Poll: So... Assassin's Creed

[Scarecrow1001]

I am a massive Ubisoft/Assassin's Cred fanboy. There is literally no sense in denying it. I own everything related to Assassin's Creed I can find, going so far as to pre-order the games months in advance. I LOVE the franchise. Yet, with Unity (although I do not own it yet, thanks to Australia) has been getting comparatively low review scores. I know reviews aren't everything, but when a general consensus across numerous sources state the same thing, that the game could have 'used more time in the oven', there is a problem. My plan here, however stupid it is, is to e-mail Ubisoft with the results herein, if they support my view, to show them that the fans don't want a Yearly AC title, but instead could suffice with one at most every two years, with a significantly higher quality. So please vote below, and allow your voice in this matter to be heard.

 

[Scarecrow1001]

Edit
The forum title should read 'Should the Assassin's Creed series take at least a year off', but it screwed up. Apologies.

 

[Rubblemaker]

The incredible thing is that, after years of making it clear, people still don't understand how AC games are made. They OVERLAP. So they don't spend just one year making one, and the yearly release date is not cause for concern in the sense of them 'rushing' the games and releasing sub par titles. They're not rushing them.

At any given time they'll have 2 or more in development and each one gets about 4 years development time before its released (and 4 years is a pretty respectable amount of time). Due to the timeframe in which they started making these games, way back when, and their commitment to the AC franchise from day one, they're able to put out one per year because one of the games in development reaches the end of its 4 year dev cycle each year. Its all to do with how they planned the franchise's future back when AC1 was in development.

Now that of course doesn't excuse quality issues, which, if they still exist in a title thats been 4 years in development deserve to turn that titles name into mud. As we can see playing out right now with Unity. Poor Unity But any quality issues we see aren't a result of the yearly release schedule. Case in point, how long did we wait between Oblivion and Skyrim? ?. nuff said...

Personally, I love these games and think there are plenty of FAR worse quality games on offer out there. I think the AC games are some of the highest quality games we get actually! and I don't see a problem with having another one to play each year. After all, its not like each one takes longer than a year to complete is it?

Viva La Creed!!

 

[Trivun]

I haven't yet played Black Flag, let alone the new ones, and haven't been able to get the handheld games due to lack of console ownership for those. So I definitely agree that the series should take some time off, for the quality issues and also to give me time to get the newer games and actually play those. I don't have a next gen console yet, and want to wait until I've bought a PS3 (within the next few weeks) before getting Black Flag (due to the exclusive content) - I've been a fan since the very start but haven't been able to follow the series properly because of the constant releases, and if Ubisoft don't want me (and many others) to fall behind and just end up losing interest then they need to start slowing things down...

 

[Ferisar]

The incredible thing is that, after years of making it clear, people still don't understand how AC games are made. They OVERLAP. So they don't spend just one year making one, and the yearly release date is not cause for concern in the sense of them 'rushing' the games and releasing sub par titles. They're not rushing them.

At any given time they'll have 2 or more in development and each one gets about 4 years development time before its released (and 4 years is a pretty respectable amount of time). Due to the timeframe in which they started making these games, way back when, and their commitment to the AC franchise from day one, they're able to put out one per year because one of the games in development reaches the end of its 4 year dev cycle each year. Its all to do with how they planned the franchise's future back when AC1 was in development.

Now that of course doesn't excuse quality issues, which, if they still exist in a title thats been 4 years in development deserve to turn that titles name into mud. As we can see playing out right now with Unity. Poor Unity But any quality issues we see aren't a result of the yearly release schedule. Case in point, how long did we wait between Oblivion and Skyrim? ?. nuff said...

Personally, I love these games and think there are plenty of FAR worse quality games on offer out there. I think the AC games are some of the highest quality games we get actually! and I don't see a problem with having another one to play each year. After all, its not like each one takes longer than a year to complete is it?

Viva La Creed!!

Pretty much with this guy. Assassin's Creed is hardly awful, regardless of their publishing company. They have a very solid release and development schedule and planning I'm honestly jealous of. If there's any franchise I don't mind being annual and triple-A, its this one. I just wish their publisher would just...

You know...

YOU KNOW.

