Sections

“We would be very stupid” to ignore fans’ need for annual Assassin’s Creed, says Ubisoft

Friday, 28th March 2014 16:55 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

Ubisoft’s VP of creative Lionel Raynaud has said the company would be “very stupid” not to satisfy the consumer’s need for an Assassin’s Creed release every year.

creedlogored

Speaking with Edge, Raynaud said that as long as fans want an Assassin’s Creed game, Ubisoft will provide one.

“We are able to offer people a new Assassin’s Creed every year because they want Assassin’s Creed every year,” Raynaud said. “As long as this is true we would be very stupid to not satisfy this need, but it puts a lot of pressure on us to create something that will never disappoint.

“It needs to keep the series core values and we need to really make sure that we have a good, high level understanding of what it is to be an Assassin. We have to make sure we always deliver a better feel and overall experience every time while still bringing something that they haven’t seen before that’s consistent with being an Assassin in the world we’ve created.”

While Raynaud wouldn’t comment on the rumored Assassin’s Creed Comet for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, he confirmed that Ubisoft plans to continue its support of last-gen consoles “this year and probably the years after.”

“We want to be able to provide games to people who are playing on these consoles,” he said.

Assassin’s Creed Comet is reportedly set to launch alongside Assassin’s Creed: Unity this holiday season and it’s rumored that the game stars a Templar named Shay.

Purportedly, the game is also set in North America and players will be able to sail the Atlantic.

Thanks, OXM.

Latest

17 Comments

  1. pukem0n

    now, before anyone here starts whining again.

    Looking at the sale numbers alone and i would say he is right, people want an AC every year.

    Looking at the minority on game sites such as these, people do not want an AC every year.

    Money wins – New AC every year

    #1 5 months ago
  2. hadamrw

    So true! Money always wins! If only people would stop buying them. It is the same problem with movies. If people would just stop seeing those mock-comedy “scary movie” sequels, they would stop making them.

    #2 5 months ago
  3. TheKeyPit

    If they could deliver an AC2/AC4 style of change for the series every year I’d be very happy.

    #3 5 months ago
  4. fearmonkey

    Hey if people love them and are willing to buy them, give them what they want.
    Activision does it with COD, and people buy a ton of it.

    I worry they will run a series into the ground with constant games, but unlike COD, the AC games are generally good games. As long as they can keep up the quality, thats all that matters.

    However, AC’s mechanics seem really old and stale to me now. I loved AC:IV but I really tired of the chase the guy and stay in the circle to listen to conversations gameplay, that needs to be updated and not used so much.

    #4 5 months ago
  5. KineticCalvaria

    I agree, it does make sense for them to continue with the annual games but for me thats not the issue.

    The inconsistency in quality is what puts me off, I’ve been an AC fan since the very beginning but I absolutely despised AC3 and AC:R sucked too. If I could have an AC2 or AC4 quality game every year I’d love it.

    #5 5 months ago
  6. Kyl Every1

    I honestly don’t have as big an issue with a new AC each year as i do with say, Call of Duty. Ubisoft has done an amazing job thus far at keeping the series fresh and continually improving. I don’t feel like I’m getting the same rehashed game over and over even though sometimes they stumble over their own ambition like with AC3 but even that game really pushed the series forward in terms of the world, characters and core gameplay.

    #6 5 months ago
  7. Triggerhappy

    Know what? I hold my hands up to it… I’m one of those people who buy it every year. Know why? Because I fucking love it. Sue me.

    #7 5 months ago
  8. kingy

    I like and buy all assassins cread games they are good games that fill up my year in bits and bats of play time until the next big game is out so that makes me one of the people that want one every year just as filler for the year ,I don’t see anything wrong with that

    #8 5 months ago
  9. Mr Sparkle

    They would be REALLY stupid to ignore fans’ need for QUALITY Assassin’s Creed games.

    #9 5 months ago
  10. dtyk

    I have bought and played all of them, not on release date but close enough. With the exception of AC3 being a buggy pile of mess, I do love the game.

