Assassin's Creed III's "Big Jump" Only Possible Due to Annual Releases

[irmasterlol]

I was always kind of suspicious that they were dicking around with Brotherhood and Revelations, but my theory was that they were secretly experimenting with how the could get gun mechanics to work in numbered sequels. If they needed to use those two to fund a game that actually innovates a little, then I won't complain as loudly. I was staring to get convinced that they were stuck in a rut.

 

[Inkidu]

As long as it's good there's no problem with a short cycle. I think two years is the average bare minimum, but I've never been disappointed in an AC game, there are some I like more than others, but I've played and enjoyed worse games.

In point of opinion, I actually don't like it when games spend long times in development cycles. Blizzard I recognize as insane in the regard.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Yes, because adding in sloppy hook-jump mechanics and 15th century musket-snipers with a fun-killing tower defense minigame on top of an already heavy game is just like a IP! And not at all like a series going to shit after there stopped being a reasonable time period between games, no, not at all.

So what does that make The Last of Us? Chopped lunkhead? Sorry but no. Even if it was a totally different game, it's still using the same IP, and I'm pretty sure the AC games have never differed from each other that much.

Actually, there was a noticeable difference between the first and second games, almost to the point of feeling like two different titles, were it not for the consistent thematic elements and visual style. And controls. Okay, so they're not that different, but there is a clear evolution of new stuff from game to game. That's kind of like new IP, right?

Oh, nope.

 

[Actino]

His comments have been taken completely out of context. He was saying that there's nothing wrong with annual releases as long as the development time is enough. Thanks to the 3 years they've been given, AC3 looks drastically different to the last few and that's what's important. The naval warfare looks like a new game in itself, especially if it includes free roaming the oceans.

I think Alex Hutchinson is doing an amazing job from what I've seen. Also, his team didn't make ACB and ACR, they were done by seperate teams, so you can't base any judgements of AC3 or alex Hutchinson on the last few games.

The last line made me cringe. It boils down to complaining that companies want to make money. In order to make money they are pleasing their customers by making demanded sequals to popular franchises. They get money, the fans are happy, and the only people complaining are the people which don't seem to like the franchise. PRO TIP: Don't buy the next game if you don't think it looks good.

1 year development cycle: Bad
Yearly releases: No reason to complain

 

[Actino]

Did the author not watch Ubisoft's E3 press conference?

 

[Actino]

snip.

uhhhh?

you hate the games

so you keep buying them...

and I think your kind of missing the "point" of the assasin order (or their original doctrin)

Yep, I keep hoping for one to turn out well. I buy pretty much any new high-profile game, regardless of genre.

And I'm not missing the point of anything here, but I'm sure that you'll attempt to enlighten me in this regard. My biggest problem is with the mechanics. They just aren't good enough, and indicative of an overall awful trend towards automation, streamlining, minimising player input. Dreadful.

That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read, except the bible.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

That's cool, I don't think that excuses you selling Brotherhood and Revelations for $60 on release when they are essentially heavily padded DLC.

60 dollars worth of dlc.

Hahahahahahaha! Right?

Oh god no. Not even close... made $20 or so. You get a few weapons, a hand full of mission, couple side missions and multiplayer. Multiplayer itself is probably worth $20 - $30 (maybe) but the rest is so not even worth it.

But I'm glad you're made of money because I'm not. At least one of us can fufill our fantasy of buying things 3-4 times their worth.
I'm happy for you.

 

[Scrythe]

Wow, there are a lot of people being so cynical about this.

Not that it matters, since no matter what everyone above is saying this will probably be one of the biggest selling titles this year, and I'm sure at least 2/3 of the people above me will buy it anyways.

I just wish The Escapist would chill the fuck out these days. Between this, DmC and Revengeance, everyone is flipping the fuck out or the littlest things.

Calm down, try the game out, if you don't like it someone else will.

If you're not going to buy something because you don't like the trailer, more power to you, but filling these forums up with your rage over text blurbs and teasers is only making this place look like a hive of festering children, and we already have plenty websites for those.

 

[Iron Criterion]

Another day, another stupid comment from someone in the industry.

 

[Buizel91]

And how about the distinct lack of any mechanics that can even be equated with stealth? You know, like crouching, sneaking, illumination and darkness? You think a haystack suffices? Not one of the protagonists in any of these games has been an actual assassin. They've all been "brigands", or "thugs". "Assassins's" Creed is a misnomer, and your games suck.

