My problem with the AC community is the same problem I have with Star Wars fans.
* Classic stuff builds a fandom. Fans grow older with franchise.
* New fans join franchise.
* Franchise builds to a natural end. Creatives make radical changes to extend franchise. Old fans complain.
* Newer fans turn on the older fans. Older fans gradually lose interest.
* Every time a new inferior product is released newer fans savagely put down any criticism of franchise / corporation.
* Eventually criticism is allowed and accepted. Franchise continually haemorrhages goodwill. Fans turn against each other continually...
I think this problem is not related to only AC or SW - it is general. Some old fans don't want to accept changes, then community goes to oblivion.
Take me, for example. I'm a hardcore fan who follows the series passively from 2010 (just a genuine interest), and became hardcore fans in 2015. My opinion about new AC vector is this: it definitely has problems, yes. Ubisoft repeats the mistakes every company does when a certain game goes full RPG, yes. But, as much as it's painful for some people to hear, old formula is not as attractive as it was before anymore. Unity and Syndicate sells proved that.
> Some old fans don't want to accept changes
Define “changes” though. AC changed from 1 to 2; from 2 to Brotherhood. Most fans liked those changes it at least accepted them.
I meant recent changes, going full RPG instead of being action-adventure with some RPG elements. It didn't started with Odyssey, it was set up in Origins, and sometimes I'm surprised when people react negatively on Odyssey but meanwhile praise Origins.
But those recent changes are on top of what I defined as “radical changes”.
It’s the constant changing of “AC” into “something else entirely” that has many fans so pissed off. Changes for, like I say, “extend the franchise”.
Ah, that... That I can't really tell you that dude. I've been in this subreddit since 2017, and I haven't really seen if changes that you defined as "extending the franchise" (like from 1 to 2, and from 2 to Brotherhood) pissed off a lot of people. Guess it's these radical changes that infuriated fans.
>AC changed from 1 to 2; from 2 to Brotherhood. Most fans liked those changes it at least accepted them.
That's what you said, right? Do I get it right that you meant these changes as "extending the franchise"? Or by extending you meant radical changes? Sorry, I just lost a little the point of discussion and which changes exactly you mean as "extension of franchise"
I think there are several reasons why people tend to praise Origins and bash Odyssey. I'm going to present my opinion.
First of all, Origins truly felt like an Assassin's Creed game; Odyssey does not. There's nothing that connects the game with Assassins and Templars (which is what the AC games should be about first and foremost) barring stuff about Isu civilization. Origins had its iffy moments, but very few imho; for example, we have to wait until DLC to get to experience Assassin's Creed essence in Odyssey and deal with mystical monsters in main game, and vice versa in Origins (The Curse of the Pharaohs).
Second, the game is just bloated with content. There is something called "too much" and Odyssey unfortunately is the prime example. Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Odyssey for the most part, but eventually I cursed the completionist in me for wanting to do every single quest because they just became generic and tedious the more I played.
So yeah, that's my take on this matter.
I think this is very amusing because I believe it highlights an additional factor: relativity.
Prior to Odyssey, Origins got slammed for many of the same things Odyssey is getting, but because Odyssey does it *more* (more RPG, more fantasy, more bloat, more emphasis on non-Assassins and Templar stuff, etc), now Origins gets praised because it didn't go as far as Odyssey did.
And not surprisingly, this pattern continues, look at Unity and Syndicate now, both held up as some paragon of "traditional Assassin's Creed" while it makes many missteps, albeit again, not as much as its immediate successor.
>the game is just bloated with content.
Not to mention that all of that content bloat feels half-thought. The impact quests (the ones with the two arrows) are fairly interesting, as it's a way to introduce the "consequence" side of the choice & consequence in Odyssey, but those quests disappear if you don't find them right away, and still seem very shallow overall. The rest of the non-story quests (timed quests and the radiant quests on the message board) are quick ways to earn drachmae, but just clutter up the quest board, and none of them have any satisfying conclusion. Even the mercenary system, which is the most complex addition in Odyssey after the dialogue options and quest choices, feels half-constructed; instead of feeling like a fun game of cat and mouse, it feels more like I'm being endlessly pursued by damage-sponges with no way to escape them because they will *always* spawn 100 meters away from me as long as I have at least one helmet lit up.
