The intro with Haytham was actually more fun than playing as boring Connor. They just need an interesting character and it will be instantly 800x better than AC3. I'm still done with AC though, I've had enough of their yearly releases.
Because it's a waste of my money for the same exact game as the year before. I'm done with the yearly sports/cod/ac titles, especially since they aren't that different from their previous iteration nor are they much fun to me anymore.
What is wrong with a game coming out every year? If they just made the game and then held on it for another year, how would the quality increase?
It's a bit of a toxic business strategy.
It fosters negligence. And, as paying customers who are willing to shell out £40 on a game each year, plus an additional £30 for DLC, we have the right to expect good things from any game we're willing to take a punt on.
To answer your second question, a game that has had a development cycle of 18 months rather than 9 months is likely to be a better quality title and much more substantial given the extra time to refine certain elements and less pressure
when it comes to a looming deadline.
I kind of believe that the making of consoles is to blame for having yearly releases.
PC games back then had expansion packs, and some still do this, and that allowed people to add more onto their game without having to reinstall the entire game. On consoles, there's no such luxury as each disk must be a stand alone game.