The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

I don't think they should. This series can't be milked every single year. Give us at least 2 years after AC3 before they come out with new games for the series.

Agreed with both. Although they were good games, they were a more "distilled" experience. Playing through both of them in a row, you realize how much Ubisoft half-assed them. AC3 will be fresh, but no expos pls.

This is one of the reasons that most motivates me to love AC3. Fresh Content.

They spent i don't know, 3 years DEVing AC3 right ? So it is logical to have Fresh Content and bigger story.. I don't want to finish the game in a Max of 2 days.

I'm playing Skyrim like crazy since 11.11.11 and yet i don't finished all of its content..

I'm not comparing Skyrim to AC3. Just saying that if Bethesda could do something, Ubisoft in 3 years can do something too, probably less than Skyrim i know, but it is already something right ?

Fuck no

I think the main business reason they did that was that Ubisoft wanted a yearly draw in their line-up (ergo, they didn't want to wait three years for AC3 without having another AC game) as well as wanting people to still remember the AC brand by the time AC3 rolled around (remember all the new players who joined on AC2 and didn't know about the first game? The majority of gaming consumers have a short memory.).

And the studio did the best job they could of testing out new features/tightening up presentation, as well as spreading out some interesting story tidbits and clues.

I'm amazed they managed to create such good games through one year dev cycles. But they really do feel like expansions. Worth the 60 bucks IMO, but still expansions. I always thought that AC2 was worth far more than 60 bucks, so I don't feel too bad about being "cheated" into paying for two very similar games. The first thing I wanted after 1000/1000ing AC2 was more AC2. I guess I got it. But I'm excited for something fresh.

(sarcasm mode: ON) Yeah, they were just fantastic, weren't they?

For one years time. Decent.

Yo bro, anything that can keep me occupied for 40+ hours is at least a decent game in my books. And as EA said, good for a one year dev cycle. If AC3 was Bro/Rev quality I'd feel ripped off.

I feel the need to point out that they've been working on it for a little less than 2.5 years now. In october that will be 3 years. Alex states as much in the interviews.

Well I never said it had been three years already, did I? Just that the final product will have had a three year dev cycle.

From the sounds of it, the new creative director wants AC3 to be completely finished by release. So, hopefully no expansions.

AC2 didn't get the expansion games because it was unfinished. It got them because they wanted to continue Ezio's story. What Alex is talking about is having the game's content all playable and presentable at an early stage, so they can spend most of the time up until release fixing bugs and polishing.

No AAA studio releases a literally unfinished game.

EDIT: The purpose of expansion is in their name: to expand upon a finished game. They're not called "completions".

I'm afraid EA says that a lot (Electronic Arts that is).

I don't think Revelations was necessary at all. Embers could have been used to explain the general story of that game given another hour. Brotherhood wasn't that great either, but compared to Revelations, it was better story-wise. If they planned ahead a little better, they could've pushed ACB and ACR together into one game and put in all the new features they wanted to experiment with for AC3.

So ACR could be continued, for instance to tell Ezio's death? HAHA

Hahahahaha.

NO.

Considering Embers showed it, no. Silly goose.

Just to be clear, sicne I'm not sure if that's a joke, I'm talking about the EA who is a member of this forum.

It's a reference to EA's franchises being shit on a one-year dev cycle.

I got the reference, but I wasn't sure if he actually thought I was talking about Ea the studio.

Lets look at another franchise that kept defecating its fans with its yearly releases: Guitar Hero. Remember that? Remember when the market became so saturated that game consumers couldn't keep up with the yearly releases (probably due to budget problems or lack of interest)?

Because I sure do.

One year isn't enough time to create a solid game, and Ubisoft has clearly demonstrated that fact. Calvar suggested that gamers have a short memory. There is some truth to that, but if gamers are given consistent qualtities of terrible sequals to a beloved franchise, THEN THEY REALLY WILL LOSE INTEREST.

However, considering how Ubisoft is whoring itself out on a yearly basis...I don't see them changing in the near future. I've almost given up on this franchise...

I hope they stick to their word and don't put out another game the year after AC3. They said this after Brotherhood and they came out with Revelations, so we'll see.

you know revelations was supposed to be an held hand game for ps vita or nitedo ds. they could make game´s on a yearly release date when they do it like cod and bf which are made by 2 develepors as long if the writer is the same.

The thing is, the decrease in quality/critical reception has not been all that dramatic. If I remember correctly Revelations has a metascore of 80. The games are selling more than ever. People are enjoying the games. I don't consider a series as being whored out unless they promise an actual full, next step revolution sequel, and instead deliver an expansion, with no attempt to improve gameplay quality or shake up the status quo. The amount of effort that went into being as big a step up as possible with the resources and time available was evident to me in both Revelations and Brotherhood.

I fully expect an actual break after AC3's release. They'll have to create both a new modern protagonist and animus one, after all, and I don't see how they could do that in a year. And after AC3, I suspect AC will be cemented in everyone's memory for quite a bit. I'd hope that they don't stop support for the Expanded Universe, I'd love to read novels about different Assassin's through history. (Not by Oliver Bowden.)

That's kinda what they did, though. We view the last two games as expansions, but when they were being marketed, they were talked about as "the next chapter" with "better killing stuff" and whatnot. It's still pretty whore-ish.

