Support NeoGAF

[rudieboy77]

By just looking at the title of the thread I thought someone made a Black Flag/video game mash up poster.

 

[EightBitNate]

So it's going further back in time?

 

[BeauRoger]

If they make the naval gameplay the focus then im totally up for it, cause that part was awesome in AC3. Im not up for just another classic structured AC game, but if its all about roaming the high seas as a badass pirate, im totally in. A couple of port towns, islands, pirate hideouts.. man, id like that.

 

[John Harker]

Being Haytham mentioning his father was an assassin and that he was trained in those arts as a kid before becoming a templar?

his father was actually mentioned by name once

 

[DocSeuss]

I can't believe there are so many haters here who want to destroy the only console franchise that provide gamers with an accurate historical setting. The environments are almost always of the highest quality and you can see the enormous amount of effort that Ubisoft must have spent researching every historical detail. Sure, the setting of AC3 was a bit of a downgrade but the possibilities for future installments are almost endless. The pirate setting in particular has a lot of potential. Tropical environments full of bright colours and an endless blue ocean is certainly something I would appreciate.

This generation has provided us with enough brown and grey to last us a lifetime. Each year we are bombarded with hoards of generic sci-fi and contemporary shooter titles, so why are annual releases of the only historical free-roaming franchise such a bad thing? There are so many unexplored historical settings that the franchise can recreate. I want to see Victorian London, the French revolution, the Russian Revolution, Ottoman occupied Eastern Europe, the Napoleon wars, feudal Japan, the Mongol Empire, the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage, the Three Kingdoms era of Chinese history, the Thirty Years' War, Pizarro's conquest of the Incan Empire, the Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War, The Anarchy, World War I, and much more.

This franchise can take us to any point in history, and it is popularity ensures that the budget is sufficient to recreate the environments of some of the most interesting events in mankinds history. I can't understand why so many of you want to limit the franchise to 2 or 3 titles every generation. Noone is forcing you to buy these games if you don't like them. It sounds extremely selfish when posters goes on and on about how Ubisoft should end the franchise when it is clear that millions of other players are enjoying the games. Go back to your generic space marine shooter titles and let the history fans enjoy this while it lasts!

The problem is more about the fact that the games are terrible. AC2 was an amazing game, and I'd be right there with you, whooping and hollering for another installment... except that I've had the distinct misfortune of having also played the extremely unfocused AC3 (as explained ealier in the thread) and ACR. I'd rather see the series take a breather, because right now, they are bad games, and the fact that they take us to historical settings doesn't mean much when they're unfocused, unpolished messes.

Also, stop complaining about "generic space marine shooter titles," because the only space marine shooter we've had in the past few years has been Halo, and there's nothing like it out there (thus, it is not generic). Oh, and there was Colonial Marines.

 

[Midou]

The problem is more about the fact that the games are terrible. AC2 was an amazing game, and I'd be right there with you, whooping and hollering for another installment... except that I've had the distinct misfortune of having also played the extremely unfocused AC3 (as explained ealier in the thread) and ACR. I'd rather see the series take a breather, because right now, they are bad games, and the fact that they take us to historical settings doesn't mean much when they're unfocused, unpolished messes.

Also, stop complaining about "generic space marine shooter titles," because the only space marine shooter we've had in the past few years has been Halo, and there's nothing like it out there (thus, it is not generic). Oh, and there was Colonial Marines.

I loved Brotherhood and thought it added a lot of cool shit, only thing I didn't like in Revelations was the tower defense mini-game, that I only did once in my whole play through. Old man Ezio and Altair parts in Revelations were both cool.

Don't think AC3 is terrible either, unfocused is the best word to describe it. Enjoyed playing it, it just left a mostly sour taste in my mouth at the end.

 

[Clevinger]

The problem is more about the fact that the games are terrible.

They're not though. 2 and Brotherhood were amazing. Revelations was completely mediocre (maybe a little better if you ignored the optional tower defense bullshit). 3 was the only actually bad game since the first.

 

[LiK]

So it's going further back in time?