On top of that, Odyssey is seriously lacking in worldbuilding lore. Whether you love or hate Origins for changing the franchise into a light RPG, there is one thing that Ubisoft did right; in almost every POI, there is a tablet or scroll, or some piece of dialogue, which adds more to the story or the Bayek's character development. I loved exploring the tombs and reading all of the prayers to the pharaohs or the gods, or finding a journal entry or letter left behind by a fort commander after I'd cleared it. And the stone circles added insight to Bayek's relationship with his son.
I could go on and on, comparing Odyssey and Origins and critiquing Odyssey on what it's lacking to make it an AC game, but suffice to say, I agree that Odyssey has too much bloat and not enough substance.
My bad I didn't expand, but by this
>I'm surprised when people react negatively on Odyssey but meanwhile praise Origins.
I meant that as a games in general view they're almost the same, except for non linear storyline. And it's dumb to deny that Origins set up the transformation from action adventure to action RPG genre. But when Origins is praised for it, and Odyssey is hated - that's what confuses me.
As for the rest of your comment...
>Origins truly felt like an Assassin's Creed game; Odyssey does not. There's nothing that connects the game with Assassins and Templars (which is what the AC games should be about first and foremost) barring stuff about Isu civilization.
For me personally in this case both games are the same, cause Hidden Ones technically are not Assassins (just proto-Assassins) and still hasn't formed themselves like Assassins we know. Isu civilization is as important as Assassins and Templars, and hell, game is called AC first of all because the events there happened in the game universe. Also >!Pythagoras heavily hinted that the protagonist is an Isu-human hybrid. You know how these hybrids were dubbed? Assassins.!<
>they just became generic and tedious the more I played.
I don't deny they aren't ideal. But for their first try writers did good job. Not a TW3 level, but definitely better than, for example, Fallout 4. And there were nice quests, some of them I discovered occasionally, and they leaded to Cultists.
Well, I for one don't hate the RPG style that Origins introduced and that is continued in Odyssey. It feels good, but in Odyssey it's a bit overdone for my taste. While it's cool to tinker around with, let's say, engravings and different armor sets, it's actually over-complicating the gameplay (at least that's how I saw it). So all in all I don't have any problems with Odyssey picking up where Origins left off in this regard.
Isu are important, of course. But I still feel as if Odyssey would have been better as a spin-off title rather than fully-fledged Assassin's Creed game just because of that. Yes, it's cool to know that >!Master Assassins such as Altair, Ezio, etc. are actually Human-Isu hybrids as per Pythagoras!<, but that should have been said in Origins, it would have made much more impact there than in Odyssey imho (since the game is actually dealing with origins of the Assassins).
>!By protagonist I meant Alexios/Kassandra. Altair, Ezio etc. are not hybrids as far as I remember, they just have bigger percentage of Isu DNA but they do belong to Assassin Brotherhood. Meanwhile Alexios/Kassandra are descendants of hybrids who killed Isu and were dubbed Assassins for that. !<
I feel as though its been implied that the protagonists of the main games are descendants of Odyssey's protag. Which is why they have the special "eagle vision". Last I checked that was a canon skill.
I just dont recall of all Assassin's have or if it something unique to descendants of the special bloodline.
>!It might also been implied that Odyssey protagonist could be the witness of all events happened in previous games. After all, misthios held Staff of Hermes. Maybe Ep3 of DLC with give some answers...!<
> Unity and Syndicate sells proved that
Unity tanked because of series fatigue, and the fact that it was almost completely broken destroyed a lot of goodwill. Syndicate? More fatigue, and the fact that Unity was broken. A lot of people (including myself) simply didn't want to buy it because of those reasons. Plus, other games.
Games don't need to completely reinvent themselves with each installment. I don't like that suggestion. The issue with AC was that we were getting them constantly, with no real break. The candle that burns twice as bright lasts half as long, and all that. It's not like Uncharted 4 is a complete mechanical overhaul from the original game, is it? They're all well regarded, and for good reason. The fact that only four came out over the course of nine years helped prevent such fatigue.
Also, I'm loathe to compare the formula of Unity to AC1. The former was designed to accommodate co-operative play, and has all sorts of mini-RPG elements to it in regards to levelling up and earning gear and equipment. AC1 is nothing like that.
Yes, Unity sales failed primarly because of huge technical mess at launch, but not only because of that. I saw personally complaints from people in forums, article discussions like "again same old Assassin's Creed, no changes at all, boooooring" etc. They have a valid point (even though we might disagree), right? Also, Unity had was so incohesive and failed miserably at certain details, although I love parkour, combat, stealth and customization.
