There has yet to be an Assassin's Creed game that surpasses the overall quality of Assassin's Creed II.
[QUOTE=Dr Bob;40119920]There has yet to be an Assassin's Creed game that surpasses the overall quality of Assassin's Creed II.[/QUOTE]
I enjoyed Brotherhood more.
3 was a let-down.
[QUOTE=Dr Bob;40119920]There has yet to be an Assassin's Creed game that surpasses the overall quality of Assassin's Creed II.[/QUOTE]
Brotherhood was essentially and improvement on everything AC2 did but with a neat multiplayer component.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40120953]Brotherhood was essentially and improvement on everything AC2 did but with a neat multiplayer component.[/QUOTE]
I thought the story got quite tedious, especially after the middle act.
The last few missions were particularly annoying.
I wonder what made ac2 so good, because i loved that game, brotherhood was okay but not good enough for me to get #3
Oh come on, annual release ensure that people have jobs. Stop being so selfish and let these people create their games
[QUOTE=BCell;40127456]Oh come on, annual release ensure that people have jobs. Stop being so selfish and let these people create their games[/QUOTE]
You would buy shitty games to ensure people keep their jobs?
[QUOTE=Lord Hayden II;40127489]You would buy shitty games to ensure people keep their jobs?[/QUOTE]
hell ya son, im a selfless mothafucka, who cares if i eat the poopoo its all for the pooer
[QUOTE=Killer900;40120699]3 was a let-down.[/QUOTE]
I feel like 3 was worse simply because they tried making it too big. I love freerunning to my objectives instead of fast traveling, so the fact that I spent more time going to my missions than in the missions themselves was what left a sour taste in my mouth.
[QUOTE=Lord Hayden II;40127489]You would buy shitty games to ensure people keep their jobs?[/QUOTE]
Shitty games is not determined by how long it took for them to develop and release. You could have a game that took 10 years to make and still come out horrible and some games took 6 months to complete and turn out to be fun and addictive.
Case example, Duke Nukem Forever and Aliens Colonial marines. A game that took so long to make and come out terrible.
If they give the game developer a proper time management and good script writing, they could come out with a good masterpiece in just under a year or two. have faith, Ubisoft pays attention to their QA for all their games unlike EA.
[QUOTE=Em See;40141627][video=youtube;ON-7v4qnHP8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON-7v4qnHP8[/video][/QUOTE]
yes of course ubisoft is a bunch of evil money-grubbing greedy corporate assholes because they decided to have an annual release plan for their most popular franchise that sells literal metric fucktons.
[editline]3rd April 2013[/editline]
how many studios do they have working on AC again? like 8?
it's like having a studio releasing a title every 2-3 years, but somebody cloned their entire development team so they can release more video games
I feel like assassins creed should have been building towards something, like there should be some roadmap with a climactic conclusion somewhere in there. Sadly the story will probably never see that because of this yearly release schedule. We'll just keep creating new games every year with popular set pieces and no real plan, just making it up as they go along.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40141933]
it's like having a studio releasing a title every 2-3 years, but somebody cloned their entire development team so they can release more video games[/QUOTE]
That's actually how Call Of Duty works these days with InfWard and Treyarch.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
