18th century Paris this time. Its going to take place during the French Revolution and center around a new assassin named Arno There is also apparently another assassins creed game coming out with this one this fall. They are just cranking them out now aren't they? Black Flag was my favorite in the series, but wow.
(please log in to view the image)
(please log in to view the image)
__________________
PWNT
Last edited by Arachnid1 on Mar 20th, 2014 at 02:26 AM
Its been theorized that it means you have much greater control on how to run. AC has the really annoying ability to not go somewhere where you want to go. Maybe the up/down stops that from happening.
The one-a-year model made me jump ship on this series. I can't get excited about any new release at this point. Maybe I'll wait another year or two, read the wiki synopses of the games in between and just skip them, so it will finally feel like a new experience again instead of the same game with new skins and maps.
Fair enough. But I played all of them through 3, and a lot of them were just new skins and maps. I can't even remember the differences between the three games with Ezio. The series has been treading water since Brotherhood, imo, though I can't comment in-depth on 4.
Also, what Smas said. There's only so much I can do the same core gameplay.
Ubisoft has said that different teams are making the game but there is a core group that oversees the franchise. They make all the decisions.
So it is done by the same studio.
I really enjoyed 4 but I also have a soft spot for Sid Meiers Pirates and I got the same feeling when I was playing AC4. But it still follows the exact structure that all the other AC games do.
Like I said before, I want Japan! Ninjas! Samurais! Huge open field battles! Sign me up!
Agreed with this. Pirates and Ninjas were the main two eras I wanted to explore. I got pirates, and that became my favorite AC game. Give me ninjas! Its the only way you'll compare!
"To all visitors from Transylvania looking for the head of Voivode Dracula: Yes, we have it. Yes, he's dead. No, you cannot see it. No, he will not return and invade you again. It has been over thirty years, please stop pestering us."
Well it was a continuation in terms of the story instead of the gameplay. That said, Brotherhood wasn't that great. At least in terms of the Ezio storyline. It was pretty much just treading water, killing a new bunch of bad guys for contrived reasons while significant story elements happened to Desmond. But I thought Revelations was rather excellent on the Ezio (and Altiar) front, while Desmond was the guy just treading water. With some backstory thrown in to try to make him less dull.
It seems like the series is samey because of the one a year release schedule and the lack of real gameplay development. But I don't really think theres much need to change the gameplay unless theres a real change in setting. They keep trying to add new elements and mostly they just come off as innovation for innovations sake. The bombs and tower defense in Revelations for example. Theres so many weapons and gameplay features packed in now that its kind of absurd.
But nah, I really think Ubisoft need to stop making AC games for just a bit oh and as for innovative gameplay mechanics, maybe instead of giving us bombs and ships they can do something about there rather unimpressive stealth mechanic. C'mon if they could do it with Splinter Cell then they can improve AC's stealth too right.
As for this new AC game, I don't have a very good first impression of it. The whole thing literally screams "cash grab" and I've had one to many of those this year.
I wonder if this series would be as successful if it wasn't for the history.
They need to completely change it up. AC3 at least changed the setting but there hasn't been anything new since AC2. They need to gut it. They also need to stop putting so much useless gameplay mechanics in it. In AC4, there was so man collectibles that the parts that were fun (raiding plantations for ex.) were lost when there is a billion animus fragments laying around.
F*ck collectibles, and achievements for that matter. The mentality that they've fostered in gamers - and thus games - is mind-numbing.
Do you want to experience a pulse-pounding action sequence? Really become invested in a character? No, I want to complete some arbitrary challenge so I can upload it to my Youtube channel.
"Shrugs"....i don't mind doing achievements for games but its more of an optional thing for me, Collectables are okay sometimes usually you unlock something in the game
but yeah its stupid how its become with some people nowadays, Those are more important then the game itself
even xboxachievements.com and their Playstation counterpart they even give them a rating when reviewing games
as average as AC1 was even that had decent stealth mechanics.
Well, a lot of the upgrades are tied to collection quests thus why you would do them during your first play through. Or it's tied to some sort of storytelling, which for some people (like me) like to get the entire story without having the play the game again.
I don't. Not because I didn't mind it but because there is a new AC game that gets released every year. Instead of replaying it, I would wait until the new gets released.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 20th, 2014 02:11 AM