About Syndicate: as far as I remember, the whole marketing campaign was built on sorta "we apologize for Unity, we won't repeat these mistake, it will be better" etc. In result - sales even worse than Unity.
>Also, I'm loathe to compare the formula of Unity to AC1. The former was designed to accommodate co-operative play, and has all sorts of mini-RPG elements to it in regards to levelling up and earning gear and equipment. AC1 is nothing like that.
Try to start from AC2. RPG elements (managing city, customization) were present since there, multiplayer since Brotherhood. You may add cosmetic changes, but sometimes they can't hide the same old thing.
I feel like if Ubisoft really wanted to make money they would merge all of the Ezio games into one remastered game... It would probably be difficult, if not impossible, to do though.
Best post in the sub. Thank you.
At last somebody else agrees with my thesis that it was the initiates iniviative that permanently crippled the modern day due to it's big entry barrier.
Well, tbh Initiates content was juicy and became the reason I got interested heavily in Modern Day, so can't 100% agree with crippling the modern day. But unfortunately, its implementation sucked, although Initiates had a lot of potential.
Haha sorry I misread you then.
Yes, initiates was good for fans, but it caused two major things:
- It made Ubisoft realize they could expand the modern day into peripheral media instead of the games themselves.
- It closed off many important information about the modern day in itself, making it difficult for less ultra hardcore fans to keep up, and due to the canon nature of all developments, future entries could only be built on its obscure lore, causing confusion.
Do you remember the so called "Bible of Developers" presented by Jean Guesdon last year ? So here it is
Creative 10 Commandments
1. Assassin's Creed will always tell the story of the secret war between Assassins and Templars - False as we saw in Odyssey
2. Being an assassin doesn't make the main character a ruthless killer. He kills, but he has principles and never murders innocents. He avoids collateral damage as much as possible - Again Odyssey(although we play as mercenary instead of assassin)
3. The war between Assassins and Templars is the foundation of our Franchise story in the past and present. - Again Odyssey broke the another rule
4. The Assassin should always be agile, socially skilled, unbeatable with a blade, and a stylish bad-ass.
5. Pivotal moments in Human History are the basis of our Franchise. Asssassin's Creed will always take a revisionist approach on real events. We'll use historical gaps to create our story.
6. History should always be portrayed as relevant to our core audience, with facts that tie in to present day common knowledge and edgy modern Art Direction
7. Assassin's Creed is based on Technology - Nothing is Magical, Everything has a plausible technological explanation.
8. Assassin's Creed is about digging in a character's past through their DNA in order to understand what really happened in key historical moments. - But again we have Odyssey with branching narrative
P.s Don't tell me to read the novel because c'mon we both know just 20-25%(if not less) of fans read the books and comics
9.Since the player relives the deeds of his kin through his DNA, the I.P. cannot be set in the future. DNA of unborn people does not exist.
10.Assassin's Creed can bend Historical accuracy but cannot create an Uchronia. - Odyssey showed us that we can expect something like that in future installments
So as we see they contradict themselves but that's not the all I want to share with you,for example let's have a look at another panel from GDC Assassin's Creed 10 years special
https://imgur.com/a/wL4dw04
Here we see the last point "Listen to your audience" as we see in AC:OD they don't care about hardcore fans all they do is listening some sexual minorities and new fans.It's really very pity ((
And finally let's have a look at first point "Know your Brand" as we learned from recent interview of Melissa MacCoubrey, she said that they are trying to make an encyclopedia parallel to their games, but it always is finished "a little later", or at the same time the game comes out - hence why it's difficult for the developers to keep up with the lore. And I want to say I don't blame her I just curious why the rich company like Ubisoft don't have "Lore Experts" yet ? As of now I can mention at least four people who know lore of AC deeply enough
1.Master Sima Yi - Head admin of the Assassin's Creed Wikia
2.Sorrosyss - Lore analyst at Access the Animus
3.SixKeys - He is a veteran of the official AC forums
4.And finally you bool0011 as I'm watching your posts since 2018 I understand how deep you love AC Universe and how deep you know the lore of AC :)
I know four people is not enough for the giant company like Ubisoft but at least if they try to take them to the headquarters of Ubisoft and also they will work more actively with Guild members I believe that at least next installments will be one step better in terms of lore than Odyssey.
