Abeonis 55 posts
yeah, only issue I see with continuing with the AC franchise as they have is that they already lost a chunk of players due to adding RPG mechanics for example
Can you cite a source for this claim? Origins at launch sold more than twice Syndicate's lifetime sales (to that point) and Odyssey at launch was up 50% on Origins. Both of those games sold more than 10 million units, with Unity being the only other 8th gen AC game to perform as highly. Valhalla is also tracking even higher release figures that Odyssey.
@abeonis I'd love to look back on the game forums, wonder if you noted the threads when Origin came out specifically. You can't cite total sales as an indicator however as that doesn't account for new players joining the franchise, nor does it account for why new players decided to buy the game (or following games). I am "not" saying that there was a really significant portion of customers who didn't buy Odyssey or Valhalla because they didn't like the direction of the franchise after Origin...but I am aware of several friends who expressed this impression to me personally and I do recall (on the pre updated forums) posts by customers stating the same.
I would hazard a guess however that the population of players encouraged to buy one of the AC games simply BECAUSE they became Open World RPG's however..IS..significant but they buy the games "in spite of" the Assassin's Creed Isu back-story, NOT, because of it. Which is good...and yes, AC as it is now will still have those players but only until something comes along that actually ticks the right boxes 100%.
@abeonis (sigh) wow... no, it was based on general reception as seen on the forums at the time plus the level of response those thread(s) received, plus responses from personal contact.
I fail to see why you are presenting such an aggressive response to my reasonable opinions? You know full well I'm not privy to actual meta-data on the matter..nor are you for that fact (as stated before "total sales" is an invalid metric to use)...I'm happy for you to present your opinion that you feel the opposite, that's the discourse here, but there's no need to invalidate MY opinion because your own case is just as "isolated".
JCar4327 612 posts
@quinch1199 If people wish to play a dedicated open world game there are plenty of choices out there for them to choose from. There is very little available evidence that continuing on the path they have chosen is going to push players away or that returning to the old formula would bring back players. Ubisoft could have chosen to just end the franchise, but they chose not to do so because this is one of the oldest and most successful franchises in their library. If they created a new open world RPG game there is no guarantee it would even be successful, but they know that the AC franchise is successful and will likely continue to be successful for as long as they choose to continue making games.
So, people complaining or suggesting they remove the animus, the Isu, or any link to the historic back story makes very little sense in that the Assassin's Creed title suggests those elements are going to exist in the game. If they didn't want those elements then they should probably have not purchased the game and went for one of the many other open world RPGs that do not include those elements.
And, in reference to your response to @Abeonis, overall sales is all that matters to Ubisoft. They don't make games to hopefully sell a few copies, and putting the Assassin's Creed title on the game is going to pretty much guarantee the game will have high sales. Ubisoft is not known for making RPG games, let alone making any great RPG games, so a new title would not carry that guarantee. So people that bought the game for the RPG elements in spite of the AC backstory should not expect them to remove those elements simply because they don't like them.
SouldrinkerLP 316 posts
@quinch1199 I personally grew very attached to AC. Didn't like Origins extremly much but the AC in it was still good and so I was OK with it having some RPG elements.
Odyssey had even worse RPG elements. (I consider none of the three games as a RPG anyway. RPGs are way more than some levelling and loot)
And the worst part: The AC stuff was so bad.
Valhalla was the last chance for them to show me that my love for the franchise still can be satisfied. If they hadn't pulled that stunt off (and they did) I wouldn't buy any AC game any longer. For eternity.
I still feel bad about Odyssey but Valhalla did try to fix some of the lore "bending" stuff Odyssey did. I consider most parts of Odyssey as non canon. They wouldn't affect anything coming up now anyway after Valhalla set a new path for the future of Isu, modern day and AC. They basically ended the Layla/Mythology trilogy and showed us the beginning of what is to come.
Edit: There are now not really any pantheon left anyway. So expect next AC to not have any mythology. Or they may revisit ancient periods of time like Rome. But I suspect next game will play in Persia/Iran. (Its hinted at the last note added to the hidden ones bureau after you finish their story)
@jcar4327 I feel you've misunderstood me or misread what I initially put. My point is that there is scope for two separate games here and both would equally cover large groups of customers for Ubisoft, I'm not so much wanting Isu elements out of an Assassin's Creed game, I'm rather suggesting that an Assassin's Creed game HAS Isu plot and stealth gameplay/combat and that the really extensive RPG and beautifully realised open world belong in a totally different game series, and one that I feel would be a good seller for Ubisoft.
As for pushing other players away, I believe the point has been proven with other posts here.
JCar4327 612 posts
@quinch1199 For the most part AC games have always been open world games. Yes, in some of the earlier games you were locked out of areas until you progressed to a certain point in the story, but once those areas were opened up you were free to explore, complete side quests, or continue on with the campaign. Assassin's creed 3 was probably the first mostly full on open world AC game in that you could go to almost every location, the exception being New York, from the moment you took over as Conner. And AC 4 was a complete open world game; Unity, Rogue, and Syndicate followed suit.
The RPG elements in Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla are not true RPG elements in that very few decisions you make actually affect the world or the story. So there is no truly extensive RPG elements, only an assimilation of RPG type elements. Regardless of the response you give in any instance the outcome of a conversation is essentially the same. Try saving the game just before you make a response during an exchange with a character. Make different choices in your responses and see what happens. The only thing you are directing is what Eivor says first, he/she says essentially the same thing and the character you are interacting with has essentially the exact same response regardless of your choice. True RPG does not do that. There are only a couple instances in Valhalla where your choice affects the game world; one being how you respond to romance, and the other having to do with a quest where you cast stones to elect a leader. Both can cause alternate paths in the game, but the majority of the choices you make end in the same outcome.
You may be correct in that Ubisoft could create a new RPG game without AC elements, and it may do well. But, as I stated they are not known for making RPG games and they don't really need to move into that genre because what they are doing now works well for them. What I was pointing out is that they may not wish to take the risk of spending millions to make a game that they do not know if it will sell well enough to return a profit; whereas, with AC titles they already know the title will sell the game and they are free to expand into the RPG genre through a well situated franchise.
Bob__Gnarly 49 posts
Yes lose the animus stuff, it's poorly implemented and boring.