Assassins Creed Revelations; Is It Going Too Far?

[LebbyLegs]

Many people thought that Assassins Creed Brotherhood was an obvious cash-in that did little to advance the Assassins Creed franchise.
While I think the game was fun, it evolved little in the gameplay department and the whole story felt meandering and aimless, like it could be cut completely with little detriment to the overall series.
But even I think that the newly announced Assassins Creed Revelations is taking it too far, STILL playing as Ezio and STILL being set in the Renassaince (however you spell that bloody word).
Despite being set in Constantinople, I still don't think this is a fresh enough change for the series. And as much as I'd like to play as Ezio in his fifties, climbing around spires whilst grumpily complaining that his back aches, the story can't do much more than stagnate in a plot that after Brotherhood is already stagnating.
There are so many amazing time periods and locations that would be perfect for an Assassins Creed game, that Ubisoft simply isn't exploiting; Colonial British Empire, The East, America, The French Revolution etc.
Its still early days and theres always a chance that Ubisoft will prove me wrong and it will be fresh and exciting with a story that feels important as well as setting the scene for the third Assassins Creed game.
What are your thoughts on Revelations? Where do you think the franchise should be heading?

 

[BlackIvory]

Haven't played Brotherhood yet, (going to soon) but maybe there's a point to this, to keep the story together as a plot. I mean just "randomly" jumping from 1 time period to the next can have its faults too, basically every piece would be streched to thin. Besides from what I understand Revelations is the last in the series with Ezio, so at least that eh?

 

[Tomo Stryker]

Wait? Its still concentrating on Ezio? Oh for the love of intergalactic aliens! I got tired of him around the end of the second game, screw this I'm going back to the first game and waiting until they transfer straight into Desmond's story.

 

[Phlakes]

It's focusing on Altair, Ezio, and Desmond, probably equally but with emphasis on closure in Ezio's story.

And personally, I think they should've skipped Brotherhood and gone straight to 3, either as Desmond or as a new character in a new time. Hopefully that'll finally come next.

 

[Zhukov]

Eh? What? There's another one already?

Huh.

I'm still laboriously dragging myself through Brotherhood. It's pretty tough going.

Anyway, the series has always had a bit of a problem in terms of plot. The first one was downright weak, the second one started out alright then shat itself inside-out toward the end, and Brotherhood just sort of meanders about while occasionally bumping into walls.

I suspect Ubisoft are just trying to play out the series for all it's worth at this point. After all, the games are good sellers. No reason to let go of a good thing, right?

Hm, maybe I'm being overly negative. Still... ugh.

 

[Mr Thin]

I think they threw out the awesome 'new ancestor every game' thing they had going when they made Brotherhood.

It's quite tedious having Ezio again, even though I like the guy; I just hope they actually give us a real frigging ending this time.

 

[Brian Hendershot]

I love Assassins Creed, don't get me wrong, but I am getting pretty damn tired of having a new assassins creed game come out every single year. Or at least it seems like that to me. Anyhow, I hope this gem of a series doesn't get milked dry like some sort of cash cow/ cheap hooker mutant.

EDIT: I would like to see new locations for the Assassins Creed series (those cool statues in Assassin's creed 2 caught my eye), but to me it would make more sense if the game stayed roughly in the same areas/locales/characters. I mean, an assassin in Great Britain would be believable. but somewhere like Japan, Africa, or Russia? Nah, I don't see that happening.

EDIT2: Not sure how I feel about Brotherhood. All I know was it was both the single player and the multi-player were insanely easy. And furthermore, am I the only one that misses the assassination missions and long lengthy speeches from the first Assassin's Creed?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

If they decide that Ezio's the man again, then I'm gonna be a little irritated, I felt like they were pretty set up to finish the story (his story and the future as well) after Brotherhood. Desmond's got Assassin skills, Lucy is (potentially) dead and Abstergo is going to be finished with his army of Parkour-practicing, Hidden Gun ganking army of Templars in short order, and the story of the old gods has finally found it's way to the future and straight up given Desmond what was distinctly a prophecy to fulfill, so I have no clue why they would even elect to introduce another ancestor other than as a parallel for Desmond "finishing the fight" so to speak, one more person from a more recent time who he has to keep jumping back to to find clues more relevant to his current situation. At this point I'm not worried that they're cashing in, I thoroughly enjoyed Brotherhood, found that there was enough gameplay innovation (in the now more aggressive and flowing combat) to satisfy me since gameplay has never really been the series' issue, and I felt that while it did tend to meander that the last half hour to hour served as a solid ending to Ezio's story and a perfect fucking setup into AC3. I mean Christ, he killed Cesare, acquired the Apple and squirreled it away under the Coliseum, what the fuck does he really have left to do at that point?

Maybe it'll turn out that Revelations IS in fact the final game and they're trying to put us on with the numberlessness and subtitle. I sure hope to christ it is, because I'm personally getting to the point where as much as I love the series, I may flat out not have time in my life for gaming when they finally deign to finish what they fucking started, and I do not want to be left out of it. At least Mass Effect is having the decency to come out this winter and let me finish that story so I don't have it hanging over my head for years.


Brian Hendershot: I do miss the somewhat more unique feel of some of the assassinations from the first game (William of Montferrat comes to mind) but i sure as shit don't miss the unskippable cutscenes of exposition that make no sense in context with the game, it's incredibly immersion breaking to say that "Ezio would often question his targets" when the "questioning" takes five minutes that he wouldn't have since every target is killed in front of a small army of soldiers. Ezio's quick "requiescat in pace" sat much better for me.

 

[Saelune]

You say this as if they have to make a new character everytime. Hell we could still be in the middle east during the Crusades as Altair.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I want to see Assassin's Creed in Victorian London. That would be a game worth buying. I like the AC games, but Revelations doesn't seem that appealing.

 

[LebbyLegs]

You say this as if they have to make a new character everytime. Hell we could still be in the middle east during the Crusades as Altair.

No, but Ezio and the Renaissance is dragging on a bit

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I love Assassins Creed, don't get me wrong, but I am getting pretty damn tired of having a new assassins creed game come out every single year. Or at least it seems like that to me. Anyhow, I hope this gem of a series doesn't get milked dry like some sort of cash cow/ cheap hooker mutant.

EDIT: I would like to see new locations for the Assassins Creed series (those cool statues in Assassin's creed 2 caught my eye), but to me it would make more sense if the game stayed roughly in the same areas/locales/characters. I mean, an assassin in Great Britain would be believable. but somewhere like Japan, Africa, or Russia? Nah, I don't see that happening.

EDIT2: Not sure how I feel about Brotherhood. All I know was it was both the single player and the multi-player were insanely easy. And furthermore, am I the only one that misses the assassination missions and long lengthy speeches from the first Assassin's Creed?

I don't see why Africa is such a huge stretch. I mean, Egypt would make for a pretty cool game, plus it's already even built into the story (one of the assassin's mentioned in AC2 killed Cleopatra).

If done properly, quite a few places could easily tie into the Assassin's Creed universe without seeming forced. Hell, personally I would love to see an AC game set in India. Would make for some interesting gameplay, and maybe a few stealthy jungle sections added to the urban parkour elements we already have.