COD the same as Assasins Creed.

[aba1]

I realize going in I might get some flack for this but I just feel like it isn't brought up enough. Ok so everyone is constantly hating on COD all the time for it being the same old thing pumped out over and over again every year. Now my question is how come Assassins Creed doesn't take any heat for doing the exact same thing? I mean the series seriously just dropped all pretense of story or historical accuracy in favor of fan service using famous historical figures and pumping out the same game every year minus a few changes and new maps. I can't be the only one who finds it hypocritical for people to criticize COD and turn around and praise assassins creed?

Personally I find it disappointing they would squander their franchises the way they do but if that is what the companies want to do it is their call who am I to tell them they are wrong for doing it. So I really don't care to take a side on the issue I just think people should be consistent in their opinions.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Odd, I thought that Assassin's Creed had, in the minds of the general gaming audience, joined the ranks of Call of Duty, Madden, and FIFA for being a franchise that releases the same game, or a far too similar game, every year. I know it doesn't receive as much hate as Call of Duty, but that's mostly because Call of Duty is the bigger franchise.

 

[TheIceQueen]

Unfortunately, I can't really add much other than to agree with the previous two posters. Assassin's Creed may not get as hate as CoD and Madden, but ever since Ubisoft announced that it would be churning one out every year, people have been becoming fairly critical of Assassin's Creed. Especially after Brotherhood and Revelations.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Honestly, I think that people hate on yearly sequels because they're yearly sequels. I've enjoyed every Assassin's Creed game so far. Revelations didn't bring much to the table as far as gameplay changes go, but it was a satisfying and a worthy sequel to Brotherhood. It added a lot to Ezio's and Desmond's story IMO. Then AC3 came out and it was different than previous AC games and people still talked shit about it. So basically, you'll always gonna find people who hate the games because they're too similar to prequels and the people who hate the games because they're too different from the prequels. I still think that Assassin's Creed games are some of the best single player games of this generation. The problem I have with yearly sequels is just that I don't think Ubisoft is reaching their full potential. If they were more like Rockstar and they made a game every 3-5 years, it would probably be even better.

Call of Duty is just boring and generic. It's always the same shit. Assassin's Creed games takes players on a journey through some of the very unique historical places and eras in an open world. It's the only game franchise that does that. Unique characters, unique places, unique gameplay mechanics, phenomenal soundtrack etc. It's a good franchise. And gameplay changes from Revelations to AC3 are quite significant. So you can't really say that it stagnates. AC4 looks like a huge improvement as well. Now if only they made one set in Feudal Japan. My life would be complete.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

Honestly, I think that people hate on yearly sequels because they're yearly sequels. I've enjoyed every Assassin's Creed game so far. Revelations didn't bring much to the table as far as gameplay changes go, but it was a satisfying and a worthy sequel to Brotherhood. It added a lot to Ezio's and Desmond's story IMO. Then AC3 came out and it was different than previous AC games and people still talked shit about it. So basically, you'll always gonna find people who hate the games because they're too similar to prequels and the people who hate the games because they're too different from the prequels. I still think that Assassin's Creed games are some of the best single player games of this generation. The problem I have with yearly sequels is just that I don't think Ubisoft is reaching their full potential. If they were more like Rockstar and they made a game every 3-5 years, it would probably be even better.

Call of Duty is just boring and generic. It's always the same shit. Assassin's Creed games takes players on a journey through some of the very unique historical places and eras in an open world. It's the only game franchise that does that. Unique characters, unique places, unique gameplay mechanics, phenomenal soundtrack etc. It's a good franchise. And gameplay changes from Revelations to AC3 are quite significant. So you can't really say that it stagnates. AC4 looks like a huge improvement as well. Now if only they made one set in Feudal Japan. My life would be complete.

Same sentiment here.

I still adore the AC franchise. Yeah, it's been running a little long and I would actually *prefer* if they gave themselves at least ONE extra year between releases but hey, I still love it.
I'm not going to lie, the announcement of ACIV isn't particularly exciting me, and other than the first game it'll probably be the first AC I don't buy day one, but I'm still going to buy it.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Nonsense, each game is distinctive on its own, if only for the different time eras and developing mechanics (II was a vast improvement over I, for one thing). Whereas I can't think of a single COD that stands out of the assembly line.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Nonsense, each game is distinctive on its own, if only for the different time eras and developing mechanics (II was a vast improvement over I, for one thing). Whereas I can't think of a single COD that stands out of the assembly line.

