Do you think it's going to have some significant changes from Revelations? I don't think I would like if they released another game that is the same. October 30th seems soon. So unless it's true that it's been in development for 3 years. I can't see there being much major changes.

@CL60 said:

Do you think it's going to have some significant changes from Revelations? I don't think I would like if they released another game that is the same.

Because Revelations was bad? That's the only way this post can make any sense.

@Video_Game_King said:

@CL60 said:

Do you think it's going to have some significant changes from Revelations? I don't think I would like if they released another game that is the same.

Because Revelations was bad? That's the only way this post can make any sense.

When did I say that? I'm saying Revelations wasn't as good as the others because the formula is getting stale, and the addition of a tacked on tower defense game wasn't very great. It was still good, but another game thats the same as that would just be a bad thing.

@CL60 said:

Do you think it's going to have some significant changes from Revelations? I don't think I would like if they released another game that is the same.

Because Revelations was bad? That's the only way this post can make any sense.

I hope to God they do something to the series because as of right now I am completely burned out on the current formula. Will just have to wait until e3 and see what they show there before giving a shit about AC 3. It is sickening how this franchise is being milked like this though.

I'm so far behind on these games that I doubt I'll ever catch up. The story seems so linear and interdependent that I'd feel compelled to play them all. I'm not sure that I could handle two more games in the same setting after I finish Assassin's Creed II.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@CL60 said:

Do you think it's going to have some significant changes from Revelations? I don't think I would like if they released another game that is the same.

Because Revelations was bad? That's the only way this post can make any sense.

Yes, it was. The exact same gameplay, the exact same writing and story/mission design and progression, the exact same AI behavior and reactions as AC2 and Brotherhood.

....Which are acknowledged as being good games. Can you explain this logic to me? "I hate this game for being exactly the same as something I liked in the past! It's such bullshit!"

While I really enjoyed all the Assassin's Creed games (minus the handheld ones) to date, I'm ready for something new. Hopefully Ubisoft delivers.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@CL60 said:

Do you think it's going to have some significant changes from Revelations? I don't think I would like if they released another game that is the same.

Because Revelations was bad? That's the only way this post can make any sense.

Yes, it was. The exact same gameplay, the exact same writing and story/mission design and progression, the exact same AI behavior and reactions as AC2 and Brotherhood. And most of all, the same protagonist, AGAIN, for the THIRD TIME, in a franchise that promised characters from around the world and throughout history. Assassin's Creed turned into Ezio's Creed, it's a damn shame. So unless AC3 goes back on the right track with a leap in gameplay and controls and AI and level design, and a NEW FUCKING PROTAGONIST (desmond can suck my dick), I'm over this franchise, and it breaks me heartie.

Cocksucking or not, Desmond is the protagonist of Assassin's Creed. He may have ancestors that do some jumping and stabbing, but the entire focus of the AC story is what Desmond is doing to stop armageddon.

So yeah, he's not going away for AC3.

It's plausible that they branched development after AC2, with a (presumably smaller) team dedicated to AC3 this whole time, which everybody else will have piled on as soon as Revelations was out the door. As long as that team wasn't just having its best ideas stolen this whole time, then I guess there could be significant changes ready for AC3. There are about a million people working at Ubisoft Montreal and this is Ubi's one good franchise nowadays, so they probably have the resources available to have done this.

That said, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the franchise, it just needs freshening up. A new protag, new (but still historical) setting, remove some of the bloat which has built up, polish the combat and controls up a bit and it's good to go. The whole 'regenerate the city!' mechanic made sense and worked once - it doesn't now need to be a feature of every game. Nor does the 'send assassins on meaningless missions' metagame. Basically less distractions and more time getting the basics right. It also needs to get back to being more assassiny and less street gang.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@CL60 said:

Do you think it's going to have some significant changes from Revelations? I don't think I would like if they released another game that is the same.

Because Revelations was bad? That's the only way this post can make any sense.

Yes, it was. The exact same gameplay, the exact same writing and story/mission design and progression, the exact same AI behavior and reactions as AC2 and Brotherhood.

....Which are acknowledged as being good games. Can you explain this logic to me? "I hate this game for being exactly the same as something I liked in the past! It's such bullshit!"

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@CL60 said:

Do you think it's going to have some significant changes from Revelations? I don't think I would like if they released another game that is the same.

Because Revelations was bad? That's the only way this post can make any sense.

