The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

I saw last week some game site thought they saw a poster about, but no official comment at the time. It is irritating because the games are shoddy ports (aside from AC2, which was just brilliance on PC).

I hope we get something extra, like Brotherhood came with one of the Templar Lairs for free. I don't think Revelations gave us anything, though; did it?

Nope, nothing. Ubisoft really needs to give us pc players something new, not just crappy ports. Geez, make a sepqrate team or something.

Therein lies part of the problem; I believe we do have a separate team... they get intimidated by the awesomeness that is the PC. Here is reinforcement of their intimidation.

Game developers so like to kick us in the nuts, except Valve.

Valve loves us. Others used to also...

I can't wait for PlanetSide 2 to come out, show Battlefield what it could do if they came back to PC...

I understand you pc players want something to make up for the months delay, but don't you think it's unfair for console players when you have an extra on your pc version ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think AC had director's cut missions, and ACII had the 2 DLCs for free. I was really annoyed when I found out pc players had all of this.

AC add some lead-up missions (a chase the markers thing and one other type) and AC2 had the free DLCs (which I loved), Brotherhood had 2 Templar Lairs (LAAAAAAMEE!!), Revelations had nothing. AC2 was worth the wait (well, I technically did have to wait because I played it post launch). Brotherhood and Revelations I would have preferred to have at launch. If the console version came out a few months late, I would want them to get DLC free, also.

@EzioAltair
Now I have to cancel my current pre-order and go for that one... Probably wait and see what all of the retailer bonuses are first, though.

PC games are kind of difficult to nail down compared to the console versions. With consoles, the developers are already set with the hardware and software. They don't have to fiddle with it much. With PC, everyone has their own unique version. They have to make sure their games work for as many as possible. I wish they came out with all versions at once, but they have deadlines for a reason. And if you have to wait a little more time for it to be perfected (more so than consoles) and be given free add-ons from the get-go, I guess you'll just have to "suffer".

Really? Well i like how other developers manage to "put out" the PC version just like the console version.

Honestly, i don't care about "ingame extras". I can just use a extra unlocker

I would imagine that the Anvil engine is tricky to optimize for PC. Most games don't have all the graspable surfaces and crowds and day night cycles that AC does. If you seriously think that Ubisoft is doing this because they hate you you're mistaken. Ubisoft is a company, which exists to make money. They want their customers to be happy, so they would only delay a game for polishing if they thought you would be extremely unhappy with the product as is. Note that the PC version is always more glitchy than the consoles. Imagine how crappy it would be with less work.

No, they want people to buy their products. I was not particularly happy with Brotherhood or Revelations, but they could care less as I still bought them.

Ahahaha, sure, they want you to be miserable. They purposefully made two games worse than they could have just to spite you, because pissed off fans buy more games. Have I got it right now?

Brotherhood and Revelations were games with more limited ambitions than any numbered AC sequel, but Ubisoft's goal was to make them as good as they could with a limited dev cycle. Sure, they weren't ground-breaking, yet neither were they as stagnant as many franchises. For example, Cod games are developed on a two year dev cycle, and show very little improvement in comparison to what brotherhood and Revelations brought to AC.

If a game series is known to be shitty and the fans all hate it, sales will drop. That's just common sense. So it annoys me when people say, in a non-joking manner, that they want fans to be pissed off.

And irregardless of your personal opinions about the series, sales have increased dramatically with every AC game, including brotherhood and Revelations, meaning that people are liking the game, telling their friends about it, and buying the next one. Hence there are a lot of people who are happy with the series. Just most of them don't go to forums, in particular not this one.

It can be easy to confuse the opinions most often voiced in forums for the opinions held by most of the fandom. Forums are such a small slice of the people who play video games in general. A vocal minority.

And if any of that seemed like an over-response, then I deeply apologize. It may have something to do with it being late, when my willingness to let things I disagree with go has all but disappeared and I tend to be somewhat condescending.

AC has become one of those series that will get sales even if it's terrible. Just like CoD. It's popular. People will buy popular things. That's how it works.

No, you completely missed the point, as usual. They don't care about your happiness. They care about money. Gamers becoming happy is just a side effect of them getting money.

You don't get my point. The Anvil engine might be tricky to optimize, i get it. Why not hire more people to SPECIALIZE on the PC version? What about ACR? Tricky aswell? (same engine as ACB). Here's a funny story aswell. AC2 runs about 40-50FPS for me, but ACR 30-40. That's because they did do the AC2 version very well. They don't give us any news or callouts. They don't put dedicated servers, witch is essential for a PC game. Just like Phi said, they don't give a fu*k about your satisfaction, they only want your money. Like all the devs for PC nowadays, they delay the game, release a sh*tty port and get their money. You don't understand this, as you probably are a console player.

Businesses are primarily there to make money. Very rarely are they making a profit solely based on customer happiness. 99% of the time, they only care about the customer's happiness so they can keep a good reputation to make that money. Do you think movie-based games are meant to make people happy? They're almost always heaping piles of crap, but they still make money, because that's the goal. Making money. (Getting redundant)

Notice that there wasn't anything between AC1 and AC2 (except Bloodlines, but most people forget about that game). After AC2 brought in more sales, Ubisoft began making games annually. Even when AC3 comes around, we'll be getting Liberation. It's not a necessary game. It's there to boost sales for Ubisoft.

True. I noticed that as well. After AC2 the games were, eh. Personally, i tough Brotherhood was unnecessary. I mean, going to Rome? Only 1 city? And it didn't really add that much. AC1 to AC2 was the biggest change ever.