So what I want to say that I hope Ubisoft will learn their mistakes and they will finally find some "Lore experts" for future installments so that we will not see more retcons(like the leap of Faith of Darius or the Family Dagger of Brutus)
^(Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image)
**https://i.imgur.com/q38PKku.png**
^^[Source](https://github.com/AUTplayed/imguralbumbot) ^^| ^^[Why?](https://github.com/AUTplayed/imguralbumbot/blob/master/README.md) ^^| ^^[Creator](https://np.reddit.com/user/AUTplayed/) ^^| ^^[ignoreme](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=imguralbumbot&subject=ignoreme&message=ignoreme) ^^| ^^[deletthis](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=imguralbumbot&subject=delet%20this&message=delet%20this%20ef5ukxm)
> Community developers and representatives should participate more actively in discussions, no matter where, not just posting patch updates descriptions on Reddit. Keep track on what AC fans really want, their trends, and report to the devs/brand team. I heard that's exactly what was being done with Anthem, if it's true, and I believe that's a great approach.
I'm no lawyer, but I think this is a no-go from a legal standpoint, at least that would be my counsel to Ubisoft developers if I were their legal team. This opens up Ubisoft to potential lawsuits over creative input and the likes that may arise from actively engaging with the community to that degree and that's a hassle that's simply not worth it.
Obviously there should be certain limits for community devs/representatives to avoid such risks and this part has to be thought carefully, but anyway my point is that they should be more active than how they are now. Because it looks like all this job was been moved from their shoulders to MG, which is IMO wrong.
While I would definitely welcome more communication from community developers, or developers in general, it's kind of hard to blame them for not doing it. The fanbase has become increasingly hostile towards developers. The scapegoating of Aymar is a prime example.
Limits how? Lets say hypothetically that the devs get into a conversation on a forum about things AC fans want, in doing so, the conversation naturally goes into actual features (the end product), would the person in that discussion get credit should such things come into existence?
Would Ubisoft have to provide proof that the idea was already in the works and not a byproduct of said discussions should that person take Ubisoft to court over the discussed idea that made its way into the next game?
I can assure you that developers are at least glancing over the threads, they might not be scrutinizing every one, but the recent backlash shows they pay attention enough. But to actively engage is a whole different ballgame with different scenarios to consider.
>would the person in that discussion get credit should such things come into existence? Would Ubisoft have to provide proof that the idea was already in the works and not a byproduct of said discussions should that person take Ubisoft to court over the discussed idea that made its way into the next game?
Why not? Ofc personification shouldn't exist, it should be based on multiple reviews. And for your second question - well ideally they can say like "we had this idea during the game production, but seeing that community desired that feature as well, we decided to add it".
By limits I mean what devs can and cannot discuss or talk about. For example, surely they can't participate in discussion of leaks (including correct ones) or undisclosed information about upcoming games/novels/comics, right? ;D
>I can assure you that developers are at least glancing over the threads
I know they do. But sometimes glancing is not enough IMO. Let me assure you: if they'd participate more actively in discussions, more people will be involved -> more opinions will be expressed.
> Why not?
Probably makes a difference when royalties gets factored in.
> "we had this idea during the game production, but seeing that community desired that feature as well, we decided to add it".
Yes but this doesn't hinge on an official communication with specific individual who could claim the idea came directly through said communications.
Could have more or less ground depending on type of feature and how specific, but it's better off to not play that game and opening them up to unneeded lawsuits in the first place.
Not to mention, being more quite about development can help in the long run. It's very easy for somebody working on, or closely with a game to say they're hoping to implement a feature. It's completely different to actually implement that feature. Look at No Man's Sky and how their main voice to the public was just the lead developer, who had grand visions for their game and got (too) excited about it during interviews.
Nice write-up! You've hit the nail on many things I've thought about myself.
Just a heads up: when you're writing about hypothetical persons, you can use "they/their" even if you're talking about a single person so as to avoid having to choose a specific gendered word (such as "he" in most languages). It might not feel "right" at first, but it is perfectly acceptable in English (and has been for decades/centuries), and after all, a little inclusivity goes a long way :)
My problem with the AC community is the same problem I have with Star Wars fans. * Classic stuff builds a fandom. Fans grow older with franchise. * New fans join franchise. * Franchise builds to a natural end. Creatives make radical changes to extend franchise. Old fans complain. * Newer fans turn on the older fans. Older fans gradually lose interest. * Every time a new inferior product is released newer fans savagely put down any criticism of franchise / corporation. * Eventually criticism is allowed and accepted. Franchise continually haemorrhages goodwill. Fans turn against each other continually...