Yes, it was. The exact same gameplay, the exact same writing and story/mission design and progression, the exact same AI behavior and reactions as AC2 and Brotherhood. And most of all, the same protagonist, AGAIN, for the THIRD TIME, in a franchise that promised characters from around the world and throughout history. Assassin's Creed turned into Ezio's Creed, it's a damn shame. So unless AC3 goes back on the right track with a leap in gameplay and controls and AI and level design, and a NEW FUCKING PROTAGONIST (desmond can suck my dick), I'm over this franchise, and it breaks me heartie.

Cocksucking or not, Desmond is the protagonist of Assassin's Creed. He may have ancestors that do some jumping and stabbing, but the entire focus of the AC story is what Desmond is doing to stop armageddon.

So yeah, he's not going away for AC3.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@CL60 said:

Do you think it's going to have some significant changes from Revelations? I don't think I would like if they released another game that is the same.

Because Revelations was bad? That's the only way this post can make any sense.

Yes, it was. The exact same gameplay, the exact same writing and story/mission design and progression, the exact same AI behavior and reactions as AC2 and Brotherhood.

....Which are acknowledged as being good games. Can you explain this logic to me? "I hate this game for being exactly the same as something I liked in the past! It's such bullshit!"

I've played AC2 for about 50 hours in the past 3 years and Brotherhood for 10 or 15 more, I've had my fill of doing this and that in this or that fashion. More of said formula is no longer appealing. That's where a proper sequel comes in: It builds upon the earlier titles while overhauling the system, expanding on the gameplay and bringing more to the table in all aspects.

But just because a game doesn't do that does not make it bad; it simply makes it just as good as the game before it. And what if I hadn't played either of those games? How would you be able to tell me that Assassin's Creed III is a bad game based on its similarities to previous games? Your argument would make no sense.

@Video_Game_King said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@CL60 said:

Do you think it's going to have some significant changes from Revelations? I don't think I would like if they released another game that is the same.

Because Revelations was bad? That's the only way this post can make any sense.

Yes, it was. The exact same gameplay, the exact same writing and story/mission design and progression, the exact same AI behavior and reactions as AC2 and Brotherhood.

....Which are acknowledged as being good games. Can you explain this logic to me? "I hate this game for being exactly the same as something I liked in the past! It's such bullshit!"

I've played AC2 for about 50 hours in the past 3 years and Brotherhood for 10 or 15 more, I've had my fill of doing this and that in this or that fashion. More of said formula is no longer appealing. That's where a proper sequel comes in: It builds upon the earlier titles while overhauling the system, expanding on the gameplay and bringing more to the table in all aspects.

But just because a game doesn't do that does not make it bad; it simply makes it just as good as the game before it. And what if I hadn't played either of those games? How would you be able to tell me that Assassin's Creed III is a bad game based on its similarities to previous games? Your argument would make no sense.

All I'm getting from you is you don't think sequels should ever change the formula, and we should just get 5 games that are the exact same.

I hope it's good. I got kinda bored by the end Rev, but I'm still interested in the story.

@Video_Game_King:

Things get stale that's why, mechanics that seem fresh in one game can feel tired in the next. There's nothing shocking or illogical about it, people just don't like doing the same monotonous thing over and over. Plus, the story in Revelations is shitty and in no way advances the general plot, making it just seem like filler.

Basically, Assassin's Creed turned into a procedural cop show, except instead of watching it for 45 minutes when there's nothing else on, you sit through 20 hours of it.

Well the idea is that one team made a numbered sequel and another churned out Brotherhood and Rev - not that they were bad - but using a lot of the same assets as AC2. That way they could spend 3 years on it without leaving all that money on the table that a yearly game generates.

If the numbered sequel does not move the series forward significantly in either time period and/or gameplay mechanics they are going to lose an awful lot of goodwill though.

@Jimbo said:

It's plausible that they branched development after AC2, with a (presumably smaller) team dedicated to AC3 this whole time, which everybody else will have piled on as soon as Revelations was out the door.

I wouldn't be surprised if the small team was the one working on Brotherhood and Revelations while a larger team prepped for AC3.

@Jimbo said:

That said, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the franchise, it just needs freshening up.

I agree, but then again, Assassin's Creed has always been one of those franchises that's felt custom-built to my gaming tastes.

So let's see, I just started Revelations the other day so at this rate I'll probably be hitting AC3 sometime in late 2013 regardless of release date.

@CL60:

Sequels should change, but they should change to improve; not just for the sake of change. If the first game in that series of five games was awesome, then why the hell isn't the 5th game awesome if it's exactly the same as the 1st?

