I, for one, am interested in seeing where the Assassin's Creed series is going

[solemnwar]

A lot of people are of the opinion that the Assassin's Creed series is stagnating, there isn't much left for it to go, etc. And, you know, they're allowed to have their opinion. If it's not your thing, it's not your thing, right?

But I seem to be in the minority (or at least, anyone who thinks the same as I do isn't as talkative about it), in thinking that the AC series has a lot left to offer. I'm a history major, and I just like history in general, so the games are pretty fun for me as a whole (although my "specialty" is mediaeval British and mediaeval Europe). I want to see what other areas of history they explore, what sort of cultures they'll bring to life, etc.

I'm also interested in seeing where they take the "modern day" story.

Spoiler: Spoilers for ACIII ending and the events of Black Flag, read at your own risk

With Desmond now dead, and his DNA being ransacked for further information for the Templar's to gather, it definitely offers a new direction for the "modern day" story. The Juno thing I also find very interesting. She's basically a ghost of this previous world, attempting to regain control over humanity. And she has the perfect method: the networking we've put together. The internet and so forth. I'm interested in seeing how she manipulates and exploits our dependency on this network. Also the idea that she can take over someone's body and mind once she gains enough strength (like the "IT Guy" attempts to do with you), I wonder how many people she could control? Can she only go into one body and then she's stuck in there, or can she go in and out as she sees fit? Can she put herself into more than one body? Etc.

I also like the "character" you now play (effectively yourself, but a silent protagonist). I think it's possible for them to do more with that than they did with Desmond. It's not that I thought Desmond was a terrible character, I actually kind of liked him and I feel that he definitely got the short end of the stick here and deserved better. He just wasn't all that well developed until right at the end, too late for anyone to really care about him. And with "yourself" not having the eagle eye and whatnot abilities, it'd be interesting to see how you can help out the assassin's beyond hacking. Although we might not get to, I don't know, I'm not Ubisoft.

So... yeah, I actually find myself very interested in how this series will go. Anyone else with similar opinions?
Maybe talk about what time periods and cultures you'd like to see? I'd like to see something going back even further in time, to Mesopotamia or something like that.

 

[Strelok]

~snip~

Have to agree, after Assassin's Creed 2 I was not sure I would ever play another Assassin's Creed. I hated Ezio, grew bored of it really fast. Then I saw the trailers for 3, and I thought it looked interesting, but I will wait for a sale. Picked it up on a Steam sale, loved every minute of it. Conner was an interesting character, and I enjoyed the story a great deal, so Assassin's Creed 4 was a release buy for me, or close to it as I could. Finished on the other day, 85% complete and 47 hours played, could not put it down, Kenway was great and a thoroughly enjoyable story that I wanted to see through to the end. Now? On to Freedom Cry, just an hour or two into it and I love it just as much? What's better than killing Nazi's? Slavers, that's what. I for one, can't wait to see what is next.

 

[Asita]

Honestly? I think that if they want the series to go anywhere they have to be willing to step away from the animus. There's certainly the potential for interesting things in the modern world, but so long as they let the period settings make up the bulk of the game the present will sadly probably get less emphasis than a subplot should, much less something that by all rights would likely be framed as the supposed 'central' plotline.

 

[King Billi]

For alot of people (myself included) I believe the simple prospect of seeing and exploring a unique historical setting every so often is more than enough to keep the series interesting, even with the Ezio trilogy the fact each game took place in a new city was enough to make them worthwhile for me.

For others however that stuff is little more than window dressing if the gameplay itself dosen't evolve significantly which in all honesty over the 5 or 6 however many games there's been up till now it really hasn't that much. Black Flag has probably seen the most drastic changes to the series overall since Assassins Creed 2.

As long as the games are as well made and fun as they have been so far I reckon I'll personally be satisfied with them, though in saying that I don't believe the best Assassins Creed game has been made yet given the possibilities with the basic concept.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Honestly? I think that if they want the series to go anywhere they have to be willing to step away from the animus.

This.
The Ubisoft has to take the big boy step and stop using the animus as a central plotline. The modern world has little to no essence in AC.

But then it begs the question, Do people simply like the interface that is offered by the animus or would people prefer a different interface? (Perhaps something to do with the setting?}

 

[Zhukov]

What's this I see? A party in need of a pooper?

Well, good thing I came along!

Seriously though, I can tell you where the series is going: nowhere. It's going to meander aimlessly about for however long it takes to stop being profitable.

It's extremely obvious by this point that they're just making it up as they go along. They make AC2, everyone likes Ezio, so they stretch him out for two whole games that add almost nothing to the main story. They kill off their framing device only to immediately turn around and harvest his brain and go right back to their old schtick.

There is no grand plan here. I rather doubt there ever was.

Besides, in order for me to regard the series as anything other than bargain bin material, they'd need to change up the gameplay. I feel like I've been playing the same game since AC2. There's only so much autopilot parkour and hurry-up-and-attack-me-so-I-can-insta-counter-kill-you combat a guy can take.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I don't know where it's going, but I can guarantee it's going to take a LONG fucking time to get there. Take a look at one of the Assassin's Creed setting suggestion threads for all the settings this series will 'explore' while the modern era plot fucks around buying time. There is no grand plan, they've probably figured out how to end the overarching plot at whatever point they want and in the mean time will be making as many games as they can.