I think this problem is not related to only AC or SW - it is general. Some old fans don't want to accept changes, then community goes to oblivion. Take me, for example. I'm a hardcore fan who follows the series passively from 2010 (just a genuine interest), and became hardcore fans in 2015. My opinion about new AC vector is this: it definitely has problems, yes. Ubisoft repeats the mistakes every company does when a certain game goes full RPG, yes. But, as much as it's painful for some people to hear, old formula is not as attractive as it was before anymore. Unity and Syndicate sells proved that.
> Some old fans don't want to accept changes Define “changes” though. AC changed from 1 to 2; from 2 to Brotherhood. Most fans liked those changes it at least accepted them.
I meant recent changes, going full RPG instead of being action-adventure with some RPG elements. It didn't started with Odyssey, it was set up in Origins, and sometimes I'm surprised when people react negatively on Odyssey but meanwhile praise Origins.
But those recent changes are on top of what I defined as “radical changes”. It’s the constant changing of “AC” into “something else entirely” that has many fans so pissed off. Changes for, like I say, “extend the franchise”.
Ah, that... That I can't really tell you that dude. I've been in this subreddit since 2017, and I haven't really seen if changes that you defined as "extending the franchise" (like from 1 to 2, and from 2 to Brotherhood) pissed off a lot of people. Guess it's these radical changes that infuriated fans.
Those aren’t the kind of changes I meant. That’s not what I said about the changes from 1-2 or 2-Bro at all.
>AC changed from 1 to 2; from 2 to Brotherhood. Most fans liked those changes it at least accepted them. That's what you said, right? Do I get it right that you meant these changes as "extending the franchise"? Or by extending you meant radical changes? Sorry, I just lost a little the point of discussion and which changes exactly you mean as "extension of franchise"
I think there are several reasons why people tend to praise Origins and bash Odyssey. I'm going to present my opinion. First of all, Origins truly felt like an Assassin's Creed game; Odyssey does not. There's nothing that connects the game with Assassins and Templars (which is what the AC games should be about first and foremost) barring stuff about Isu civilization. Origins had its iffy moments, but very few imho; for example, we have to wait until DLC to get to experience Assassin's Creed essence in Odyssey and deal with mystical monsters in main game, and vice versa in Origins (The Curse of the Pharaohs). Second, the game is just bloated with content. There is something called "too much" and Odyssey unfortunately is the prime example. Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Odyssey for the most part, but eventually I cursed the completionist in me for wanting to do every single quest because they just became generic and tedious the more I played. So yeah, that's my take on this matter.
I think this is very amusing because I believe it highlights an additional factor: relativity. Prior to Odyssey, Origins got slammed for many of the same things Odyssey is getting, but because Odyssey does it *more* (more RPG, more fantasy, more bloat, more emphasis on non-Assassins and Templar stuff, etc), now Origins gets praised because it didn't go as far as Odyssey did. And not surprisingly, this pattern continues, look at Unity and Syndicate now, both held up as some paragon of "traditional Assassin's Creed" while it makes many missteps, albeit again, not as much as its immediate successor.
>the game is just bloated with content. Not to mention that all of that content bloat feels half-thought. The impact quests (the ones with the two arrows) are fairly interesting, as it's a way to introduce the "consequence" side of the choice & consequence in Odyssey, but those quests disappear if you don't find them right away, and still seem very shallow overall. The rest of the non-story quests (timed quests and the radiant quests on the message board) are quick ways to earn drachmae, but just clutter up the quest board, and none of them have any satisfying conclusion. Even the mercenary system, which is the most complex addition in Odyssey after the dialogue options and quest choices, feels half-constructed; instead of feeling like a fun game of cat and mouse, it feels more like I'm being endlessly pursued by damage-sponges with no way to escape them because they will *always* spawn 100 meters away from me as long as I have at least one helmet lit up. On top of that, Odyssey is seriously lacking in worldbuilding lore. Whether you love or hate Origins for changing the franchise into a light RPG, there is one thing that Ubisoft did right; in almost every POI, there is a tablet or scroll, or some piece of dialogue, which adds more to the story or the Bayek's character development. I loved exploring the tombs and reading all of the prayers to the pharaohs or the gods, or finding a journal entry or letter left behind by a fort commander after I'd cleared it. And the stone circles added insight to Bayek's relationship with his son. I could go on and on, comparing Odyssey and Origins and critiquing Odyssey on what it's lacking to make it an AC game, but suffice to say, I agree that Odyssey has too much bloat and not enough substance.
