Ubisoft: Assassin's Creed Has "An End"

[redknightalex]

Some part of me cares about the next Assassin's Creed but most of me doesn't. After the glitch that was AC3 (which I really wanted to like, and the story wasn't the worst), I'm really burnt out on this franchise. I've picked them up and played them all within a year's time but it became too much. I want AC4 to do badly because Ubisoft needs to understand that new IPs are a lot better than burning out on the same old crap we get every year.

And as to having an end game...I thought AC3 was the end? Retconning it? AC3 was the end of the world (sort of) so how can we start again?

Whatever, Ubi, you do whatever the hell you want. I'll stick to the indies I've fallen in love with, tyvm.

 

[stabnex]

I told this to my wife, and she postured what would Ubisoft do if vampires were trending one year, then I read this:

"So for example in [AC4] we have Edward, who was seeded in AC3."

 

[Hawkeye21]

I am one of those lowly and stupid people who genuinely enjoyed all parts of AC2, especially "Brotherhood" and "Revelations", since IMO they improved on the original. I do, however agree that modern story arc is going nowhere. Even more, I think Ubisoft should drop Desmond story arc alltogether, and just concentrate on develop AC games set in different time periods with smaller but finite story archs. They don't even have to involve templar vs. assassin struggles, just make the story interesting and throw in some likable characters. I honestly couldn't care less how Desmonds story ends, I haven't even finished AC3 because how bored off my ass I became with him and his shenanigans (fucking unskippable cutscenes). And Connor was, well, Connor...

So, in a nutshell, I have no problems with semi-yearly AC game releases, as long as they have self-contained and finished storylines, without Desmond fucking Miles.

 

[electric method]

*Smirk* This is pretty much what Ubisoft did with the Prince of Persia franchise; beat the cash cow to death. While I like the AC franchise each successive game since AC2 has gotten worse and more bland. Pretty much anyone who is looking with open eyes can see the franchise IS suffering from a yearly release cycle except Ubisoft.

 

[TrulyBritish]

Well that's somewhat nice to hear Ubisoft... very nice indeed...
Now if only I actually believed this leads to anything good. Sure, maybe you have some vague-ending type thing that could be conveniently ret-conned or whatever anytime you need more sequels ("Hey guys! look we're bringing back, due to huge demand of course, our old IP Assassins Creed! I'm sure you have waited a long time for this, I mean it has been nearly a year since the series was laid to rest, but we plan to give our fans exactly what we... I mean they, want. And that will be another trilogy of the games you remember, well at least a trilogy").
By this point, I'm just bored. AC1 to Brotherhood I enjoyed, I was bored of Ezio by Revelations and for gods sake I will never stop hating Connor.
Somebody call me back when Assassins Creed actually goes back to being about assassins, or you know, the plot actually becomes coherent?

 

[Madner Kami]

But seriously, the storyline so far has been rambling at best, and just "wtf" inducing at worst. I mean hell, the main character of ACIII didn't even want to be an assassin.......at any point. He just wanted revenge, pure and simple. Granted, Ezio's story starts out as a quest for revenge for the deaths of his father and brothers, but he matures over the course of ACII and starts believing in the cause of the Assassins, fully embracing that lifestyle as his own. The main character of ACIII just bitches and moans like Daniel-San from Karate Kid, wanting the old dude to teach him how to fight and grant him more resources to take down the people that burned his village.......he doesn't care about the revolution and doesn't care that he's hunting down Templars for a greater good and not just for his personal revenge.

Actually Connor originally did care for the Revolution somewhat, as he originally thought the Templars are aligned with the british Crown and it were the Templars that are causing problems to him and his tribe and not the settlers. His later indifference towards the revolution actually stems from the intertwining of the Templars with both the Crown and the Settlers and the Settlers beeing collosal dickheads of their own (George Washington, to name and shame the most obvious and historically correct displayed person) and the logical disappointment and annoyance caused by either faction.
I can see, why nobody actually realizes that, as the story and character development of the game is made of shitbricks. You can guess that it once was something delicious, but got decomposed and chewed on way too well on it's way through development and iteraton hell, where it got baked into it's current form. A good pointer for that is the implementation of the fort-liberations. You can "liberate" the first few forts before even getting into contact with the Revolution and within the game's story, there is absolutely no reason given why Conner should or would do that (other than for the mechanical intertwining with your trade-income, except that you can do that before you can even trade...).

