Assassin's Creed IV

[Havok83]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

Yeah and i think a good number people skipped those ones. I know there were a lot of people who played AC1 and AC2 and just came back for AC3.

I think it's a bit lazy that. It works for the COD series but is that a model that should be adopted for a game series like AC? I think it alienates your base to introduce a game with all new innovations and settings than you have to wait two more games in that series to get the next set of innovations and setting changes.

Both those games sold extremely well. They were in the millions and among the best selling games in a very populated fall when released. Ubisoft should charge full price for them bc those were both full fledged titles and not merely some DLC pack that also got a retail release. Both were significant enough to warrant a $60 pricetag especially when both were 20+ hours to complete and added a multiplayer component. There was absolutely nothing lazy about ACB or ACR. They didn't even reuse the environment as they went and created brand new and detailed cities and catacombs for each game. ALOT of work was put into each title.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Havok83

Both those games sold extremely well. They were in the millions and among the best selling games in a very populated fall when released. Ubisoft should charge full price for them bc those were both full fledged titles and not merely some DLC pack that also got a retail release. Both were significant enough to warrant a $60 pricetag aspecially when both were 20+ hours to complete and added a multiplayer component. There was absolutely nothing lazy about ACB or ACR. They didn't even reuse the environment as they went and created brand new and detailed cities and catacombs for each game. ALOT of work was put into each title.

Absolutely agree.
The only thing you can remotely accuse Ubi of "recycling" in ACB and ACR was using the same lead character and the same era. Otherwise, they're both full-fledged new games.

[SpideyVille]

While it was evident that they put more work into the game, I would argue that the gameplay was relatively unchanged, especially going from ACII to ACB. ACR had some new stuff, which is why I liked that one more, but I remember playing ACII for the first time, right before ACB was released and I was really disappointed because it felt like the same game. I wouldn't say they were lazy, but I would say that they could've done more.

[Havok83]

Originally Posted by SpideyVille

While it was evident that they put more work into the game, I would argue that the gameplay was relatively unchanged, especially going from ACII to ACB. ACR had some new stuff, which is why I liked that one more, but I remember playing ACII for the first time, right before ACB was released and I was really disappointed because it felt like the same game. I wouldn't say they were lazy, but I would say that they could've done more.

The only significant improvement in gameplay was going from AC to ACII. ACII all the way to III were pretty minor IMO. Each added a little bit, but overall the gameplay remained fairly similar

ACB introduced the recruitement aspect and having a posse of assassins at your disposal helped switch up approaches. Along with that came the management which served as a strategy minigame. They also did a lot more with Desmond here. Contrast that with ACR, which added the bombs and the tower defense stuff, neither of which was really integral and could largely be ignored. Oh yeah I guess the hookblades were introduced in that game right? I think all supplemented the existing gameplay that was found in ACII but weren't vital or necessary to take advantage of.

[AxlsAppetite]

ACB introduced the killstreak as well, which were very usefull.

[ProjectPat2280]

Originally Posted by AxlsAppetite

ACB introduced the killstreak as well, which were very usefull.

And hella fun.

[ProjectPat2280]

Anyone see this? ACIV trailer. Hopefully this one hasnt been removed:

http://gamingeverything.com/41862/as...railer-leaked/

Can. Not. Wait.

[zenith16]

Originally Posted by ProjectPat2280

Anyone see this? ACIV trailer. Hopefully this one hasnt been removed:

http://gamingeverything.com/41862/as...railer-leaked/

Can. Not. Wait.

They just started putting this up on Gamer sites like EPD.TV/ ROTR and Game informer just now. You beat most of them too it. But it's only came out today,

[AxlsAppetite]

Originally Posted by ProjectPat2280

Anyone see this? ACIV trailer. Hopefully this one hasnt been removed:

http://gamingeverything.com/41862/as...railer-leaked/

Can. Not. Wait.

I can wait. I'm more than ready to wait two more years for a proper numbered game.
I

[jacobed]

Looks pretty awesome

[ProjectPat2280]

Originally Posted by AxlsAppetite

I can wait. I'm more than ready to wait two more years for a proper numbered game.
I

Haha, well its coming out in Oct rather you like it or not. Guess you could just skip this one and pretend AC V is actually AC IV.

[jacobed]

I wouldn't mind if these next numbered games have nothing to do with each other. I think it'd be cool if we got self contained stories about assassins at different time periods. I don't need the Desmond or sci fi connection

[ProjectPat2280]

Originally Posted by jacobed

I wouldn't mind if these next numbered games have nothing to do with each other. I think it'd be cool if we got self contained stories about assassins at different time periods. I don't need the Desmond or sci fi connection

I feel the same. I couldnt be less interested in the Desmond/modern day stuff. Every time those segments come up i just try and rush through them as quickly as i can so i can get back to the period portions of the game.

