I just feel for the dev team. I get the feeling that the whole team will be putting in endless hours to appease the management that don't really appreciate the fact that their employees have lives outside of making games. Ya know? Like they once set an impossibly short deadline, had everyone pitch in unbelievable hours, was somehow able to achieve it and thought "There's no reason this can't happen all the time". And now the poor staff at Ubi-Montreal are being worked like dogs while management horde all the money.

Just the impression I'm getting. I'd rather they take a little longer, for the staff's sake.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

The Random One:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
OT: I'd argue that this 12 month cycle really is damaging to the AC series. I know, I know, everyone loves them... except me. I thought the first one had promise, but was really underwhelmed by the second one. They hadn't actually changed much at all, simply changed the labelling so that it looked like there was more stuff to do.

Wow, this viewpoint is so different from mine. I saw the first AC as a good idea, poorly executed; and the second AC as the same idea, just well executed. (It worked because they started treating parkour segments like GTA-like games treat their car chases.)

Here's the thing, I didn't really see the difference between the two. Here's my experience of Assassin's Creed 1, as played on the PS3:

R1+X+Forward

Now, here's the summation of playing Assassin's Creed 2 on the PS3:

R1+X+Forward

Sure, in the second game you were technically doing different sidequests like racing other roof-runners or whatever, but the majority of the gameplay still revolved around R1+X+Forward. When I hear that a sequel is expanding over the original, I want it to do more than apply the same boring mechanics to yet more inane sidequests.

I disagree. They don't need to reinvent the wheel with every iteration. Do you play shooter games? Well pretty much every shooter game can be described as: foward+R1 with an occasional reload.

Do you play 3rd person action/adventures? Again, there's gonna be a lot of left thumbstick+X.

The point is, changing the controls isn't going to make it any better. It's things like the gun, the smoke bombs, the disarming, the assassin minions, the ability to assassinate from almost any position, and the fact that free running flows from one position to another a lot more fluidly.

NinjaDeathSlap:

Shamanic Rhythm:
Whatever, I refuse to pay full price every year just to see them drag out the various plot resolutions as long as they can. Assassin's Creed is really just another paperback conspiracy thriller, only the conspiracy isn't really a conspiracy, it's just that they never bother to characterise half the people involved so you are left wondering what their motivations are. It's shamelessly milking the Dan Brown religious paranoia for everything it can get.

They should have just gone with the original idea of focusing on different time periods and kept them related in name only. Because the adventures of Ezio are far more interesting in a kind of Grand-Theft-Auto style than any of the ancillary bullshit they're tied into.

Um, you do realise that the running theme of all the villains in Assassin's Creed is that they are just about the only people in the game world who aren't religious. They hide behind the Church for influence and power but they don't actually believe what they represent. I'd hardly call that "shamelessly milking religious paranoia". The other running theme is that their motivations are all pretty much the same. The Templars, whether it be in The Crusades, The Renaissance, or The Present Day, all want more power, more influence, and more control in order to shape the world the way they see fit. The Assassin's believe in freedom, so they fight in order to free the people of the invisible hands that are manipulating them. This is relatively simple stuff that get's explained several times in each game, so I don't know how you could be confused by what peoples motivations were.

"The Templars want to control the whole world" is not suitable explanation for their motives. That's the kind of cop-out propaganda the United States used to spout about the Communists, and vice versa. It just makes them very cartoonish villains who are poorly characterised. I spent the entire first game listening to that smug prick of a doctor rant on about how much of a pleb Desmond was and how little he could understand about the supposed true order of the world. He had no compelling ideals whatsoever that he cared to put on display, he was just being a massive dick because he was the one in the position of power. Every single Templar agent you kill is also like this. They just taunt your lack of being in their stupid Mason's society rather than justifying their reasons for its existence. Likewise, the Assassins don't bother to explain things properly either, they just go on about how 'all will be made known in time", to drag things out and force you to blindingly accept their next mission to kill someone just because they SAY they're bad. This is not a compelling conspiracy narrative, it's the kind of douchebag rivalry you normally see accompanying football teams.