Maybe a few decades back

 

[Chinpoko_Master]

I can't believe there are so many haters here who want to destroy the only console franchise that provide gamers with an accurate historical setting. The environments are almost always of the highest quality and you can see the enormous amount of effort that Ubisoft must have spent researching every historical detail. Sure, the setting of AC3 was a bit of a downgrade but the possibilities for future installments are almost endless. The pirate setting in particular has a lot of potential. Tropical environments full of bright colours and an endless blue ocean is certainly something I would appreciate.

This generation has provided us with enough brown and grey to last us a lifetime. Each year we are bombarded with hoards of generic sci-fi and contemporary shooter titles, so why are annual releases of the only historical free-roaming franchise such a bad thing? There are so many unexplored historical settings that the franchise can recreate. I want to see Victorian London, the French revolution, the Russian Revolution, Ottoman occupied Eastern Europe, the Napoleon wars, feudal Japan, the Mongol Empire, the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage, the Three Kingdoms era of Chinese history, the Thirty Years' War, Pizarro's conquest of the Incan Empire, the Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War, The Anarchy, World War I, and much more.

This franchise can take us to any point in history, and it is popularity ensures that the budget is sufficient to recreate the environments of some of the most interesting events in mankinds history. I can't understand why so many of you want to limit the franchise to 2 or 3 titles every generation. Noone is forcing you to buy these games if you don't like them. It sounds extremely selfish when posters goes on and on about how Ubisoft should end the franchise when it is clear that millions of other players are enjoying the games. Go back to your generic space marine shooter titles and let the history fans enjoy this while it lasts!

Assassin's Creed is worse than these nameless "space marine shooters" that you're calling out. It's the epitome of style over substance gameplay. The historical settings are admittedly interesting, too bad the story takes a shit all over any appeal that they have.

 

[Ein Bear]

...what?

Frames/Sec: 13.

Yup, that's an Ubisoft game alright.

 

[RagingAvatar]

I really like AC3... and I'm really disappointed Connor won't return.

 

[Kung Fu Grip]

PS2/Xbox > PS3/360?

What PS2/Xbox games were crossed gen to PS3/360?

 

[ekim]

What PS2/Xbox games were crossed gen to PS3/360?

Hitman blood money for example.

 

[Radogol]

Hitman blood money for example.

Alone in the Dark and Splinter Cell 4 also come to mind, although those were different games more than ports.

EDIT: Oh, Tomb Raider Legend and Tomb Raider Anniversary too!

 

[1138]

The problem is more about the fact that the games are terrible. AC2 was an amazing game, and I'd be right there with you, whooping and hollering for another installment... except that I've had the distinct misfortune of having also played the extremely unfocused AC3 (as explained ealier in the thread) and ACR. I'd rather see the series take a breather, because right now, they are bad games, and the fact that they take us to historical settings doesn't mean much when they're unfocused, unpolished messes.

Also, stop complaining about "generic space marine shooter titles," because the only space marine shooter we've had in the past few years has been Halo, and there's nothing like it out there (thus, it is not generic). Oh, and there was Colonial Marines.

I have to disagree about that. The gameplay is fine, although I feel like it was at its best in Brotherhood. The real problem is how the campaign was presented in AC3. Desmond's story hit a new low and Connor's story was as you say unfocused. Ubisoft needs a more coherent and thight scenario for the ancestors. The climbing and chase sequences was excellent in both Revelations and Brotherhood, and I even had fun when I ran through the treetops above a convoy I was chasing in AC3. Each individual part of the gameplay works pretty well, Ubisoft just failed to put them together in an exciting way in AC3.

 

[Derrick01]

Frames/Sec: 13.

Yup, that's an Ubisoft game alright.

Pretty sure that was the framerate in New York in AC3, despite being smaller with less buildings/people than Boston.

Game was such trash on consoles.

The gameplay is fine, although I feel like it was at its best in Brotherhood.

What gameplay? It's all auto stuff and the content is mostly typical Ubisoft filler activities.

 

[tali'zorah84]

Ooh, new AC- Return to... Haytham's story?
Nope. Nopers. Matzah Nope Soup.

Although I did *kinda* enjoy those island settings in the end of 3.

