It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
You might feel that way but plenty of people, myself included, think that they add more than enough to the games to justify buying the new one every year. I think the only one that could be classed as too similar to the last is Revelations and even then there was a great new story, another awe inspiring open world and some cool new features.
I don't "fail to see" anything. For me all the content that's in the game does justify the price. One or two new features? From the looks of things Unity has added a lot but I haven't played that yet so instead, I'll compare AC III and AC IV.
In AC IV we get a brand new setting, story and protagonist. The combat is similar to AC III but there are new elements to it, like the new weapons, the ability to free aim, etc. The naval combat is now a major part of the game, it takes up 50 percent of the game and you can sail around the whole map. You can now seamlessly board and take any ship you come across and use materials you plunder to upgrade your ship. You can now aim properly with the cannons, use swivel guns and drop fire barrels. Unlike Connor, Edward needs upgrading, he doesn't start off as a one man army. You do this by hunting and crafting things like armour and weapon holsters. You can now tag enemies with eagle vision and there's more of an emphasis on freedom. Stealth is encouraged more because guards do more damage, there are more hiding places and you get stealth bonuses for some side content. There are now naval forts which you have to attack by ship and destroy defenses of them before taking them. There are assassination contracts which are completely different to when they were last in the series (Brotherhood) and are really varied and dynamic. There are naval contracts where you have to sink certain boats. There are legendary ships to fight, big boss fights that are nearly impossible to complete. You can now explore underwater shipwrecks and harpoon sharks and whales. You can now sail around the whole map, not just in some missions, it's part of the open world now, and you can sail from one island to another, doing whatever you like along the way, without a single loading screen. The guards are more dangerous and can now ring alarm bells, alerting all enemies in the area. There are taverns to unlock by winning bar fights where you can play games, recruit crew members and get information about stuff in the world (like say a naval fleet with loads of cargo nearby). You can customise your ship, changing the sails, wheel and figurehead. You can now rob plantations and instead of recruiting Assassins, you recruit crew members for your ship.
That's everything off the top of my head but I'm sure there's even more features they added that I've forgotten. So no, not only one or two new features. And even though the games come out every year, they still get 2-3 years in development (although Unity could have used more from the looks of things), so it doesn't actually matter, they get as much development time as any non yearly released game.
So you might not think they're worth the price but plenty of others (reviewers and customers) do. So why not just ignore the series and not play them. So basically, what you're saying is "I don't like these games so I hope they fail because fuck all the people that do enjoy them". If you don't like the games then don't play them, just ignore them.
I've never said that people don't enjoy them, I've never said that they shouldn't enjoy them, I've never said that they couldn't. All I've ever said is that I want annual releases to stop. Or, if they're not going to stop, cut the price down by $20, or something.
I don't want to hear about backdoor development time (my own term for the knowledge that they've been working on [game X] for [Y # of years] in the middle of the annual releases), I want to see proof of the development time, and I don't see it in Assassin's Creed or CoD. Or Battlefield, anymore, for that matter. I saw proof of development time between Grand Theft Auto IV and Grand Theft Auto V. I saw that proof.
Like I said, I don't give two sh*ts if you love Assassin's Creed, because what you're doing there is very hypocritical. I'm supposed to just sit in my little corner and not voice my opinion, simply because it's not the same as yours, all the while you can stand under the spotlight and let your own voice be heard? No. Enjoy them all you like, I don't care. I've even enjoyed a few myself, but that's not, nor has it ever been my point. I said "Down with the ratings juggernaut" because I want Unity (and possible Rogue, from what I've heard) to stand as examples that annual releases aren't something that should go forward.
No because if you don't like the yearly releases or can't afford them, you can just not buy them every year, you can just wait until they're cheaper or until you have enough, and if you don't like them you could just not play them at all. But some of us like having a new one every year because the yearly releases don't normally compromise the quality of the game, the ammount of new stuff added or the ammount of overall content and we enjoy having a new one each year.
Except they do change plenty. I don't understand how you can say they're the same because they clearly aren't (look at my post above listing the stuff they added for AC IV). They're not going to drop the price because they take just as much time and money to make as any other game.