I don't think you know what an assassin is. Stealth is not a requisite to being an assassin.

Oh, ok. You keep telling yourself that, as you wade (ie: single button tap) through 15 armed and armoured soldiers like a "realistic" assassin. Or "blend" in with your inconspicuous assassin's outfit and arsenal.

Seriously? You're actually going to maintain that stealth and artifice were not essential components of an assassin's modus operandi during any of the historical periods presented in these games?

In batman, the League of Shadows are a group of assassins, no?

In Batman Begins, Ras'Al Ghul says he can train Bruce to take on 500 men at once.

Sure people think of assassinations as quiet, silent things, but many iterations of assassins/assassinations tend to strafe away from that. and remember, this is a game, if you can climb to the top of a tower in a few seconds, then be my guest and try

 

[Buizel91]

Personally, i have no problem with the AC games.

Sure the combat is a bit bland, and the controls can sometimes send you jumping off a building in completely the wrong direction, killing yourself in the process, but it has a number of good things that keep me, and a lot of other people interested in the games.

The voice acting is superb, possibly some of the best (not THE best, but close). The world/cities (especially in AC2 when you had a number of cities to explore) are gorgeous and fun to move around in. The characters are great, and engaging, the immersion i find is fantastic and to top of it, the story and graphics are awesome!

Plus it's the only game to teach me 2 languages...

 

[Callate]

Sequels are like new IPs.

Always-on DRM is a success.

Steam sales cheapen intellectual property.

Single-player games that demand an online connection are about what they players want.

Extraneous software you're forced to log into to play games you've purchased in a brick-and-mortar store are a service.

...Doubleplusgood.

 

[Dr.Panties]

Hey, now. There's nothing wrong with blind fanaticism. ;P

There is something wrong with absurd hyperbole. Maybe he just has a lot of money and free time.

Absurd hyperbole? Really?

Do you even take notice of the inputs required of you when playing these games? This series is one of a notable few that set an ugly precedent with regards to automation.

*Cue telegraphed enemy attack, tap a single button to counter. Win. Repeat. For an entire legion, should one so desire.*

*Hold forward and a single button, traverse entire architectural wonders.*

I really, really dislike these mechanics, and the proliferation of such automated mechanics throughout a variety of modern games (especially third-person action games). That's what I'm complaining about, along with an incredible logical disconnect with regards to character, premise and setting.

As far as your second statement goes, my financial situation, spending habits, and leisure activities have no relevance to my criticisms of this franchise.

Well, the absurd hyperbole that I was actually referring to was the guy calling your purchase choices blind fanaticism.

Though now that you mention it, you're a little over the top too.

I agree, the games aren't very good. I didn't like the first one because I didn't like the story. While the second one was fun, the combat was sort of dumb.

As for the mechanics, you have a point, but I don't think that AC is about the combat so much as it is about the world and interacting with it in extraordinary ways. Sure, the combat is simple, and assassination doesn't require stealth, but they did make one heck of a cool city, and it is a joy to run around it and throw archers off of roofs.

To me, it's like Skyrim. I hate the battle system in Skyrim, and I would prefer to play Dark Souls, which has a battle system that I enjoy. However, Skyrim isn't really about the combat so much as the world. I've recently gotten in to Skyrim because I can explore, rob people, own homes, choose alliances, and do a lot of stuff outside of the battle system. The combat isn't as tight or tense as Dark Souls, but that's okay because combat isn't necessarily the focus.

A person who is more in to driving games might scoff at the vehicle handing in GTA, and my bet is that you don't care for the combat system in the Batman games. That's fine, play what you like, but realize that GTA isn't about vehicle mechanics and Batman isn't a martial arts simulator. These are just parts of a bigger experience.

My apologies for misinterpreting your angle there. It would seem that we are at least somewhat on the same page (and I certainly share your opinions of the combat in Elder Scrolls games). Where our views would diverge, however, is on the notion that an amazing/involving world, and solid, challenging mechanics must be mutually exclusive. Why can't we have both in the Assassin;s Creed franchise?

 

[Dr.Panties]

Yep, I keep hoping for one to turn out well. I buy pretty much any new high-profile game, regardless of genre.