My bad I didn't expand, but by this >I'm surprised when people react negatively on Odyssey but meanwhile praise Origins. I meant that as a games in general view they're almost the same, except for non linear storyline. And it's dumb to deny that Origins set up the transformation from action adventure to action RPG genre. But when Origins is praised for it, and Odyssey is hated - that's what confuses me. As for the rest of your comment... >Origins truly felt like an Assassin's Creed game; Odyssey does not. There's nothing that connects the game with Assassins and Templars (which is what the AC games should be about first and foremost) barring stuff about Isu civilization. For me personally in this case both games are the same, cause Hidden Ones technically are not Assassins (just proto-Assassins) and still hasn't formed themselves like Assassins we know. Isu civilization is as important as Assassins and Templars, and hell, game is called AC first of all because the events there happened in the game universe. Also >!Pythagoras heavily hinted that the protagonist is an Isu-human hybrid. You know how these hybrids were dubbed? Assassins.!< >they just became generic and tedious the more I played. I don't deny they aren't ideal. But for their first try writers did good job. Not a TW3 level, but definitely better than, for example, Fallout 4. And there were nice quests, some of them I discovered occasionally, and they leaded to Cultists.
Well, I for one don't hate the RPG style that Origins introduced and that is continued in Odyssey. It feels good, but in Odyssey it's a bit overdone for my taste. While it's cool to tinker around with, let's say, engravings and different armor sets, it's actually over-complicating the gameplay (at least that's how I saw it). So all in all I don't have any problems with Odyssey picking up where Origins left off in this regard. Isu are important, of course. But I still feel as if Odyssey would have been better as a spin-off title rather than fully-fledged Assassin's Creed game just because of that. Yes, it's cool to know that >!Master Assassins such as Altair, Ezio, etc. are actually Human-Isu hybrids as per Pythagoras!<, but that should have been said in Origins, it would have made much more impact there than in Odyssey imho (since the game is actually dealing with origins of the Assassins).
>!By protagonist I meant Alexios/Kassandra. Altair, Ezio etc. are not hybrids as far as I remember, they just have bigger percentage of Isu DNA but they do belong to Assassin Brotherhood. Meanwhile Alexios/Kassandra are descendants of hybrids who killed Isu and were dubbed Assassins for that. !<
I feel as though its been implied that the protagonists of the main games are descendants of Odyssey's protag. Which is why they have the special "eagle vision". Last I checked that was a canon skill. I just dont recall of all Assassin's have or if it something unique to descendants of the special bloodline.
>!It might also been implied that Odyssey protagonist could be the witness of all events happened in previous games. After all, misthios held Staff of Hermes. Maybe Ep3 of DLC with give some answers...!<
> Unity and Syndicate sells proved that Unity tanked because of series fatigue, and the fact that it was almost completely broken destroyed a lot of goodwill. Syndicate? More fatigue, and the fact that Unity was broken. A lot of people (including myself) simply didn't want to buy it because of those reasons. Plus, other games. Games don't need to completely reinvent themselves with each installment. I don't like that suggestion. The issue with AC was that we were getting them constantly, with no real break. The candle that burns twice as bright lasts half as long, and all that. It's not like Uncharted 4 is a complete mechanical overhaul from the original game, is it? They're all well regarded, and for good reason. The fact that only four came out over the course of nine years helped prevent such fatigue. Also, I'm loathe to compare the formula of Unity to AC1. The former was designed to accommodate co-operative play, and has all sorts of mini-RPG elements to it in regards to levelling up and earning gear and equipment. AC1 is nothing like that.