But yeah, the reviews/scores of Assassin's Creed depend entirely on how much they add, even without switching up the overall game formula. I don't think you've got much to worry about as far as reviews, honestly. From having seen it played by others through things like Twitch, if you're a fan of the games, this one just looks like more of that game. Now, you might find that by the end you were itching for something else, but that's, as you said, best solved via either feedback or just going "eh, maybe I'll hold off on the one next year."

 

[Rubblemaker]

I don't have a next gen console yet, and want to wait until I've bought a PS3 (within the next few weeks) before getting Black Flag (due to the exclusive content) - I've been a fan since the very start but haven't been able to follow the series properly because of the constant releases, and if Ubisoft don't want me (and many others) to fall behind and just end up losing interest then they need to start slowing things down...

Constant releases? slowing things down? you make it sound like they're releasing one per week instead of per year. I don't know about you but I imagine the majority of peeps probably take a few weeks to get through an AC game. Perhaps a month or so if you don't find time to play most evenings. I mean, really? whats the harm of having another one to play after waiting 11 months without an AC game on the go? or would you rather wait for a few years without any AC games to play? That sounds like fun! I can pretty much guarantee that doing so would not result in a bug free game either. Not in this day and age, sadly. It would just result in having nothing new from your favourite game franchise for a very, very long time. Nothing more, not a higher quality title from a series that is already very high quality.

And citing the fact that you don't have a PS3 yet as a reason for the yearly schedule to change is not the most concrete of reasons Or did you mean PS4?

 

[XSTALKERX]

OH GOD YES. not just one but maybe 3 or four, make the people miss it and then bring it back. Maybe I'm just not the target audience for the series but I truly think that the Assassins creed series is some of the most boring games that was ever made. I just can't see how climbing up a fucking viewpoint for the millionth time is fun, it was fun the first few times but it got boring in the middle of the first game.

And you know what why is the AC series open world huh? There's nothing interesting to do or to see, it's all the same old repetitive shit that's been done before. Climb this tower, collect this feather/flag/page/chest/trinket, do random uninspired assassin mission number 142, free this tower/fort for the umpteenth time, do this boring side mission, do this dumb courier mission, and it just goes on and on. The only interesting side things the series ever had was going into those crypts to find the those key things for Altiar's armor in the second one. Oh and let's not forget Ezio's never ending quests to buy all the shops in Italy and Connor's mission to just fucking upgrade his homestead. I AM A GODDAMN ASSASSIN WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I CARE ABOUT ANY OF THIS!!!??

OH and don't get me started on the gameplay, either the Templars hire the most incompetent and useless guards or the assassins has super powers that's never been explained. If I can slaughter massive amounts of guards in the streets then you know something went wrong. Are we playing as an assassin or are we playing as a super mutant killing machine?

You know I would have really liked this series if it was just much more focused on being an assassin, almost like the hitman series.
I would have love the series if it had a more linear progression where where we are tasked to assassinate an important figure and then the next. But then we big open ended levels, that have interesting stuff to go and do. No dumb side mission where you're just a courier or collector but rather each and every side mission be interesting and unique in a way, that gives you're more information about the target at the end.

Like imagine it being more like the first AC where you arrive at a city and you need to kill some templar. All you know is his name and vaguely what he does, and some leads in which you can track him down. So now we go around the city and do investigations on where to find the target, what is his weakness?, where will he be and when?, who's guarding him?, is he a skilled fighter or merely just a fat guy with power?, etc. Then when we have the information we plan what will be the best way to kill him. For example: Corrupt templar sells weapons and warships. During the day he resides on his warship near the dock but is extremely well defended on his ship, in the evenings however you can find him in the one of the castle towers where he spend the night with his mistress. So now we can choose to try and take him out on is ship, but it will be virtually impossible because you can't sneak aboard it and you won't be able to take on more than two guards at a time. We can try and wait by the docks and when he leaves his ship we can try and strike then. Or we can wait until midnight, the castle is lightly defended, and so we climb the tower sneak past the guards, enter his room through a window and kill him then and there with his pants down.

My biggest problem with the AC series is not that it actually has bad games but just the fact that most of them are utterly, extremely BORING. Just.... so..... completely boring.

 

[Trivun]

I don't have a next gen console yet, and want to wait until I've bought a PS3 (within the next few weeks) before getting Black Flag (due to the exclusive content) - I've been a fan since the very start but haven't been able to follow the series properly because of the constant releases, and if Ubisoft don't want me (and many others) to fall behind and just end up losing interest then they need to start slowing things down...