@ick_bop said:

@Video_Game_King:

Things get stale that's why, mechanics that seem fresh in one game can feel tired in the next.

But why? How could you possibly justify that on the game's level? How could you explain that without dragging other games into it? I honestly believe that the reasons for a game's quality should come from the game itself, not from something extrinsic to the game.

@ProfessorEss said:

@Jimbo said:

It's plausible that they branched development after AC2, with a (presumably smaller) team dedicated to AC3 this whole time, which everybody else will have piled on as soon as Revelations was out the door.

I wouldn't be surprised if the small team was the one working on Brotherhood and Revelations while a larger team prepped for AC3.

I dunno, wouldn't you need a lot of man power to annually pump out games the size of AC?

Ubisoft said in the press release that work on AC3 has been going on "for three years." That indicates they began work on it right after AC2 came out.

@DaBuddaDa said:

Ubisoft said in the press release that work on AC3 has been going on "for three years." That indicates they began work on it right after AC2 came out.

I'm glad that I read this before I posted something incredibly stupid.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@CL60 said:

Do you think it's going to have some significant changes from Revelations? I don't think I would like if they released another game that is the same.

Because Revelations was bad? That's the only way this post can make any sense.

Yes, it was. The exact same gameplay, the exact same writing and story/mission design and progression, the exact same AI behavior and reactions as AC2 and Brotherhood. And most of all, the same protagonist, AGAIN, for the THIRD TIME, in a franchise that promised characters from around the world and throughout history. Assassin's Creed turned into Ezio's Creed, it's a damn shame. So unless AC3 goes back on the right track with a leap in gameplay and controls and AI and level design, and a NEW FUCKING PROTAGONIST (desmond can suck my dick), I'm over this franchise, and it breaks me heartie.

Cocksucking or not, Desmond is the protagonist of Assassin's Creed. He may have ancestors that do some jumping and stabbing, but the entire focus of the AC story is what Desmond is doing to stop armageddon.

So yeah, he's not going away for AC3.

Right, but he should just be the thread which connects the games. The greatest potential for the AC series is that each game has its own self-contained story, which remains the major focus of the game, so that people feel like they can pick up any one of them without having played all of the previous ones. Desmond primarily exists as justification for the franchise and to give context to many different stories over a lot of different historical settings.

Desmond (or at least the crisis of his time) is the focus of the franchise, but I don't think he should become the focus of the individual games. Revelations started moving in that direction and suffered for it, because the vast majority of your time was spent with somebody (Ezio) who didn't really have an interesting story of their own going on. AC2 and Brotherhood had strong self-contained storylines which were cool in their own right; Revelations had... I don't know... collect some magic artifacts to unlock a thing.

@Video_Game_King said:

@CL60:

Sequels should change, but they should change to improve; not just for the sake of change. If the first game in that series of five games was awesome, then why the hell isn't the 5th game awesome if it's exactly the same as the 1st?

Because qualitative standards change all the time.

If your sequel is exactly the same as the first game then it didn't need to be made at all.

@ick_bop said:

@ProfessorEss said:

@Jimbo said:

It's plausible that they branched development after AC2, with a (presumably smaller) team dedicated to AC3 this whole time, which everybody else will have piled on as soon as Revelations was out the door.

I wouldn't be surprised if the small team was the one working on Brotherhood and Revelations while a larger team prepped for AC3.

I dunno, wouldn't you need a lot of man power to annually pump out games the size of AC?

You're right but to clarify, when I say "small team" I mean "Ubisoft small team" which is probably still a pretty big team.

I just can't help but think that the team must be so proficient at using that engine by now, plus as others have said the evolution from game to game is not particularly substantial leaving freeing up massive hours worth of bug testing and "ground up" programming.

But I really don't have any idea, just makin' with the convo :)

@Video_Game_King:

Right, the experience is always as memorable and fresh as the first time. That's how things work, no franchise in history has ever been dulled and diluted by endless sequels. Just keep pumping 'em out, my cherry will keep on popping.

@Jimbo said:

Because qualitative standards change all the time.

But do they have to? Can't there be some standard that carries over from game to game?

@ick_bop:

So a series should always be changing, all the time, forever? Then why have Sonic games been such shit ever since 3D Blast? And how has Fire Emblem managed to be so awesome, despite few changes to the core formula?

The more the AC franchises is about Desmond, the less I'll be interested in it. I'm fine with his whole storyline as long as it's not a big part. Actually the historical context is my favorite part of AC, all the alien science-fiction end of the world stuff makes me cringe and I just try to ignore it.

