Ubisoft: Modern Day Assassin's Creed Mechanically Unfeasible

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Ubisoft: Modern Day Assassin's Creed Mechanically Unfeasible

image

Besides, there's far too much to do as it is, which is one of the reasons why Connor won't be seeing a resolution any time soon.

If you're an Assassin's Creed fan you may be waiting impatiently for the day when those darn Assassins stop faffing about in the past and move on to the present day. If so you're out of luck, as Ubisoft developers, in an AMA, admit that a modern Assassin's Creed is technically unfeasible. "There are just too many mechanics we would have to develop to make it believable," says lead writer Darby McDevitt, "vehicles, plausible modern cities, a huge array of ranged weapons, etc." Besides, the team's already got too much on its hands with the current setup to want to do anything premature like, for instance, resolve the present day Assassins versus Templar story. "There will certainly be a resolution to the most recent plot developments," says McDevitt, "but the overall conflict will probably rage forever, just like most deeply divided philosophical conflicts."

Connor's story is still in the weeds, and likely to remain there. "It's a huge universe," says community developer Gabe Graziani, adding "we could work forever and not illuminate it all." Ubisoft doesn't have the resources to do everything it wants to do, and Connor's is one of the story elements it's unlikely to get to revisit any time soon, if ever. Though McDevitt did hint that Embers, which took six months to make, was a side project that everyone on the team loved, "so maybe we'll go that route again one day." Holding your breath while you wait for that to happen is probably a bad idea. As for Desmond, "he's dead dead," game director Ashraf Ismail confirms, so any thoughts to the contrary can now be abandoned.

It's been more than two years in the making, and the team found it smooth - if technically difficult - sailing, particularly on next generation consoles. "Both XboxOne and PS4 were easy to deal with," says Ismail, though there were some grey areas initially. When the team started work, the next generation was new even to the companies manufacturing it; neither Microsoft nor Sony were entirely clear on console requirements. "And this is normal," Ismail reminded his AMA audience; at the start of any cycle, when the manufacturers are just finding their feet, grey areas are to be expected.

Source: Ubisoft AMA

Permalink

It makes sense although for Ubisoft they could probably just use Watch Dogs as a template since from what they showed us its basicly what Assassins Creed would be like in a modern day setting

Also because they want to see how many more games they can make before the series becomes unprofitable then they can do the "Final" assassin's creed with much ho hum for one final money cash in and retire the series for 5 years and then do a remake/reimagining/reboot of the series for more cash.

Thanks for the spoiler warning.

Such a nice thing to shove in to an article allegedly about the technical reasons why a modern setting Assassin's Creed isn't feasible.

Very unhappy and unimpressed.

Basically, AssCreed can't afford to have the development time frame of Watch Dogs with the vital annual release.

synobal:
Also because they want to see how many more games they can make before the series becomes unprofitable then they can do the "Final" assassin's creed with much ho hum for one final money cash in and retire the series for 5 years and then do a remake/reimagining/reboot of the series for more cash.

I dunno, Prince of Persia hasn't stirred from its grave in quite a while. I can see Watch Dogs being the next franchise-fatigued cash cow.

They're probably gonna pulla doc brown and go back to the past I mean they didn't even touch the roman empire, ore the greeks/persians. and there was a whole mongol dynasty.

Yes, Ubisoft, it is possible. And it's being made. By YOU! You're just calling it Watch Dogs.

Seriously, this is hilarious. They are pretty much making the game already, or something so close to it that it invalidates the argument. Grated, you might say "Then just play Watch Dogs.", but that's besides the point. People would like a modern AssCreed game for the setting and to perhaps resolve the plot (at least somewhat). But it's not being made, even though Ubisoft is pretty much making it already. And what does this tell us? That Ubisoft would like to milk the AssCreed franchise for at least several more sequels, but can't really come out and say it, so they pussyfoot about with lame excuses...

Is anyone really asking for more Connor? A house plant has more life and charisma than he did. He is Blandy Blanderson, captain of the H.M.S Bland.

More to the point, unfeasible vs infeasible. I really prefer infeasible. I don't know why. I know its the minor usage of the two. This is linguistic tyranny foisted upon us by those salty limeys. Lady liberty weeps as my spell check even hates infeasible.

Eh, all it is is an excuse to keep chugging out more annual AC pieces of drek.

BigTuk:
They're probably gonna pulla doc brown and go back to the past I mean they didn't even touch the roman empire, ore the greeks/persians. and there was a whole mongol dynasty.

That's what I was thinking. Work their way up to around, say, the American Civil War or so, before properly modern guns started to appear, then go "Oh hey, we just found out about another of those magical maguffin things one of your ancestors found back in Rome. Or in the 100 years war. Or something. Then they can bounce back to that, while keeping the thin, modern day framing device moving 'forward'.

Karloff:
<As for Desmond, "he's dead dead," game director Ashraf Ismail confirms, so any thoughts to the contrary can now be abandoned.

Until they change their minds or it's demonstrated that one hand didn't know what the other was talking about.

