I don't understand the need to put a game out every year for this series. I haven't even been able to play Revelations yet, I don't think we have enough time to play all these games much less get excited over another AC game within a year of each other. We have lives, work, go out, girlfriends, wives, maybe kids in some people case, family, etc...watch TV, movies, write blogs, play sports, exercise, Twitter, Facebook and play videogames. Ubisoft better rethink their strategy now before we get sick of a diluted product...and that is all I have to say.

I loved Assassins Creed

I loved Assassins Creed II

I loved Assassins Creed Brotherhood

I liked Assassins Creed Revelations

1 out of 4 being 'ok' is not bad. Actually it is quite fantstic run they have been on. Word is that III has been worked on for 3 years and it is the biggest game Ubisoft has ever made. There are mistakes in Rev, but they are fixable. I still enjoy this game series and so do 9 million other people.

I loved Assassins Creed

I loved Assassins Creed II

I loved Assassins Creed Brotherhood

I liked Assassins Creed Revelations

1 out of 4 being 'ok' is not bad. Actually it is quite fantstic run they have been on. Word is that III has been worked on for 3 years and it is the biggest game Ubisoft has ever made. 

@El_Galant said:

We have lives, work, go out, girlfriends, wives, maybe kids in some people case, family, etc...watch TV, movies, write blogs, play sports, exercise, Twitter, Facebook and play videogames.

...Alright, what?

I wouldn't call the gameplay boring, it is just stacked with so many weapons and mechanics, that it becomes tedius to run around the city with 30 icons on the map. Killing people is too easy and the fail states are constrained.

Call of Duty is the only game for a whole boatload of people, which is why it can get away being a yearly franchise for the most part, it'll sell long after "gamers" have moved on. Assassins Creed doesn't have that, its audience while large, has a larger amount of people who play lots of different games, so for Ubisoft to put out another "ok" assassins creed game would be a bad idea, as most of AC audience would be somewhat disappointed.

I did not play any post-II AC games because I wasn't around to do so, but I don't think they've done anything wrong at this point. Two high quality spin-off games leading up to the third official installment isn't bad. From the sound of it, III should be much bigger than its predecessors, which is exactly what we should expect. As long as they up the ante with each iteration, I won't complain.

I've never heard the phrase "officially Megamans" before.

@JeanLuc said:

I've never heard the phrase "officially Megamans" before.

It means making more installments of the same franchise that players can either count or remember playing. How many AC games are there now and the franchise was started when, 5 years ago?

@FluxWaveZ: Just saying that with so much going on in your life and other games to play might be rather wise to ease off on putting an AC game every year. Might turn into a series people stop caring about quickly.

Yearly games don't bother me as long as they are good. If you cannot beat it within a year, thats fine. No one says you have to jump on it upon launch. However, I wish - since they kept the same engine/gameplay - they would just make these expansions with less filler (I.e. hiring assassins, tower conquering) instead full retail box games. Will my wish ever be obtained? No, too much money to be made.

I know they have done a good job at making sure I don't give a shit anymore.

I don't know how you people loved AC1, that game was fucking terrible and by far one of the most repetitive, lifeless games I've played this gen.

I'm just going to pretend you people that have different opinions do not exist.

I was hoping this meant fat Ezio

For a minute I thought Ubisoft was cancelling the next Assassin's Creed.
 
What a strange world that was.

*sigh* Hey, remember what I said in that other AC3 thread? I stand by all of it in this one.

@El_Galant said:

@JeanLuc said:

I've never heard the phrase "officially Megamans" before.

It means making more installments of the same franchise that players can either count or remember playing. How many AC games are there now and the franchise was started when, 5 years ago?

I'm pretty sure that's just called annualizing a franchise. Having 5 games games in a series is hardly "Megamans"... what the fuck is that even? If you wanted to use it in a context of "they have many spin offs" maybe? Maybe. Since Megaman has Megaman, Megaman X, Megaman Battle-Network, Megaman Zero, Megaman ZX. Or if you wanted to use it in the context of them canceling a project out of the blue and then going "We have no plans at all to do anything with this because the fans just don't care enough." or some BS, I would maybe also accept that. Using it to say you are annualizing a franchise sounds really stupid. And your definition of "More than players can either count or remember playing" doesn't even fit into this. Five games is hardly "more than players can count or remember." If you can't count to five or remember playing 5 games in a franchise.. well, I guess there are bigger problems than trying to coin "Megaman-ing something" as a phrase.