Anyway, I think what the series needs to get me interested again is a whole new setting. I'm talking something pretty drastically different than the renaissance. For exemple World War 1, seeing how the assassins/templars influenced those events would be really interesting imo.

@Video_Game_King:

Yes, the mechanics of AC are perfect, nothing should change. Anyone who was disappointed with Revelations should just slit their fucking throat, the game was fucking perfect. Pieces of shit complaining about video games, don't they know children are dying in Africa? Fucking internet forums, you garbage people and your pointless distaste of A DAMN FINE sequel motherfuckers. Superman IV: The Search for Peace was a fucking masterwork, asshole critics with no goddamn taste! Attack of The Clones was just as perfect as Empire Strikes Back because it contained laser weapons and spcarcey aships, cause it's the same meaning the it's the same quality, the same.

@Video_Game_King said:

@Jimbo said:

Because qualitative standards change all the time.

But do they have to? Can't there be some standard that carries over from game to game?

Yes they have to change, or we'd have run out of superlatives about a year after games started being made. Also, the same game would keep getting made over and over again because everybody would keep calling it awesome each time.

@Video_Game_King said:

@CL60 said:

Do you think it's going to have some significant changes from Revelations? I don't think I would like if they released another game that is the same.

Because Revelations was bad? That's the only way this post can make any sense.

It's more that gaming companies feel that they can release the same type of content as a completely new game. Don't get me wrong, I love Assassin's Creed. However, I wish they would release content in expansion packs rather than full-fledged game. Take out a lot of the tower-conquering and just give me the flat out story as DLC or a reduced price retail box.

Putting another number on it means changes to me - maybe not everyone. So when the First, second, and then subsequently the next 3 will have the same content, I tend to stop caring unless it is an expansion pack. (Kind of like how Diablo II: Lords of Destruction is the same game, but just more added content.)

@ick_bop:

Did I say that the games shouldn't change? I don't remember doing that. (If I did, I probably shouldn't have.) If there are improvements to be made, fucking make those improvements, as they would make the game better (in theory). But, again, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO CRITICIZE A GAME FOR BEING THE SAME AS A GAME YOU ADMITTED TO BEING GOOD. Again, for the sake of argument, I have not played any Assassin's Creed game, and Revelations is my first. How would that argument make sense? And your examples fail to hold water because THEY ARE NOT THE SAME AS THEIR PREDECESSORS. They are bad specifically because they made changes for the worse (Superman IV moved away from serious Superman to a stupid nuclear villain or whatever, and Attack of the Clones decided to make its protagonist some guy who can't act for shit). Had they been the same as their predecessors, their quality would be the same; had they examined the flaws present in those films and improve them, they would be better than those films. Change should never be made for the mere sake of change; a good sequel should take the previous game's good qualities and improve on the bad, not simply be different because sameness is bad. SAMENESS AND DIFFERENCE HAVE NO QUANTITATIVE VALUE ON THEIR OWN. *sigh* This is just something I see gamers doing all the time that just pisses me off.

@Video_Game_King:

So basically, why play anything other than ACII?

@ick_bop:

Because other games can also be good? And if the later games in the series are exactly the same as AC2, then they should be just as good as AC2, providing for an equally pleasurable experience? Seems straightforward.

@Video_Game_King:

Yeah, but then why spend $60 for the same experience?

I'm very happy to know that Assassins Creed 3 has been in development for 3 years, and that's because I've been a huge fan of the series ever since I played the first game. At the same time, it makes me wonder, if they had a side development team for both Brotherhood and Revelations. If that's the case, it's possible that everyone on both teams is joining together for this new game. With this news announcement, it has instantly become one of my most anticipated games this year.

@ick_bop:

Because that experience was good and, if it is the same, will be good again?

Ubi Montreal have been working on this since the release of Assassins Creed 2. Recent evidence seems to indicate that Brotherhood and Revelations were concieved and written in 2009 with intentions of being DLC but that obviously didn't work out. Montreal didn't put their full attention towards either Brotherhood or Revelations as many other studios would do the work alongside a small team of theres. Odds are a lot of Montreal has been working on AC3 since before AC2 ended development.

A lot of people suggest they don't have it all planned out, but evidence suggests AC:B and AC:R were planned in 2009, and if Ubisofts 3 year comment is to believed so was AC3.

I'd like some actual difficulty, if they're going to make the combat so easy, you should be able to take more damage, just let me enable Hardcore Mode or something it hurt the story in brotherhood and 2 for me, anytime I was held back from killing a group of enemies because the story told me I had to "run away" because I was outnumbered, I was pissed. Ezio could literally slay entire armies in those games without being touched, or maybe they'll just let us take over the entire planet with out godlike countering abilities.