When I played the first couple of games, I thought "Yeah, the bleed effect, it'll start affecting Desmond and they'll have a game where he takes down real life Abstergo while basically hallucinating that he's in another setting and justifying another stabbing game". And I think maybe that was the plan a little bit, considering they haven't exactly done shit with the bleed effect since. But now it's clear they're just drawing it out.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Unfortunately I only see it going nowhere fast. I haven't been too invested in the series, but it's clear there is no longer an over arching narrative, just point to point stories tied together by a mechanism that is rapidly losing relevance within the series.

I liken it to Grand Theft Auto. You know the way each GTA is related by mechanics and themes? Well AssCreed is the same, but instead of acknowledging that, they hook you in with the promise of a story tieing them together. However it looks like a story with indefinite "twists" at least until the sales dry up.

As much negativity as Mass Effect gets for bumbling its finale, at least it gave us a finale (though not the one hinted towards). AssCreed will likely keep going until it goes the way of Guitar Hero... it will overstay its welcome and people will lose interest in the formula or become frustrated by incessant cliff hangers.

It should, at the very least, end its current narrative arc and wrap things up entirely. It would be better for the series if they just focused on the Historical Sandboxes rather then trying to convince us that there is some satisfying conclusion coming with the overwrought and convoluted Sci-Fi element.

 

[bug_of_war]

It's extremely obvious by this point that they're just making it up as they go along.

Well yeah, that doesn't mean we can't look forward to what happens. Sometimes a planned trilogy ends up being worse than a flexible story. Sure there have been some bumps in the road (Revelations probably being the biggest one) but the games still give people roughly 12 hours at minimum of arguably enjoyable game play.

All in all I'm actually really happy with the way Ubisoft are handling the Assassin's Creed series, I understand that it's current state is probably the last place the original creator of the series saw it going, but I don't think it's all that bad, and millions of other people mustn' seem to think it's bad to.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'd be interested if they didn't release a new entry each year. AC4 had an interesting new gameplay mechanic in the form of pirating the open seas, and that was enough for me to try it out. But even that ultimately got swallowed up by the usual issues this series has been plagued by since AC2. And I doubt they can come up with a new and just as interesting mechanic for the next installment. Though when Watch Dogs is released they'll probably switch over to milking that instead.

At this point Assassin's Creed needs to go away for atleast 5 years for me to get interested in whatever new game they're making. After all's said and done, the first game is still the best one.

 

[GundamSentinel]

What's this I see? A party in need of a pooper?

Well, good thing I came along!

Seriously though, I can tell you where the series is going: nowhere. It's going to meander aimlessly about for however long it takes to stop being profitable.

It's extremely obvious by this point that they're just making it up as they go along. They make AC2, everyone likes Ezio, so they stretch him out for two whole games that add almost nothing to the main story. They kill off their framing device only to immediately turn around and harvest his brain and go right back to their old schtick.

There is no grand plan here. I rather doubt there ever was.

Besides, in order for me to regard the series as anything other than bargain bin material, they'd need to change up the gameplay. I feel like I've been playing the same game since AC2. There's only so much autopilot parkour and hurry-up-and-attack-me-so-I-can-insta-counter-kill-you combat a guy can take.

As much as I like the Assassin's Creed series, I completely agree with all of this.

I've only ever been playing it for the setting and atmosphere, but never for gameplay or overall plot. Gameplay has always been roughly the same (with the exception of the naval combat in the latest games). It was fluid and fun for some time, but enough is enough. The story was never going to go anywhere, but that was pretty obvious from the get-go. Too much bonkers conspiracy theory nonsense never got anyone anywhere.

I'm personally waiting for Ubisoft to flesh-out the naval combat further and make it a stand-alone game. Basically, Master & Commander: the Game. It could be awesome.

As for AC itself, it'll probably continues to blunder on for a loooong time, and perhaps I'll enjoy some of it. But yearly releases has really killed it as a good franchise.

 

[EHKOS]

I will gladly play them if they are interesting locales. I love Black Flag because I love One Piece, real pirates, etc. But as soon as I got pulled out into the studio, I just went through it as fast as I could. I've only played 1 and Brotherhood before, but I've seen others stories. I'm not interested in the overall story they're trying to tell. It seems flat.

 

[RJ 17]

What's this I see? A party in need of a pooper?

Well, good thing I came along!

Seriously though, I can tell you where the series is going: nowhere. It's going to meander aimlessly about for however long it takes to stop being profitable.

It's extremely obvious by this point that they're just making it up as they go along. They make AC2, everyone likes Ezio, so they stretch him out for two whole games that add almost nothing to the main story. They kill off their framing device only to immediately turn around and harvest his brain and go right back to their old schtick.

There is no grand plan here. I rather doubt there ever was.

Besides, in order for me to regard the series as anything other than bargain bin material, they'd need to change up the gameplay. I feel like I've been playing the same game since AC2. There's only so much autopilot parkour and hurry-up-and-attack-me-so-I-can-insta-counter-kill-you combat a guy can take.