Constant releases? slowing things down? you make it sound like they're releasing one per week instead of per year. I don't know about you but I imagine the majority of peeps probably take a few weeks to get through an AC game. Perhaps a month or so if you don't find time to play most evenings. I mean, really? whats the harm of having another one to play after waiting 11 months without an AC game on the go? or would you rather wait for a few years without any AC games to play? That sounds like fun! I can pretty much guarantee that doing so would not result in a bug free game either. Not in this day and age, sadly. It would just result in having nothing new from your favourite game franchise for a very, very long time. Nothing more, not a higher quality title from a series that is already very high quality.

And citing the fact that you don't have a PS3 yet as a reason for the yearly schedule to change is not the most concrete of reasons Or did you mean PS4?

Constant releases doesn't necessarily mean one every month or week - one a year is certainly regular enough to be considered 'constant', especially considering the number of spinoff titles and all the fluff material in the form of books, comics, etc. that serve to expand the story (yes, they're not games, but the point is still valid in terms of over-saturation - and I'm not blaming Ubisoft for that, other developers are just as guilty on that front...). And yes, most people probably do only take a few weeks to play the game, myself included - when they actually have it. My point here is that not everybody is going to have a PS4 or Xbox One to be able to play the likes of Unity, and although Rogue is also out (strange how nobody seems to be mentioning that at all...) it means that we're stuck for the time being, until we can save up enough to buy the next gen consoles. I know that a bug-free game won't result, which is why I barely mentioned the quality issues (which to me aren't that big a deal - I've only ever encountered two bugs when playing the series myself, and only one was a game-breaker [in AC: Revelations] and a hard reset of the console was enough to fix it). All in all, it just seems to me that you're trying to pick an actual argument based purely on my own personal opinion...

Also, about not having a PS3 - I did mean the PS3, yes. I have an Xbox 360, but I don't want to get Black Flag for it because the PS3 version has exclusive Sony-only content. I want to buy a PS3 anyway now they're cheaper, due to all the previous exclusive titles I couldn't play (most notably, though not limited to, the original Silent Hill on PSN, Uncharted, and Heavy Rain). I'll be progressing to next-gen once I can actually start saving for better consoles.

 

[shrekfan246]

Honestly, at this point my problem with Assassin's Creed is more with their formula in general and obstinate refusal to evolve in any meaningful way.

No, Ubisoft, I don't care that you can customize your assassin's outfit to some extreme detail and that you've brought back the pointless weapon system that existed in II. (Or was it Brotherhood that had the ridiculous number of weapons?)

No, Ubisoft, I really don't care about some pointless co-op that you put in mostly so you can say there's something new.

No, Ubisoft, I don't care about more dense crowds of population (that the player has less interaction with than in previous games) which are mostly there to distract from some of the more glaring issues the game apparently has.

I care that your combat system is and always has been a huge pile of junk, and you've never done anything to actually fix it despite multiple other games in the same style showing you how to do it far better.

I care that you routinely break your stealth systems with every other game, and long ago lost sight of any semblance of "assassin" left in Assassin's Creed.

I care that you think passing your games along to every single studio under your control over the course of four years will magically make a good game appear, instead of a game that is stilted, weirdly balanced, and has a ton of bugs that nobody caught because nobody was working on it for a long enough single period.

I care that you seem to believe the best way to make an open world game is to stuff so much pointless filler into it that the main story + a few side missions here and there only takes up <38% of the overall "completion percentage", and that you managed to usher in a new age of open world games that will mark every single collectable and side-quest and everything on the player's map, effectively negating the need to actually explore or pay attention.

I care that you've actually somehow managed to make the controls for your parkour worse rather than better as your games have gone on.

I like Black Flag in spite of it being an Assassin's Creed title, not because of it, Ubisoft.

 

[MirenBainesUSMC]

I'm afraid I lost interest when they sent Ezio to New Constantinople. He was grey and old, becoming more of a spy/assassin master than when he was younger and bashing into things on the coat-tails of his anger and emotions.

The terrible story arc and handling of our Adam Sandler looking Desmond. That went down the tubes. Then the peculiar AC III came along. Didn't take long to see it wasn't what it was hyped to be and the Assassin you play...well... was down played as to his role in the war with a myriad of problems.