Though I won't be sad if there's no more Desmond.

Translation:
"There are just too many mechanics we would have to develop to make it believable," says lead writer Darby McDevitt, "vehicles, plausible modern cities, a huge array of ranged weapons, etc."

We are lazy as fuck..

"Besides, the team's already got too much on its hands with the current setup to want to do anything premature like, for instance, resolve the present day Assassins versus Templar story."

..and couldn't be bothered by deviating from usual formula for more than 0.5%..

"There will certainly be a resolution to the most recent plot developments," says McDevitt, "but the overall conflict will probably rage forever, just like most deeply divided philosophical conflicts."

..because we are going to milk this franchise until management pulls the plug and whole story stays unresolved.

P.S. Did I missed something here?

I'm hoping they Spin off Black Flag into its own franchise.

Look i just want a sailing game where i can sail all kinds of awesome ships of the line.

Ubisoft make a sequel to Pirates of the Burning Sea! XD

Also, they had a "modern" Asscreed every time you played as Desmond no?

LordLundar:
Eh, all it is is an excuse to keep chugging out more annual AC pieces of drek.

Exactly. Thank You for saving me the time to write it :D

They don't want to make an Assassin's Creed game set into the present doesn't bother me, I just wish then they would drop the ties to the present then all together. Assassin's Creed games are something I buy if I find them at a low enough price for there just isn't enough change to them to make them full price.

josemlopes:
It makes sense although for Ubisoft they could probably just use Watch Dogs as a template since from what they showed us its basicly what Assassins Creed would be like in a modern day setting

I thought the same thing. Pretty much all of Ubi's 3rd person games share the same free running mechanic... they look so similar I wouldn't be surprised if it was directly shared code. Watching Aiden run, jump, climb, and vault around the city gave me very vivid recollections of the past two or three AC games. The only difference is that WD has "vehicles, plausible modern cities, [and] a huge array of ranged weapons, etc."

I'm trying to figure out what key element of the AC games that WD is missing and I'm drawing a blank. Anyone else think of something?

Well it does make sense to me. Itīs kinda hard to escape from guards by climbing on the rooftop, to then laugh down at them, if they all have guns. If you think about it, assisins creed only makes sense in very dry urban settings (like a dersert town where the first one took place, or a version of italy where rain doesnīt exist) without any guns. I mean being able to run around on rooftops and stuff is very cool, but once you start adding snow or rain into the equation everything falls apart(or down). It was one of the major things that bugged my in AC3. I could never shake of the feeling that Connor should wait until at least spring or stay on the ground, rather then to try balancing over rozen tree branches and rooftiles.

Edit: this reminds me of that extremely stupid ending to assasins creed 2 in wich abstergo finds your hideout and attacks you. I was thinking "oh nice I get to fight people with guns now with modern day desmond being all badass", then the van opened and a bunch of dudes with fucking stunprods jumped out. Theyr the fucking templars, who basically controll the world, and they try to attack a gang of highly skilled and close combat specialized professional killers with a bunch of dudes with stunprods.

First article I read said they thought Beyond was a mistake. And now this? They teased a Desmond story for games, and then kill him off in one of the most ridiculously bad plot elements ever. They also teased a modern day game by giving us the character development of Desmond. And now they won't even finish up Connor's story any time soon? Nah, we needed this pirate game that's basically a side story anyways because that's how they wrote it up ... FFS.

blackrave:
Translation:
"There are just too many mechanics we would have to develop to make it believable," says lead writer Darby McDevitt, "vehicles, plausible modern cities, a huge array of ranged weapons, etc."

We are lazy as fuck..

"Besides, the team's already got too much on its hands with the current setup to want to do anything premature like, for instance, resolve the present day Assassins versus Templar story."

..and couldn't be bothered by deviating from usual formula for more than 0.5%..

"There will certainly be a resolution to the most recent plot developments," says McDevitt, "but the overall conflict will probably rage forever, just like most deeply divided philosophical conflicts."

..because we are going to milk this franchise until management pulls the plug and whole story stays unresolved.

P.S. Did I missed something here?

Nope looks like you got it all. I stopped caring about Ass creed after 2, when it was obvious they intended to milk the series until they died. As someone who loves and demands a good story element to games i play I'm not interested in playing a series that ultimately is perfectly happy to never resolve the story so long as they keep getting money.

You know Ubisoft, I'd believe you... if you weren't already making Watchdogs. Why not just admit that you don't have the imagination to make it work, and we'll just move on from there?

Good. I want Assassin's Creed to be about unique historic settings. Now let me have my feudal Japan ninja Assassins and revolutionary France.

"There are just too many mechanics we would have to develop to make it believable," says lead writer Darby McDevitt, "vehicles, plausible modern cities, a huge array of ranged weapons, etc."