 

[ImpassionateGods]

Do you need to play all the Assassin's Creed games to understand the story? I can only buy 2,3, or brotherhood and am wondering if it's okay to just jump in somewhere. Which one is the best?

 

[Router]

Do you need to play all the Assassin's Creed games to understand the story? I can only buy 2,3, or brotherhood and am wondering if it's okay to just jump in somewhere. Which one is the best?

I'd say buy 3 and catch up on the story by reading the wiki pages.

 

[EightBitNate]

Do you need to play all the Assassin's Creed games to understand the story? I can only buy 2,3, or brotherhood and am wondering if it's okay to just jump in somewhere. Which one is the best?

The story is shit and not worth understanding, to be honest. There are tons of places to read online about the story, too. I like 2, 3, and Brotherhood pretty equally, but for most people it goes Bro>2>3.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

With a hi hi ho
And a hi hi hey
We're bound to be close to the sea
Our captain will stand on the bridge and sing
Pirates are all we can be

With a hi hi ho
And a hi hi hey
We're hoisting the flag to be free
We must steal the show
Jolly Rogers go
We are wolves of the sea

 

[Vire]

The story is shit and not worth understanding, to be honest. There are tons of places to read online about the story, too. I like 2, 3, and Brotherhood pretty equally, but for most people it goes Bro>2>3.

No it's more like Brotherhood > 2 > 1> Revelations > Dog Shit >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3

 

[EightBitNate]

No it's more like Brotherhood > 2 > 1> Revelations > Dog Shit >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3

IMO I think it goes Bro>3>2>Revs>1 because I'm addicted to 3's multiplayer, and 2 got really boring at some points.

 

[Lime]

Do you need to play all the Assassin's Creed games to understand the story? I can only buy 2,3, or brotherhood and am wondering if it's okay to just jump in somewhere. Which one is the best?

Play 2 and Brotherhood. Leave the rest.

 

[Nekki]

From everything I read about the series, I'm glad I didn't make it past AC2. That game was good, but it seems to go downhill after that.

 

[Irish]

Guys... 1=Rev, which is better than Brohood. Brohood destroys 3. Finally, screw ACII for completely abandoning everything that made the first AC interesting to me.

Anyway, I think Ubi really needs to start taking some big risks with the series.

 

[1138]

Pretty sure that was the framerate in New York in AC3, despite being smaller with less buildings/people than Boston.

Game was such trash on consoles.



What gameplay? It's all auto stuff and the content is mostly typical Ubisoft filler activities.

Well, I do enjoy the climbing and chase sequences, such as the chase in Saint Peters Basilica in Brotherhood. Taking down Borgia towers were also entertaining since you could be more creative with how you approach them. I also had a lot of fun using poison darts for diversions and crossbow bolts for quick takedowns during infiltration missions.

 

[Jachaos]

Do you need to play all the Assassin's Creed games to understand the story? I can only buy 2,3, or brotherhood and am wondering if it's okay to just jump in somewhere. Which one is the best?

Start with AC II, then Brotherhood. If you like it, you may go on to Revelations to finish that trilogy and then take your pick between III and I. The latter has much less content than the rest of the series but III doesn't run too well on console (still fun and at least was ambitious). I still like the first one because of the story and atmosphere and all, but II was such a huge leap.

 

[Vitor711]

I have to disagree about that. The gameplay is fine, although I feel like it was at its best in Brotherhood. The real problem is how the campaign was presented in AC3. Desmond's story hit a new low and Connor's story was as you say unfocused. Ubisoft needs a more coherent and thight scenario for the ancestors. The climbing and chase sequences was excellent in both Revelations and Brotherhood, and I even had fun when I ran through the treetops above a convoy I was chasing in AC3. Each individual part of the gameplay works pretty well, Ubisoft just failed to put them together in an exciting way in AC3.

The stealth it straight up broken. That is not an ok element by any means.

I enjoyed every aspect of the game outside of that but any mission or side mission that required you to remain unseen was a pain to complete. It's weird, because the way the stealth is structured is so similar to Far Cry 3, and I loved the stealth in that game. However, they just don't nail the basic elements here and the series has consistently suffered because of it.