So you're rewarding them for the bad games. That makes perfect sense.

Hey, now. There's nothing wrong with blind fanaticism. ;P

Actually, I purchase, play, review and then retain or recycle (give away), depending on quality.

Yep, I keep hoping for one to turn out well. I buy pretty much any new high-profile game, regardless of genre.

So you're rewarding them for the bad games. That makes perfect sense.

How would I know whether they are bad games unless I play them for myself? There is absolutely no rental option in this country.

Wait Wait Wait let me get this straight. You can't think of any way of judging a games quality other than buying it and playing it. Nothing comes to mind. Nothing at all. Nothing that you yourself might do in your spare time. Nothing that starts with the r word. Something that you yourself mentioned mere sentences ago. Nah your right I can't think of anything.

Wait, wait, wait...you're going to tell me that I should blindly accept the opinions of others over forming my own judgments? Reviews are merely indicative, not representative. And how I spend my time and money has no bearing whatsoever on my criticisms of any media in which I may choose to indulge.

 

[Dr.Panties]

Hey, now. There's nothing wrong with blind fanaticism. ;P

Unless you ***** about it at the same time. I get people who buy up all the big titles and love 'em. Not so much those who throw money at people indiscriminately and complain about the results.

How would I know whether they are bad games unless I play them for myself? There is absolutely no rental option in this country.

So your solution is to piss away money on relatively expensive items you're unlikely to but.

Awesome.

What the hell has that got to do with anything? What does the sentence even mean? Should I not spend my own money and free time in such a way?

If you define it as "pissing" away money, then you don't need to do the same, but don't pretend that you're bringing anything to the discussion.

 

[Dr.Panties]

And how about the distinct lack of any mechanics that can even be equated with stealth? You know, like crouching, sneaking, illumination and darkness? You think a haystack suffices? Not one of the protagonists in any of these games has been an actual assassin. They've all been "brigands", or "thugs". "Assassins's" Creed is a misnomer, and your games suck.

I don't think you know what an assassin is. Stealth is not a requisite to being an assassin.

Oh, ok. You keep telling yourself that, as you wade (ie: single button tap) through 15 armed and armoured soldiers like a "realistic" assassin. Or "blend" in with your inconspicuous assassin's outfit and arsenal.

Seriously? You're actually going to maintain that stealth and artifice were not essential components of an assassin's modus operandi during any of the historical periods presented in these games?

I'm going to maintain that. Historically, most assassins were motivated by an ideological agenda or trying to make a statement, were usually extremely showy and unsubtle in their attempts, and were apprehended or killed in the aftermath. This is especially true of the historical Ḥashshashin.

It's only the 20th century that's invented this notion that "assassins" are cold, calculating, subtle professionals while "thugs" and "hitmen" are brash dumb killers, when historically the opposite is true.

Yes, most assassins were definitely zealots, and their missions were designed to make a statement. The "Fida'I" were disposable assassins. However, I'm not talking about the spectacle associated with the actual murder. I'm talking about the training undertaken and tactics employed to get close to the target in the first place:

"Although the "Fida'i" were the lowest rank in Sabbah's order and only used as expendable pawns to do the Grandmaster's bidding, much time and many resources were put in to training them. The Assassins were generally young in age giving them the physical strength and stamina which would be required to carry out these murders. However, physical prowess was not the only trait that was required to be a "Fida'i". To get to their targets, the Assassins had to be patient, cold, and calculating. They were generally intelligent and well read because they were required to possess not only knowledge about their enemy, but his or her culture and their native language. They were trained by their masters to disguise themselves, sneak in to enemy territory and perform the assassinations instead of simply attacking their target outright."

-Wiki

 

[Dr.Panties]

snip.

uhhhh?

you hate the games

so you keep buying them...

and I think your kind of missing the "point" of the assasin order (or their original doctrin)

Yep, I keep hoping for one to turn out well. I buy pretty much any new high-profile game, regardless of genre.

And I'm not missing the point of anything here, but I'm sure that you'll attempt to enlighten me in this regard. My biggest problem is with the mechanics. They just aren't good enough, and indicative of an overall awful trend towards automation, streamlining, minimising player input. Dreadful.

That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read, except the bible.

Well, thanks for contributing to the discussion. Oh, wait...you actually didn't.

