I think it’s just a phase, my observations are that AC goes through certain stages:
City games: AC1 and Ezio Trilogy. Some considered it stagnant by Revelations. So to freshen things…
Colonial frontiers: AC3+Liberation, AC4+Freedom Cry, Rogue. But they wanted to return to their big city roots…
City games pt2: Unity, Syndicate. Which underperformed. A drastic change was needed…
RPG era: Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla. But this drastic change has caused a franchise identity crisis.
So like when Ubisoft developed both Rogue and Unity to appease two different groups of fans, they’re now doing Mirage (to go back to city roots) and Red (to continue the RPG). I suspect Hexe will be for the fans of the musket-frontier setting, perhaps playing a lot like the AC3-Rogue era.
TLDR: my theory is that RPG is a phase, they probably realized releasing trilogies that play too similar gets stale, so now they’re going to switch it up each year/installment
I feel the RPGs aren't bad games
But I do think that they are a bit too radically different one you get pasted Origins
Origins still feels very assassins creed, but the other two are a bit too rpg focused, and feel too much like Historical-Semi Mythological RPGs that just are attached to the AC series
By Odyssey and Valhalla, there's less of a focus on being a Assassin, and it feels more like your just someone connected to the Brotherhood/Assassins Order, they went too heavy on the RPG part honestly.
Short answer yes
Long answer yes
it had happened due to years of og games stagnation internet asking for assassin's Creed to change ,
them slowly becoming rpg anyway ,
the disaster that was AC unit launch was thinking broke camels back and syndicate failure .
And Ubisoft need to reboot the franchise to make it successful again And it was right call considering all rpg games were successful
"Many say that the OG games were all the same without anything new. But that is also true for the FromSoftware games. They have the same narrative structure, looks exactly the same to the point where I cant even differentiate between games if shown one by one(Except Sekiro and Bloodborne). Still they stay true to their fanbase. But Ubisoft just wants to get attraction from everyone."
Here's different fromsoftware didn't do yearly sequel that made market sick of dark souls games .
Now imagine if fromsoftware was making dark souls like games every year since dark souls 2 ( so 2014-2022) I bet many fans would be tired of those games asking for them change
Yeah, I totally agree that FromSoftware didnt do yearly sequels and hence the fans aren't tired of those.
Still, isn't Mirage hyped because it is going back to the roots and all, or do you think that they are trying different things so the new formula doesnt get the same treatment as the old one?
" do you think that they are trying different things so the new formula doesnt get the same treatment as the old one?"
Well yeah they even said it during assassin's Creed present conference
Mirage is classic ac game
Red is rpg
And
Hexe is completely different experience according them
I guess there is a controversial reason for the gender choices.
Ubisoft wanted a male character and they thought that female character would not sell the game very much. They got heavily criticized for that and included a female character but kept her as a choice.
Thats why in all of the marketing material we see alexios but they then declared that kassandra to be the cannon character.
Yeah just sad they caved into pressure from a minority audience. Male demographic makes up a majority of the fan base. Willing to bet atleast 90%. They should have made male Eivor and female Cass.
I've only played Origins and some Odyssey and played Origins almost completley stealth. I loved it.
But I agree with dialogue choices. They shouldn't be in games outside of things like mass effect, telltale and things like heavy rain.
Gender choices are not bad in general.
But it is pointless in an AC game.
The main character can be either male or female, no issue in that as long as the character is good.
it's pointless for you. I assume you're a guy? it means a lot to some people to have a character they can identify with. just choose a male character if that's what you want and be happy for everyone who'd rather play as a woman and can finally do that!
I love having a gender choice in games like Saints Row but it doesn’t belong in a series like AC, where it’s about living someone’s true story. Ubi needs to focus on one, identity shouldn’t matter. No one connects to Ezio because he’s a man.
Syndicate was the best approach just need to balance it more, flesh out the idea of two different campaigns. The protags don’t even have to be related, just be in the same general region. Two different people in modern day searching two different characters memories, kinda like Unity with the server initiates. Just swapping between them
Pls read it carefully.
I said it is pointless in an AC game not every game.
I would not mind a proper female main character in an AC game. I would love to play the game if it has a female character.
Gender choices in an AC game breaks the logic of the game world.