 

[big_z]

This series need to be shot in the head. I enjoyed the sailing in 3 but I don't want to play anymore creed games. The story that ubisoft bastardized and ruined to milk the series is done and the gameplay is tired, move onto something else for fuck sakes.

A proper standalone pirate game would game would have been nice.

 

[1138]

Do you need to play all the Assassin's Creed games to understand the story? I can only buy 2,3, or brotherhood and am wondering if it's okay to just jump in somewhere. Which one is the best?

Start with 2 and then play Brotherhood. If you still want more go for ac1 and then revelations. Save AC3 for last.

 

[Waylon Drums]

Opposite? It sounds like we have the same conclusion. AC2's homestead is so much easier and more interesting. AC3's has a ton of "STUFF" but never provides the player with any need to actually use it. It's poorly designed, while AC2's is actually worthwhile (despite some big flaws, like being too easy to max out your money).

I wanted something more in-depth, like AC3's, but I want a reason to actually use it.

I phrased that in an odd way. I meant that I wouldn't have wanted more if I played II first. Opposite in that we came out of II with different conclusions. For a former comm major, I'm bad at this communication thing.

 

[Pyronite]

I can't believe there are so many haters here who want to destroy the only console franchise that provide gamers with an accurate historical setting. The environments are almost always of the highest quality and you can see the enormous amount of effort that Ubisoft must have spent researching every historical detail. Sure, the setting of AC3 was a bit of a downgrade but the possibilities for future installments are almost endless. The pirate setting in particular has a lot of potential. Tropical environments full of bright colours and an endless blue ocean is certainly something I would appreciate.

This generation has provided us with enough brown and grey to last us a lifetime. Each year we are bombarded with hoards of generic sci-fi and contemporary shooter titles, so why are annual releases of the only historical free-roaming franchise such a bad thing? There are so many unexplored historical settings that the franchise can recreate. I want to see Victorian London, the French revolution, the Russian Revolution, Ottoman occupied Eastern Europe, the Napoleon wars, feudal Japan, the Mongol Empire, the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage, the Three Kingdoms era of Chinese history, the Thirty Years' War, Pizarro's conquest of the Incan Empire, the Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War, The Anarchy, World War I, and much more.

This franchise can take us to any point in history, and it is popularity ensures that the budget is sufficient to recreate the environments of some of the most interesting events in mankinds history. I can't understand why so many of you want to limit the franchise to 2 or 3 titles every generation. Noone is forcing you to buy these games if you don't like them. It sounds extremely selfish when posters goes on and on about how Ubisoft should end the franchise when it is clear that millions of other players are enjoying the games. Go back to your generic space marine shooter titles and let the history fans enjoy this while it lasts!

This is awesome and the kind of thing we should be lauding instead of hating everything on the market.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

Man, the thought of Connor tackling slavery after the liberation could have been awesome. Oh well.

 

[Eppy Thatcher]

Fuckin loved the naval shit in 3. Was probably the best part of the game. Spent most of those missions wishing I could just finish the current goal... turn towards a friendly port and SAIL there... pull in... repair... do a mission or two on St. Thomas and then set off to go sink a trade frigate and get dem deblums.

If this works as an open world pirate game where we can board and raid and bombard who the fucks ever we want... I am in it to win it. 100%.

Kind of Hype.

 

[chicagocubsfan]

I bet it will look pretty and be boring as hell.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Sure can't wait until this franchise is on pause. I really would love to see Prince of Persia again, its time for another game.

 

[Andrew.]

Sure can't wait until this franchise is on pause.

At this point, that's like wishing the CoD's or Madden's would take a break.

 

[rouken]

why call it ac4?

it doesn't make sense given that it also will release on current gen consoles, also goes back a few years from the current game. does ac3 sucked so hard that they needed to skip it entirely?

 

[BeauRoger]

From everything I read about the series, I'm glad I didn't make it past AC2. That game was good, but it seems to go downhill after that.

3 was way better than 2 in my opinion. Some people here get so hyperbolic when it comes to critiquing games, as if to prove their sophistication and their superior taste by being overly negative. Doesnt mean the game is perfect though. AC 3 was a bit disjointed with the open world mission design and the story ended up nowhere in the end, but the world was more interesting than ever, all the characters except connor were as good as the series has produced. Combat was better than before, so were stealth mechanics.. just a pity that most of the "silent assassin" concept was gone. But that doesnt make it "A GENUINELY BAD GAME", cause it got a lot more right than wrong.