Except that there is proof of that development time. Tons of proof. Look at Black Flag and look at Unity. There is TONS of difference there. New graphics, new core gameplay (so new parkour, combat, etc), new dynamic mission design, co op and loads more new stuff. They went from a linear action game in the American Revolution to a non linear pirate game to an even more open, non linear stealth action game set in the French Revolution. They've improved the graphics and changed the gameplay up drastically several times (just adding the open world sailing alone was a huge change). How much do they have to change and add to make you (and others who feel the same way) happy?
You might not see it but the proof of development time is there and that's why the series gets (more or less) consistently good review
If I've misunderstood what you said then I'm sorry but by saying "down with the ratings juggernaut", you implied that you were happy with Rogue getting bad reviews. Bad reviews usually mean a bad game and how are people supposed to enjoy it if it's a bad game?
To jump away from Assassin's Creed (because, despite what you seem to believe, I'm not leading a smear campaign against AC, just annual releases), let's look at a recent example: Metal Gear Solid V Ground Zeroes. Ground Zeroes was a giant departure from prior Metal Gear titles in that it was quite a bit more stealth-focused, gave you more moves and represented a true shift in the play style of the Metal Gear franchise from standard third person stealth/shooter to open world stealth/shooter.
I went into Ground Zeroes knowing what it was I was buying, as everyone should (I fail to see why doing quick Wikipedia research of the things you intend to buy is considered stupid, but, again, neither here nor there). I went in knowing that there would be changes. I enjoyed Ground Zeroes not only for what new it brought in, but simply because I thought it was a good game, with plenty of replayability. Others looked at those same things I saw, played the same game, and hated it. People who've been playing the franchise as long or longer than I, even. Ground Zeroes, like most games, is a good game if you believe it is a good game, and it is a bad game if you believe it is a bad game.
Back onto Assassin's Creed. I don't know why Rogue got bad reviews. Everything I read mentions things like "lifeless world" or some goofy sh*t like that (it probably suffers from the same problem that all developers seem to forget how to make a game on a past console generation after they've made one on the newest generation). I've seen video and screenshots and it looks just like Black Flag to me, which is where my annual release problem lies again.
Black Flag may have introduced things like naval combat and the ability to free aim (not that I see why that's necessary, though... do you use guns more in Black Flag than in previous games? I thought that was against the Assassin's groove), but it all boils down to the same thing that you did in AC1-3: running on rooftops, dropping down, pick-pocketing, stabbing people with a hidden blade, some historical equivalent of Q Branch and open world exploration. (Now that I think about it, 3 introduced naval combat, didn't it? Oops.) Again, one or two new things is no substitute for actual innovation between releases. And one or two new things aren't worth $60.
Now, back to the annual release thing, which has been my point all along. When annual release games get good reviews, all it truly proves is that the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" method of making games works. It doesn't mean that it's good on its own merits, really. All it proves is that the same thing that made this past game enjoyable still makes this one enjoyable. What makes this a problem is that annual releases mean what was good is made boring quickly. Would you watch your favorite Bond movie day after day after day after day after day? I'll bet that sentence got boring quickly!
Oh, and very nice, you did take the "F*ck you" approach to some people's desire not pay $60 every year. I guess the idea that you could afford more annual release games if they were cheaper every year didn't come into play. Forward thinking, that.
But despite what I say, you're still going to read this with a "I don't give a sh*t what this guy says" filter over your eyes, and all of what I said will be considered unimportant. Understand this: I don't like annual releases. They cheapen the integrity of video games, because what is fun is played to death. You're never looking at the individual games and enjoying them anymore, because you're looking at the individual games and thinking "I can't wait until next year, when they do something even cooler!"
Except it's not one or two new things, they added way more than that. I typed out a massive paragraph above listing how they'd improved on existing aspects and added tons of new stuff but you've just skimmed over that.
If we use this logic then GTA is the same every game because it all boils down to what we've been doing since the first one: shooting people, stealing vehicles, killing cops, going to strip club, some colourful side characters and open world exploration.
And you seem to be underestimating the naval stuff. That was a massive change to how you explore the world and what you do in it. It turned it into a whole new game. In fact a lot of fans don't like Black Flag because they thought that it varied too far from the AC formula and was more of a pirate game than an Assassins one.
"But despite what I say, you're still going to read this with a "I don't give a sh*t what this guy says" filter over your eyes, and all of what I said will be considered unimportant. "
No I'm not. I've tried to understand your pov but I don't get it. You don't like yearly releases, so don't buy them. Why take that away from those of us that do when nobody is forcing you to get them?