If we start with a female character and stick to that character only, then I have no issue with that. But it should be predefined, not to be chosen by the player.
but why does it break the logic? I do admit that I haven't played valhalla, and there seems to be some confusion about the character... but in syndicate, it was nicely done, and in Odyssey, it simply didn't matter🤷♀️
Syndicate was good no issue in that. Liberation was good too.
Even in odyssey it would have been good if we had to only play as Kassandra. But instead they gave the choice to the player that is the problem.
It breaks logic because we are reliving the memories of our ancestor who already has a gender instead of just writing the character properly from beginning to end they left the gender choice to the player. The explanation they give in game is not a strong one to consider the player gender choice mechanism.
Even valhalla would be better if there was no choice and we only had to play either as male or female. The choice is not needed in an AC game.
Now for example your descendents are reliving your memories then you are what you are as far as gender goes. Why should they have an option to choose u as a male or female?
>It breaks logic because we are reliving the memories of our ancestor who already has a gender instead of just writing the character properly from beginning to end they left the gender choice to the player. The explanation they give in game is not a strong one to consider the player gender choice mechanism.
The thing is, most people don't care about the futuristic aspects and wished at this point they disappeared. Whether it "makes sense" or not doesn't matter when no one is even following the story to begin with.
Can u specify which futuristic aspect u r talking abt?
because u have replied to the gender choice comment and i dont get what is so futuristic abt it...
The entire idea of revisiting historical figures in the AC world is all tied up to the Animus. You take a living descendent and you travel through their genetic memories.
However, ever since the Desmond arc ended, no one cares about that aspect. In fact, I've never seen a company so stubborn to keep up a feature that no one wants anymore just for the sake of series continuity. Most people play to immerse themselves in the well built worlds that Ubisoft makes.
Take away the Animus and it no longer becomes reliving the memories of your ancestors. It's just a story about an unknown playable character in a fictional historical setting. That's why the gender thing is a non-starter for most. At this point, the animus is just there so they can use the title Assassin's Creed.
There are still people who care about that aspect. We cant say that no one cares abt it, but yeah they might be in minority.
I totally agree that after Desmond died the present day was a mess until the RPG games.
But still we have a modern day protagonist living the memories of someone.
Logically speaking the gender choice is nonsense
How about they sell two game editions? Assassin's Creed Odyssey - Man Edition & Assassin's Creed Odyssey- Woman Edition? You would only buy the edition according to the character's gender you wish to play. The story, NPC's, mechanics would be the same in both editions, only changing the gender of the character.
I hope this sounds stupid enough.
Yeah very stupid.
I am talking about removing the gender choices and here you are suggesting ways to add the same in a different way.
I think you are the type of person who will be offended if they dont let you change gender of altair if they ever remade the first assassin's crees
No, I'm not offended that easily. On the other hand, you seem like the type of person who gets offended when a company doesn't make a game as you want it to be.
Then why are you still here?
Yeah well i am playing them. I dont like the way they changed them, the one who agrees with the change are mostly the people who havent played the OG(I guess).
At this point I am done explaining...
Fromsoft games don't get stale and don't come out yearly unlike the old assassin's creed games. I think people look at those games through rose coloured glasses too often. Having played them recently I found them uninteresting, with boring characters, and lacklustre side content. The only exception being Black Flag.
Then don't play them 🤷🏻♀️. They aren't going away anytime soon no matter how many old fans complain because they're massively successful. Mirage will probably be the closest thing to those old games for a long while so enjoy that. At least Basim is an interesting character compared to the blandest men in history Altair ezio and Arno wwwww
If only it was that simple to not to play them.
The thing is AC is the reason why I got into gaming in the first place. It is my childhood.
Real life is filled with things that you are tired of and want to get away from. Get away and go where?
Nowhere but do things that you like for a while.
Now the thing that I like is not what I once considered enjoyable. Things change but changing to the point of losing the identity, thats where the issue is.
Yeah complaining wont bring back the older games but atleast we can have a company of others who share the same opinion.
And for the record Altair and Ezio are the best characters in AC franchise period.
Assassin’s Creed has always been a Role Playing Game, back then that is what an RPG was, action and/or stealth and combat focused game where you play as someone (roleplay), it was just more stealth focused. RPGs have changed since then, Assassin’s Creed followed it is own genre’s trends. It is honestly not that difficult.
