Assassin's Creed is Officially Running on Fumes

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Assassin's Creed is Officially Running on Fumes

There are only so many times audiences will be interested in watching a stock cheeky bad boy reconquering a historical city from moustache-twirling Templars because of a vague personal motivation.

Read Full Article

Also, can we get a bit more exotic again? U.S., France, England, c'mon. Let's have some Shanghai or Angkor Wat or something.

Pyrian:
Also, can we get a bit more exotic again? U.S., France, England, c'mon. Let's have some Shanghai or Angkor Wat or something.

Yeah, anyone else have the feeling the first ASCreed wouldn't be made today because it was a little too exotic with it's background? We have all of History to work with here and yet I get the feeling we're going to be going someplace even more familiar for the next game.

Can we just cut this down to one game every two years? Give the series a chance to catch it's breath before it goes Rockband on us?

Yahtzee Croshaw:
the same kinds of people who insist that every single PC game right down to the indie retro platformers must run at 60 FPS

Shots fired. At someone in particular, I suspect.

The last Assassin's Creed with actual Assassin's Creedy gameplay that I appreciated was number 2

What a coincidence, this is also the last Assassin's Creed game that I think is good, since it was actually about assassinating people and not a sandbox collectathon with the story just being your character being Forrest Gump to history.

Even then I think Assassin's Creed 1 is the best game in the series, given it was actually about planning, executing, and escaping from assassinations, rather than following the minimap.

I feel vindicated for dropping out at part 2.25.
But really, that was when part 2.5 came out. And 2.75. Annnnd... yeah, you get it.

Seriously, go BACK to assassinating solo, unseen. It was what drew people to part 1, which I played to nearly 1000 gamerscore since it was just great.

Yahtzee:
So here's a thought: why don't you make an Assassin's Creed that isn't a sandbox game? The current model isn't working, let's tack to the other side of the wind and see if things move any quicker. A linear story, with some string-of-pearls open-endedness to the missions a la Hitman: Blood Money and the like, but ultimately very firmly gated. It'd mean being able to have a story that isn't manacled to the obligation to let the player return to the same sandbox after every event; the state of the game world could actually permanently change in significant ways. Ditch all this nonsense we've accrued relating to management and collectibles and token historical side missions and isolate your problem by stripping things down to the wires. Focus on one thing and make the best damn parkour-assassination gameplay you can.

...so basically, you want Ubisoft to make Dishonored?

Everyone should make Dishonored clones. It was awesome.

And surely the point of Assassin's Creed has always been to incentivise indirect combat, clean kills and clean escapes, and I've been playing them on the assumption that the direct combat is deliberately kind of shitty and boring for precisely that reason.

The thing is, I can't remember the last time I played an Assassin's Creed game and actually got to experience a clean assassination.

It seems like the game wants to drive you into fighting lots of guys because it's 'dramatic', but it's incredibly easy to just kill them. I am terrible at most fighting in games that is not simple button mashing, but in AC I never felt the need to be stealthy to gain an advantage; if I got spotted, so be it, I'll just kill the 20 guys who run up and form a nice circle around me, then go back to the main target.

Also, were the screenshots from Assassin's Creed: Rogue on purpose?

The stealth also needs to be better. We need to be able to stick to walls like in Human Revolution. Awkwardly walking between glowing spots isn't enough.

I'm still waiting for Assasin's Creed: You're A Samurai Now.

Johnny Novgorod:
I'm still waiting for Assassin's Creed: You're A Samurai Now.

You're kidding right? Hero ninjas vs evil Samurais was a narrative made for this series: stealthy peasants against well armoured dogmatic aristocrats. Similarly, I'm still baffled why Egypt hasn't shown up, Ancient or otherwise. Until the series lets you leap of faith off of the Sphinx's nose as it crumbles away, it still hasn't done enough.