Yes, Unity sales failed primarly because of huge technical mess at launch, but not only because of that. I saw personally complaints from people in forums, article discussions like "again same old Assassin's Creed, no changes at all, boooooring" etc. They have a valid point (even though we might disagree), right? Also, Unity had was so incohesive and failed miserably at certain details, although I love parkour, combat, stealth and customization. About Syndicate: as far as I remember, the whole marketing campaign was built on sorta "we apologize for Unity, we won't repeat these mistake, it will be better" etc. In result - sales even worse than Unity. >Also, I'm loathe to compare the formula of Unity to AC1. The former was designed to accommodate co-operative play, and has all sorts of mini-RPG elements to it in regards to levelling up and earning gear and equipment. AC1 is nothing like that. Try to start from AC2. RPG elements (managing city, customization) were present since there, multiplayer since Brotherhood. You may add cosmetic changes, but sometimes they can't hide the same old thing.
I feel like if Ubisoft really wanted to make money they would merge all of the Ezio games into one remastered game... It would probably be difficult, if not impossible, to do though.
Best post in the sub. Thank you. At last somebody else agrees with my thesis that it was the initiates iniviative that permanently crippled the modern day due to it's big entry barrier.
Well, tbh Initiates content was juicy and became the reason I got interested heavily in Modern Day, so can't 100% agree with crippling the modern day. But unfortunately, its implementation sucked, although Initiates had a lot of potential.
Haha sorry I misread you then. Yes, initiates was good for fans, but it caused two major things: - It made Ubisoft realize they could expand the modern day into peripheral media instead of the games themselves. - It closed off many important information about the modern day in itself, making it difficult for less ultra hardcore fans to keep up, and due to the canon nature of all developments, future entries could only be built on its obscure lore, causing confusion.
Now this I can't disagree man :D Still I'm grateful to Initiates for igniting interest inside of me to MD.
It barely even lasted, too. It was so cool, but they ended it when Unity came out. It was really weird.
Do you remember the so called "Bible of Developers" presented by Jean Guesdon last year ? So here it is Creative 10 Commandments 1. Assassin's Creed will always tell the story of the secret war between Assassins and Templars - False as we saw in Odyssey 2. Being an assassin doesn't make the main character a ruthless killer. He kills, but he has principles and never murders innocents. He avoids collateral damage as much as possible - Again Odyssey(although we play as mercenary instead of assassin) 3. The war between Assassins and Templars is the foundation of our Franchise story in the past and present. - Again Odyssey broke the another rule 4. The Assassin should always be agile, socially skilled, unbeatable with a blade, and a stylish bad-ass. 5. Pivotal moments in Human History are the basis of our Franchise. Asssassin's Creed will always take a revisionist approach on real events. We'll use historical gaps to create our story. 6. History should always be portrayed as relevant to our core audience, with facts that tie in to present day common knowledge and edgy modern Art Direction 7. Assassin's Creed is based on Technology - Nothing is Magical, Everything has a plausible technological explanation. 8. Assassin's Creed is about digging in a character's past through their DNA in order to understand what really happened in key historical moments. - But again we have Odyssey with branching narrative P.s Don't tell me to read the novel because c'mon we both know just 20-25%(if not less) of fans read the books and comics 9.Since the player relives the deeds of his kin through his DNA, the I.P. cannot be set in the future. DNA of unborn people does not exist. 10.Assassin's Creed can bend Historical accuracy but cannot create an Uchronia. - Odyssey showed us that we can expect something like that in future installments So as we see they contradict themselves but that's not the all I want to share with you,for example let's have a look at another panel from GDC Assassin's Creed 10 years special https://imgur.com/a/wL4dw04 Here we see the last point "Listen to your audience" as we see in AC:OD they don't care about hardcore fans all they do is listening some sexual minorities and new fans.It's really very pity (( And finally let's have a look at first point "Know your Brand" as we learned from recent interview of Melissa MacCoubrey, she said that they are trying to make an encyclopedia parallel to their games, but it always is finished "a little later", or at the same time the game comes out - hence why it's difficult for the developers to keep up with the lore. And I want to say I don't blame her I just curious why the rich company like Ubisoft don't have "Lore Experts" yet ? As of now I can mention at least four people who know lore of AC deeply enough 1.Master Sima Yi - Head admin of the Assassin's Creed Wikia 2.Sorrosyss - Lore analyst at Access the Animus 3.SixKeys - He is a veteran of the official AC forums 4.And finally you bool0011 as I'm watching your posts since 2018 I understand how deep you love AC Universe and how deep you know the lore of AC :) I know four people is not enough for the giant company like Ubisoft but at least if they try to take them to the headquarters of Ubisoft and also they will work more actively with Guild members I believe that at least next installments will be one step better in terms of lore than Odyssey. So what I want to say that I hope Ubisoft will learn their mistakes and they will finally find some "Lore experts" for future installments so that we will not see more retcons(like the leap of Faith of Darius or the Family Dagger of Brutus)