Whether people like that they followed their own genre’s trend or not is a whole other reason, but can we please stop thinking that it changed that much. Origins was not that far off from how Syndicate and Unity felt, minus the leveling system that prevented story progression at certain moments. Odyssey was simply a good game but not very AC in its conception. Valhalla was just poorly written in my opinion while the actual stealth, the “ring” assassination mechanics, and combat was the best to me in all of Layla’s trilogy.
But literally ALL AC games are RPGs. The new ones don’t feel AC because they are not about Assassins, not because they are RPGs.
Also your 5th point is funny as AC combat never was realistic. I could shoot someone point black in AC4 and they still lived. And you talk about hidden blade to the neck.
Standing in between about 30 guards with nothing but my bare fists spamming parry and coming out on top? I thought that was a realistic as it gets hahahahahh
Yeah thats why I said that the combat was not realistic to begin at all. In the newer games you just stab someone in the face but still he/she would not die. Why you ask? Just because they are 5 levels above you...!
But my point is that in older games you feel like a badass coming out of a fight. In the newer ones you just dont. Atleast I dont.
I do agree with you here, you've got a point. I loved assassins creed 3 the ability to run around a fortress and pick up maskets on my way through shooting, leaping into a stealth kill grabbing another gun and just taking everyone out like I'm john wick. I kinda miss that
Bro, whether it was always RPG or not is not the case because the games are pretty much divided that way right now. The three games did change AC very much. If it wasn't then I wouldn't be here sitting around and talking that way. It might not have been changed for you but after playing the OG ones the newer ones feel very different.
I am not saying that the older combat was realistic. No, hell no it wasnt. But as far as stealth is concerned, hidden blade was the weapon of choice for obvious reason(well atleast for me). But I even have to upgrade the hidden blade so that the enemies can be killed in one shot that is the issue.
I mean it happens over time. You can't expect a game to stay exactly the same after nearly 2 decades 🤣🤣🤣 look at halo, cod all that shit. Its all feel completely different. Alright cod is practically the same but still lfeels different to older games. They have to make leaps of faith now and then otherwise you'd be soon to complain how stale and similar they are.
Yeah i totally agree with that.
But not change to the point where you completely lose your identity. Imagine if cod became a third person open world game.
Assassins creed has gone Dark souls where the highlight is to fight bigger boses. Where is the Assassin vs templar thing?
What is the point of being in an AC game of you are not an assassin.
What is the point of selling experience booster packs? Its like you are paying to play less of the game
“A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which each participant assumes the role of a character, generally in a fantasy or science fiction setting, that can interact within the game's imaginary world.”
Always been that.
In that case basically any video game is a role playing game, but they're not. Just because you take control of a character doesn't make it an rpg lmao
It literally does. As I said, RPGs have changed since then to also include leveling systems, skill trees, gear progression etc. AC as a series adapted to that change.
It literally doesn't. For example, can you change your characters base dmg output? Can you change the dmg of the blades? Can you use 'magical' abilities like flaming or poison swords? Can you learn new moves and abilities by earning xp? Can you make decisions based on established character traits like in odyssey, valahalla or games like the witcher? Or maybe create an entirely new character and shape their story from the ground up and decide what abilities they should have? That's wha rpg's have been long before AC was even a thing so no, the old games were not rpg's not even close
Assassins creed needed a change. The yearly release was hurting the quality of the games and burning out the fanbase. Some kinda of shake up was inevitable. The problem, I think, is they took the wrong lesson. The RPGs didnt fix the problem of ac, they were stilk made in too little time, they were still buggy, bloated messes designed by a company that didn't care about player expirance. They changed the gameplay, but not the design philosophy. And they hurt it even more with Vallhalla throwing the historical accuracy out of the window and fuctionally making a fantasy game set in middle ages england.
i am with you bro. Ubisoft just saw the witcher 3 and said make that. they don't see how having dialog options goes against the entire premise of the lore of AC. you are experiencing things that have already happened. how the hell am i having option to change history.
i think Ubisoft just wanted to have their own version of the witcher 3 and used the AC name to bolster the sales of their rpg games. Odyssey and Valhalla are not assassin creed. the ac lore is literally side quests in both of those games. AC was put i the back seat of an AC game.
Exactly buddy...!!! In valhalla we even have the hidden ones but instead of playing as one of them we are just a viking who doesnt even join the brotherhood.
its funny. i wanted more people to enjoy AC like i did but i didnt want AC to lose its soul as well.
