• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Assassin's Creed should return to the original formula

Should assasins creed return to its original formula?

  • No it should continue to be a massive world RPG

    Votes: 78 33.9%
  • Yes, I'd love to see a single city beautifully realised for next gen

    Votes: 156 67.8%

  • Total voters
    230
I really hate current bloated Assassin's Creed games and I never bothered to finish Origins and Odyssey. Meanwhile I've replayed Ezio Collection and had tons of fun. Ubisoft aims to please everyone - why not make a "classic" AC game once every few years?
 
Last edited:
So I just played all the pre-RPG AC games back to back and it clarified a lot of stuff my memory conveniently forgot.

I just want a continuation of the design of Unity - the semi-hitman sandbox approach is the proper AC way. If you want RPG/Pirates than I suggest Ubisoft make that IP without the AC title forced into it.
 
I was watching this trailer the other day as realised how much I missed having an overarching story and an interesting main character.



I don't follow AC as much anymore. I've dabbled in some of there recent games but as far as I can see.... There's no animus, no overarching story. Do the games even relate to eachother any more or do they just decide.... "our next game is in xxxxxxx City"
 
There's no animus, no overarching story. Do the games even relate to eachother any more

There actually is animus stuff and an overarching story (Unity and Syndicate being the ones without, but part of an overarching story which was mainly told in the comics) from Origins on that will end in valhalla and (hopefully) set up a new one. Animus elements also will be put more to the front with the modern day and thr historicl animus simulation merging together, but nothing of it was shown so far.
 
People hated the original Assassins Creed "repetitive" while they chugged on the millioneth Cod and 3rd person cover shooter and praised them....

People will moan about this series no matter what. I only remember the 2nd and Black flag being appreciated.
If it wasn't for the history and scenery it would suck tbh. But I enjoy them for the historic aspect and being in the olden days lol
 
It's not about the number of cities, it's about the quality of the game.
Origins and Odyssey for me sucked because Ubisoft changed the formula not thinking about quality but about players retention and gaas.
As a result we got huge open worlds that were not even fully utilized by the main campaign, with tons of fillers, boring missions, tons of targets that do not even have a backstory and a stupidly forced level progression system that doesn't want you to end the game unless you spend many hours in grinding or buying power ups. Also the present day story has become a total joke and a loss of time for everyone playing the games, how is it possible that writers haven't come up with a single decent idea about it since the Desmond's trilogy ended??
After being burnt with both Origins and Odyssey (the latter is the first in the series that I stopped playing), I simply won't buy Valhalla.

I don't think that going back to the old formula as it was is a solution because while good for what it was it is now outdated.
The series need to be reinvented thinking about quality. Ghost of Tsushima for example is a good example about how an AC game based in Japan should be.
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree as far as assassin's creed stealth and lore...

But I do like the idea of open world different time eras.. They probably should give its own franchise name but how can they at this point?
 
The first game was terribly boring.

I think they should have a nice, linear story-driven AC game for the purists...and then an open world game for everyone else that'll actually make some money to fund both versions.
 
The last game to really feel like it was an Assassin's Creed game was Unity. I don't know if some of you have played it, but it's well worth playing now. It's graphics are simply stunning still. Syndicate was the start of the series focusing less on social stealth and more on action. Origins and Odyssey were pretty good(Origins especially) but you really could have called those games anything else and it would not have made a lick of difference as far as moving Assassin's Creed forward as a franchise in my opinion. I can't believe they got rid of the fantastic parkour and social stealth of Unity. If they mixed Unity's parkour with Odyssey's/Origin's worlds, they'd have been much better.
 
repetitive side missions.
lets be quite clear, old Assassins Creed games also have very repetitive side content. I was almost shocked how little variety there was when playing the first one. You literially have 3 types of missions getting repeated over and over again. Got much better with the sequels, but still generally they copy/paste missions a lot.
Those games control like shit and are very shallow.
Shallow I guess is somewhat fitting after 100%ing it but bad controls? The mechanics are literially the best thing about those games (that and the recreation of historic cities). Controls very smooth and its very easy to pick up and get a hang. Started playing the series this year because I have missed it and I literially had no problems at any time. It controls damn well. This has to be a rare individual case.
Jup early games are unplayable controls are absolute dog shit
goddamnit
 
lets be quite clear, old Assassins Creed games also have very repetitive side content. I was almost shocked how little variety there was when playing the first one. You literially have 3 types of missions getting repeated over and over again. Got much better with the sequels, but still generally they copy/paste missions a lot.

Shallow I guess is somewhat fitting after 100%ing it but bad controls? The mechanics are literially the best thing about those games (that and the recreation of historic cities). Controls very smooth and its very easy to pick up and get a hang. Started playing the series this year because I have missed it and I literially had no problems at any time. It controls damn well. This has to be a rare individual case.

goddamnit

If you played anything past blackflag you cannot go back. fighting is just horrible. parkor doesnt work nearly as well.
 
lets be quite clear, old Assassins Creed games also have very repetitive side content. I was almost shocked how little variety there was when playing the first one. You literially have 3 types of missions getting repeated over and over again. Got much better with the sequels, but still generally they copy/paste missions a lot.
But the maps are smaller so it's not that annoying..... Odyssey map is huge, so travelling to get a disappointing mission is troublesome, one of the reasons that Origins (smaller map) is way better than Odyssey....
 
I am totally on the fence with this as I want both.

I loved AC games from the flawed original through to dropping at AC3. Then I picked up Origins and adored it. Odyssey however, as okay as it was, I didnt enjoy as much.

I love how the new games play (although I would like more actual combat rather than sword blow sponges), and love the ease of navigation and smoothness of the controls. If they tied that in with a single massive city, while having possibly the surrounding areas, it could work very well. What this means however, is that the story has to become a lot more personal and less focused on 'world saving' like all AC games seem to be now.

I would honestly love the AC team to tackle a game like Uncharted, but in a historical setting like, say Egypt again, as they make such fantastic worlds, I just feel their open worlds drag their stories down a lot.
 
Top Bottom