I've yet to play a game in the series I didn't like, so I'm not going to complain about the yearly format until they do. Bring on Assassin's Creed III!

Also, this is basically Ubisoft being Ubisoft, they will basically keep Ubi Montreal (and the 500 other studios they're outsourcing to) slaving away on these games at this sort of clip until they make a bad one. After that they'll go back to the drawing board for a while, release a new game with fresh mechanics but the internet will have a big fucking teary because it didn't stick to the formula that they claimed they had gotten sick of a few years beforehand.

Okay, now I'm just being an ass. Truth is I'd definitely prefer to have a bit of a gap between these games, but the situation is what it is - and on the bright side I don't think they've made a bad game since they moved Asssassin's Creed to an annual release schedule.

@El_Galant said:

@JeanLuc said:

I've never heard the phrase "officially Megamans" before.

It means making more installments of the same franchise that players can either count or remember playing. How many AC games are there now and the franchise was started when, 5 years ago?

Or, at least that's what @El_Galant: thinks "officially Megamans" means. I'd interpret the topic title to mean that in ACIII, you fight eight elemental bosses, and steal their weapons, then use them against the other bosses which are each weak to one of those elemental weapons. Then, at the end, you have to fight them all at once- it's called a "boss rush".

Retard posts retarded thing. People quickly chastise retard.

I see nothing wrong with this thread.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Dany said:

I loved Assassins Creed

I loved Assassins Creed II

I loved Assassins Creed Brotherhood

I liked Assassins Creed Revelations

1 out of 4 being 'ok' is not bad. Actually it is quite fantstic run they have been on. Word is that III has been worked on for 3 years and it is the biggest game Ubisoft has ever made.

Pretty much. AC 1 through Brohood were amazing, Revelations was OK but showed that the formula is now literally dead, so it's up to this 3-year-old AC3 to make or break the franchise. Let's wait and see.

I agree with this. There is only so much of the same good thing one can take at a time. This is just like COD. They keep putting out games that are VERY similar, and now they are getting grief for it. I started the franchise with ACII and loved brotherhood, but I skipped Revelations because it seems like its the exact same game again with little payoff at the end. I want to see them innovate, or at least put a different coat of paint on it, so it doesn't seem like the same game with new unrewarding story beats. I'm putting my hopes in ACIII. Don't fail me now.

*sigh* Hey, remember what I said in that other AC3 thread? I stand by all of it in this one.

Now this is gonna be tough for me. I love the franchise, but am way behind. I just started getting into brotherhood and am miles away from revelations ._.

I'm sure they'll find a way, but it's hard to really justify going past III story-wise, considering the series is supposed to end in 2012 (September even, I believe). I understand Ubi turning this into an annual franchise (a couple of hints suggesting that B'hood and Rev were total cash-ins, a result of the unexpected success of II), but creatively, they've painted themselves into a corner.

Of course, they can always take the fiction sideways, a la B'hood again. They can always follow-up with Altair's son, or, as in the AC Encyclopedia, follow up with the Chinese assassin that met up with old Ezio, or any other time period, like Czar-ist Russia.

I would be pissed if another AC game didn't come out this year... why? Because every single game up to this point has referenced the date 21st of December 2012 (effectively making it a date that has been set-up in the AC universe since 2007) - for them to do that and then not release a game in that year would be really annoying.

@TooWalrus said:

@El_Galant said:

@JeanLuc said:

I've never heard the phrase "officially Megamans" before.

It means making more installments of the same franchise that players can either count or remember playing. How many AC games are there now and the franchise was started when, 5 years ago?

Or, at least that's what @El_Galant: thinks "officially Megamans" means. I'd interpret the topic title to mean that in ACIII, you fight eight elemental bosses, and steal their weapons, then use them against the other bosses which are each weak to one of those elemental weapons. Then, at the end, you have to fight them all at once- it's called a "boss rush".

It feels like I just got done playing brotherhood, and I don't have an urge to pick up Revelations any time soon... but if they megamaned Assassin's Creed III, that sounds like a STELLAR game. Desmond starts going so crazy that cyberspace tech starts leaking into whatever era he's reliving this time around.