Contrarily, I gain a small amount of morbid satisfaction with each new "eh"ntry to the series. I adored 2 and even loved Brotherhood, but it was with the latter that they announced that it would become a yearly thing and I promptly never bought another one. The things I loved most was the sheer depth of the historical research and the clever twisting they applied to make it fit an appropriately fun narrative. And while I still loved Brotherhood, my thinking going into it was that it came from unused AC2 research - making it exactly the booster shot we wanted. After that, I expected the series to be jumping from period to period with revamped gameplay, aesthetics and a whole lot of new history... but there was no way they could achieve any of that, least of all the latter, in only a year. I predicted to myself, way back when, that each new entry would show signs of less research, meaning the more popular icons would overtake the plot and the gameplay would stagnate. 'Lo and behold, with the history devolving into the depth of a museum children's tour of England, France and America, I feel I was right.

Granted Black Flag threw me through a loop and almost broke me, but with every "not as good" game to come out, I feel pathetically slightly prouder that I held to my little protest.

Ubisoft, drop the yearly releases. THAT'S what crippled the franchise. It was fine when they were crappy little portable games but turning this series yearly is what ultimately stopped it from being the monumental juggernaut we all expected it to be.

Am I the only one wondering why Yahtzee was using pictures from AC Rogue? Is he regretting that he never ZP'd it?

OT: I don't agree with the idea that Syndicate isn't much better than Unity- it didn't have a Face Glitch to my knowledge. The characters were likeable, the plot didn't feel forced (It's not a good sign in a game about Assassins when the love story is the best written part of the game), and it had a lot of gameplay improvements I liked- no multiplayer, the token "Collect pieces of eden to get the Super Special Armour," hand to hand combat that works...

I guess I'm just too hooked on AC to get out, if only because I do like the Modern Day Arc and want to see how it ends.

Still want an Assassin's Creed Cowboy game though.

Mindless and repetitive gameplay is what I come to Ass Creed for. I adored the first game for the same reason so many hated it, it was a lot of repetition. I enjoy mindless repetitive tasks to kinda shut the brain down and just do. I'm loving the hell out of all the side missions. I play them all as Evie (I hope Ubisoft grows a pair and makes one of these with just the female protagonist, maybe if they're tracking gameplay and enough people prefer her they will). When I want something more involved mentally I've got tons of other games to choose from. Ass Creed is my brain number and that's the way I like it.

Pyrian:
Also, can we get a bit more exotic again? U.S., France, England, c'mon. Let's have some Shanghai or Angkor Wat or something.

AC2 teased assassins in ancient Egypt and Babylon. Just a thought....

Pyrian:
Also, can we get a bit more exotic again? U.S., France, England, c'mon. Let's have some Shanghai or Angkor Wat or something.

Replace Generic White Man as the player character? What kind of depth are you expecting?

008Zulu:
Replace Generic White Man as the player character? What kind of depth are you expecting?

They're quite a bit deeper than you give them credit for. I haven't seen a game have a Welsh chucklefuck as a protagonist outside of Black Flag.

Also that arab guy, native american dude and creole lady. (But they aren't important, not when you stack them up against a the rare unicorn known as Welshman.)

Couldn't agree more, i'm getting sick to death of this franchise. The next one needs to do something drastically different in order to get my attention, like taking place entirely in present day or the future or something like that(which did seem to be hinted at in the first game, but never happened for whatever reason).

Thanatos2k:

The last Assassin's Creed with actual Assassin's Creedy gameplay that I appreciated was number 2

What a coincidence, this is also the last Assassin's Creed game that I think is good, since it was actually about assassinating people and not a sandbox collectathon with the story just being your character being Forrest Gump to history.

Even then I think Assassin's Creed 1 is the best game in the series, given it was actually about planning, executing, and escaping from assassinations, rather than following the minimap.

Personally I thought 2 was overrated, Jim Sterling's review perfectly all the problems I had with it.

Pyrian:
Everyone should make Dishonored clones. It was awesome.

Eh, I didn't like Dishonored nearly as much as most critics did, I personally didn't like the tacked-on moral choice system, it was annoying how there were far more "chaos" powers then good ones, which made playing the good way feel like a chore and I felt like the game was punishing me for actually wanting to have fun, which really killed most potential enjoyment(plus the story wasn't all the engaging).

