Assassin's Creed has been an annualised franchise for quite some time. Over the years, we've gotten used to the typical pre-release build up as we near the wintry months when Ubisoft's series usually deploys its mainline entries - but as you may already know, that's not actually happening in 2016.
Indeed, you're going to have to wait a bit longer for the next instalment of Assassins versus Templars, but many, including ourselves, feel that this is probably a good thing. It's safe to say that the property's annual release schedule has dulled its once sharp blade to a large extent, with most recent main entries Assassin's Creed Unity and Assassin's Creed Syndicate failing to really nail their targets.
And it seems that publisher Ubisoft agrees. Speaking during the company's latest investor meeting, CEO Yves Guillemot stated that the series isn't tied to an existence as an annual event. "The goal is not automatically to come back on annual cycle but to come on a regular basis," he said, hinting that the publisher won't necessarily push out future games year after year.
Again, this sounds good from where we're sitting. At their core, Assassin's Creed titles have always been pretty solid, enjoyable open world romps, but there's no question that the series could do with a bit of a break in order to shake things up and hopefully make a triumphant return.
Do you agree, or are you a fan of having a new Assassin's Creed game to dig into every year? Give it a rest in the comments section below.
[source gamespot.com]
Comments 14
I would like to see a game every couple of years with more DLC support. I still love the franchise and have enjoed all the games they have made. It does need some teweaking but not too many changes to get the series back on track.
Yeh I glad there taking a break, I love the franchise but its definitely got a bit samey.. Saying that though if they were to release a ac in feudal Japan I would be all over it..
The first 2 games were revolutionary - then they fell into the age old gaming trap of quick iterations and badly thought out systems. The story fell into psychobabble rather than inspired which Assassins Creed 2 in my opinion was.
Definitely a good decision. A franchise like Assassin's Creed really does not need a annual schedule.
Every other year would be more than enough, with a big DLC on the in between years to keep the bills paid. So many big games - Witcher 3, FO4, FC3 - seem to be getting those big DLC parts it's almost stupid to have yearly releases. And I'm still confused about what exactly it was Destiny did last year, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a new game.
Ubi also has smaller games like Child of Light to generate income. I'm all for big games getting sequels, but 2 to 3 years makes me feel like they are putting the most into them, not just quick cash grabs. Star Wars film franchise is doing it right, main film every other year, spin-off in between.
Glad to hear it. To me, the franchise was at it's peak with Ac2 and Brotherhood. I'm playing Unity right now and it's as bad as I tought, maybe because all the bugs were patched. But one thing I really miss is the story of Desmond in the present. It's never been a big portion of the game, but it always created this kind of mysterious feeling in the series and it tied the game together. Now, it just feel almost optional... Dont spoil me syndicate please. I'll probably get into it soon.
It doesn't need to go in the bin, it needs a new build. Swapping AC for watchdogs and Farcry with the same template isn't going to help any of the franchises
I loved Black Flag but Paris and London afterwards just didn't really interest me. I heard that the next one is set in Egypt, which actually sounds more interesting, wouldn't have minded it coming out this year... I'm expecting big things from it if they're taking a whole 'nother year to get it finished.
Thank god about time to many games and the core story feels lost to me.
They need reboot it in few years and actually fill in missing pieces to me.
Feels like they want to do a uncharted story across different times ages but failed on most
The problem I feel with Assassins Creed and more Ubisoft is that it seems they don't have the confidence to make an open world new game. I got the impression that the Developers wanted to make a Pirate game but Ubisoft didn't have the confidence to make a new Pirate IP and shoehorned Assassins Creed into it. Syndicate too could have been a new IP in the 'Dishonoured' vein but again Ubisoft didn't have the confidence to make it a new IP. Both of these, had they not had the Assassins Creed name, could have given Ubisoft new options and we could have seen 'sequels' to these instead.
AC4 in my opinion wasn't bad as a Pirate game but its not really an AC game. By separating away from AC, not only would Ubisoft have a few new IPs that could generate sequels in the same eras but also wouldn't have flooded the market with AC games. Based on how popular AC4 was - although divided the fans of AC - It was a good pirate game that could have been expanded on with future sequels but now we are unlikely to see that style and era of game again.
@BAMozzy I just logged in solely to agree with you
It's not an FPS so it'd be great news if they're backing off the annual release schedule. AC: Syndicate is actually one of my favorite games but it's clear the series needs a break.
Everyone I've talked to seems to be echoing that they're burned out on the franchise. I probably wouldn't feel the same way if black flag, rogue and unity didn't exist. Could you imagine how much better Syndicate would have sold if it were, say, the long-awaited sequel to AC2?
@Grawlog Sadly it seems like Ubisoft has moved on from Prince of Persia, just like Naughty Dog is done with Crash Bandicoot/Jak and Insomniac is done with Spyro.
Tap here to load 14 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...