Also, what you've described as the 'running theme' is hardly an original concept: in fact it's been extremely common in the past couple of decades to explore the idea that the people behind religion are just abusing it for the control of others. Assassin's Creed brings nothing original or compelling to this theme, just the lame idea that all religion is rendered an automatic falsehood because of the existence of some magical macguffins that do the miracles ascribed to prominent mythical figures.

Oh the development team must love this man right about now :D
But I'm sure the man was very well rewarded for this PR bullshit, but if it was really that ideal why did they announce this cycle will be dropped...

each games been an improvement (massive improvement from 1 to 2) and i do enjoy the series, but i think the enemies need to be mixed up a bit.

as soon as i see a mob of enemy soldiers, i can tell by their armor how difficult they'll be.
is it difficult to add a few models for the same type of enemy and add a random generator?
i know that this is a problem with a lot of games, but since i'll be spending a good few hours with AssCredRev, it'd be nice if they did that now now now

EDIT:
can we have a crouch and a peek around corners ability like splintercell.
i'm an assassin, but it doesnt feel like i can sneak/hide when in an open area

Not a fan of companies pumping out games each year like obsessed, but Assassins Creed hasn't let me down so far, so I'll probably enjoy Revelations.
They should have scrapped Ezio and gone to a different time era though.

These annual releases are giving me AC fatigue.

And I'm sorry, but the 1 year development cycle of AC: Brotherhood was just dripping off it. Just from the way the gameworld was constructed you could tell it was a hasty assembly line production.

This series is quickly turning into Dynasty Warriors. Too bad, considering what a revolution in gameplay and setting it was at the time.

i want to see a game with the russian assasin but still if the game is goodi have not a single problem with the development time AC1 was the only one i did'nt really like but 2 and brotherhood have been excelent games.

This all makes sense, and having just seen the Extra Credits episode on being a games producer, I think this is a great approach. The issue I have (and it's quite a large one), is that, once you start releasing them so soon after each other, you start to not really get excited about the next instalment (from a consumer perspective), and the level of anticipation slowly seeps away until no one really gets surprised or joyous over a new game coming out in the series. Don't get me wrong, I thought that Brotherhood actually improved on a lot of the issues with ACII, and I think that Revelations will continue to improve, but I fear that we will soon view the series much like the Call of Duty series.

I don't think Assassin's Creed should be on a yearly cycle. Not because they are milking the franchise (it doesn't feel like they are too me) but in terms of evolution and innovation in game design. The look of the games and how they feel to play have barely changed since the start. The engine is starting to show it's age. If they don't changs things up soon the series will start to stagnate. They need to make it feel fresh and really show us something amazing. I was really disappointed when I heard that AC3 (I assume that it will be AC3) will come out in a year, I was really hoping they would take some time out to blow people away with the next game. And I really do hope the next game will be AC3. Although he's cool another game with Ezio will look really lazy, and it would make Ubisoft liars. They said ACR would be the last of Ezio and Altair, I want something new now.

Assassin's Creed 2 was posssibly the largest jump in quality I've ever seen from one sequel to the next. However the improvement from Assassin's Creed 2 to Brotherhood is arguable. Brotherhood was a great game, don't get me wrong, but I can see some argument for preferring it's predecessor. AC2 had a far greater variability in locations, a more epic story of transformation, a more shadowy antagonist, a more epic storyline that spanned decades rather than a few years. Again, Brotherhood was great, but to say that it was objectively better than AC2 is a bit of a stretch.

Since they have mastered their Game Creation Content Pipeline, the CEO's get million dollar bonuses and sell 5000 shares of stock every week, while the real shackled developers "might" get only $10k/ each per million units sold.

I just beat Assasin's 2, and have bought but not played Brotherhood yet. I am so backlogged, but tired of same old same old content. Pre-ordered BF3 and Skyrim which i know i will play right out of package and forget about Assasin's creed, even with their 4th installment coming out, It's cheaper to play/ buy it when on your terms any way, cause it may now be 10 months+ before i get to it. By then it will be worth $20 or less used.

Citing only the industry's biggest pants shittings isn't really on when the long development cycle was a symptom, not a cause in every one of those games.

This is just straight-up spin. Nobody is going to convince me that a short development cycle is a good idea after Dragon Age 2.

EverythingIncredible:
This is an extremely coarse solution to problem that could be solved with just better planning.