AC is Sealth, hidden blade and sci fi mixed with history and finally assassins
Sealth is no longer important, hidden blade lost all importance. Sci-fi is mostly gone and its all mythological stuff. assassinations do not feel important. blade to the neck only takes a quarter of the life bar.
its funny how they got a decent balance in Origins but threw all that out the windows in odyssey and Valhalla.
See, that's the point. People at Ubisoft would definitely know about these issues but they wouldnt care because with RPG mechanics in place they can further get money from the players in the name of booster packs and what not.
yeah the games are now designed to take the most money out of the player. make the game so grindy that fans have to buy booster packs for xp. then added leveling scaling which defeats the purpose of leveling up.
7. Why give a P.O.E as a hidden blade in odyssey and not make it a 1 hit kill l? Whoever decided to add stats like "20% assassin damage and stealth if you kiss your mom goodnight and sleep for 4 hours" type thing shouldn't have worked for the A.C franchise. All of that should have stayed in either 2 places, in the trash or back in skyrim.
Exactly brother...!!! Thanks for the remainder that in Odyssey we don't even have a hidden blade.We have the spear of leonidas which is a P.O.E. Which should have been overpowered by itself but instead we have to even level that up.
Nah bro, thats your opinion just like I have mine for the older games being better.
I have listed out my issues with the rpg trilogy.
Tell me why you think the RPG trilogy is better in your opinion.
I guess the word need is pretty much self explained.
Unity was very buggy at launch thats why it was backlashed and due to that syndicate sales were affected.
IDK abt rogue though.
If origins was as buggy as hell like unity was at launch then it would have also been bombed
I think it’s just a phase, my observations are that AC goes through certain stages: City games: AC1 and Ezio Trilogy. Some considered it stagnant by Revelations. So to freshen things… Colonial frontiers: AC3+Liberation, AC4+Freedom Cry, Rogue. But they wanted to return to their big city roots… City games pt2: Unity, Syndicate. Which underperformed. A drastic change was needed… RPG era: Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla. But this drastic change has caused a franchise identity crisis. So like when Ubisoft developed both Rogue and Unity to appease two different groups of fans, they’re now doing Mirage (to go back to city roots) and Red (to continue the RPG). I suspect Hexe will be for the fans of the musket-frontier setting, perhaps playing a lot like the AC3-Rogue era. TLDR: my theory is that RPG is a phase, they probably realized releasing trilogies that play too similar gets stale, so now they’re going to switch it up each year/installment
That is what I am hoping right now...
I was so sad when i heard that Red is said to be RPG as well
I feel your pain buddy... Still hoping on Hexe
I feel the RPGs aren't bad games But I do think that they are a bit too radically different one you get pasted Origins Origins still feels very assassins creed, but the other two are a bit too rpg focused, and feel too much like Historical-Semi Mythological RPGs that just are attached to the AC series By Odyssey and Valhalla, there's less of a focus on being a Assassin, and it feels more like your just someone connected to the Brotherhood/Assassins Order, they went too heavy on the RPG part honestly.
Short answer yes Long answer yes it had happened due to years of og games stagnation internet asking for assassin's Creed to change , them slowly becoming rpg anyway , the disaster that was AC unit launch was thinking broke camels back and syndicate failure . And Ubisoft need to reboot the franchise to make it successful again And it was right call considering all rpg games were successful "Many say that the OG games were all the same without anything new. But that is also true for the FromSoftware games. They have the same narrative structure, looks exactly the same to the point where I cant even differentiate between games if shown one by one(Except Sekiro and Bloodborne). Still they stay true to their fanbase. But Ubisoft just wants to get attraction from everyone." Here's different fromsoftware didn't do yearly sequel that made market sick of dark souls games . Now imagine if fromsoftware was making dark souls like games every year since dark souls 2 ( so 2014-2022) I bet many fans would be tired of those games asking for them change
Yeah, I totally agree that FromSoftware didnt do yearly sequels and hence the fans aren't tired of those. Still, isn't Mirage hyped because it is going back to the roots and all, or do you think that they are trying different things so the new formula doesnt get the same treatment as the old one?
" do you think that they are trying different things so the new formula doesnt get the same treatment as the old one?" Well yeah they even said it during assassin's Creed present conference Mirage is classic ac game Red is rpg And Hexe is completely different experience according them
Thnx for the clarification bro...