I personally have always thought that AC had no need for a sandbox. The sandbox elements in the first game were a complete waste of time and effort as the game was completely mission-based. Every activities were appearing in a new district opened by a mission, and they disappeared after the mission has been completed. You could easily remove the sandbox from the game, and it would just become better. If anything, I think that AC should've been Hitman: Blood Money in Middle Ages. I mean: series of missions done in big open levels with many ways to assassinate your target. Preferably by using stealth and/or parkour, not zerg rash.

Steve the Pocket:

Yahtzee Croshaw:
the same kinds of people who insist that every single PC game right down to the indie retro platformers must run at 60 FPS

Shots fired. At someone in particular, I suspect.

Well, it is a valid complaint.
Whether it matters to you or not is something you have to decide for yourself.
At the end of the day, there's no reason not to support +60fps. If your engine has an fps-lock, it just goes to show that you don't know how to write a proper one (unless it's specialized for things like point and clicks or the likes).

ShenCS:
Similarly, I'm still baffled why Egypt hasn't shown up, Ancient or otherwise. Until the series lets you leap of faith off of the Sphinx's nose as it crumbles away, it still hasn't done enough.

I would literally sell my soul for AC in Egypt, but I sincerely doubt they will ever go there. People want ancient Egypt, but that's too far back. They'd have to remove 90% of your combat arsenal. Which personally I don't give a shit about, I finished the entire AC3 with only a tomahawk and a bow, but I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't like limited weapon choices. Other than that, I'm just waiting. They even hinted at Egypt in Black Flag (This shows up in one of the non-Animus sections when you're hacking your way through Abstergo. Why are you doing this to me, Ubisoft? Just stop teasing and give me Egypt).

Ubisoft, drop the yearly releases. THAT'S what crippled the franchise. It was fine when they were crappy little portable games but turning this series yearly is what ultimately stopped it from being the monumental juggernaut we all expected it to be.

Basically, yeah. Yearly releases are not only saturating the market, but they can't really make so many high quality products. They have gems here and there with a lot of disappointing releases in between and they are making people sick of so many AC games. I'm a pretty big fan of the franchise, but even I can't catch up with the yearly releases anymore. Just slow down. Take some time. Dedicate enough time and resources and more than one studio to one game.

Gone Rampant:
I guess I'm just too hooked on AC to get out, if only because I do like the Modern Day Arc and want to see how it ends.

Really?

Genuinely shocked here, because the chances are it's not going to end. If it was, it would've been with what they did in Assassin's Creed III. Or they would've at least provided some sort of actual follow-up to that, rather than saying, "Uh... well... I mean... EVERYTHING'S OKAY JUST SHUT UP AND LOOK AT THIS PASTICHE OF OURSELVES NOW FOR THE NEXT TEN GAMES!" I'm not sure how you could even say the modern day stuff has a narrative arc anymore.

I doubt that will get anything remotely approaching a satisfying conclusion even if Ubisoft surprises everyone and actually gives Assassin's Creed the axe.

I couldn't agree more. Assassin's Creed games are being developed based on a recipe. Not a single thought about game design that makes sense goes into making this pile of shit. They just throw in a bunch of stuff that other popular games have and call it a day. It doesn't matter if it's broken or if it makes no sense from either gameplay or narrative perspective. It's popular or "innovative" so they put it in.

Dalisclock:

Pyrian:
Also, can we get a bit more exotic again? U.S., France, England, c'mon. Let's have some Shanghai or Angkor Wat or something.

AC2 teased assassins in ancient Egypt and Babylon. Just a thought....

Assassin's Creed in ancient Egypt features prominently in the Assassin's Creed comic series. I know it's not the same, but it exists. And there is some precedent for bringing stuff from the comics to games - the forthcoming AC Chronicles games set in India and Russia are based on stories that were originally in the comics. Furthermore, whatever happened to those two games? I thought they were supposed to be out by now...

Gone Rampant:

I guess I'm just too hooked on AC to get out, if only because I do like the Modern Day Arc and want to see how it ends.

Spoiler: It will end with the cancellation of AC Next Year when they fall below a certain rate of return. Followed immediately by shutting down all support for all the "Assassin's Club" fluff Ubisoft have been goading players to brand themselves into to unlock "exclusive" outfits and what have you. If they're feeling generous, they will replace the website with "Hacked by Abstergo operatives".

