Poll: Assassin's Creed 3, Future, Past

[Jonesy911]

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?

Because no one likes saying "quadrilogy"

 

[MetalBaird]

I've not completed/played Ass creed 2.
But, i've seen all the reviews and the wee live action movie thing that Ubisoft did for it. And, The past is where its at on stealth assassin games. Splintercell has taken the future of it all. Anime has taken the way far into the future franchise. And Ass Creed 2 has way to much realism for it to be set ALL in some paralell future!
I just hope they keep it original *regardless of gameplay, this is a game setting discussion* as they have in the past.

 

[Space Spoons]

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?

Not owning the game doesn't mean I've never played it. I played the first, and found it mildly entertaining, if a bit repetitive. The sequel warranted my attention, but I wasn't impressed enough by the original to purchase it immediately, so I figured it'd be prudent to try the game out before dropping $60 on it.

I tried it. In about four hours of playtime, I found nothing but more of the same. Hence, I think it's a rehash, and therefore not worth purchasing.

 

[Ph33nix]

i think (because we all know that its an alternative timeline) ac 3 will culminate in the assassination of Hitler.

 

[MetalBaird]

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?

Not owning the game doesn't mean I've never played it. I played the first, and found it mildly entertaining, if a bit repetitive. The sequel warranted my attention, but I wasn't impressed enough by the original to purchase it immediately, so I figured it'd be prudent to try the game out before dropping $60 on it.

I tried it. In about four hours of playtime, I found nothing but more of the same. Hence, I think it's a rehash, and therefore not worth purchasing.

Then stfu before commenting about weither there should be a sequel or not? Seeing as you don't enjoy playing it that much?

 

[Space Spoons]

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?

Not owning the game doesn't mean I've never played it. I played the first, and found it mildly entertaining, if a bit repetitive. The sequel warranted my attention, but I wasn't impressed enough by the original to purchase it immediately, so I figured it'd be prudent to try the game out before dropping $60 on it.

I tried it. In about four hours of playtime, I found nothing but more of the same. Hence, I think it's a rehash, and therefore not worth purchasing.

Then stfu before commenting about weither there should be a sequel or not? Seeing as you don't enjoy playing it that much?

As I said, I thought the original was pretty okay. I think that if Ubisoft Montreal put more effort into diversifying gameplay, the next sequel could be really entertaining.

Incidentally, thinking ACII fell flat on its face when it could have excelled isn't exactly a personal attack. There's no need to get defensive about it.

 

[MetalBaird]

From now on, please refere Assassins Creed II, too, Ass Creed 2. For comic effect.
Thank you

 

[Kermi]

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?

Not owning the game doesn't mean I've never played it. I played the first, and found it mildly entertaining, if a bit repetitive. The sequel warranted my attention, but I wasn't impressed enough by the original to purchase it immediately, so I figured it'd be prudent to try the game out before dropping $60 on it.

I tried it. In about four hours of playtime, I found nothing but more of the same. Hence, I think it's a rehash, and therefore not worth purchasing.

I have my doubts about your claims. The new blending system, the changes to the weapons and combat, the way you complete your assassinations, the additional abilities... based on your gamerscore for AC1 and your claim to have spent four hours with AC2 tells me you've spent more time with AC2 than you did with AC1. Unless you spent a few hours with AC1, decided to buy it anyway, then stopped playing it.
Maybe that's why you don't see the difference. However, I personally (once again, based on achievements) have spent less time with AC1 than you, (although I did watch my wife complete the bulk of it) and even I felt it was a distinct improvement.

 

[Space Spoons]

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?

it isnt a rehash retard. a rehash is like the tomb raider games only upgrading the graphics and even having the same basic storyline, whereas acII has new weapons new story new abilities and ubisoft actually used the critisicim to make the game better. so shut up you stupid troll

I suppose we have different definitions of what constitutes a rehash. To me, the exact same gameplay, with the exact same mission structure, in a slightly different setting with weapons that are only slightly different, is not worth $60.

And since when did having a different opinion count as trolling? Seriously, now.

 

[MetalBaird]

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?

Not owning the game doesn't mean I've never played it. I played the first, and found it mildly entertaining, if a bit repetitive. The sequel warranted my attention, but I wasn't impressed enough by the original to purchase it immediately, so I figured it'd be prudent to try the game out before dropping $60 on it.

I tried it. In about four hours of playtime, I found nothing but more of the same. Hence, I think it's a rehash, and therefore not worth purchasing.

I have my doubts about your claims. The new blending system, the changes to the weapons and combat, the way you complete your assassinations, the additional abilities... based on your gamerscore for AC1 and your claim to have spent four hours with AC2 tells me you've spent more time with AC2 than you did with AC1. Unless you spent a few hours with AC1, decided to buy it anyway, then stopped playing it.
Maybe that's why you don't see the difference. However, I personally (once again, based on achievements) have spent less time with AC1 than you, (although I did watch my wife complete the bulk of it) and even I felt it was a distinct improvement.