@Video_Game_King:

Okay, but if you already own that experience, why pay for it again?

@ick_bop:

Why not? Again, same experience=same enjoyment. Also, that question from before about Revelations being my first game (for the sake of argument, of course).

@Video_Game_King said:

@ick_bop:

Again, same experience=same enjoyment=same game, so why on Earth would I buy it again? Save yourself some money and just replay the one you own.

fixed

@ick_bop:

Because again, if it's the same as the previous game, then you should enjoy it as much as the previous game. I could add a moral dimension to this and frame it as supporting the developers, I guess.

I hope it changes quiet a bit as I loved AC2 and Brotherhood to death. A new protagonist(hopefully we don't play as Desmond throughout the whole game) and a new area in the past or present. I don't know anymore, I just think Desmond is one of the worst protagonists in video games. He's cool because of his animus skills and has little to no personality. Surprising considering that he's been in 4 games now, yet I still don't give a shit about him. I wanna love this series again, so let it happen Ubi!

@DaBuddaDa said:

Ubisoft said in the press release that work on AC3 has been going on "for three years." That indicates they began work on it right after AC2 came out.

Indeed and Ubisoft wanted to release more Assassin games to keep interest so they released Revelations and Brotherhood I believe.

I think ACIII is going to a brilliant game and i for one cannot wait!

@AhmadMetallic: The same protagonist three games in a row ? Why is this suddenly some kind of demerit point ? Having three separate playable characters across four games in the same series is honestly more than what you'll find in your average western developed game, but apparently not offering you a new protagonist is some kind of weird cardinal sin all of a sudden. Remember Gears and Uncharted ? Marcus and Drake have been the main playable character for THREE games in a row, four in Uncharted's case. To be honest I find Ezio more interesting than either Marcus or Drake, and certainly more deserving of three games.

@talkingtoast: It's more in the line of new world/new era to discover and the new mechanic that would come with it. Sure Ezio was fun to see evolve but I would not mind seeing Desmond story if they can pull an interesting and refreshing way to bring the mechanic a la assassin creed type of action in our era. It was never Ezio story to begin with, Ezio was just a piece to help Desmond stop whatever should happen 12/21/2012, That's the reason assassin creed need to move on because it's not about one era or Ezio, it's about a guy who can live the life of his ancestor through the animus. Naturally the expectation would not be the same as Uncharted like you give in your example. The base of the story was made in a way that player expect to see an new era once in a while (like they made from AC1 to AC2 for example).

Beside, it's more a matter of opinion on which character should or should not have 3 games. I'm not saying we should not see Ezio in AC3, I'm saying that story and the mechanic of assassin creed is made in a way that someone would expect completely different setting and era for each iteration of the game. And just to make this clear, this is of course only my opinion and I'm not talking for every one. :P

I still haven't played Revelations partly because I didn't have enough money to buy every single game I wanted (hot damn have there been a bunch this past holiday season), and partly because I don't really want to play it other than for the bits of story about Desmond. (FUCKING EZIO. Seriously, really tired of him.) I'm very much looking forward to this, though. I mainly just want a new character in a different time period or for it to be the end of Desmond's story and you play in modern day. However, I would love for them to make some significant changes. I feel like there are definitely flaws to the AC series that use some fixing.

@Darklight: @xobballox: Honestly, Ezio is a much more interesting character than Desmond, and the Renaissance is a much more interesting period of time then modern time. We get plenty of games that take place in modern time/near future, and we get even more generic Nolan North voiced every-man's who get thrust into extraordinary circumstances.

@AhmadMetallic: The same protagonist three games in a row ? Why is this suddenly some kind of demerit point ? Having three separate playable characters across four games in the same series is honestly more than what you'll find in your average western developed game, but apparently not offering you a new protagonist is some kind of weird cardinal sin all of a sudden. Remember Gears and Uncharted ? Marcus and Drake have been the main playable character for THREE games in a row, four in Uncharted's case. To be honest I find Ezio more interesting than either Marcus or Drake, and certainly more deserving of three games.

@AhmadMetallic: Among Thieves, Golden Abyss, Gears of War 1-3, let's have a look at the God of War franchise, 2 PSP games and 3 Playstation games, all starring the same one dimensional character. On another note, it's been 3 years since AC 2, and you're getting a new protagonist/world. This isn't a ridiculous amount of time between games.