Whoa, guys! Let's be civilized here. I know there's some sarcasm in these arguments, but it's hard to tell. The thing is, for games and movies (and other stuff) there are two types of fans: The fans who really care, and the fans who somewhat care. The second group usually outnumbers the first, and sequels are made how the largest number of people would like it. Since the AC sequels attract more fans, the devs could care less what we, the smaller group, think about how the games are heading. It's too much about . And of course you need money to make more games, but then it could reach a point where it's all about money.

They don't simply hire more people because every project has a budget. Most of that should go towards making the game. if that means a few more months til all versions are out, then that's fine by me.

Gamer happiness is not a side-effect of making more money. It is true that some people will buy AC no matter what at this point, simply because it's a popular franchise. But if gamers hate a game or feel like it's stagnating, they will make their dissaproval known, and be less likely to buy again. And this will discourage many buyers, and eventually lead to a decrease in sales in the future.

Conversely, happy gamers give reccomendations and five star ratings, generate buzz through social media, line up at midnight to buy the game, buy special editions and t-shirts, and a host of other things you simply don't get otherwise.

Honestly, our fandom is not miserable. Look at any fandom that is actually miserable, and you'll see the difference. Those series have become jokes almost universally among fans, but even on THB, which I would consider to be a more critical and hardcore site, if you say that the series is totally shit after the first one, there will always be someone who actually completely disagrees. (Yes, even if I'm not involved in the conversation.) And look at the official forums. There are naysayers and trolls, but a solid wall of people who, though maybe having been less than blown away with the last two sequel-gap games mechanics-wise, still love the story, still enjoyed those games for what they were, and are entirely excited for the next big step.

Games like CoD are different because of their universal appeal of their subject matter (People like guns and shooting them, no matter where you are.) as well as the fact that it's not focused around change, it's focused on a competition with established rules and mechanics, which the fanbase will actually not want changed, but improved and fine-tuned. Not to mention it started out as a series of very similar games, wheras AC1 and AC2 were night and day, providing certain expections, not to mention that most play AC for the singleplayer, which traditionally needs to change more than a multiplayer focused game would need to.

Seriously, I don't get why people espouse the "omg it's a corporation dude the man doesn't give a crap about you" view do so with the air of someone who is adding anything meaningful to the conversation. Yes, companies are made for money, but most of them try to be professional and use good business practices, like keeping your customers happy.

I also don't like the fact that the issue is a game coming out a few months later on one system, and the response is the same as I would expect from the government violating human rights or something.

If I don't know what I'm talking about, if Ubisoft SHOULD have used more of the budget for more people so everyone could go buy their piece of entertainment at a closer date, and DARING to push the date back is a malicious act perpetrated by a faceless corporate entity, then so what? Shit happens. At least the game looks good, right? At least we're in the position to be annoyed by such a small thing in our lives.

I know saying all that isn't condusive to discussion, but honestly, I don't care about this discussion. Debating about the actual game is fine with me, but... I don't know. It sucks for PC users, but there are tons of games that don't even come out on PC these days. Could be worse.

That's what we're trying to say here. The point of making a business is to make money. Happy customers equals more money. They're not going to be stupid and throw out an intentionally crappy product, but after a while, they'll whip up a half-assed product to get an extra buck.

I think most of us here are excited for AC3. We're just critical about the last games because that's our opinion.

Yes, they will make a product that is less ambitious in scope, but a smart company won't let the quality dip so much that fans will be upset with it.

For example, most of the people on this forum's problem with ACB and ACR was not the lesser amount of content, but the nature of that content being more linear, or too easy. These were things that happened not because of lack of time (Linearity takes more dev work than free-flow gameplay) but because of creative decisons.

Sure, the lack of time factored into it, but compared to the kind of thing that a crappy quick cash-in game ACTUALLY is, it's pretty amazing. Call of Duty advances less with its sequels than Brotherhood and Revelations did, and that series expects you to think that they're full, next-step sequels.

Immediately after finishing AC2, I wished the game had been longer. Two direct expansiony sequels suited me just fine. And without those sequels, I would be nowhere near as hyped for AC3, because of the way they expanded my passion for the story and experience of AC. There are many games I would consider soulless cash-ins. None of the AC games are on that list. And I think that holds true for the majority of the AC community.

I don't think that AC is the kind of game that people play just because everyone's playing it. The people who play it do so because they're invested in the story and characters. I find their opinions far more reliable that people in games whose main focus is multiplayer, who buy the next one just to get a new coat of paint and some weapon-tuning, like a soccer player buying a new pair of cleats. Instead, AC is more like a book or movie.

Blahrg. I'm just saying, every company is made up of people, and it's in people nature to try not to be evil. You don't need to blindly believe all the PR bs, but you also don't need to do your best conspiracy hippie impression when discussing any of their business practices.

It's turned into that. Have you seen the amount of people commenting on AC articles that don't even know about Desmond? Some don't even know who Altair is. Very rarely do I find people that actually know what they're talking about. Most "fans" of the series nowadays play the singleplayer for a day and then go straight into multiplayer.

In fact, I've investigated this a bit. When I come across the more aggressive players (roof-runners and such), I look at their achievements/trophies to see exactly what parts of the games they actually played. I've seen more multiplayer-only achievements/trophies than singleplayer with those players. AC is becoming the new CoD since it's gotten multiplayer.

Any comments like that could easily be from people whove never played the games before and are checking out articles about it. Desmond is introduced in the first few seconds of every ac game, and the multiplayer is the thing that is often hated on in article and youtube comments. At this point, it mames sense to me that muliplayer players are the only ones still playing, because singleplayer focused people move on. Thats all that makes sense.