 

[AgentOtaku]

The problem is more about the fact that the games are terrible. AC2 was an amazing game, and I'd be right there with you, whooping and hollering for another installment... except that I've had the distinct misfortune of having also played the extremely unfocused AC3 (as explained ealier in the thread) and ACR. I'd rather see the series take a breather, because right now, they are bad games, and the fact that they take us to historical settings doesn't mean much when they're unfocused, unpolished messes.

Also, stop complaining about "generic space marine shooter titles," because the only space marine shooter we've had in the past few years has been Halo, and there's nothing like it out there (thus, it is not generic). Oh, and there was Colonial Marines.

I concur sir

I'd really hoped this series took a break. I mean, they may be able to pull a AC2 scenario again though due to the backlash of ACR (where I officially bailed on the franchise) and ACIII

 

[Freezasaurus]

I may give it a rent. Pirates, yay. But I don't think I'll be genuinely interested in the series again until they do a game set in Ancient Egypt, or maybe one with an Aztec theme.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

why call it ac4?

it doesn't make sense given that it also will release on current gen consoles, also goes back a few years from the current game. does ac3 sucked so hard that they needed to skip it entirely?

Not an expert but if this turns out to be true...I'd imagine it's to keep people interested in the franchise. We've had a yearly AC release for what, the last 4 years? If you just called it Assassin's Creed: Whatever and released it cross gen, I doubt the amount of interest would be as high as if you just called it 4. If this franchise took longer breaks between releases and didn't have as many spinoffs on different platforms, they would probably take the opposite approach.

But they're going to want this one to sell gangbusters on the PS4 and Next Xbox, and are probably competing to be some folk's first game on the new consoles. After spending as ton of cash on a console, people usually only pick up the "major" games they're interested in. If this feels more like an Assassin's Creed 3 more than a Brotherhood or Revelations, people are more likely to be interested. The "franchise fatigue" doesn't really zap in towards this series because of the stark changes in time period.

As much as people might enjoy the two games that followed Assassin's Creed 2, a lot of people just looked at them and saw expansion packs. But then got instantly pumped for 3. It's just the way things look. Assassin's Creed: Pirates! is going to look different enough from 3 to warrant them just going ahead and tacking on a number to it. Yeah, it doesn't make sense compared to what they've done in the past, but it makes sense when you consider this is the year we're switching over to next gen consoles.

 

[Ultryx]

I'm in for pirates!

 

[Shin Johnpv]

I liked 3, a good bit. I really feel if it wasn't so damn buggy and glitchy it would be on the level of great. I personally really dug the setting, and Connor. I loved the frontier, and hunting, I just HATED the frontier viewpoints. Naval battles while not my favorite are interesting and a nice break from the other missions.

It's not perfect, and the glitches keep it from being amazing, but it definitely doesn't deserve the hate it gets.

I was really hoping the rumors were true of more Connor games before ACIV. Maybe the Connor games will be PS Vita or 3DS games.

I was starting to enjoy ACIII Liberation as a portable title till I hit a spot requiring motion controls that just aren't working. (maybe my vita's gyro is busted or something) It was SUPER buggy as well, so maybe second games using these engines will have most of those kinks ironed out.

 

[LightofRohan]

AC3 > AC2 > AC1 > ACB > Dead Kittens > ACR

 

[Zabka]

The naval missions in AC3 were fantastic. If the whole game is open world and lets you travel from island to island I'll be all over this.

 

[AgentOtaku]

AC3 > AC2 > AC1 > ACB > Dead Kittens > ACR

Very interesting

Love to hear why

 

[Ultryx]

I may give it a rent. Pirates, yay. But I don't think I'll be genuinely interested in the series again until they do a game set in Ancient Egypt, or maybe one with an Aztec theme.

An Aztec theme sounds pretty bad ass now that you mention that.

 

[John Harker]

well, we wont have to wait long now anyway