I really don't understand how someone can be against it. I mean no one is making you play it and considering all of the games continue to sell good enough there is clearly an audience who wants to play one each year. Especially considering if you're only interested in the main story you could get through most of the games very quickly.

I'll Mega Man your face with my fist.

@CL60:

And that's still a bullshit argument. How can you say that Modern Warfare 3 is a crap game by saying that it's exactly the same as Call of Duty 4, which is not a crap game? What if I hadn't played Call of Duty 4, but want to to play Modern Warfare 3? How would that argument apply to me in any feasible way? Again: don't drag other games in the argument when determining whether a game is good or not.

i'll be ok with AC3 if they actually end Desmond's story, otherwise any games they make after that i don't care much about.

I've never heard the phrase "officially Megamans" before.

@El_Galant said:

I don't understand the need to put a game out every year for this series. I haven't even been able to play Revelations yet, I don't think we have enough time to play all these games much less get excited over another AC game within a year of each other. We have lives, work, go out, girlfriends, wives, maybe kids in some people case, family, etc...watch TV, movies, write blogs, play sports, exercise, Twitter, Facebook and play videogames. Ubisoft better rethink their strategy now before we get sick of a diluted product...and that is all I have to say.

You're not going to find much sympathy in here, game forums are populated with people who have nothing but time on their hands, mostly teenagers.

I totally agree with you, I'm still a third of the way through brotherhood and i'm pretty sure with the mass of great games out from last year it's going to be a year until I touch revelations if I touch it at all. Which I probably wont as it seems like it's less of the crazy conspiracies of the 1st and 2nd and more "fun times with Ezio". Which at this point feels pretty done.

Yearly is too much for a franchise like Assassins Creed, especially when you factor in masses of DLC.

I'm having a hard time trying to bring myself to play ACR. I'm suffering from series fatigue.

@Sooty said:

I don't know how you people loved AC1, that game was fucking terrible and by far one of the most repetitive, lifeless games I've played this gen.

I'm just going to pretend you people that have different opinions do not exist.

It had some bad repetition no one will argue with you on that but hardly lifeless the underlying story was Really good and the concept was Really good some of the execution was off but all of that was fixed in 2 so why is it so hard to believe that someone could enjoy AC1, a good story can pull you through just about anything.

@Evilsbane said:

@Sooty said:

I don't know how you people loved AC1, that game was fucking terrible and by far one of the most repetitive, lifeless games I've played this gen.

I'm just going to pretend you people that have different opinions do not exist.

It had some bad repetition no one will argue with you on that but hardly lifeless the underlying story was Really good and the concept was Really good some of the execution was off but all of that was fixed in 2 so why is it so hard to believe that someone could enjoy AC1, a good story can pull you through just about anything.

I though the story was dreadful. Altair is a terrible and boring character, to me that series starts with 2.

                   

I don't understand the need to put a game out every year for this series. I haven't even been able to play Revelations yet, I don't think we have enough time to play all these games much less get excited over another AC game within a year of each other. We have lives, work, go out, girlfriends, wives, maybe kids in some people case, family, etc...watch TV, movies, write blogs, play sports, exercise, Twitter, Facebook and play videogames. Ubisoft better rethink their strategy now before we get sick of a diluted product...and that is all I have to say.

                   

               

@Video_Game_King said:

@CL60:

And that's still a bullshit argument. How can you say that Modern Warfare 3 is a crap game by saying that it's exactly the same as Call of Duty 4, which is not a crap game? What if I hadn't played Call of Duty 4, but want to to play Modern Warfare 3? How would that argument apply to me in any feasible way? Again: don't drag other games in the argument when determining whether a game is good or not.

And I still don't understand how you are unable to understand how something can get stale after the same thing being released over and over again for 5 years.

@CL60:

Perhaps because that contradicts the notion of determining a game's quality using things only within the game itself?

@Video_Game_King said:

@CL60:

Perhaps because that contradicts the notion of determining a game's quality using things only within the game itself?

No it really doesn't. If I've been playing the same game every year for 5 years straight. The same things that I considered fantastic 5 years ago, I wont consider them that great anymore, because I've already played through the same damn thing 5 other times.

@Video_Game_King said:

@CL60:

Perhaps because that contradicts the notion of determining a game's quality using things only within the game itself?