RE: the price cut idea. I responded to this above. Yearly released games cost just as much time and money as others so no they won't make them cheaper. And why would they when they sell millions every year? It'd be a dumb business decision and game companies are, at the end of the day businesses.
You compared yearly releases to movies, saying imagine watching your favourite Bond film every day. Lets make another film comparison: Marvel movies. There are a few of those every year, so should cinema tickets for them cost less?
You think annual releases makes a series boring but plenty of us don't. That's what I don't understand. You seem to want an end to annual releases simply because you don't like them when nobody is forcing you to buy them and plenty of us do enjoy them. And how am I taking
Also: Grand Theft Auto was a yearly release, pretty much from 2001-2006. I had the same concerns then that I do now with our current annual release franchises.
You are right about one thing, though. Clearly we won't agree. Annual releases have caused the game industry to become less a labor of love and more a labor of "quality be damned, we just care about sales". You claim that the quality isn't compromised, well, that's probably because they're using the same tried-and-true engine, to make things faster, to pump out more games, to get more sales.
Which leads me to another problem entirely, and that's franchise tiredness. People will disagree with me on this, but it's always better to have an ending planned out as opposed to just relying on franchise strength. But with annual releases, developers are just proving that they'd rather go out with a whimper instead of a bang.
Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is what next-gen gaming looks like! It looks like Rocksteady are going out in explosive style for their Batman finale.
Yeah, my jaw was dropped the entire time. It's probably from the PC version, though.
I don't care what you are doing; WATCH THIS! The most amazing video game footage I have ever seen. This right here is true next-gen! \m/
@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 - That was a lot of awesomeness to wake up to on a Sunday morning.
You're lucky. I watched this past midnight and am surprised I slept a wink!
Looks nice, love the blue colors in the beginning of that video!
And I read that this build isn't even in the alpha stages of testing yet. The final version is literally going to make me have a heart attack.
The first time I saw it I knew it looked better than any game I'd seen before, then when someone said it wasn't even a pre-alpha build my mind exploded into a bunch of flying pieces. I don't know how NaughtyDog do it. The gameplay, the environment effects, the detail of the game models, all of it.
We've got the best of the Uncharted team with the best of the Last of Us team, all working together on this one. Can you smell game of the year?
While some of the gameplay looks interesting and the game takes place in my favorite location at my favorite time period, the main protagonist Jacob just doesn't do it for me. I was expecting a far more earnest main assassin.
So while Syndicate does look impressive and a lot of fun, I'm not a hundred percent sold yet because I'm still finding it hard to shake the feeling of uneasiness I have after Unity. I loved the first 6 games to varying degrees (everybody says AC III was awful but I thought it was very underrated), but Unity was the first one I actually disliked. It felt like Ubisoft were pandering to the masses too much (people complained about AC III being too slow so they rushed through Unity's story, it was fast paced, but rushed, poorly written, unsatisfying and full of undeveloped characters, including the main character).
Tbh my hopes for the story being much better than Unity aren't that great at the moment. The lead writer of Syndicate previously wrote Brotherhood (one of the weaker AC games from a story perspective, imo) and Far Cry 3 (which had a terrible story). However, Corey May (lead writer of AC II and AC III, which had fantastic stories) is the narrative director, which gives me some hope. I just wish he was the lead writer. Either him or Darby Mcdevitt (who wrote AC Revelations, AC Embers and AC IV).
Still, Victory does look impressive so far, seems like it'll be fun and it's being developed by the team behind Freedom Cry, which was a great DLC and had a great emotional story. So I feel like I should give them the benefit of the doubt, they didn't work on Unity, it wasn't their fault it was disappointing.
Accept my experience in this matter: You're right. Nobody believes you, but you're right. Everybody will be against you, but you're right.
Although, the AC games turned into COD when Brotherhood was released.
