A years time is just the right amount for me to miss face and neck stabbing. Can't wait for this.

Makes sense. Ezio's role is about to end (hopefully in a way befitting such a great character) and now they'll probably be advancing Desmond's plot in the next game. Ever since 2 the series has really been about Ezio - it's kind of cool how we've followed him from birth to what I imagine would be his death in Revelations (or as close as you can get to it, since you can't live the genetic memory of someone's death.)

This makes me loose more hope for the gaming industry...

I'd be happy to see AC wrap up its main story thread in AC3, but I suspect we'll have one more CRAZY location, then a Desmond the bar keeper mini game.

Even if it is a new character and a new storyline, I don't know if a year is enough time for them to make the changes they need to keep these games fresh. New lead character, new time period, new setting, new mechanics? That's a lot of work. Hope it's great.

Haven't played anything since the second. I got bored of the formula.

Wonder if it'll finally be Desmond as the main character!

The lost potential of this series is really depressing. Stop it with Ezio and Altair. Give me a new damn assassin!

Hopefully this will be the end of the Ezio/Altair arch, and Desmond will explore the memories of a new Assassin.

Actually, scratch that. I want a game that's ALL Desmond. Modern--day AC, please.

I stopped caring about the AC storyline after having played the MP in Brotherhood.

Now MP is what I look forward to in AC series.

@deadmanforking said:

I guess they havent gone wrong so far...

Well the first game was shit, but since 2 you are right.

God damnit ubisoft, give it a break for a year.

To me, the only AC that ever mattered, story-wise, was AC1. I really wish they expanded on the whole ''social stealth'' introduced in AC1. The setting was perfect too; Altair could blend in any crowd since his outfit and attire looked like any civilian's. I'm not a fan of the Batman/CoDesque turn of the series. I mean, look at Ezio, he looks like a 16th century Lord of Dance with his flamboyant outfit that stands out of any crowd and his billions of gadgets and weapons.

@Ksaw said:

Even if it is a new character and a new storyline, I don't know if a year is enough time for them to make the changes they need to keep these games fresh. New lead character, new time period, new setting, new mechanics? That's a lot of work. Hope it's great.

I'm pretty sure they mentioned somewhere that they had two teams working on Assassins Creed. A team that was doing Brotherhood and Revelations and a team that was focusing more on Assassins Creed 3. I could be wrong though.

@Klei: I don't agree that AC1 had the story that mattered the most. But I will say that it nailed tone way better than the Ezio stories. I don't know if it was the setting or character. Ezio is a lot more lighthearted than Altair I felt, even though we've experienced more of his story and all the violence in his life. I cant wait to return to Altair in Revelations for this reason.

As far as blending goes, none of the assassins can really blend in to crowds. Both Altair and Ezio walk around like predators, are armed to the teeth and are dressed like lords (Altair less so, but still).

@ Everyone else:

As long as they finish on or around doomsday, I'm fine. I think they started off with the premise in AC1, followed up with AC2 and were like oh shit, this character is pretty awesome and the story we've thought of is awesome but we need more games to tell the story in. Then some suit was like "So you want to make even more games in this series that is making hella money? I'm good with that. Go ahead"

Whatever, I'm getting burnt-out on these games. Annual franchises do more harm than good. Revelations just looks like a cheap idea, and will probably be somewhat bland in execution. These games are starting to feel soulless.

I just cannot even comprehend how people don't understand that there are two AC teams and how the Ezio storyline does not consist of direct sequels to the main series.

People: Brotherhood and Revelations are Ezio-based spin-offs, done by Ubisoft's B-team. If you were ever expecting anything other than Ezio or are tired of Ezio after playing his spin-off series, then I don't really know what to tell you.

I've never played an Assassin's Creed title, and I don't regret it; no game deserves nine sequels in four years.

Dude, Revelations isn't even out yet .... too soon ...

Man....Brotherhood was the shit and all, and I can't wait to prowl through Istanbul as Ezio, but I'm starting to get worried about oversaturation with this franchise.

Hopefully, it's a different style of game than what we've seen from Ezio's installments. I've loved 2 and Brotherhood and Revelations looks cool but I don't think I'll want a 4th game that's just like that.

This series is great, but it sounds like they are running it into the ground.

2 was the best so fuck the rest

I'm a huge AC fan, I even really enjoyed the first game despite its flaws/issues, but even Revelations coming out, making it 3 years in a row with an AC game, I feel pre-emptively burnt out. The fact that it's 3 Ezio games probably compounded that feeling.

I decided not to pre-order revelations because of this, I'll wait until I have room in my gaming queue to play it (which probably won't be until the summer). For next year's AC game, it's going to have to be a Desmond game or another interesting character that's not Ezio, for me to have any interest, and I'll still have to be sold on the game.

Madden's Creed?

I guess I don't play as many games and kind of don't care what people say and just enjoy a good game, so this does not really mean anything bad for me as long as the games are fun and compelling.

I don't like this "announce a new one before the one we've been hyping is even out yet" stuff. Why they didn't just go I, II, then III as Desmond? I would have been completely fine with that. Hell, I would have been fine if they decided to do yearly installments AFTER Desmond's story was finished.

They've been juggling Ezio and Altair around for so long, pulling a Kojima making the entire story complicated--if Brotherhood didn't end on a cliffhanger and GameStop didn't basically force me to pre-order Revelations, I would have lost interest a long time ago.

Guys... Take a break. Just a one year break, that's all. Please?

2 was the best so fuck the rest

How sad. I'd like to see them take a break and shake things up a bit like they did from 1 to 2. These games are great, but I wouldn't like to see them get the same dirty reputation as CoD or Guitar Hero.