Now, as for the series, I loved the first one weirdly BECAUSE it was a sandbox with not a lot to do. Interstitial space is sorely underrated by current game design doctrine. I mean, Shadow of the Colossus, anyone? 2 was great too, since it was so unique in its setting. And, most importantly, it gave me feels. Brotherhood was like a decent expansion, but it was where things started to slip, with the introduction of crap like the "100% synch" goals. (Do they still have that? It's startlingly contradictory to the supposed "freedom" principles of open world games.) And that's where the modern day stuff started to go off the rails as well, with the abrupt removal of poor Veronica Mars, probably because it was time to renegotiate her contract after three games. Revelations, as we know, was a repurposed handheld game.

You know ... I don't know why Assassin's Creed as a franchise even needs to stick to one genre of gameplay.

The way the franchise is put together you could probably set just about any kind of game in the Assassin's Creed universe. I mean Black Flag pretty much proved that - the "Assassin's Creed" parts of the game were the worst thing about that game - but it was a blast to sail around on your pirate ship and and stuff.

Maybe have a big "main" Sandboxy game every couple years or so with a bunch of smaller spinoffs in other genres- there are so many cool things you could do with this series. Its kind of a pity that it gets wasted on making the same tired stuff over and over and over.

rgrekejin:

Yahtzee:
So here's a thought: why don't you make an Assassin's Creed that isn't a sandbox game? The current model isn't working, let's tack to the other side of the wind and see if things move any quicker. A linear story, with some string-of-pearls open-endedness to the missions a la Hitman: Blood Money and the like, but ultimately very firmly gated. It'd mean being able to have a story that isn't manacled to the obligation to let the player return to the same sandbox after every event; the state of the game world could actually permanently change in significant ways. Ditch all this nonsense we've accrued relating to management and collectibles and token historical side missions and isolate your problem by stripping things down to the wires. Focus on one thing and make the best damn parkour-assassination gameplay you can.

...so basically, you want Ubisoft to make Dishonored?

That's what I want. Dishonored was amazing.

But really, they could do with that type of model. Not the magic powers or Dunwall or Dishonored plot obviously. They don't even need the Chaos system. Just throw away the sandbox for a tighter story and a different map for each mission.

I often wonder why someone who doesn't appear to actually like video games is a professional video game reviewer.

The problem with Assassin's Creed, as has been somewhat pointed to in this article and as I've been saying for years, is that it and seemingly a lot tof other games lately have a relentless drive to include 'stuff' to make it seem like there's a lot of content.

Not proper side quests, just stuff to do. Complete ten obstacle courses. Climb up thirty radio towers. Kill fifty bears. Find a hundred chests. Collect five hundred alligator teeth. Whatever. Its something that goes back to the old days of the GTA hidden packages and its getting totally out of hand by this point.

Its not content, not really. Its stuff to do but its no really providing any real depth to the game so much as laying a load of extra busywork on you to give you things to do and make the map look full. Its incredibly frustrating that open-world style games today have such a drive towards this kind of thing. There's none of the Elder Scrolls or Fallout attempt to actually fill the world with interesting things to discover its just filling the world with stuff to collect or little repetitive side-activities to do; and that's a huge difference.

In regards to comments saying Ubisoft wouldn't want to go back to the past cuz it would remove all the tech and people would complain, well they are doing exactly that with the prehistoric Far Cry, so who knows, it might happen.

After Revelations I gave up on this series. Every year fans suggest different locales besides America and Europe and every year they tell us to fuck off and accept that America, Victorian England and 18th cent. France are better choices. Until they give us a proper Asian setting I'm not buying another AC. They take their time with far cry and the result is a far superior product...

Yahtzee Croshaw:
There are only so many times audiences will be interested in watching a stock cheeky bad boy reconquering a historical city from moustache-twirling Templars because of a vague personal motivation.

When you do Fallout 4, or write a column on it, can you call them out on their decision to make people who bought the physical copy of the PC game still have to download 19gb before they can play it?

It's a good suggestion, Yahtzee, but it would require Ubisoft to not be a gibbering pack of magnificent retards, so it'll never happen.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here