Ahhh, Zhukov, I can always just not bother posting in such topics because I know you'll always be there to express my thoughts perfectly.

It's exactly what Zhukov said: you might be interested in seeing where they're going with this...but in truth as you're sitting the backseat for this roadtrip across time, Ubisoft is sitting right next to you in the backseat with nobody driving the vehicle. Again, as Zhukov said, they're just wandering around and stretching out the story for as long as they can...that's the first sign that the series is going absolutely nowhere in a hurry. The second sign was when they said "Fuck it! It's getting yearly releases!"

They're just spinning their wheels, and really they can drag their feet as much as they want since world history is full of...well...history. They know that no one gives a shit about the modern day story and that's exactly why they can just keep stretching it out...if no one gives a shit about it, then they won't give a shit if it's just dragged on and on. So if you want to pay the token and stay on the ride until it grinds to a halt once the franchise is no longer profitable, well cool beans to you. Just brace yourself for disappointment, that's my advice for you.

I'd like to see something going back even further in time, to Mesopotamia or something like that.

Well if they're going for "historical accuracy" as they always seem to be striving for, then there won't be anything taking place before the Crusades. As a history major, you should probably already know that the Assassins were an actual faction - just like the Templars were an actual faction - that formed during the Crusades, which is when the first game takes place. Any time before then and it wouldn't be Assassin's Creed, since the faction didn't exist.

 

[Vivi22]

For alot of people (myself included) I believe the simple prospect of seeing and exploring a unique historical setting every so often is more than enough to keep the series interesting, even with the Ezio trilogy the fact each game took place in a new city was enough to make them worthwhile for me.

I actually have to disagree with that sentiment. I was interested in the Assassin's Creed story after one and two. I wanted to see where it was going, but by the time we got around to Revelations it was clear it wasn't really going anywhere interesting anytime soon, it just kind of fizzled.

Sure, you can use the series to visit all kinds of time periods, but playing essentially the same game over and over but with a different setting gets stale. And when they're releasing games yearly it gets stale really fast.

And now that I watched my brother in law playing quite a bit of Assassin's Creed 4 over the holidays, I came to the realization that the whole time he was playing there was a pretty cool looking pirate game in there. But that part of it was actually being held back by the Assassin's Creed trappings, not improved by it. AC4 would actually be a better game if they ditched the AC connection altogether and made it it's own thing.

So why do we need AC to bring us historical settings? We could have much cooler and more varied games at this point if they were built up as new series in various time periods. But the only reason to keep slapping AC on the cover is because Ubisoft is convinced anything that isn't a yearly series or potential yearly series isn't worthwhile. So instead we get the occasional glimpse of something great being held back by the legacy of something that wore out its welcome. This isn't a good thing for we, the customers. On pretty much any level.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I maintain that the games could still use one good setting, which could be Feudal Japan (Edo period might be the most profitable since you get both your ninjas and your samurais here, the period features many "pop culture" characters to interact with and you're close enough to modernity to allow more glaring anachronisms like say guns).

As for the modern-day framing device, I've only played the first two games, know where the rest of the series is headed and I'm distintictly underwhelmed by Demons's arc and everything that follows after. It's useless, useless, useless. The series could've been vastly improved if they had teared down that stupid framing narrative from the get go. All it does is disrupt the actual storytelling every now and then with bleak cliffhangers and exposition.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Honestly? I think that if they want the series to go anywhere they have to be willing to step away from the animus.

This.
The Ubisoft has to take the big boy step and stop using the animus as a central plotline. The modern world has little to no essence in AC.

But then it begs the question, Do people simply like the interface that is offered by the animus or would people prefer a different interface? (Perhaps something to do with the setting?}

It would be nice to be able to affect the current day world with your character, and have the animus as a tool rather than the focus. Like maybe you can use it for research before traipsing out to the modern day areas to find things hidden in the past. Or just explore on your own and blunder into the hidden stuff...
Also there needs to be a bit more focus on what the hell is going on with the Assassins/Templars in the modern day rather than rehashing the previous era conflicts.
But overall I like the series even the missteps (and apparently am one of the few who enjoyed ACIII).

 

[Asita]

And fuck who says they should drop the animus.

Jokes aside, do enlighten me on how you think the story will actually progress so long as the series focuses almost exclusively on replaying events that played out centuries beforehand. It made sense for Assassin's Creed, wherein the protagonist was a prisoner being used by the villain to locate a goldmine of McGuffins, and it was workable in ACII when they were trying to exploit the bleeding effect to make a master assassin by proxy...but there's a limit to how much you can milk that quirk of the story, especially when you're ostensibly doing it to affect the present. The insistence on spending the lion's share of the games living the lives of the long-dead is an anchor of a framing device that the present-plotline is struggling against but loathe to let go of. Seriously, let's just look at Revelations as a prime example. What by all rights should have been the central narrative (and indeed, it was presented as such) of Desmond reconstructing his identity was literally reduced to an optional (and very simplistic) sidequest for the sake of letting Ezio take center stage once more. They cannot do that if they want the story to actually go anywhere.