I do have Black flag still sealed in plastic. If I wanted to know what it was like to be in a Patrick O'Brien novel, I would have continued to be in service and ask for a transfer to a small ship and enjoy the motion sickness every time a storm came.

I just think the series has ran out of ideas at this point. It should have found it's ending and been sent on its way. Its really about the changing time line. The European powers and the evolution of technology is peaking towards steam and gun-powder at this point, leaving the romantic and mysterious back drop of Ancient History. I think most people were attracted to Assassins Creed because they could roam around the various places they read in World History. Just look at all the good stuff they did skip over in their mad dash for the 1800's. Rome. Ancient Egypt. Wild Britania. Gaul. Medieval Germany. Medieval Russia. No love given to the Asian side of the world.

And it really doesn't fit too well if we go to NYC 20th Century. Now you are becoming a cheap version of Batman without Bruce Wayne and company.

What can I say --- its run its course.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I'll come out and say it, I'm very biased here towards the first two games. I really stopped enjoying them as much since they started being less and less about the, y'know, ASSASSINATIONS. The rest of the stuff that started being introduced started to feel really pointless in AC3, I wouldn't say not fun because it was as much fun as it was in Red Dead Redemption (hunting as an example), but the main part of the story just stopped drawing me in.

I really liked the whole assassination being a plotted thing, with strategies, back up plans, surveillance, from stalking, killing and escaping. After the first two, it feels like "there's your target, run up to him, put a spike in his neck and run off". I haven't really read or researched much about Unity, but it looks like they're trying to get back to their roots with this one? Anyway, doesn't seem to be received as well as the whole ship battle simulator thing, but I'd have to look into it a bit more or give it a shot before commenting further.

 

[Scarecrow1001]

The incredible thing is that, after years of making it clear, people still don't understand how AC games are made. They OVERLAP. So they don't spend just one year making one, and the yearly release date is not cause for concern in the sense of them 'rushing' the games and releasing sub par titles. They're not rushing them.

At any given time they'll have 2 or more in development and each one gets about 4 years development time before its released (and 4 years is a pretty respectable amount of time). Due to the timeframe in which they started making these games, way back when, and their commitment to the AC franchise from day one, they're able to put out one per year because one of the games in development reaches the end of its 4 year dev cycle each year. Its all to do with how they planned the franchise's future back when AC1 was in development.

Now that of course doesn't excuse quality issues, which, if they still exist in a title thats been 4 years in development deserve to turn that titles name into mud. As we can see playing out right now with Unity. Poor Unity But any quality issues we see aren't a result of the yearly release schedule. Case in point, how long did we wait between Oblivion and Skyrim? ?. nuff said...

Personally, I love these games and think there are plenty of FAR worse quality games on offer out there. I think the AC games are some of the highest quality games we get actually! and I don't see a problem with having another one to play each year. After all, its not like each one takes longer than a year to complete is it?

Viva La Creed!!

I agree, frankly.
I have news for Ubisoft, Assassin's Creed and Unity all bookmarked, and am convinced I have read almost every article on it. I know the four year Dev cycle, and, don't get me wrong, I played some of Unity today, (not a lot, got to study for my final Year 12 exam and whatnot) and I completely love it so far. But the problem I find is that there are bugs, there are production issues. Giving it extra time in any one studio would make a more rounded and complete game. I know there are outliers, but the majority of people do think that Assassin's Creed 2 was the best in the franchise. This was when the series was still small enough that Ubisoft believed they could risk the two year break. And it was fantastic! As much as I am adoring Unity, I just cannot help but wonder how much better it would have been given more time, both before release and as shreckfan246 mentioned, in each studio.

 

[Scarecrow1001]

Apologies for the double post, but I recieved a response from a Ubisoft representative.
Thanks for the feedback, Paul.

I'd agree that there are a lot of risks in annual releases. Considering the scope of each AC game, I'm surprised we get them every year. It would be good to allow the games more time for testing and bug fixing. I suspect this is a monster of our own making; a fear of share-holders freaking out if we don't announce an AC product each year

I personally believe there's nothing wrong with annual releases of any series, but it wouldn't hurt to have different sized projects alternating each year. A smaller team on a smaller AC project would probably still make a great game without the added pressure of a massive budget. AC Chronicles, part of the DLC for Unity, might be a step in this direction!

Currently there's a lot of fixes for Unity in the works, especially for PC users. Expect to see some extra stability added to frame rates and fixed AI behaviour over the coming days..