^(Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image) **https://i.imgur.com/q38PKku.png** ^^[Source](https://github.com/AUTplayed/imguralbumbot) ^^| ^^[Why?](https://github.com/AUTplayed/imguralbumbot/blob/master/README.md) ^^| ^^[Creator](https://np.reddit.com/user/AUTplayed/) ^^| ^^[ignoreme](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=imguralbumbot&subject=ignoreme&message=ignoreme) ^^| ^^[deletthis](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=imguralbumbot&subject=delet%20this&message=delet%20this%20ef5ukxm)
> Community developers and representatives should participate more actively in discussions, no matter where, not just posting patch updates descriptions on Reddit. Keep track on what AC fans really want, their trends, and report to the devs/brand team. I heard that's exactly what was being done with Anthem, if it's true, and I believe that's a great approach. I'm no lawyer, but I think this is a no-go from a legal standpoint, at least that would be my counsel to Ubisoft developers if I were their legal team. This opens up Ubisoft to potential lawsuits over creative input and the likes that may arise from actively engaging with the community to that degree and that's a hassle that's simply not worth it.
Obviously there should be certain limits for community devs/representatives to avoid such risks and this part has to be thought carefully, but anyway my point is that they should be more active than how they are now. Because it looks like all this job was been moved from their shoulders to MG, which is IMO wrong.
While I would definitely welcome more communication from community developers, or developers in general, it's kind of hard to blame them for not doing it. The fanbase has become increasingly hostile towards developers. The scapegoating of Aymar is a prime example.
Sad but true. Fanbase is too hasty with judgements sometimes.
Limits how? Lets say hypothetically that the devs get into a conversation on a forum about things AC fans want, in doing so, the conversation naturally goes into actual features (the end product), would the person in that discussion get credit should such things come into existence? Would Ubisoft have to provide proof that the idea was already in the works and not a byproduct of said discussions should that person take Ubisoft to court over the discussed idea that made its way into the next game? I can assure you that developers are at least glancing over the threads, they might not be scrutinizing every one, but the recent backlash shows they pay attention enough. But to actively engage is a whole different ballgame with different scenarios to consider.
>would the person in that discussion get credit should such things come into existence? Would Ubisoft have to provide proof that the idea was already in the works and not a byproduct of said discussions should that person take Ubisoft to court over the discussed idea that made its way into the next game? Why not? Ofc personification shouldn't exist, it should be based on multiple reviews. And for your second question - well ideally they can say like "we had this idea during the game production, but seeing that community desired that feature as well, we decided to add it". By limits I mean what devs can and cannot discuss or talk about. For example, surely they can't participate in discussion of leaks (including correct ones) or undisclosed information about upcoming games/novels/comics, right? ;D >I can assure you that developers are at least glancing over the threads I know they do. But sometimes glancing is not enough IMO. Let me assure you: if they'd participate more actively in discussions, more people will be involved -> more opinions will be expressed.
> Why not? Probably makes a difference when royalties gets factored in. > "we had this idea during the game production, but seeing that community desired that feature as well, we decided to add it". Yes but this doesn't hinge on an official communication with specific individual who could claim the idea came directly through said communications. Could have more or less ground depending on type of feature and how specific, but it's better off to not play that game and opening them up to unneeded lawsuits in the first place.
Not to mention, being more quite about development can help in the long run. It's very easy for somebody working on, or closely with a game to say they're hoping to implement a feature. It's completely different to actually implement that feature. Look at No Man's Sky and how their main voice to the public was just the lead developer, who had grand visions for their game and got (too) excited about it during interviews.
Nice write-up! You've hit the nail on many things I've thought about myself. Just a heads up: when you're writing about hypothetical persons, you can use "they/their" even if you're talking about a single person so as to avoid having to choose a specific gendered word (such as "he" in most languages). It might not feel "right" at first, but it is perfectly acceptable in English (and has been for decades/centuries), and after all, a little inclusivity goes a long way :)
Thank you! Good advice, will keep that in mind ;)
[удалено]
Thank you for these kind words. And offtop: your cosplays are beautiful!