[AxlsAppetite]

Originally Posted by ProjectPat2280

Haha, well its coming out in Oct rather you like it or not. Guess you could just skip this one and pretend AC V is actually AC IV.

Well like I said before, none of what I say matters because Im getting it first day and going for 100% as usual.

I'm starting to think they only named it with a IV, because he carries four pistols. Underwater swimming seems promising in the AC Games. Altair would be so jelly of Edward.

[Havok83]

Originally Posted by jacobed

I wouldn't mind if these next numbered games have nothing to do with each other. I think it'd be cool if we got self contained stories about assassins at different time periods. I don't need the Desmond or sci fi connection

that's almost what they did with AC3:Liberation. IA, that a self contained tail would be great as well but with this being an annual series, I can see why they keep repeating the time periods. They put a lot of work into researching the era and areas which makes it harder to just move on after one game. Plus they create a universe with a rich and deep backstory which they feel need to get expanded upon in subsequent games. Id rather they move on myself but its making too much money for them to do one self contained tale a game. They wouldn't be able to put this out every year and unfortunately that is their goal

[SpideyVille]

I never really had a problem with all of the Desmond stuff cutting into the gameplay. The only issues I had was how they kept hyping up his story and ending the games with cliffhangers, only to have the resolution of major issues be underwhelming, such as Lucy's death and then Desmond's sacrifice. But I didn't really mind that the game included that because it gave the real game some backstory and importance. It would be like watching the Matrix just for the fights, and not the narrative of what was happening in the "Real World", which also ended up being a disappointment in the end.

As for the trailer, I liked it but it didn't grab me the same way as the previous ones had. Maybe its because I don't care much for pirates or naval combat in specific, but I want to see how much they add/change to the gameplay. I've really been into the history of the Tomb Raider franchise, and I never realized that their first 5 games were released annually, and when I compare it to this franchise, I noticed that I have the same issues, which is that the game on a basic level play exactly the same. there are minor addition and new features, but gameplay wise, they're all pretty identical.

[ProjectPat2280]

Originally Posted by AxlsAppetite

Well like I said before, none of what I say matters because Im getting it first day and going for 100% as usual.

I'm starting to think they only named it with a IV, because he carries four pistols. Underwater swimming seems promising in the AC Games. Altair would be so jelly of Edward.

Haha possibly. I'm assuming it got the IV based on the fact it's a new protagonist. Granted the character isn't far removed from Connor but its still someone new.

[socool]

Well, I just watched the premier trailer, which leaked. And I gotta say...I'm uninterested. I have every single Assassin's Creed game beaten and this just looks dumb. It looks like it's based off the naval missions from 3, which I thought were probably the worst part of any Assassin's Creed game...ever. I prefer the first AC game to ANY of the naval mission.s God...I hated those. And this game looks like 60 dollars worth of that...if it's even 60 dollars worth of content, that is, but all the AC games usually are, so that's not really a concern of mine. But...I do love AC...a lot. I'll probably see if I can get this one as a gift. Probably Christmas. I sure as hell am not spending 60 bucks on it, though.

[jacobed]

How was it the worst

[Havok83]

Im with him on that. The naval missions were the worst and centering a game around it makes me less interested in this

[ProjectPat2280]

No, they deff were not the worst part of that game. Maybe they were a bit misplaced, but they were handled extremely well. Not sure theres been a game to handle naval combat as smoothly as that. If they were as bad as you think, they wouldnt of developed a game around it.

[dude love]

It's good this has a better trailer than ACIII and it appears we're being thrust into Edward's life as an Assassin rather than doing another Hero's Journey like they did with Connor.

[Havok83]

Originally Posted by ProjectPat2280

No, they deff were not the worst part of that game. Maybe they were a bit misplaced, but they were handled extremely well. Not sure theres been a game to handle naval combat as smoothly as that. If they were as bad as you think, they wouldnt of developed a game around it.

obviously its a personal taste, but just didnt find them fun at all. I thought they were boring, slow and not too interesting. I preferred controller Connor on foot and horse and dreaded the segments which forced him on a ship. I never bothered to do the extra sidequests which revolved around them bc I hated that game mechanic

[dude love]

Originally Posted by Havok83

obviously its a personal taste, but just didnt find them fun at all. I thought they were boring, slow and not too interesting. I preferred controller Connor on foot and horse and dreaded the segments which forced him on a ship. I never bothered to do the extra sidequests which revolved around them bc I hated that game mechanic

FYI most of the Joe Kidd DLC isn't naval, but land missions. If you care, that is!

[Wolvieboy17]

FYI, the Captain Kidd missions weren't DLC :P