Please don't let Assassin's Creed IV's tutorial take up half the game

In Assassin's Creed III you don't even get the assassin's robes until like 1/2 way through the game and don't even touch the main character for around the first 20-30% of it.

 

Discussion Info


Last updated July 4, 2018 Views 0 Applies to:

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

I don't care what they do with assassins creed any more.

I kind of feel that way too. Revelations killed it but Assassin's Creed III gave it a chance at survival.

That's mostly why I didn't buy AC 3. That and I don't buy yearly released games.

E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!

Well then shame on you.

^^ Shame on me or the devs for hacking the game up to sell it to you later in the year and call it a new game. Sounds like I saved money and I'm not here complaining about it like you are.

-

Sounds like you got suckered out of your money if you feel that way. Shame on you I guess.

E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!

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.

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?

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.

[quote user="SpeckledEagle"]

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?

[/quote]

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.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.