This.

If it were by the OP's logic, wed have to call every single game that ever had more than 2 sequels a COD like game.

 

[Thebazilly]

I don't like the pure quantity that Ubisoft seems to be going for with AC, but every time I tell myself I won't buy the latest game, and every time I cave in and end up enjoying it. Even with minor changes, they make the formula different enough each time, and I just enjoy the formula.

 

[Ender910_v1legacy]

You have to admit though, at least Assassins Creed actually changes its style somewhat after each sequel. Slightly. ...Ever so slightly. At least more than Call of Duty does.

 

[RJ 17]

People praise Assassin's Creed? And here I thought the general feeling around this site was that ACIII was pretty much garbage and Revelations was an insult. Sure you'll get some fans of the series (seems to be some in this topic already) but I see a lot more people blasting AC than praising it.

For me personally, I used to be an AC faithful. I liked the first game, loved the 2nd game, and I'm one of the few people (apparently) who thought Brotherhood was great. That said I thought that Revelations was hallow and empty...a lot of people said Brotherhood should have just been a DLC expansion for ACII while I thought Brotherhood had enough content to merit it's own title. Revelations on the other hand...yeah, you only assassinate like 3 people in that game, the first one being half way through the game, and in terms of the story he turns out to be someone you shouldn't have killed in the first place. It was nice to see how Ezio's story ended, but that one I felt should have been a DLC expansion.

AC III is the last AC I'll play. The story was bland and seemed to drag on and on and on. Like Revelations, it spends way too much time focusing on the minigames rather than the actual games, and I just really didn't like the ending to it. It's safe to say I'm officially done with the series, but even with that said I'll give credit where it's due: each new AC game DOES add a LOT more new stuff than CoD can claim. All CoD adds are new ways to kill people without them knowing wtf just happened via new killstreaks...that's about it.

Granted I'd argue that the new stuff that AC adds to it's games are more often than not incredibly boring and add nothing to the story other than padding for time, but hey, at least it's new stuff.

 

[Joccaren]

CoD doesn't change from game to game?
Play Black Ops 1 campaign. Now play Black Ops 2 campaign.
I hate the CoD series, but there are differences. They do, sometimes, change things.

People claim AC changes time periods whilst CoD stays constant. CoD has covered; WWII, Cold War, The Future, 21st Century, and possibly more that I haven't played.
CoD adds different kill streaks and attachments between instalments - the effect of giving your assassin a new tool like bombs.
Where AC added a tower defence minigame, CoD added a semi-RTS minigame.

The CoD games do change. If you play purely multiplayer, maybe not, IDK, I always steer clear from multiplayer. But from what I've played of both series, they're both as garbage as each other. Haven't played the full series or either of them though, couldn't put myself through that torture.

 

[Shuu]

AssCreed II being my favourite game of all time, I can say that I do give it just as much flack. It really should have just stayed a trilogy, maaaaaybe a tetralogy (Brotherhood was alright) but now... yeah, it's become a staple of how when ever a product performs well, it must be milked down to its last sour squirt until everyone is sick of it and only then will the publisher finally let it die, alone, and unloved...

 

[white_wolf]

AC is getting some just not as much. While AC is doing some copy paste COD is all about it, I think AC will eventually get that way in terms of game play I mean just looking at AC4 and AC3 footage I'm seeing a good amount of items simply lifted from AC3 and given a new look by AC4. Tree climbing and animations are nearly identical for instance I'm also thinking they'll just import the ship battle mechanics that drew alot of praise straight from 3 into 4 I'm expecting nothing really new in terms of how to steer and battle in my ship, though you can see the series is having rutter issues as far as what to do next.

 

[kommando367]

The AC series has much more variation between games.

Throughout the AC series, the devs have implemented new tools, environments, weapons, stealth options, side missions, mini-games, and enemies.

Throughout the COD series, the devs have only implemented new weapons, killstreaks, MP match types, and slapped a coat of paint on the environments.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well let's be clear for a moment Asscreed while getting worse is still eons ahead in providing content, but people who don't follow Ubisoft blindly know very well this will end up in the CoD pits of hell.