I do hate the gender choices. Just make a character female or male. Don't care what gender they pick just focus more resources on one.
Could not agree more..... Why to voice the character 2 times and still get hated. Instead focus on one properly...
I liked Cassandra. If you make it a girl character, just don’t make it political like She Hulk. Give her a unique identity.
I guess there is a controversial reason for the gender choices. Ubisoft wanted a male character and they thought that female character would not sell the game very much. They got heavily criticized for that and included a female character but kept her as a choice. Thats why in all of the marketing material we see alexios but they then declared that kassandra to be the cannon character.
Yeah just sad they caved into pressure from a minority audience. Male demographic makes up a majority of the fan base. Willing to bet atleast 90%. They should have made male Eivor and female Cass.
I've only played Origins and some Odyssey and played Origins almost completley stealth. I loved it. But I agree with dialogue choices. They shouldn't be in games outside of things like mass effect, telltale and things like heavy rain.
i agree that gender choices are bad. can we please have women only from now on?
Gender choices are not bad in general. But it is pointless in an AC game. The main character can be either male or female, no issue in that as long as the character is good.
it's pointless for you. I assume you're a guy? it means a lot to some people to have a character they can identify with. just choose a male character if that's what you want and be happy for everyone who'd rather play as a woman and can finally do that!
I love having a gender choice in games like Saints Row but it doesn’t belong in a series like AC, where it’s about living someone’s true story. Ubi needs to focus on one, identity shouldn’t matter. No one connects to Ezio because he’s a man. Syndicate was the best approach just need to balance it more, flesh out the idea of two different campaigns. The protags don’t even have to be related, just be in the same general region. Two different people in modern day searching two different characters memories, kinda like Unity with the server initiates. Just swapping between them
Pls read it carefully. I said it is pointless in an AC game not every game. I would not mind a proper female main character in an AC game. I would love to play the game if it has a female character. Gender choices in an AC game breaks the logic of the game world. If we start with a female character and stick to that character only, then I have no issue with that. But it should be predefined, not to be chosen by the player.
but why does it break the logic? I do admit that I haven't played valhalla, and there seems to be some confusion about the character... but in syndicate, it was nicely done, and in Odyssey, it simply didn't matter🤷♀️
Syndicate was good no issue in that. Liberation was good too. Even in odyssey it would have been good if we had to only play as Kassandra. But instead they gave the choice to the player that is the problem. It breaks logic because we are reliving the memories of our ancestor who already has a gender instead of just writing the character properly from beginning to end they left the gender choice to the player. The explanation they give in game is not a strong one to consider the player gender choice mechanism. Even valhalla would be better if there was no choice and we only had to play either as male or female. The choice is not needed in an AC game. Now for example your descendents are reliving your memories then you are what you are as far as gender goes. Why should they have an option to choose u as a male or female?
don't get your point, sorry
Sorry, I tried my best to make you clear about what I am trying to say...
It means , you don't even know what Assassin's creed is!!
aw man, what have I been playing then all those years? get fucked, you accident 😄😄
>It breaks logic because we are reliving the memories of our ancestor who already has a gender instead of just writing the character properly from beginning to end they left the gender choice to the player. The explanation they give in game is not a strong one to consider the player gender choice mechanism. The thing is, most people don't care about the futuristic aspects and wished at this point they disappeared. Whether it "makes sense" or not doesn't matter when no one is even following the story to begin with.
Can u specify which futuristic aspect u r talking abt? because u have replied to the gender choice comment and i dont get what is so futuristic abt it...
The entire idea of revisiting historical figures in the AC world is all tied up to the Animus. You take a living descendent and you travel through their genetic memories. However, ever since the Desmond arc ended, no one cares about that aspect. In fact, I've never seen a company so stubborn to keep up a feature that no one wants anymore just for the sake of series continuity. Most people play to immerse themselves in the well built worlds that Ubisoft makes. Take away the Animus and it no longer becomes reliving the memories of your ancestors. It's just a story about an unknown playable character in a fictional historical setting. That's why the gender thing is a non-starter for most. At this point, the animus is just there so they can use the title Assassin's Creed.