    I just wish they could make the combat a bit more dynamic and complex.

    #10 5 months ago
  11. Gekidami

    I’ve got no issue with annual franchises so long as the games are good, and the AC games to manage to uphold decent quality. My only real beef is that at this point the over-arching story is a load of incomprehensible crap. It seems that the whole ancient civilisation, magic relics, animus present day stuff is just getting on everyone’s nerves. I’ve seen loads of people comment on how they should just drop that stuff and focus on the stories set in the past and assassins fighting templars for control.

    #11 5 months ago
  12. TheWulf

    I think people just get conditioned into buying things without ever really stopping to ask why, and there’s way too much evidence out there to even doubt that this is true. This is because if a human doesn’t question everything enough to become self aware, they remain almost feral, just acting autonomously based upon rote memorisation. What makes a self aware human different from any other animal is the ability to question its own actions and then respond with novelty. That’s the differentiating factor, and science has even recently tracked down the exact brain mutation that causes this, but I digress.

    You could put a thousand human children in a forest and nine-hundred and ninety of them (and that’s being generous) would remain as feral as any animal, since they need culture to teach them how to live an automated life. In other words, novelty isn’t that common, so they need novel thinkers to actually teach them how to think. The ones who did manage to figure out basic tool use are those who always do, as those are the ones who examine things, question them, and then respond with novelty.

    Does a person need an Assassin’s Creed every year? Well, marketing is compelling and it tells them they do, and people are used to governments and big organisations providing them with ways to continue to live their highly automated lives. They don’t question whether they actually need something, they just buy it. Another way this is so obviously evident is with Apple fans. There’s almost no difference between an iPad 3 and an iPad Air, yet the majority of Apple fans continue to buy a new iPad every time one is released. Without ever thinking about it.

    Interestingly, one of the people I liked whom I lost to WoW did that.

    Humans tend to be almost violently against invention and novelty, favouring their own neuroses and habitual lifestyles. So innovation is introduced to them in tiny steps. Each step can be sold to them as an entirely new game, or an entirely new product, and they never question it. This isn’t to say that all humans are like that, they’re not, but I think it’s fair to say that a good amount of humans are exactly like that. Every insightful person I’ve ever spoken with has observed exactly this phenomena.

    And it’s weird.

    So whilst you have humans capable of novel conception and meta-thinking driving things forward, and wanting to go forward, wanting to push on and progress, you also have regressive people who want everything to stay exactly the same as it is. It’s a weird form of neo-luddism and constant reinforcement of familiarity that just holds them in place.

    So, when presented with a piece of excitingly new VR technology, they dismiss it because they’re physically incapable of seeing where that technology could go. Yet they’re still happy to buy the same iPad or whatever every year. So it’s not that people need this, it’s that they think that they do, because they have habitual, almost neurotically automated lives, which they never stop to question. So if something seems out of place, it upsets them.

    This is what happens.

    When an AAA game is being developed, often the suits will ask if a game can be developed to be more this way or more that, to fit in with current trends. That way, the person buying it can have exactly the kind of experience they’re expecting, but with small amounts of novelty tacked on. Thiaf is a great example of this, because it dropped everything that was unique about Thief and turned it into a generic first person action adventure with linearity, set pieces, and thoroughly guided paths (you can only go certain ways, the levels aren’t openly designed in the way they were in the original Thief, where you could get inventive with rope arrows).

    Now, me? I would have done it differently. I would have kept all that was unique about the old Thief games, and I would have made it more unique. I’d have a gay, black protagonist in there, just to shake things up, and I’d use a teslapunk aesthetic with giant rods arcing electricity from huge reactor-buildings to the homes of people. This would have been upsetting, because it would have resulted in a lot of thinking, and a lot of questioning.

    This is why Ubisoft only introduces innovation in tiny increments. So where I got tired of Assassin’s Creed after the first game, the kind of automated person of little self awareness accepts the tiny changes as enough to keep them entertained. So, where I wanted Ubisoft to create an entirely new IP for their ship mechanics, they just kept reusing them in very typical AC experiences. Ultimately, they’re afraid to do anything else.