Jesus. So far so good with these games, and if Revelations is good I'm probably in for the next one. But... maybe not, because I could use a break from these games.

As long as they continue to be great then yes, more please. But Ubisoft, please, please, fucking please don't burn me out on one of my favorite series.

As long as the series remains awesome, I don't have a problem with another one coming out. I'd really like to see more Desmond, though! I feel that the series is his story, but he gets so little attention in the games.

Fuck. This. Shit. When they released Brotherhood I figured it'd be a spin-off and they were still working on 3, to complete the "trilogy" that AC was originally supposed to be. Now they're making a trilogy of spin-offs within the AC trilogy, which means at least 6 games, which isn't a trilogy. I'm sick of Ezio, I'm done fucking around with iterations on the same gameplay, and I want to see the damn ending to the story. This is such shit.

I am far more accepting of having one of these games every year as opposed to having a Call of Duty game every year. Sure, the game itself is more Assassin's Creed, but there aren't many games out there like this as opposed to Call of Duty, which is more of the same in itself but sitting alongside many other games of its kind.

Didn't they say they were taking a break?

I guess that was in regards to this year. http://www.industrygamers.com/news/assassins-creed-taking-a-break-in-2011/ That worked out pretty well.

Seriously, goddamn this industry sometimes.

If this keeps going Ubisoft is going to launch Assassin's Creed XIII by 2020. lol

Didn't they say this earlier already? I seem to recall that someone in some interview said that they would make another one in 2012 because of how the plot line revolves around that year as well, and that was one of their reasons for it. And that after that they would have a longer break. Also, that break could very well be timed with the console generation shift.

They're just trying to make their money while the interest is still there. I don't necessarily agree with them, but Brotherhood sold millions and Revelations will probably sell well also. They might be afraid that people will lose interest if a new one isn't out every year. I'm reminded of the Sands of Time trilogy. Those came out yearly if I recall correctly, so it's business as usual for Ubisoft.

At least in Call of Duty the characters and storyline changes from year to year, the campaign is brisk and doesn't overstay it's welcome, the coop modes offered change from year to year and the multiplayer is addicting, long lasting and among the best in it's genre. Assassin's Creed 2-3 is the same as last year and the year before that. Same character's, same setting, same gameplay, same interesting-but-flawed multiplayer that doesn't have the legs to last longer than a month at most.

I refuse to buy Revelations or any more AC content that is not AC:3. And AC:3 better be a major improvement over the existing system, not same system slightly different costumes and different bad accents.

@Claude said:

I loved the first two, but couldn't finish Brotherhood. I think I'm out.

Neither could I. I thought I was the only one.

The second they set a game in the present time is the second I bail out of the franchise.

@Claude said:

I loved the first two, but couldn't finish Brotherhood. I think I'm out.

Neither could I. I thought I was the only one.

@TPoppaPuff said:

At least in Call of Duty the characters and storyline changes from year to year, the campaign is brisk and doesn't overstay it's welcome.

That's a nice way of spinning the fact that those games are insultingly short in a positive way.

@Claude said:

@m0rdr3d said:

@Claude said:

I loved the first two, but couldn't finish Brotherhood. I think I'm out.

Neither could I. I thought I was the only one.

It was weird. I kept thinking I should love it, but it was just too much stuff going on and nothing gripped me like the first two.

I didn't finish Brotherhood either. The mission design in that game, particularly near the end, is very weak. Bros. sold on a fun and silly multiplayer and a new single player mechanic that made it easier to ignore the issues AC combat has by allowing you to call AI units do it for you. That's right, the best single player addition in Bros. is a thing that allows you to skip a lot of the combat.

@President_Barackbar said:

That's a nice way of spinning the fact that those games are insultingly short in a positive way.

It's only insulting if you're dumb enough to buy a game with little content. Assassin's Creed is insultingly short. It's a rental-length campaign and a multiplayer that gets old by the fifth match. It's a two rental-title at most. For $60 that's insultingly short. Compare that to CoD where that game has more longevity than most any other titles out there. It's at least a solid year of promised content and player base. Last time I saw the XBL list a month and a half ago there were four CoD titles in the top twelve. And I love the fact that the CoD games have an action movie campaign and intensity to them. A tight, cohesive playthrough is a hell of a lot better than slogging through a watered down campaign that gets repetitious. If they were to make more single-player content in MW3, I would have begged them to seperate it from the rest and divide it into two seperate campaigns and storylines. Most military shooters are best when using movie-style pacing, not when using TV/serialized mentality. That's when they get boring; the only exception being Band of Brothers, which wouldn't be fun to have that shows pacing in a game. They didn't fire guns on that show for two hours straight sometimes. Are you telling me you want a CoD game where you for two straight hours where you don't fire your gun? If they made CoD games with 20 hours of campaign content, I demand for the sake of the quality of the game that they split that into three to five seperate campaigns. But they didn't do that; they decided to add spec ops content instead.

Skipped Brotherhood since it was too close to ACII. Guess I'll skip Revelations too...no sense in burning out again before the next title when it's just around the corner and I haven't recovered from ACII yet.

But people saying it's short? Huh? Like I said, I skipped Brotherhood and will probably skip Revelations, but that's most likely because I logged a butt-ton of hours in ACII and have had enough for awhile. They're short now? Really?

Hypothetically, if people were to stop buying AC from Ubisoft's whoring it out, what franchise do they have left?

I think I'm going to take a break. Yearly releases are one of the worst trends in this industry.

I don't think I'm going to buy Revelations. I enjoyed Brotherhood enough but it just felt stale by the end. I'm worried they're going to burn this series out before they can (hopefully) finish it with a true AC3.