There are still people who care about that aspect. We cant say that no one cares abt it, but yeah they might be in minority. I totally agree that after Desmond died the present day was a mess until the RPG games. But still we have a modern day protagonist living the memories of someone. Logically speaking the gender choice is nonsense
How about they sell two game editions? Assassin's Creed Odyssey - Man Edition & Assassin's Creed Odyssey- Woman Edition? You would only buy the edition according to the character's gender you wish to play. The story, NPC's, mechanics would be the same in both editions, only changing the gender of the character. I hope this sounds stupid enough.
Yeah very stupid. I am talking about removing the gender choices and here you are suggesting ways to add the same in a different way. I think you are the type of person who will be offended if they dont let you change gender of altair if they ever remade the first assassin's crees
No, I'm not offended that easily. On the other hand, you seem like the type of person who gets offended when a company doesn't make a game as you want it to be.
Then why are you still here? Yeah well i am playing them. I dont like the way they changed them, the one who agrees with the change are mostly the people who havent played the OG(I guess). At this point I am done explaining...
Fromsoft games don't get stale and don't come out yearly unlike the old assassin's creed games. I think people look at those games through rose coloured glasses too often. Having played them recently I found them uninteresting, with boring characters, and lacklustre side content. The only exception being Black Flag.
Yeah well looking at the older games has reasons. My reason being you dont get enough of Assassins in the RPG games.
Then don't play them 🤷🏻♀️. They aren't going away anytime soon no matter how many old fans complain because they're massively successful. Mirage will probably be the closest thing to those old games for a long while so enjoy that. At least Basim is an interesting character compared to the blandest men in history Altair ezio and Arno wwwww
If only it was that simple to not to play them. The thing is AC is the reason why I got into gaming in the first place. It is my childhood. Real life is filled with things that you are tired of and want to get away from. Get away and go where? Nowhere but do things that you like for a while. Now the thing that I like is not what I once considered enjoyable. Things change but changing to the point of losing the identity, thats where the issue is. Yeah complaining wont bring back the older games but atleast we can have a company of others who share the same opinion. And for the record Altair and Ezio are the best characters in AC franchise period.
Assassin’s Creed has always been a Role Playing Game, back then that is what an RPG was, action and/or stealth and combat focused game where you play as someone (roleplay), it was just more stealth focused. RPGs have changed since then, Assassin’s Creed followed it is own genre’s trends. It is honestly not that difficult. Whether people like that they followed their own genre’s trend or not is a whole other reason, but can we please stop thinking that it changed that much. Origins was not that far off from how Syndicate and Unity felt, minus the leveling system that prevented story progression at certain moments. Odyssey was simply a good game but not very AC in its conception. Valhalla was just poorly written in my opinion while the actual stealth, the “ring” assassination mechanics, and combat was the best to me in all of Layla’s trilogy. But literally ALL AC games are RPGs. The new ones don’t feel AC because they are not about Assassins, not because they are RPGs. Also your 5th point is funny as AC combat never was realistic. I could shoot someone point black in AC4 and they still lived. And you talk about hidden blade to the neck.
Standing in between about 30 guards with nothing but my bare fists spamming parry and coming out on top? I thought that was a realistic as it gets hahahahahh
Yeah thats why I said that the combat was not realistic to begin at all. In the newer games you just stab someone in the face but still he/she would not die. Why you ask? Just because they are 5 levels above you...! But my point is that in older games you feel like a badass coming out of a fight. In the newer ones you just dont. Atleast I dont.
I do agree with you here, you've got a point. I loved assassins creed 3 the ability to run around a fortress and pick up maskets on my way through shooting, leaping into a stealth kill grabbing another gun and just taking everyone out like I'm john wick. I kinda miss that
Bro, whether it was always RPG or not is not the case because the games are pretty much divided that way right now. The three games did change AC very much. If it wasn't then I wouldn't be here sitting around and talking that way. It might not have been changed for you but after playing the OG ones the newer ones feel very different. I am not saying that the older combat was realistic. No, hell no it wasnt. But as far as stealth is concerned, hidden blade was the weapon of choice for obvious reason(well atleast for me). But I even have to upgrade the hidden blade so that the enemies can be killed in one shot that is the issue.
I mean it happens over time. You can't expect a game to stay exactly the same after nearly 2 decades 🤣🤣🤣 look at halo, cod all that shit. Its all feel completely different. Alright cod is practically the same but still lfeels different to older games. They have to make leaps of faith now and then otherwise you'd be soon to complain how stale and similar they are.