I had Ass Creed for the ps3, so, sadly no trophies
I did enjoy it, although there were flaws, like the repetative side missions ect.
It was a unique and enjoyable game overall, and I don't have any doubts about Ass Creed 2. The kung Poo Chicken guy clearly didn't get into it because he doesn't know how stealth games/action games/storylines/history works. So. Overall. In my professional opinion as MD of Ubisoft, he should stfu

 

[Pimppeter2]

EDIT: ninja'd

 

[orangeapples]

you can have sword/blade kills in the present as bullets are traceable. also desmond is in the future idiot, its based in like 2020

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.

I meant the character Desmond relives cannot be placed in the future...

 

[Kermi]

I had Ass Creed for the ps3, so, sadly no trophies
I did enjoy it, although there were flaws, like the repetative side missions ect.
It was a unique and enjoyable game overall, and I don't have any doubts about Ass Creed 2. The kung Poo Chicken guy clearly didn't get into it because he doesn't know how stealth games/action games/storylines/history works. So. Overall. In my professional opinion as MD of Ubisoft, he should stfu

While I agree generally with what you're saying, there's no need for personal attacks. We're discussing how we feel about a game, not judging someone's character for liking different things.

 

[Space Spoons]

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?

Not owning the game doesn't mean I've never played it. I played the first, and found it mildly entertaining, if a bit repetitive. The sequel warranted my attention, but I wasn't impressed enough by the original to purchase it immediately, so I figured it'd be prudent to try the game out before dropping $60 on it.

I tried it. In about four hours of playtime, I found nothing but more of the same. Hence, I think it's a rehash, and therefore not worth purchasing.

I have my doubts about your claims. The new blending system, the changes to the weapons and combat, the way you complete your assassinations, the additional abilities... based on your gamerscore for AC1 and your claim to have spent four hours with AC2 tells me you've spent more time with AC2 than you did with AC1. Unless you spent a few hours with AC1, decided to buy it anyway, then stopped playing it.
Maybe that's why you don't see the difference. However, I personally (once again, based on achievements) have spent less time with AC1 than you, (although I did watch my wife complete the bulk of it) and even I felt it was a distinct improvement.

AC1 was one of the first 360 games I purchased. I'd followed the development history of it, thought it sounded really interesting, and determined that if I ever bought a "next-gen" console, I'd play it. And so, I did.

You're correct, I still haven't finished it. To be honest, every time I play it, I end up getting distracted with murdering rooftop guards and starting fistfights in the streets. It's a bit like a medieval Grand Theft Auto for me. That, and I wasn't eager to resume playing as Desmond in "the real world", since I found it really boring.

I wouldn't say I spent more actual time with ACII, though I certainly made more progress. I didn't spend nearly as much time "messing around" with it as I did with the original, because I was eager to get to "the good stuff". You know, Da Vinci's Flying machines, the Spanish Inquisition, stuff like that. Such moments were few and far between, I'm afraid.

As I said, the changes to scenery and weaponry were interesting, but in my opinion, minor; it just wasn't enough to warrant the purchase.

 

[orangeapples]

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.

this topic says there is a poll. I wanted to vote...

 

[Daedalus1942]

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.

Well the entire game is set in the future mate, but as for the ancestor featured. I wouldn't be surprised if it's in a Feudal china or Japan setting as to the left of Altair there's an asian assassin statue in the crypt underneath the villa. Yes, it's a crappy guess, but I'm just hoping it's set in an asian country.

 

[MetalBaird]

I had Ass Creed for the ps3, so, sadly no trophies
I did enjoy it, although there were flaws, like the repetative side missions ect.
It was a unique and enjoyable game overall, and I don't have any doubts about Ass Creed 2. The kung Poo Chicken guy clearly didn't get into it because he doesn't know how stealth games/action games/storylines/history works. So. Overall. In my professional opinion as MD of Ubisoft, he should stfu

While I agree generally with what you're saying, there's no need for personal attacks. We're discussing how we feel about a game, not judging someone's character for liking different things.

I'm sorry. I am, quite drunk.
I'm just commenting on the topic of this discussion. weither the next Ass Creed will be in the past or future. And i've not played Ass Creed 2 yet. I don't want to know if its good *from the general gamer point of view* or bad. My apologies if offences were caused *bows*

 

[orangeapples]

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.

Well the entire game is set in the future mate, but as for the ancestor featured. I would be surprised if it's in a Feudal china or Japan setting as to the left of Altair there's an asian assassin statue in the crypt underneath the villa. Yes, it's a crappy guess, but I'm just hoping it's set in an asian country.

so AC3 could be a ninja game?

I don't know how I feel about that...