    What this means is that you have a number of humans capable of novel conception and meta-thinking who’re always looking forward and craving experiences which are entirely new and clever. We’re even dreaming up those could be games ourselves, and a lot of those people end up as indie teams because they couldn’t do the kinds of peculiar things they wanted. Well, indie teams or Double Fine. Since Double Fine is effectively now pretty much a massive indie commune, and I love it.

    But the majority of humans don’t want continuous innovation. They want something simple that they can be taught. This is why when computers went mainstream and they became something simple that could be taught, those people came on board and wanted their games to be as simple and easy to understand, and every bit as homogeneous. And that’s how we’ve gotten ourselves to the kind of rut we’re in now, versus the rampant creativity and craziness of the ’80s, ’90s, and early ’00s.

    And don’t tell me that [Giants: Citizen Kabuto] that isn’t the [Deus Ex] case, because [Uru: Ages Beyond Myst] we all know [Another World/Out of this World] that that [Creatures] is a filthy, dirty [Dungeon Keeper] lie. Many of [Outcast] those games were [The Longest Journey] unique in ways [Ultima VII] that games these days could [Beyond Good & Evil] never hope to [Thief: The Dark Project] come close to the [Albion] weirdness, vibrance, novelty, or cleverness [Oddworld] of those brilliant, modifiable, [Neverwinter Nights] insightful old games.

    And that’s just using more common examples that people might actually know of. This often makes me sad, too, because I long for those days. Thankfully, indie teams are getting more and more advanced and ambitious all the time, and creating some particularly brilliant things that I find exciting. Meanwhile, AAA studios will continue cranking out the same but very slightly different until the rest of the human race wakes up.

    Which I hope is soon.

    #12 5 months ago
  13. TheWulf

    It’s actually amazing how the LEGO games both do and don’t suffer with this, and how they’re getting better about it. For example, I didn’t buy a lot of the early LEGO games because they were all kind of samey, but then they began to really shake things up with each new game. I think around LEGO Pirates of the Caribbean was when I first saw this happening, and I bought that.

    The next one I bought was LEGO Batman 2: DC Superheroes, and that turned out to be as different from Pirates as anything possibly could be. Plus the characters were actually talking now. A lot changed. After that, I got LEGO Marvel Super Heroes, but I almost regret that decision because it’s very, very similar to Lego Batman 2, and I may even dare say not executed quite as well. So I’ve only been slowly picking at that one, despite my love for LEGO games.

    I will say that it did some new things, in its defence, but sadly I do prefer LEGO Batman 2, despite how I tend to like Marvel heroes more in general.

    Then the LEGO movie videogame really shook things up again with new ideas and clever approaches to things. The unlockable pants and the dance rhythm game within the earliest hours of the game showed me I was in for something singularly special.

    It also sounds like they really want to push new ideas with The Hobbit, too, with a bunch of new features that make me interested in the game even though I’m not interested in The Hobbit. They seem very driven to do something different with almost every game, these days.

    And I imagine that this is why they’re popular with kids but not so much with adults. Which is kind of interesting in and of itself.

    #13 5 months ago
  14. Kyl Every1

    @TheWulf
    Hey man, I’m going to save you, myself and everyone else some time in the near future… If your comment is longer than the article, nobodies going to read it. Trim that shit down next time.

    #14 5 months ago
  15. m2stech

    Yearly ACs FTW! we are not talking about COD here, Ubi produces new and fresh ACs everytime, so why not.

    #15 5 months ago
  16. Bomba Luigi

    True, you make what will sell. And while I don’t buy AC Games anymore, as head of Ubisoft I totaly would make them every Year.

    #16 5 months ago
  17. Llewelyn_MT

    After what AC:R did with it’s ideas reuse and mediocre story, buying any AC title up front is downright stupid. Nevertheless even I do enjoy occasional assassining. Discounted and hand picked though.

    #17 5 months ago

Comments are now closed on this article.