Why don't they set it in a smaller city or even in a couple of large towns and villages instead? Then you don't need to make such large single maps and won't have skyscrapers everywhere. Then set it in a country which has strict gun control so that you don't need so many ranged weapons. Maybe even set it in some African country that is having a civil war, it's a modern setting but doesn't require crazy modern technology. The conflict is built in and they can bullshit people by saying it's an artistic commentary on yadda yadda yadda. Have Kony as an easter egg character too, since loads of people wouldn't mind stabbing his spleen.

This just reeks of them being too lazy to write a decent modern story.

So, basically, they notice JUST NOW that the thing they were obviously trying to make since the first game... suddenly is not possible? Despite the fact that THERE ARE GAMES THAT DID IT ALREADY?

I just want my Feudal Japan assassin setting damn it.

I wouldn't really call AssCreed's 'control freaks vs anarchist jerks' a "philosophical conflict", it's more of a murderous conflict.

Pity though I missed the AMA, I would have liked to ask them why they are continuing Philip IV's work through their story writing.

blackrave:
Translation:
"There are just too many mechanics we would have to develop to make it believable," says lead writer Darby McDevitt, "vehicles, plausible modern cities, a huge array of ranged weapons, etc."

We are lazy as fuck..

"Besides, the team's already got too much on its hands with the current setup to want to do anything premature like, for instance, resolve the present day Assassins versus Templar story."

..and couldn't be bothered by deviating from usual formula for more than 0.5%..

"There will certainly be a resolution to the most recent plot developments," says McDevitt, "but the overall conflict will probably rage forever, just like most deeply divided philosophical conflicts."

..because we are going to milk this franchise until management pulls the plug and whole story stays unresolved.

P.S. Did I missed something here?

Essentially what I was going to say, and was even joking about while at work when I read it.

People are bringing up "Watch Dogs" as a modern Assassin's Creed, but Splinter Cell works as well for it. The fact that they claim they couldn't do what any basic open world action game has done since the rather late PS1-PS2/etc era is just utter bull. It's not that they can't do it, they just don't want to put any actual work into it.

cursedseishi:

Essentially what I was going to say, and was even joking about while at work when I read it.

People are bringing up "Watch Dogs" as a modern Assassin's Creed, but Splinter Cell works as well for it. The fact that they claim they couldn't do what any basic open world action game has done since the rather late PS1-PS2/etc era is just utter bull. It's not that they can't do it, they just don't want to put any actual work into it.

Yeah
Splinter Cell+Watch Dogs= Modern AssCreed
Anyone noticed that both games were published by Ubisoft?
I haven't played any AssCreed game (and don't care about them- although if story would be finally brought to present setting I would be tempted to try it out), but the level of hypocrisy here is ridiculous

P.S.Anyone else is sick of these never ending stories? My personal threshold is trilogy (with 3-4 expansions for each game). If same story is being dragged longer I start to not give a fuck.

Adam Jensen:
Good. I want Assassin's Creed to be about unique historic settings. Now let me have my feudal Japan ninja Assassins and revolutionary France.

You know that for you the game would be extremely hard?
Cyber-mechanical augmentations aren't something from the past.
Best you could get would be wooden legs, hooks for arms and glass eyes :D

Jandau:
Yes, Ubisoft, it is possible. And it's being made. By YOU! You're just calling it Watch Dogs.

Seriously, this is hilarious. They are pretty much making the game already, or something so close to it that it invalidates the argument. Grated, you might say "Then just play Watch Dogs.", but that's besides the point. People would like a modern AssCreed game for the setting and to perhaps resolve the plot (at least somewhat). But it's not being made, even though Ubisoft is pretty much making it already. And what does this tell us? That Ubisoft would like to milk the AssCreed franchise for at least several more sequels, but can't really come out and say it, so they pussyfoot about with lame excuses...

Maybe Watchdogs secretely is the modern version of Assassin's Creed.

In other words... "This franchise is literally engineered to last forever!"

It's every publishers wet dream! A franchise that hooked players with endlessly reproducible gameplay. It's the third person version of COD.

Gizmo1990:
Is anyone really asking for more Connor? A house plant has more life and charisma than he did. He is Blandy Blanderson, captain of the H.M.S Bland.

Actually yes, people are. People liked the fact that his character wasn't loved by all because it shows that he was different. He was naive to the colonists' ways due to little interaction with them, stern because of what happened to his mother and how the colonist had treated him and he wasn't a ladies man. Instead of being just an arrogant guy who gets any girl he wants and basically being a canvas to project yourself on to fulfill a fantasy, Connor was a fully fleshed out and interesting character.

That doesn't mean you have to like him, but please don't say he is bland, he is anything BUT bland.

"There are just too many mechanics we would have to develop to make it believable," says lead writer Darby McDevitt, "vehicles, plausible modern cities, a huge array of ranged weapons, etc."

Yeah, if they did that then they wouldn't be able release a game on a yearly basis, and we can't have that, can we?

Wait!! Desmond's dead? Since when!?

OT: I guess is sucks that they're not making a modern one, don't know why they couldn't just make it like Mirror's Edge and not worry about vehicles or any of that other stuff.

Maybe Assassin's Creed and Watch Dogs should alternate years so they each can have a 2 year development.

 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