I recall several interviews which stated that they were just building on the foundation of AC2, which was why it was not worthy of being a numbered sequel. And I would argue that they built quite a lot on that foundation. When you just find a single formula that your audience likes, and market it to the masses and repeat it over and over again, then you're going somewhere bad, but I consistently see them trying to do new things with each AC game. Desmond's memories, Den defence, the idea of more uses for eagle vision, more varied bombs... these things may not all work out, but the fact that they're still taking risks and trying new things is a GOOD thing.

that reminds me will there be eagle vision or eagle sense cause ezio got it from long training.

AC3 takes place over 35 years, so combine that with the fact that Connor was brought up learning how to track prey and use his senses, I'd expect that he gets Eagle upgrades before Ezio did.

i hope so

Now you're making me think they're not going to be revolutionary with this title. The last two games were experiments, but they were failed experiments. If AC3 is anything like them, it won't be as great as the hype is making it out to be. I think we can all agree on that.

No, what I'm saying is that they were experiments that only had a year to polish. It's not like everything sucked. Eagle sense worked decently, and bombs did allow for some creative thinking, not to mention dens and towers were a lot of fun. There were tons of great and well executed ideas, but some stuff, like shop-buying or den-defence, they just didn't seem to really work well, at least in their present forms. There's only so much you can do when you have to stick with one character and keep building on his equipment and gameplay systems. Things tend to get a bit bloated.

With this game they have the luxury of going back and redesigning the basic mechanics of everything, taking a step back, trimming what is unnecessary, bringing forward the things that worked in more interesting ways. I'm not at all worried. Every change I've heard about sounds like it's for the best. Some are things I've always wanted AC to be more like. This is exactly what I hoped they'd do with AC3. So, yes, gameplay first before we praise it. However, your level of pessimism is unwarranted, I can say with some confidence.

EDIT: Something else. I don't understand how you can compare this to other titles, when previously they've been very up-front about the changes being vestigal rather than mechanical. We knew that combat would be the exact same system, with some hookblade abilities and altered enemy attitudes. We knew stealth and free-running would be exactly the same, with added speed because of the hookblade and ziplines. We even knew animations for attacking would return from previous games.

Here, on the other hand, they have told us that ALL previous animations are gone. Combat now works without the lock system, and controls do not change when you enter combat. Free-running will now allow you to scale cliffs and trees, and vault over and slide under obstacles. Even just these changes are bigger than anything changed in previous games. And more info than that has been released.

Actually, I'm not being pessimistic. I'm explaining the opinion most of us on here generally have about the franchise as of late. I'm just being critical about it.

Out of curiosity, I'd really like to know what you DON'T like about AC. You haven't touched on that very much.

Well you said you were worrying. That's not being critical, really. I don't mean to be harsh, it's just the way I write.

What I don't like about AC... I don't like the way that combat is easy to learn and master, but mastering it doesn't speed up the process, I don't like the "boxiness" of the freerunning, I don't like the AI, I don't like the basic sameness of every melee weapon, I don't like the economy system, or at least the manual running around buying shops part, expecially when it makes templar awareness increase in Revelations. I don't like the way certain cool parts of each city don't get enough use, I don't like that not enough landmarks are fully explorable, I don't like the inability to take cover or move at a crouch, I don't like how there isn't enough to do in plain free-roam, I don't like how there is no animation difference between you free-running and different classes of guards free-running, I don't like calling assassin recruits or arrow storm, I don't like that there isn't that much true interaction with the crowd, I don't like that there aren't different types of armor, for example one built for agility and one built for protection, I don't like that the crowd is more aware of you than the guards are, and something that has annoyed me from the beginning of this series: the crowd NEVER reports you to the guards when they come to investigate, and they never actually call them for help.

That said, the only game I have played more hours of than Assassin's Creed is an MMO. I love it. I do have my limits. For example, if another one-year development game came out instead of AC3, I would probably have just rented it. But this is seeming to suit me just fine. Major changes to systems I was getting tired of, plus more content and polish?
F-yeah.

That's what I'm looking for! So far, it's just looked like you were biased for the series. Now I have a clearer picture on your point of view.

I think they should. It keeps the series and interest alive. Brotherhood was very key to the series, revelations not so much

You don't need yearly releases to keep a game series feel fresh. In fact, waiting 2 or 3 years for the next installment makes people want it more. Just look at Mass Effect or Prince of Persia. Both series had larger gaps between each game. This way, older fans can feel a sense of refreshing nostalgia while new fans can experience it on their own terms.

Putting an expanded game out yearly more than once will end up giving players a repetitive distaste of that series. Also, things like the writing and improvements to the overall experience will not be very good if they're rushed so much. Then you get games like the Call of Duty franchise.

"Then you get games like the Call of Duty franchise..."

Amen that, my brother!

Ahem Vesferatu. We do not refer to COD as its fake name.Only its real name...CALL OF BOOTY.

Just look at me: I started the AC series with ACII. I had no comprehension of the plot whatsoever. I had to go the ac.wikia to find out about the entire plot, and even then I didn't play ACI until several years later. However, I still enjoyed it on its own merit and effort.

This gaming era is saturated with generic FPS with no character substance and plot creativity. Yearly sequels don't make it better. AC tried to break out of that cycle, but in the end, they failed.

This is probably the only big post of yours I have read

HA

I guess I just naturally play devil's advocate. But I really do think that the AC series has been doing very well, compared to a lot of other series I've followed before. I understand what you guys are talking about when you talk about a game getting completely off track from the original vision, being obviously just made for money, or created specifically to appeal to casual players, ect.

It's just I don't really see that happening here. This series just does not seem like it's going downhill, to me. I'll defend that point of view with all the walls of text I can muster. That's the way I explain how I think about it. I'm not trying to crush all oppositional argument, just make myself clear.