And now we've got a frickin' pirate? Really? Is this quite literally just going to be the plot of the last 2 Pirates of the Caribbean movies (Edit: Of the first trilogy...since they're apparently making another one.../edit) played out in the Assassin's Creed universe? Maybe even involving a man with an octopus for a face and a giant woman that has the worst case of crabs I've ever seen?

The pirate setting has two causes: Players loving the Marine Missions and players loving Haytham Kenway. With Haytham Kenway dead, they need to bring a main character into the game, which is similar in appearance, behaviour and demeanor and who better to choose than his dad, who definitly was an assassin on top of it? Pirates + Ship steering (with more frequent boarding action this time) + Edward Kenway (Haythem Kenway senior) = Easy Gold $.

Bah, sorry, I'll cut myself off there before I REALLY start going off on a rant. I used to the love series. The first two games were great, I really enjoyed Brotherhood's campaign, I would have liked Revelations if it was just a DLC expansion to Brotherhood (a lot of people said Brotherhood felt like it should have been an expansion to 2, but I'd say there's enough content and meat to that game to warrant it being it's own game. Revelations just felt short. The city was tiny compared to Rome, you only kill 3 guys, the first guy you kill is half-way through the frickin' game, and it turns out that he was actually a good guy who was trying to kill the person you're really after!). And then ACIII was just atrocious. So needless to say, I'm a bitter, jaded, FORMER AC fan who has lost faith in the series. I can no longer justify dropping $60 every year to follow this crap.

Yeah, I agree. AC 1 and 2 were great. Brotherhood was really really good and Revelations had a good core and was still generally good, but already hinted at what was to come with AC3: Too overloaded with badly intertwined game mechanics and story shortcomings/bad character development.

 

[rob_simple]

That's great, Ubisoft, unfortunately I stopped giving a shit about Desmond Dishwater and his motley crew about two shitty, broken games ago.

 

[prpshrt]

The series became dead to me after playing AC3

 

[nathan-dts]

This does strike me as rather odd.

Spoiler: AC1-AC3 Spoilers

There did seem to be a clear arc at the very beginning, with the 2012 apocalypse and all that. After all, the second game was originally supposed to take place in Yucatan as far as I know. Even the ending of the first game basically hinted at the possibility of Mayans becoming important later on. When they re-decided and changed the setting to Renaissance-Italy they kept that, and the ending of AC2 further clarifies the importance of Desmond and the approaching apocalyptic event.

However, they basically wrapped that up in AC3, probably because they felt that they couldn't push this particular event even further away, and then introduced a new antagonist after the crisis was averted.

The 2012-apocalypse arc does appear like it was the original structure of the franchise, perhaps mapped out after AC1's surprising success, and the new post-AC3 arc appears to have been created after they realized just how big this franchise was going to be.

Basically it could very well be that there is a (new) end set for the story, but they can/will probably change that as needed. Or just make tons of prequels afterwards.


And just for the record: Although I severely loathe yearly installments, especially since one of my favorite franchises/genres of the past generation was basically killed by them (Tony Hawk's Pro Skater), I still believe that AC is one of the very few franchises that can pull that off, mostly because of the notably diverse historical periods and places that they can set their games in.
On the other hand, the fact that they decided to make what appears to basically be a pirate-game is somewhat disappointing, especially given the myriads of other settings of greater historical relevance they could have chosen. But maybe the game will turn out to be much better than I currently expect, we'll see.

It's pretty obvious that they had an end in mind, scrapped it at the end of three, because they weren't done with milking the cash cow and extended it.

There's only so long you can keep changing time periods and have it interesting, especially when the gameplay mechanics hardly change. Assassin's Creed 3 felt very dated because it was copy pasted.