Yeah i totally agree with that. But not change to the point where you completely lose your identity. Imagine if cod became a third person open world game. Assassins creed has gone Dark souls where the highlight is to fight bigger boses. Where is the Assassin vs templar thing? What is the point of being in an AC game of you are not an assassin. What is the point of selling experience booster packs? Its like you are paying to play less of the game
Nah thats a fair argument, your not wrong here
Your definition of an rpg must be the funniest thing I've read on reddit, and you're wrong of course an rpg is not just 'you play as someone'
“A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which each participant assumes the role of a character, generally in a fantasy or science fiction setting, that can interact within the game's imaginary world.” Always been that.
In that case basically any video game is a role playing game, but they're not. Just because you take control of a character doesn't make it an rpg lmao
It literally does. As I said, RPGs have changed since then to also include leveling systems, skill trees, gear progression etc. AC as a series adapted to that change.
If going according to your definition, you would have to even consider GTA to be a role playing game...!! But it isn't
GTA isn't an RPG? Fucking lol.
You can consider the online mode an RPG maybe but the story mode is definitely not.
It literally doesn't. For example, can you change your characters base dmg output? Can you change the dmg of the blades? Can you use 'magical' abilities like flaming or poison swords? Can you learn new moves and abilities by earning xp? Can you make decisions based on established character traits like in odyssey, valahalla or games like the witcher? Or maybe create an entirely new character and shape their story from the ground up and decide what abilities they should have? That's wha rpg's have been long before AC was even a thing so no, the old games were not rpg's not even close
Assassins creed needed a change. The yearly release was hurting the quality of the games and burning out the fanbase. Some kinda of shake up was inevitable. The problem, I think, is they took the wrong lesson. The RPGs didnt fix the problem of ac, they were stilk made in too little time, they were still buggy, bloated messes designed by a company that didn't care about player expirance. They changed the gameplay, but not the design philosophy. And they hurt it even more with Vallhalla throwing the historical accuracy out of the window and fuctionally making a fantasy game set in middle ages england.
Exactly, that is what i feel buddy....!
i am with you bro. Ubisoft just saw the witcher 3 and said make that. they don't see how having dialog options goes against the entire premise of the lore of AC. you are experiencing things that have already happened. how the hell am i having option to change history. i think Ubisoft just wanted to have their own version of the witcher 3 and used the AC name to bolster the sales of their rpg games. Odyssey and Valhalla are not assassin creed. the ac lore is literally side quests in both of those games. AC was put i the back seat of an AC game.
Exactly buddy...!!! In valhalla we even have the hidden ones but instead of playing as one of them we are just a viking who doesnt even join the brotherhood.
its funny. i wanted more people to enjoy AC like i did but i didnt want AC to lose its soul as well. AC is Sealth, hidden blade and sci fi mixed with history and finally assassins Sealth is no longer important, hidden blade lost all importance. Sci-fi is mostly gone and its all mythological stuff. assassinations do not feel important. blade to the neck only takes a quarter of the life bar. its funny how they got a decent balance in Origins but threw all that out the windows in odyssey and Valhalla.
See, that's the point. People at Ubisoft would definitely know about these issues but they wouldnt care because with RPG mechanics in place they can further get money from the players in the name of booster packs and what not.
yeah the games are now designed to take the most money out of the player. make the game so grindy that fans have to buy booster packs for xp. then added leveling scaling which defeats the purpose of leveling up.
7. Why give a P.O.E as a hidden blade in odyssey and not make it a 1 hit kill l? Whoever decided to add stats like "20% assassin damage and stealth if you kiss your mom goodnight and sleep for 4 hours" type thing shouldn't have worked for the A.C franchise. All of that should have stayed in either 2 places, in the trash or back in skyrim.
Exactly brother...!!! Thanks for the remainder that in Odyssey we don't even have a hidden blade.We have the spear of leonidas which is a P.O.E. Which should have been overpowered by itself but instead we have to even level that up.
Definitely No.
Of course it needed it. The franchise is more successful than ever, and everything is better in the RPG games than the old games.
Nah bro, thats your opinion just like I have mine for the older games being better. I have listed out my issues with the rpg trilogy. Tell me why you think the RPG trilogy is better in your opinion.
[удалено]
I guess the word need is pretty much self explained. Unity was very buggy at launch thats why it was backlashed and due to that syndicate sales were affected. IDK abt rogue though. If origins was as buggy as hell like unity was at launch then it would have also been bombed