SPOILER ALERT:
This post alludes to a plot point that was part of the ending of Assassins' Creed II
SPOILER ALERT

I was going to say that we should be more lenient since they have to wrap up the whole story by the end of next year (I mean how seriously are you going to take a "The World Ends in 2012" plot in 2013, or 2014?), but you have a good point here. I haven't played Brotherhood, so I don't know how instrumental it is to the plot; when it came out, however, I remember thinking that the producers were pushing themselves into a corner if they kept delaying the big rush to save the world before it ends in 2012. As it is, releasing the game a month before your near future apocalypse is supposed to occur kind of ruins the suspension of disbelief and the immersion your audience feels, especially when you consider the time required to play through the game and that not everyone will buy it the day it comes out. I mean, what if George Orwell had named his book 1950?

I hate to say it, but it's been more of the same since the first game. Two felt cookie cutter, but still drew you in. I am playing 3 atm and it just feels so samey, it's like CoD being cranked out every year, had it not been 14 bucks on steam I would have passed and waited for this years.

Annualizing games this size is the definition of cookie cutter game design. It isn't even a labor of love anymore is it? Slip a script to the Ubi team, let the gears turn for 11 months and whizzam you just slapped a number and subtitle to your game.

How many more times do I need to find a tower to scan the area? listing on a bench? stab one dude?

it's been done to death, by your own team. Graah it was silly enough when games oversaturated their own genres i.e. WW2 shooters, fighters or what have you.

But now Dev studios are doing it to themselves, Almost as bad as those .Hack games I loved as a kid until I realized it was like buying a final fantasy game, and having to pay for each separate disc.

I'm not surprised by these comments. My impression of the game industry is that they toss ideas around for X number of months until they realize they're up shit creek then they grab what's good and hope it melds together well. If there was instead consistent work with interim deadlines there'd be less crunch time I would think.

Valve wants to have a word with you...

Hey, I don't mind what happens on the development side so much, as long as the games are good.

HOWEVER

My initial thought is that some good content that they can't quite develop in time for the deadline just gets given the "oh well. We'll just work on it later and make it DLC" line.

If this were the case it would anger me. Muchly.

Adzma:
While COD may have a one year release, at least they have two seperate games so each gets a two year development cycle... my god did I just praise COD?

Yes, yes you did. No, there's nothing wrong with that. Believe it or not, there are people who like CoD and aren't screaming 12-year-olds. Yes, I am one of them.

OT: Huh, I always felt the series went downhill with each release. I don't know, but the first AC was original and was very fun. The newer ones just add some flashy stuff. Still getting Revelations, tho'.

it doesnt make team more foused, it makes the tema to cut corners, so we have tons of bugs to fix ourselves becuase your team is already being murdered for another deadline. there is NO benefit of a timeline if your team know what it wants from the game. and if it doesnt, time to get new people on the project. this sounds like an excuse to do the NFS model of milking people for crap, because theres always somone hoping that "if the last 10 were bad maybe 11th will be good" i mean jut look at nintendo, they keep beating same dead horse and they still come out on top.

I really feel that another 4-6 months really wouldn't be a killjoy. It would ease the stress, and we would stop complaining about a 'lack of content due to rushed production', which obviously isn't true if we're too believe this guy. Assassin's Creed is always a solid ride for me, I'll be picking up Revelations.

south park is made in 6 days... is it any less innovative or funny than similar animated series with 10 times the development time?
it all comes down to the people who make it
i wouldn't even bother with a 6 month cycle(though i doubt one could build a huge historically accurate city in that time)
so far ubisoft has brought us 3 high quality games that in this form have no equal in all the gaming world
i don't think the next one will be any less enjoyable than the first 3

Daaaah Whoosh:
Why is it always one year with games? Why not one and a half years? Or perhaps some cool number like 333 days or 55 weeks?

Having a game out every november=holiday sales.

Probably the best reason. 18 months means you miss out on one holiday every three years, and even if you don't release in November like AC, one game per year. Since games are abusiness, and there are yearly reports to shareholders, this is a big thing.

vivster:
south park is made in 6 days... is it any less innovative or funny than similar animated series with 10 times the development time?

