The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

You can believe what you believe. I can believe what I believe.

The facts still stand that, up until now, numbered titles don't have nicknames. Up until now, numbered titles include vast upgrades in gameplay and other mechanics. Up until now, numbered titles include an entirely new protagonist and environment (and, although Edward is a different person, it's still the Kenway Saga and is not a new place nor time period).

So I repeat: You can believe what you believe. I can believe what I believe.

It's not a matter of belief. The developers are aware of what the numbered thing signifies and they mentioned it in several interviews.

They consider this game to be a significant change from AC3, and it is indeed a new setting and time. The time may be close, but in the area which the game takes place that time means radically different things were happening from what was going on in AC3, plus that area is quite removed from the environment and architecture of boston, new york, and the frontier. And, as you mentioned, there is a new character.

I am in no way saying that the game is going to hold up to your expectations of a numbered title, that obviously remains to be seen.

I am simply addressing the question of "what is the thinking that went into the name", which is documented in several interviews.

Of course, it becomes a matter of belief once more if you assumed that the developers were being untruthful in said interviews. Which would be odd since declaring a game a numbered entry means it will be looked at more critically than if it were merely subtitled.

Ah well, Holmes I'm not.

It's not a matter of belief. The developers are aware of what the numbered thing signifies and they mentioned it in several interviews.

They consider this game to be a significant change from AC3, and it is indeed a new setting and time. The time may be close, but in the area which the game takes place that time means radically different things were happening from what was going on in AC3, plus that area is quite removed from the environment and architecture of boston, new york, and the frontier. And, as you mentioned, there is a new character.

I am in no way saying that the game is going to hold up to your expectations of a numbered title, that obviously remains to be seen.

I am simply addressing the question of "what is the thinking that went into the name", which is documented in several interviews.

Of course, it becomes a matter of belief once more if you assumed that the developers were being untruthful in said interviews. Which would be odd since declaring a game a numbered entry means it will be looked at more critically than if it were merely subtitled.

Ah well, Holmes I'm not.

It really does seem like AC4 was meant to be a spin-off/prequel to AC3 like the Ezio games. They slapped "IV" to distance it from Connor's game. If you didn't like AC3 and saw a direct sequel to it that featured Connor or the American Revolution, you'd be saying that it's just the same game with a new title. When they put the "IV" up there, it makes us think that it's moved away from the last one. Even if it's a new Assassin, it's still a part of the "Kenway saga", which relates itself to Connor's title.

Any way to distance itself from AC3, Ubisoft will use it. I personally liked AC3 as a game, but think it's best to "start over" with AC4 and move on with the "4".

Considering the fact that Ubisoft plans to dish out yearly releases on the AC franchise, it's very likely we'll be seeing another V coming out soon in the near future...

I know what they've said in all their interviews about ACIV. I also know that all those interviews came out AFTER AC3 fell on its face (by many accounts).

To be clear though, like Joey, i liked AC3... But we are not in the majority.

Eh, I dunno. It has a 3 year dev cycle, which means it's going to have as much work as any other numbered sequel done on it. So that right there is different from Brotherhood/Revelations.

Whatever the case may be, I have gotten the impression they consider it to be on the scale of a numbered sequel.

I definitely think that they have the subtitle there partially to differentiate from AC3, but since these projects have been in the works for a long time, I really think that it was a decision made unrelated to critical and audience reception.

And honestly, people have many varying opinions on AC3. There are many who like it, many who dislike it, and the other millions of people who don't use forums.

(EDIT: In the context of this particular forum, don't worry, I know the general sway of opinion and I don't begrudge it.)

That being said, they do seem as though they're hoping to respond to some criticism with black flag, though again, considering how long this project's been going on it's inconceivable that they would have only started designing the game in this way after AC3 came out.

I'm not championing the all powerful might of Ubisoft here, you know. I don't think they're perfect and I don't think their games are perfect. I just have a slightly different view of what their perspective on these matters is. And of course that is a matter of opinion, but in that case I'm just sharing my opinion.

As I've said before, I do have a lot of criticisms for the series, though generally they're things that others don't mind, and they don't often stop me from enjoying the games.

Vesferatu: I would honestly be happy if next year's game were numbered, as that would mean they were keeping up the staggered development cycle and hopefully that new game would afford opportunity for larger-scale change than one-year dev cycle games could.

If they're gonna do this, at least do it with a decent length dev cycle.