Poll: Assassin's Creed 3, Future, Past

Recommended Videos

Donttazemehbro

New member
Nov 24, 2009
509
0
0
For those of you who have finish the game, even those of you have not, do you believe that Assassin's creed 3 should be set in the future, or past and is it worth getting after AC 2.
 

Space Spoons

New member
Aug 21, 2008
3,335
0
0
I think Ubisoft Montreal should focus on making sure the inevitable sequel doesn't feel like as much of a giant chore as the first two, first of all.
 

Kuchinawa212

New member
Apr 23, 2009
5,408
0
0
I don't think they really NEED a AC3, maybe a AC2 add on. More assassinations and the such. Could be fun. Just DLC instead of going through all these times during history. What if they run out of ideas Assassin's Creed: Caveman? Do you use a club as your tool of the trade in that game?
 

Computer-Noob

New member
Mar 21, 2009
491
0
0
In AC3, you should be a caveman.

Hard to be stealthy with big CLUBS. Thats where the real skills come into play.
 

JRCB

New member
Jan 11, 2009
4,387
0
0
As my friend said, it should be set in London during the Industrial revolution.
 

orangeapples

New member
Aug 1, 2009
1,836
0
0
I don't think Assassin's Creed could be set in the future. the Animus only shows the actions of Desmond's ancestors, right? So how could it show the actions of his descendants?

*I have only played AC1.

I think the Renaissance is the latest they could place the game, because after that, guns are in use, and everyone knows that assassinations with guns are just not as cool as assassinations with hidden blades and swords and other low tech devices.

I'd put AC3 during the Roman Empire or at least during the Bronze Age. The creed could go that far back.
 

CSB Fisher

New member
Nov 4, 2009
56
0
0
orangeapples said:
I don't think Assassin's Creed could be set in the future. the Animus only shows the actions of Desmond's ancestors, right? So how could it show the actions of his descendants?

*I have only played AC1.

I think the Renaissance is the latest they could place the game, because after that, guns are in use, and everyone knows that assassinations with guns are just not as cool as assassinations with hidden blades and swords and other low tech devices.

I'd put AC3 during the Roman Empire or at least during the Bronze Age. The creed could go that far back.
It goes way further back than that I thought, like since the begining of recorded history far.
 

Kermi

Elite Member
Nov 7, 2007
2,538
0
41
Space Spoons said:
I think Ubisoft Montreal should focus on making sure the inevitable sequel doesn't feel like as much of a giant chore as the first two, first of all.


Good thing your opinion is informed, or I might question it's validity.
 

Space Spoons

New member
Aug 21, 2008
3,335
0
0
Kermi said:
Space Spoons said:
I think Ubisoft Montreal should focus on making sure the inevitable sequel doesn't feel like as much of a giant chore as the first two, first of all.


Good thing your opinion is informed, or I might question it's validity.
I don't own the game because it's a rehash of the original. Do you see how that works?
 

robman1130

New member
Nov 9, 2009
190
0
0
*spoilers*




the ending to assassin's creed 2 was i giant fist to the face saying desmond is the next one
 

Kermi

Elite Member
Nov 7, 2007
2,538
0
41
orangeapples said:
I don't think Assassin's Creed could be set in the future. the Animus only shows the actions of Desmond's ancestors, right? So how could it show the actions of his descendants?
Assassin's Creed is set in the not-too-distant future. AC2 explores the idea of a bleed effect, in which Desmond can gain the abilities of an assassin by reliving his ancestor's memories.
 

Kubanator

New member
Dec 7, 2008
261
0
0
Space Spoons said:
I don't own the game because it's a rehash of the original. Do you see how that works?
You don't own it because you THINK it's a rehash of the original.
 

Kermi

Elite Member
Nov 7, 2007
2,538
0
41
Space Spoons said:
Kermi said:
Space Spoons said:
I think Ubisoft Montreal should focus on making sure the inevitable sequel doesn't feel like as much of a giant chore as the first two, first of all.


Good thing your opinion is informed, or I might question it's validity.
I don't own the game because it's a rehash of the original. Do you see how that works?
I point to my original comment, which inferred that not having played the game your comments can hardly be considered a reasonable assessment of what the game offers.

Do you see how that works?

I personally found AC2 to be quite fresh, with several great improvements in the gameplay and storytelling compared to the original.
But if you want to stand by your "I haven't played it but still know everything about it" position, who am I to stop you?
 

Pimppeter2

New member
Dec 31, 2008
16,479
0
0
I think the WW2 setting could actually be lots of fun. But I would love a French Revolution Era one

Why do games always have to be in trilogies?
 

Jonesy911

New member
Jul 6, 2009
789
0
0
Space Spoons said:
Kermi said:
Space Spoons said:
I think Ubisoft Montreal should focus on making sure the inevitable sequel doesn't feel like as much of a giant chore as the first two, first of all.


Good thing your opinion is informed, or I might question it's validity.
I don't own the game because it's a rehash of the original. Do you see how that works?
Saying AC2 is a rehash of AC1 is like saying Half life is a rehash of wolfenstein 3d, it makes no sense
 

Space Spoons

New member
Aug 21, 2008
3,335
0
0
Kubanator said:
Space Spoons said:
I don't own the game because it's a rehash of the original. Do you see how that works?
You don't own it because you THINK it's a rehash of the original.
Yes, that's generally the idea behind an opinion.

Granted, I only had three or four hours of hands-on time with the game, but that should be more than enough to prove whether or not it's a distinct experience.