No, but mostly because 0 times any number still equals zero, not on the merits of how "innovative" the show is.

I think the games could really benefit from half a year extra.

Given half a year for preproduction then a year for the crunch of the ideas. They could come up with something a little more innovative for each game instead of some of the cookie cutter feel.

I really can't stand Ass-Creed anyway. If it ever had value in my heart, it was lost by the fourth hour (or second boss) in Ass-Creed one. the first 2 hours of gameplay are unskipable cut-scenes, what the hell Ubisoft?

Adzma:

Warforger:
I never got why people hated it. The single player was just ACII after all and the multiplayer was fantastic.

My problem was that it felt like an expansion pack priced as a full game. You were confined to one city, which while big still felt like a rushed effort and you lose all your gear at the start of the game. The multiplayer was OK but as Yahtzee said in his review it could have been done easily with DLC.

The final nail in the coffin for me was how badly it runs on the older fat PS3s. They "further optimised it" from ACII for the slim PS3 but it caused it to run worse than the first one did on the older models. It all just felt like a quick buck scramble.

Rome is bigger than two cities, the graphics were significantly improved even though it was the same engine, it actually runs a lot better on both PS3's than previous ACs, it introduced a lot more cinematic moments, awesome stuff like Borgia towers, parachutes, and the crossbow, and it had a host of lesser known gameplay updates, like the ability to throw smoke bombs if you locked on a target.

The War Machine missions made for some great variety in scenery and all took place in different countries, the Assassin recruits were interesting if not very nessesary.

The game was not difficult enough and the story was not that great.

All in all though, getting a good 15 hour experience PLUS multiplayer is more than you'll get each year from Call Of Duty.

Multiplayer was made by a different Ubisoft studio than single-player. It took nothing from the game.

And really, fans love AC for its singleplayer. This game was meant to stand on its own without it, and you know what? It took me about 40 hours to get full sync on it. It stands on its own. And then there's a bonus. Really, just look at the DLC that's coming out these days for single-player games. If you really don't like the price, guess what? Ubisoft discounts their games like crazy after release. You could buy an AC game for super cheap with the smallest amount of patience.

Brotherhood made a few missteps, but it was certainly a more focused effort than any previous AC, and Revelations is being made by a much bigger team, with several different Ubisoft studios doing different parts. And really, everything I've seen has pointed towards it being even better than Brotherhood.

As long as the game doesn't suck horribly and I can't actually immediately tell, "Hmm, there's something missing here." like I could with KotOR 2, then I'm fine.

But if they have this, day-one dlc thing going on, I'm going to be a bit miffed.

Warforger:

Adzma:

ACII was great, but Brotherhood was just awful, I don't understand why it gets the praise it does. I have no intention of buying another Assassin's Creed while they continue this one year release BS. While COD may have a one year release, at least they have two seperate games so each gets a two year development cycle... my god did I just praise COD?

I never got why people hated it. The single player was just ACII after all and the multiplayer was fantastic.

People hated it? That's news to me. I guess that's what happens when you do your best to avoid the whinier corners of the internet (like The Escapist forums :P) AC: Brotherhood was a fine game to me. More of the same in terms of the singleplayer is no bad thing in my book if "more of the same" means another game like AC2. And more glyphs. I could probably play an entire game consisting mostly of glyph puzzles. I wonder if AC:R will have any more glyphs. It would be cool, but I don't know if there's anything else we can get from Subject 16.

Just so long as this game continues this noble tradition, I'm fine with this coming out just a year after the next one. On the other hand, sometimes having to wait a good few years for the next instalment can make the experience of finally getting your hands on the game so much better. As it was with Assassins Creed 2, I wouldn't really mind waiting a few years for the release of AC3 proper.

Seventh Actuality:
Citing only the industry's biggest pants shittings isn't really on when the long development cycle was a symptom, not a cause in every one of those games.

This is just straight-up spin. Nobody is going to convince me that a short development cycle is a good idea after Dragon Age 2.

And IIRC, Origins was in dev for a long time. So was Neverwinter Nights. Some games benefit from long cycles. Daikatana and DNF just suffered heavily from "everyone believes from the start that this game will be awesome, so we don't really have to try" syndrome.