@Scorpion1813 @Firzenzo yeah there's definitely lots of potential in social stealth. they COULD do it but it seems so difficult at the same time. I thought about it a lot and I think the problem with assassin's creed is that it can't decide whether it wants to be a "master assassin" game where you 1v10 the guards or a proper stealth game where 1v2 = gg. If you want to have any kind of decent stealth, having the means 1v10s is definitely going to mess that up no matter how many masks, disguises or crowd reactions you add in since you can just go in 'guns blazing'. I'm sure your game will come one day in the future though.
@leimonides even compared to the starting, Connor's story isn't even as good as Haythem's let alone Altair or Ezio. AC should always have awesome mains but this time I think they let a side character take the cup.
@TheGamerPhenom Sorry this turned out so long but for all the whiners out there about the annual release 'issue':
From a business standpoint I think people prefer to get paid every year rather than every 3 years. You know there are also games online that involve micro-transactions and new purchaseable content every few weeks let alone every year. Not only can they address bugs and highly refine problems through small patches online, they can tell who likes what about their games from month to month rather than after just a single release every three years.
Following annual releases, if you do your maths, that can save you TWO whole years of working on a poor game. In terms of ACIII, the frontier was poor, the main character was poorly fleshed out, the story was poor, sandbox gameplay was poor and most of the assassination missions were poor. It took three years of development time to realize that people didn't like about 50% of their game when they really should've 'fixed' most of it near the start.
So with a massive development team and a freshly developed engine, one year is probably enough time to crank out a good AC game which means after the next games, the third iteration will be just as good as working all three years on a single game. AC being an action adventure game, you should clock in at around 12-15 hours for the single player with some extra content. They pushed out of this focus too far by trying to extend the game with side missions and the frontier 'gameplay'. Nobody wants to spend 40 hours killing the same guards or animals over and over or even cinematically run through burning buildings for the tenth time.
Bethesda on the other hand are working on massive scale RPGs that take dozens upon dozens of hours of play to level up a single character and to explore and discover a new world. In three years, hell even in ten years time, if you hired good enough writers in the your team, that world is still worth exploring if it's properly made with attention to detail. There are many flaws in Bethesda games but for the most part they are well made.
Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty want to show off new technologies, graphics, and cinematics and also have really smooth and brutal but also balanced gameplay with fluid animations. However, the animations, textures and tactics can get old very quickly because of how much you play the same game but repeated in a different area. There is a rush to keep innovating those things to keep your sales up and these days three years development is quite slow. This is why Ubisoft wanted to start following the CoD model of annual releases. As far as they're concerned, they're getting paid quite well so it must be working.
@Scorpion1813 @JustArtificial some good ideas for stealth but theres a point where its too realistic for its own good and its easier said than done. also they had some disguise sequences in AC:R and ACIII and the mp too but they aren't that great tbh. Assassin's Creed stealth has always been kinda s*** while the adventure was better.
no its not lol that's a bit exaggerated. driving games didn't used to have u controlling like 20 cars. well, its hard to tell wat MOBA even is its like RTS and ARPG hybrid. im just saying that without first playing WCIII, DotA and other MOBAs wouldn't have burst into the industry like it did.
Sadly those people who enjoyed the 90s - 2000 era of RTS are gone. replaced by a new generation who largely prefer to play action and shooting games on consoles or casual games. RTS has also been in hot competition with MOBAs which dominates the "rts" genre because it simplifies RTS to only 1 unit. sigh... it's like people don't have the patience or brains to play those games any more. and because of this the market is struggling to push out those new titles.
Firzenzo's comments