Also, Assassin's Creed 4 is pretty much the same time period as the third game, just about forty years earlier.

 

[SerBrittanicus]

The universe has an end as well, but it isn't going to happen for billions of years. I may be one of the few who actually enjoyed AC3, but that is probably the last game of the series I will buy now Desmond's story is finished - they are stretching the story out for too long with these constant yearly sequels.

 

[crimson sickle2]

This comment sounds like foreshadowing for when Assassin's Creed stops selling well and Ubisoft says they won't publish the last game in the series, unless sales improve. I hope I'm wrong and this is just a a director wanting to keep his fans from canceling pre-orders.

 

[Drummodino]

Yea I don't care anymore Ubisoft. Assassin's Creed used to be awesome (Assassin's Creed II was my favourite game for a brief period of time), now it's been milked to death. Your money grabbing yearly sequels killed this franchise.

 

[RedmistSM]

I can believe it, but it doesn't matter at all if the "overall story" are just cliffhangers at the end of each game while the actual main story in the game takes place hundreds of years ago and doesn't have anything but a passing relevance to the stuff going on in the present. Have they said anything about what the framing device for this particular game is going to be yet? Just Abstergo polishing their assassinatin skills like the multiplayer?

 

[ShinobiJedi42]

I don't understand why they don't just create a new IP to accommodate all of these "settings" they seem intent on exploiting. Was there really any reason to make a pirate themed game in the AC franchise? They could have just made a pirate themed game and made it a new IP without all of the Desmond bull crap. I mean, that's basically what it appears they're doing with Watch Dogs. Modern setting but without Desmond.

In fact, is there anyone left who enjoys these games who is still interested in the Desmond story? Every time it cuts to him, I groan. I just want to wander historical settings and stab people. It's a shame because Ubisoft has a lot of potential in making really well done period pieces, but they feel they have to shoe horn it into the AC franchise. I like the historical bits of AC, but they really don't need the AC Desmond story anymore. They should just make separate historically based games with their own story.

 

[Something Amyss]

Let me be the first to say: Bwhahahahahahaha

Yeah, right.

It's totally true. The "end" is "whatever game stops selling."

[
It's pretty obvious that they had an end in mind, scrapped it at the end of three, because they weren't done with milking the cash cow and extended it.

Essentially, this. Keep in mind that Assassin's Creed Brofist was introduced to extend the story of a more popular character while keeping the same structure. It also seemed to be the point at which they started stretching the plot, but I can't comment too much on Brofist or Revelations. And honestly, it seemed like they would have kept 3 an unfired gun for longer, if they could get away with it.

The narrative, it seems, is the victim of the success of the titles.

It's actually sort of telling that the narrative issues don't seem to impact the game or its sales.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't understand why they don't just create a new IP to accommodate all of these "settings" they seem intent on exploiting. Was there really any reason to make a pirate themed game in the AC franchise? They could have just made a pirate themed game and made it a new IP without all of the Desmond bull crap. I mean, that's basically what it appears they're doing with Watch Dogs. Modern setting but without Desmond.

In fact, is there anyone left who enjoys these games who is still interested in the Desmond story? Every time it cuts to him, I groan. I just want to wander historical settings and stab people. It's a shame because Ubisoft has a lot of potential in making really well done period pieces, but they feel they have to shoe horn it into the AC franchise. I like the historical bits of AC, but they really don't need the AC Desmond story anymore. They should just make separate historically based games with their own story.

Please keep in mind that Assassins Creed 4 is a new IP. Intellectual Property and franchise are not the same thing.

That being said, beyond the most obvious reason of "because the name sells," why not include a pirate setting in the AC franchise? They have this wonderful setup to go basically anywhere, any time. Why NOT use it?

On the other hand, I'm all for making Desmond walk the plank.

 

[randomrob1968]

Surprised they're ending it, considering the freedom of choice to be either an errand boy who assassinates people or an assassin who runs errands is endlessly appealing.