Ubisoft Won't Ship Yearly Assassin's Creed If "It's Not Good Enough"
- Thread starter Alex Co
- Start date
Honestly, whilst I like many others feel that ACIII was perhaps the series' low point in many ways, it wasn't worse than the others (although, IMHO, it wasn't by any means a bad game) because it felt rushed or incomplete or unpolished, or any of the problems one would expect with yearly releases. It was more that they tried to take it in another direction that didn't quite work as well - and would rather they did what they did than have us faff around as Ezio again. Afterall, ACIV took the series in another direction, and it did work (and breathed some much needed life into the series).
So they have standards now? What happened a great backlash of blackwater straight to their faces? -HarHarHar...
How about letting all the departments do their work with the discussed and agreed deadline instead of cutting it short few months weeks years so you can compete with a fish we do not name here.
How about letting all the departments do their work with the discussed and agreed deadline instead of cutting it short few months weeks years so you can compete with a fish we do not name here.
I've played it and consider it as poor as AC3 (and I despised about 90% of that game) which is a shame because like I said: the sailing system in AC3 was decent so the idea of them making a game based around the sea-life concept and giving us this mysterious allure of assassin pirates was interesting.bug_of_war said:
Wow, that's really unfortunate. Ah well, try as we might we can't please everyone.AndrewC said:
I really wish Assassin's Creed 3 was good enough..
But then so is everything that gets reported here.Adam Jensen said:
I find it hilarious that the analogy they use is a "70% Assassin's Creed game" when that's what I've considered the last few Assassin's Creed games, if that.
While Ubisoft can be mentally challenged when it comes to PR, or releasing games on PC that work, I've still considered them a top end game company. Why? Because the quality of the experience of these games (AC, Prince of Persia series for example) has been fucking excellent. Even the lesser games, like AC:R were still fun for me. The only game I ever absolutely hated when it came out was the Prince of Persia reboot. Thankfully other folks agreed with me and that game never went beyond one release.
So when Ubisoft says they're not willing to release a 70% AC, I'm inclined to believe them. I don't care about on time releases, I care about bug free (as good as you can), quality games. Get it to me when its ready, thats when a game is "on-time". Except if you're Valve, then don't even bother looking for a 3rd part ever to be developed.
I am also one of the few folk who actually liked AC3... but thats me.
So when Ubisoft says they're not willing to release a 70% AC, I'm inclined to believe them. I don't care about on time releases, I care about bug free (as good as you can), quality games. Get it to me when its ready, thats when a game is "on-time". Except if you're Valve, then don't even bother looking for a 3rd part ever to be developed.
I am also one of the few folk who actually liked AC3... but thats me.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment I guess. AC IV looks like a possible return to form. We'll see if they continue.
But I can't imagine that a company can ever really hope to strike gold often when they keep to a year's development cycle. That kind of stuff results in Dragon Age II.
But I can't imagine that a company can ever really hope to strike gold often when they keep to a year's development cycle. That kind of stuff results in Dragon Age II.
Well considering how low their standards are, Im sure ubisoft wont run into any problems upholding their statement,
I think they should have stopped a few games ago, by that logic.
That's the thing. Their standards are basically "will it make lots of money?"Grabehn said:
They're 3 years late. Aside from copy-and-pasting the code onto the next game and then writing a few more lines, nothing ever changes gameplay wise.
That's the thing with franchise fatigue, Ubisoft... It won't stop untill you give it a rest.
Even with AC4 being quite a good game, it's still being dragged down by it being yet another AC game, as well as the usual Assassin's Creed issues. After finishing it I was struck by an enormous disinterest to ever play it again, despite enjoying most of it.
At this point it's rivaling Final Fantasy.
Even with AC4 being quite a good game, it's still being dragged down by it being yet another AC game, as well as the usual Assassin's Creed issues. After finishing it I was struck by an enormous disinterest to ever play it again, despite enjoying most of it.
At this point it's rivaling Final Fantasy.
Revelations was pretty decent.
AC3 on the other hand, I wish I could recall that game out of my memory.
AC3 on the other hand, I wish I could recall that game out of my memory.
Who's standard?
The companies? A game shouldn't be released if it's buggy or clearly needs more time to be completed/polished.
The players? We will consider a game rushed if it's buggy or needed more time to be completed/polished and it doesn't meet our expectations.
But that's all perspective, I've just read through ten plus comments calling Revelations "not up-to scratch" I think it's a great game, but now were talk personal taste.
If we, the gamer, don't like a game for it's story, then that isn't a reason to call it a rushed/poor game. I feel we can only call it rushed/poor game if it is intrinsically broken, or is just a re-skin of the game rushed out 12 months ago, which is just a re-skin of the game that came out 12 months before that.
The companies? A game shouldn't be released if it's buggy or clearly needs more time to be completed/polished.
The players? We will consider a game rushed if it's buggy or needed more time to be completed/polished and it doesn't meet our expectations.
But that's all perspective, I've just read through ten plus comments calling Revelations "not up-to scratch" I think it's a great game, but now were talk personal taste.
If we, the gamer, don't like a game for it's story, then that isn't a reason to call it a rushed/poor game. I feel we can only call it rushed/poor game if it is intrinsically broken, or is just a re-skin of the game rushed out 12 months ago, which is just a re-skin of the game that came out 12 months before that.