Honestly @Creasy47, Black Flag is just brilliant; I can't think of any other way to put it. I'd recommend it to anyone that likes strong storytelling in games and immersive, content-filled open worlds. I can be quite critical of games, especially large sandbox titles, but Black Flag blew me away and was the game that got me interested in playing the other games in the Creed series in the first place. When I got the game it took over my life, where I played it for hours on end without realizing any time had even passed. While the other AC games have a bunch of rather useless elements like the villas in the Ezio games, where after a while you have more money than you could ever hope to use, everything in Black Flag has a purpose. From jump Ubisoft gives you their massive game world, and allow you to go off and do whatever you want inside of it. If you want to follow the story, feel free, but they allow those who want to explore more that right. You can hop on your Jackdaw and sail the open sees not long after the game kicks off, fighting other ships on the seven seas to test your merits to gain experience in combat, all while picking up supplies to upgrade your ship and crew. Take to far off islands and explore their wonders, hunt their animals and face the dangers that may lie in wait. And if you are brave enough, head to the southern section of the map to take on mighty ships of unmatched military might to build your armada and take enemy fortresses as your own in explosive siege take-overs. There's so much to do in this game, it's honestly dizzying. Truthfully, it does for pirate games what Red Dead has done for westerns.
As a character, Edward is also one of the best. I loved him when he was just being an endearing, trouble-rousing rogue, but that affection only spread when he grew as a character, discovering the things that are most important in life over the course of his travels. He's right up there with Ezio for me, in a class of his own. He's surrounded by a phenomenal supporting cast of characters as well, who I count as some of the best the series has even known.
With all this in mind...
Recently I began playing Assassin's Creed III to continue working my way through the series, and am conflicted about pursuing it further. I've heard for years about how big a disappointment this game was, but I was always of the mind that it couldn't be that bad. After all, it was the game that featured the fresher, more fluid combat and platforming mechanics that I fell in love with in Black Flag, which made the game and the movement controls feel more natural and efficient. And those great mechanics are still there, it's just that where AC III is concerned, what surrounds it isn't so grand.
The story, or lack thereof is just bland, uninviting and poorly paced. How Ubisoft managed to make a story about my countrymen's fight for independence such an uninvolved snore-fest, I haven't the faintest idea. None of the characters are well developed because you don't stick around long enough to really know any of them. You play as a Haytham Kenway-the sole interesting character in the drama-for only a couple hours of game time before the pacing of the story goes nuts and we flash forward many years to where Connor is now a growing boy who quickly flashes into a man in barely two hours of game time. As an assassin protagonist, he isn't engaging in the slightest. The voice actor that gives him life-or lack thereof-delivers all his lines in a hollow, monotone fashion, as if he is providing auditory symbolism to just how boring Connor is. To complicate matters, he is surrounded by characters that lack the ability to captivate interest as whatever plot the game is trying to craft plays out weakly.
Worst of all is this rubbish hand-holding the game feels to need to do. I'm well over a third into the game and yet I've only just been able to explore and purchase items. Everything up to this point has been exposition, where massive time jumps are taken frequently and to devastating effect. You have to wait clear until sequence 6 just to get Connor's assassin robes and full utility belt of skills, and you never once actually get to feel like you are growing as a member of the Brotherhood in that time. We hear in voice overs that he is working hard to be an assassin and that the road he is traveling has put into questions values and beliefs he'd once held dear, but you never actually see any of this. Ubisoft have decided to simply cheat us out of all this character development and have relegated some of the only tangible character progression for Connor to thirty second voice overs. I mean, really? For a character this boring, you need to utilize any tools you have available to make him interesting and dimensional. A mentor like Achilles should feel interesting and wise like Ezio did in his old age, but we're cheated out of knowing him more because Connor gets so underdeveloped time and time again.
I'm literally halfway through the game, and things have only just kicked off. I've barely killed a target, the story doesn't make you enticed to see it through, and I am seriously questioning whether I will even bother finishing it at this point. Worst of all, there's tons of modern day garbage to deal with, as if Desmond and his band of cronies haven't grown annoying enough to contend with. In this game Ubisoft have once again lazily shoe-horned in efforts to weakly develop Desmond as a character, this time throwing his daddy into the mix. Good heavens.
During the time that I first began AC III and found little to no interest in it, I went back to some of Black Flag to screw around in the open world. Maybe it wasn't AC III, I thought, and just the franchise as a whole. I had spent the previous months running through the majority of the games in the series, so was it possible that I was getting gaming fatigue? Had I simply exhausted my interest in the series by playing them too much and too fast? All of this was in the back of my mind, and yet, when I returned to Black Flag, I had an absolute blast, and wanted more than anything to explore Edward's story and the Caribbean all over again, forgetting all about Connor and this boring story. I can't even fully explain what doesn't work in AC III, but something is wrong.
Anybody else feel this way?