 

[Dr.Panties]

And how about the distinct lack of any mechanics that can even be equated with stealth? You know, like crouching, sneaking, illumination and darkness? You think a haystack suffices? Not one of the protagonists in any of these games has been an actual assassin. They've all been "brigands", or "thugs". "Assassins's" Creed is a misnomer, and your games suck.

I don't think you know what an assassin is. Stealth is not a requisite to being an assassin.

Oh, ok. You keep telling yourself that, as you wade (ie: single button tap) through 15 armed and armoured soldiers like a "realistic" assassin. Or "blend" in with your inconspicuous assassin's outfit and arsenal.

Seriously? You're actually going to maintain that stealth and artifice were not essential components of an assassin's modus operandi during any of the historical periods presented in these games?

In batman, the League of Shadows are a group of assassins, no?

In Batman Begins, Ras'Al Ghul says he can train Bruce to take on 500 men at once.

Sure people think of assassinations as quiet, silent things, but many iterations of assassins/assassinations tend to strafe away from that. and remember, this is a game, if you can climb to the top of a tower in a few seconds, then be my guest and try

I'm talking about an assassin getting close to the target in the first place, and how this is not reflected in the mechanics offered in this franchise.

 

[Buizel91]

And how about the distinct lack of any mechanics that can even be equated with stealth? You know, like crouching, sneaking, illumination and darkness? You think a haystack suffices? Not one of the protagonists in any of these games has been an actual assassin. They've all been "brigands", or "thugs". "Assassins's" Creed is a misnomer, and your games suck.

I don't think you know what an assassin is. Stealth is not a requisite to being an assassin.

Oh, ok. You keep telling yourself that, as you wade (ie: single button tap) through 15 armed and armoured soldiers like a "realistic" assassin. Or "blend" in with your inconspicuous assassin's outfit and arsenal.

Seriously? You're actually going to maintain that stealth and artifice were not essential components of an assassin's modus operandi during any of the historical periods presented in these games?

In batman, the League of Shadows are a group of assassins, no?

In Batman Begins, Ras'Al Ghul says he can train Bruce to take on 500 men at once.

Sure people think of assassinations as quiet, silent things, but many iterations of assassins/assassinations tend to strafe away from that. and remember, this is a game, if you can climb to the top of a tower in a few seconds, then be my guest and try

I'm talking about an assassin getting close to the target in the first place, and how this is not reflected in the mechanics offered in this franchise.

Not sure what assassin game you have been playing over the past few years, i'm always able to sneak up on my target, and kill him, without drawing attention of the guards (unless i completely cock up)

admittedly there are a certain few where you have to chase your target, but it would be boring and not so challenging if you had sneak up on them all the time.

 

[Buizel91]

And how about the distinct lack of any mechanics that can even be equated with stealth? You know, like crouching, sneaking, illumination and darkness? You think a haystack suffices? Not one of the protagonists in any of these games has been an actual assassin. They've all been "brigands", or "thugs". "Assassins's" Creed is a misnomer, and your games suck.

I don't think you know what an assassin is. Stealth is not a requisite to being an assassin.

Oh, ok. You keep telling yourself that, as you wade (ie: single button tap) through 15 armed and armoured soldiers like a "realistic" assassin. Or "blend" in with your inconspicuous assassin's outfit and arsenal.

Seriously? You're actually going to maintain that stealth and artifice were not essential components of an assassin's modus operandi during any of the historical periods presented in these games?

I'm going to maintain that. Historically, most assassins were motivated by an ideological agenda or trying to make a statement, were usually extremely showy and unsubtle in their attempts, and were apprehended or killed in the aftermath. This is especially true of the historical Ḥashshashin.

It's only the 20th century that's invented this notion that "assassins" are cold, calculating, subtle professionals while "thugs" and "hitmen" are brash dumb killers, when historically the opposite is true.

They were trained by their masters to disguise themselves, sneak in to enemy territory and perform the assassinations instead of simply attacking their target outright."

-Wiki

Not one to cause up an argument or anything...but that is EXACTLY what you do in Assassins Creed 2, Brotherhood, and Revalations.

In some you disguise yourself to get to your target (Dressing up as a Ottoman Gaurd in Revelations, getting the Golden Mask in 2 etc.) Sneaking into enemy territory you pretty much every assassination, and you can perform Assassinations without drawing attention, it's actually not that difficult.