Assassin's Creed campaign hurting multiplayer population?

Stab stab stab stabbity stab stab stab stab...

I've been playing the Assassin's Creed/assassins-creed/62-38/ games since the first one. I'm probably one of the few people who actually enjoyed the original because it made you feel like a knife wielding Batman long before Arkham Asylum/batman-arkham-asylum/61-23245/ perfected the formula... and took away the knives. It also helped that I didn't even try to care about the flags, having learned that lesson from hunting hidden packages & pigeons in the GTA series. There's always one you miss on the check list.

Anyway, the latest installment, Assassin's Creed: Revelations/assassins-creed-revelations/61-34975/, has gotten some flak for being yet another annualized series and bringing in elements that no one seems to dig (the tower defense section definitely takes away from the fun of the game), but the main buzz seems to be concern over the multiplayer being ignored again. While I respect Ubisoft for trying to create a unique, non-deathmatchy style game, I think I've figured out why it largely goes ignored: The lengthy campaign.

Modern FPS games have learned that the vast majority of their player base doesn't buy the game for the single player or the story. If there's a good one, great, that certainly helps the game, but it doesn't wipe away bad game design and core fundamentals. That's why Modern Warfare has managed to have scant 6 hour campaigns that are essentially explosion and set piece porn. It doesn't even get played by the majority of Call of Duty players. AC is a different story entirely though. The story is what keeps me coming back to the series, along with the attractive concept of putting knives into fools and seeing beautiful cityscapes. Not only that, the campaign in AC games is LONG... I'd guess I'm about 20 hours into Revelations and a lot of that time was spent running around town, buying up shops, changing my weapons around, stabbing dudes and altering my cloak colors (royal purple currently... felt very Ned Flanders of me).

At the end of the game, I expect I'll feel the same way I do about most of the other games in the franchise at the conclusion; Time for something else. The time I spend putting into the campaigns is usually extensive and, while fun, exhausting. When I finish an AC game, I need to play something different. This attitude is what hurts the multiplayer population. That and the steep learning curve it takes to get good at it. It's similar to why you don't see people rocking chess very often and instead play Angry Birds or similar. They're simple, easy and don't require hours of invested time just to get competent, let alone good. What does everyone else think?

Start the Conversation
1 Comments
Posted by Phoenix654

Stab stab stab stabbity stab stab stab stab...

I've been playing the Assassin's Creed/assassins-creed/62-38/ games since the first one. I'm probably one of the few people who actually enjoyed the original because it made you feel like a knife wielding Batman long before Arkham Asylum/batman-arkham-asylum/61-23245/ perfected the formula... and took away the knives. It also helped that I didn't even try to care about the flags, having learned that lesson from hunting hidden packages & pigeons in the GTA series. There's always one you miss on the check list.

Anyway, the latest installment, Assassin's Creed: Revelations/assassins-creed-revelations/61-34975/, has gotten some flak for being yet another annualized series and bringing in elements that no one seems to dig (the tower defense section definitely takes away from the fun of the game), but the main buzz seems to be concern over the multiplayer being ignored again. While I respect Ubisoft for trying to create a unique, non-deathmatchy style game, I think I've figured out why it largely goes ignored: The lengthy campaign.

Modern FPS games have learned that the vast majority of their player base doesn't buy the game for the single player or the story. If there's a good one, great, that certainly helps the game, but it doesn't wipe away bad game design and core fundamentals. That's why Modern Warfare has managed to have scant 6 hour campaigns that are essentially explosion and set piece porn. It doesn't even get played by the majority of Call of Duty players. AC is a different story entirely though. The story is what keeps me coming back to the series, along with the attractive concept of putting knives into fools and seeing beautiful cityscapes. Not only that, the campaign in AC games is LONG... I'd guess I'm about 20 hours into Revelations and a lot of that time was spent running around town, buying up shops, changing my weapons around, stabbing dudes and altering my cloak colors (royal purple currently... felt very Ned Flanders of me).

At the end of the game, I expect I'll feel the same way I do about most of the other games in the franchise at the conclusion; Time for something else. The time I spend putting into the campaigns is usually extensive and, while fun, exhausting. When I finish an AC game, I need to play something different. This attitude is what hurts the multiplayer population. That and the steep learning curve it takes to get good at it. It's similar to why you don't see people rocking chess very often and instead play Angry Birds or similar. They're simple, easy and don't require hours of invested time just to get competent, let alone good. What does everyone else think?