Were you not paying attention when I explained how qualitative standards change over time?

@Jimbo:

Do they have to, though? I can still enjoy Citizen Kane or The Divine Comedy or early Greek statues or anything else in any other medium that's pretty damn old; why should video games be any different?

@CL60:

Even though absolutely nothing about it has changed? So if I am to understand your argument correctly, then originality is something that can totally determine the quality of a game, right?

@Video_Game_King: Video games aren't movies, books, or television. They are video games. The interactivity of them is what makes them stale and unoriginal over time, this will be a constant from now until the end of time. It is a quantitative factor based on how many games of a kind you play.

@CaptainCody:

But that doesn't really make any sense. If interactivity makes them stale over time, then how are so many people still playing Starcraft? And how would World of Warcraft be dominating the MMO genre if that was true?

@Video_Game_King said:

@Jimbo:

Do they have to, though? I can still enjoy Citizen Kane or The Divine Comedy or early Greek statues or anything else in any other medium that's pretty damn old; why should video games be any different?

The argument there is that those things have rarely, if ever, been bettered. They didn't release very slightly better sequels of Citizen Kane every year for the next 5 years.

Nobody said you can't enjoy old things anyway, I said standards change over time. Just because a game is 'awesome' today doesn't mean it will be considered 'awesome' a year later. It's not that the game has changed, it's that 'awesome' has changed. If five very similar 'awesome' things come out then what was once 'awesome' has now become average.

@Jimbo said:

If five very similar 'awesome' things come out then what was once 'awesome' has now become average.

No, it's the other way around; the average becomes awesome. Besides, there are ways to determine a game's quality without referencing the time it was made. You could ask questions about the game, like "Does the game control well?" or "Does it look good on an artistic level?" or "Is the story any good, and if not, does it need a story to be enjoyed?" Not a perfect method, but it's some type of proof that standards don't need to change.

@Video_Game_King said:

@Jimbo said:

If five very similar 'awesome' things come out then what was once 'awesome' has now become average.

No, it's the other way around; the average becomes awesome. Besides, there are ways to determine a game's quality without referencing the time it was made. You could ask questions about the game, like "Does the game control well?" or "Does it look good on an artistic level?" or "Is the story any good, and if not, does it need a story to be enjoyed?" Not a perfect method, but it's some type of proof that standards don't need to change.

It blows my mind that you can't grasp this concept.

When you call something awesome you are making a comparative statement. It inspires awe because it is of a higher / more impressive nature than its peers. Once enough of those peers match or improve on it then it ceases to be awesome.

You cannot judge quality in isolation like you are suggesting. That's like... the exact opposite of how quality is defined.

@Jimbo said:

You cannot judge quality in isolation like you are suggesting. That's like... the exact opposite of how quality is defined.

Yes, you can; no, it is not.....Shit. I don't see anywhere else for this to go.

@Video_Game_King said:

@Jimbo said:

If five very similar 'awesome' things come out then what was once 'awesome' has now become average.

No, it's the other way around; the average becomes awesome. Besides, there are ways to determine a game's quality without referencing the time it was made. You could ask questions about the game, like "Does the game control well?" or "Does it look good on an artistic level?" or "Is the story any good, and if not, does it need a story to be enjoyed?" Not a perfect method, but it's some type of proof that standards don't need to change.

You're right that a company can release five games in a row and have them all be at roughly the same level of quality. That doesn't then force me to like them the same amount, though. Part of what makes a game good is how it controls, what its story is, and what its graphics look like, but part of it can also be the novelty of the experience. So AssCreed Rev can technically be just as good as AssCreed Bro, but I'm not obligated to buy it or enjoy it, in the same way I'm not obligated to listen to Yngwie Malmsteen guitar solos on repeat just because it's "technically" some of the best guitar playing.

@bvilleneuve:

Hooray for a logical post that manages to resolve this dilemma! Now I just need to see if everybody agrees that liking something is not the same as admitting that it's good (and that they should admit that all of these five games hover around the same level of quality, all other things being equal).

@Video_Game_King said:

@Jimbo said:

You cannot judge quality in isolation like you are suggesting. That's like... the exact opposite of how quality is defined.

Yes, you can; no, it is not.....Shit. I don't see anywhere else for this to go.

"1. The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something."