to assassins creed when you burn out another.. and most importantly, you retain the integrity of your titles and do not divide your fanbase.

[RaidenBlack]

Just fork out these RPG based open world games into a new separate IP.
Like they did with naval combat with Skull and Bones.
AC Odyssey could have been just Odyssey. Wouldn't have made much change.
Just improve the already defined design of Assassins Creed into a better one. Take some time if you have to.

[brewin]

This is such a pointless argument. They are the creators of the franchise they can take it in whatever way they choose. It is what they say it is, not what you think it should be. If you like the old style then nothing is stopping you from playing the old games. What's the big deal, just go play those!?

[AK91]

Yes

[Nerdsworth]

Marketing and Branding... Ain't happin' cap'n

[chicken_in_the_corn]

No. The stories are still AC.

[TheGamez100]

Origins and Odyssey are AC in title only lol.

[Manubiggs]

Yes, we don't need templars, abstergo etc ..... just give a us a good viking game