Captcha: patience, child
Well look, what did you want me to do?! NOT tell people?

 

[Netrigan]

I'll come out and say it, I'm very biased here towards the first two games. I really stopped enjoying them as much since they started being less and less about the, y'know, ASSASSINATIONS. The rest of the stuff that started being introduced started to feel really pointless in AC3, I wouldn't say not fun because it was as much fun as it was in Red Dead Redemption (hunting as an example), but the main part of the story just stopped drawing me in.

I really liked the whole assassination being a plotted thing, with strategies, back up plans, surveillance, from stalking, killing and escaping. After the first two, it feels like "there's your target, run up to him, put a spike in his neck and run off". I haven't really read or researched much about Unity, but it looks like they're trying to get back to their roots with this one? Anyway, doesn't seem to be received as well as the whole ship battle simulator thing, but I'd have to look into it a bit more or give it a shot before commenting further.

So far, I'm enjoying it. Some issues, but no where near the bug-fest of the Fallout games. Free-running and climbing feels a bit sloppy, but they redid the controls and now that I'm actually using the right buttons (one button makes you go up, another down), I'm finding my problems with that are mostly gone. On the very plus side, the Suicidal Assassin has only reared its head twice with Arno steadfastly refusing to jump or drop to his doom 99% of the time.

It really is a back-to-basics game. Most of the fancier moves are gone, so you can't use a guard as a human shield for an easy kill. It's extremely easy to find yourself dead in fights as large groups of guards will over-whelm you and heavies inflict a lot of damage. Assassinations are mini-sandbox affairs, not unlike Hitman where you get to figure out how to approach it. Equipment is actually pretty damn important as different gear allows you to carry more of a certain item or give you other perks.

Personally, I wish they'd split the Ass Creed games into two franchises. One with a more action-oriented focus (maybe centered on the Templars) where it's all about coming up with cool new stuff like naval battles. The other expanding on what works in Unity so you get something which is much more about planning and executing assassinations.

 

[A Distant Star]

Edit
The forum title should read 'Should the Assassin's Creed series take at least a year off', but it screwed up. Apologies.

I don't get it. They don't even need to take a year off. They released a perfectly good AC game that works with out any major problems, that still innovates on what came before. Only, for what ever reason, they released if for last-gen systems.

I do not understand why they didn't release Rogue for both last and current gen and leave Unity in the oven a little longer to work out the kinks.

*bought both games, hasn't played Unity yet.

 

[Malpraxis]

I know I may seem crazy for suggesting it, but... why don't you pretend they're released after a couple of years?. As far as I'm concerned, the multiplayer is pretty forgettable, so that's no excuse. Wait a year or two without playing them and you'll find them at a fraction of the price, with all DLC, and most of the issues already patched.

No one forces anyone to buy their products on day 1, and like many posters have said before me, waiting more time between releases won't result in less bugs. So basically you're asking to deprive people who want a yearly AC of their game, because if you don't want it, nobody can have it. Investors and multiple development teams who make a living working on them be damned. Seems pretty selfish.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Considering the game is an utter debacle on PC and console, I wouldn't touch it even if I were a big fan, at least not right now.

When it's got pop in, crashing issues and the fact that any kind of anti-aliasing kills it on even a godly system, I won't be bothering. Especially since instead of optimizing their game, they just jacked up the minimum requirements to be very high end(if not top of the line) graphics cards. Nothing should require a GTX 680 or HD 7970 to play.

 

[Ieyke]

The problem isn't really that Unity didn't have enough time. It's that they ALSO made Rogue at the same time and don't fully know how to make games for the PS4 yet.
They have to finish getting their skills upgraded to meshing with the new hardware level, and they need to give the game their undivided attention.

 

[not_you]

snip

Seriously, this... all of this... I haven't played Unity yet, (but I know I will purely because of the co-op and friends wanting another to dick about on rooftops with)

But Ubisoft don't seem to understand what it is they're doing wrong...
At the end of the day, (as the response OP got via email) we shouldn't completely blame Ubisoft (although they're not free of fault), I'm sure the programmers/artists try their best to do what they can in the time they're allowed, but if the investors and managers or whatever had any idea on how the games industry worked, then they might understand how hard it is to actually make a game...

But yeah, that's how I see it... Most of the issues should have been picked up by QA anyway... Like, does anyone playtest these days?