Heck I stopped playing at AC2 because it was very clear what where they are headed.

 

[Saelune]

People who complain of series being the same are people who have no idea what sequals should be. Sure there should be imrpovement, but if I wanted a different game, Id play a different series. People complain MORE when a game is different from its previous one. More so for games like AC. CoD has lots of competition in the military FPS genre, but who else does a game like AC? Only way to get such a game is from that specific series. What do you want them to do anyways? I think AC does a good job of changing it up. From the crusades, to the renaisance, to revolutionary war and now pirates. Big jumps if you ask me.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

They're copping flack all the time for that exact thing. As a fan of the AC series, I'm certainly annoyed at both the direction they've taken with it and the intention to draw out the franchise as long as possible. Black Flag barely has enough improvement that I know of to consider buying if I find it cheaply, and most of that stems from the naval combat, and element about as far removed from the core gameplay as you can get. They are becoming increasingly linear in their missions where achievements don't railroad players anyway, as of the last game combat became both simpler and less fun (what with every second person requiring a shove before killing them properly removing even the adrenaline factor of the old counter-and-chain), and I was severely disappointed at the context sensitive lock-on requiring attack actions, inability to get rid of those stupid beggar children and lack of capacity for makeshift weapons like the fishing rod and broom despite an abundancy of weapon-like objects lying around.

Still doing a lot better than CoD as a content proposition, but I'll probably be stopping with or just shy of Black Flag.

People who complain of series being the same are people who have no idea what sequals should be. Sure there should be imrpovement, but if I wanted a different game, Id play a different series. People complain MORE when a game is different from its previous one. More so for games like AC. CoD has lots of competition in the military FPS genre, but who else does a game like AC? Only way to get such a game is from that specific series. What do you want them to do anyways? I think AC does a good job of changing it up. From the crusades, to the renaisance, to revolutionary war and now pirates. Big jumps if you ask me.

I'd be fine with small improvements, but I struggle to see where being annoyed at changes in mechanics towards the simpler, more linear, and overall less favourable areas is not understanding the concept of sequels. You want the same or better, and sequels tend to be watered down rather than concentrated. That's exactly what's happened with Assassin's Creed, and that's a legitimate gripe.

 

[Drummodino]

Assassin's Creed earns far more hatred from me then CoD. I LOVED the first 3 games. AC2 was for a long time in my top 5 games I've ever played. I was a little disappointed with Revelations but I still enjoyed it (it had a great intro sequence). Looking back now I can see that the slide had begun (Desmond literally had no story progression) but I was still blinded by my affection for the previous games.

But I hate AC3 with a passion. I was so keen for it too. The naval battles looked amazing, it had a new protagonist, and it looked really promising. I played it for about 4 hours then never touched it again. The gameplay had grown old and stale, Connor was utterly unlikable and the combination of the modern and past stories didn't work for me. Once they started introducing the shitty micromanaging of your settlement I just went "Well fuck this shit" and turned it off. Also

Spoiler: Lucy

Why had no one mentioned Lucy yet? I'd been waiting since the end of Brotherhood to find out why Juno made you stab her and she wasn't discussed AT ALL! I don't care about Desmond's daddy issues I wanted to know what was going on there!

 

[Reaper195]

Nonsense, each game is distinctive on its own, if only for the different time eras and developing mechanics (II was a vast improvement over I, for one thing). Whereas I can't think of a single COD that stands out of the assembly line.

BLOPS 2, dude. That one gun which fires slightly faster than the previous version of it. It was amazing!

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

People claim AC changes time periods whilst CoD stays constant. CoD has covered; WWII, Cold War, The Future, 21st Century, and possibly more that I haven't played.

What the actual fuck? You can't compare CoD's settings with AC. In CoD the only thing that differentiates a time period is guns and uniforms. Everything else is the same. Same warehouses, military bases, soldiers and their stupid banter. Nothing really sets them apart. CoD 1 and CoD 4 were the only game that felt like they were really set in a specific time period. And it didn't even matter because the story is just about soldiers killing other soldiers. Every CoD game since CoD4 feels like a Michael Bay movie. It's not enough to just say "oh, this game is set in [insert time period]". They would have to make it unique. Which they don't. Assassin's Creed, on the other hand, is all about throwing you in this unique historic setting with everything that you'd expect from that period and place, including actual historic figures.