With Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate, the series has come right to the edge of the 1900’s. A question a lot of fans asked was “where do they go now?” Moving into the next century means more guns, less convenient haystacks, and a couple of world wars.
The rumored solution? Turn the clock back and go for a prequel. Set it in ancient Egypt.
Dev here.
Egypt. There won’t be an AC in 2016.
You may screencap this and refer to it when nothing is shown in E3 2016. You’ll have to wait until 2017 for it.
The reason: It will be a complete revamp of the series. The game is going for a Witcher feel, with player progression, freeform combat system. Horse is back, and boats too. It s made by the Black Flag team.
Reset the series. Use the lessons learned from Black Flag, Unity, Syndicate…and The Witcher 3. So the rumor goes. Seamless open world. Less tall buildings (except giant monuments) more terrain traversal and sidequests. It sort of makes sense if you’ve been paying attention to what they did in Syndicate.
The down side for Ubisoft? They have to skip a year. No Assassin’s Creed for 2016.
I’m good with it. I haven’t missed an AC game (with the exception of Liberation, I guess) but I could use a little break, it’s losing the magic for me. I also seem to have this weird inverse relationship with the series than just about everyone else - I thought Black Flag and Syndicate were fine, but unremarkable; and I really enjoyed AC3 and Unity. Maybe this will give me time to actually play Witcher 3 so I can figure out if going that direction is good news or not (probably is, the formula could use shaking up).
Awesome if true - The series, even if I love it to bits, has become to formulaic, and Ubisoft has become too good at its formula of open world games. This could rekindle it for me- Love it if true!
Well, it’s just a rumor, but that would be pretty cool. I always appreciated the series for trying out settings that don’t get covered in games that often: Jerusalem, Damascus, Istanbul/Constantinople … With AC: Syndicate we’ve kinda reached a more familiar territory. Going further back into the past again thus wouldn’t be too bad.
Wouldn’t be surprised if the series takes a break this year since sales have peaked with previous iterations. They’re still selling millions, but there’s no momentum and the new ones certainly are more expensive than the last-gen ACs. There’s was really no excitement for AC: Syndicate among my friends. No one was looking forward to it, and no one has bought it so far.
I’m down for whatever, but will admit that part of me kinda wishes for either 1893 Chicago World’s Fair (and there were plenty of skyscrapers in Chicago to climb then) or 1920s New York City.
I will say this–any game fully integrating and learning the lessons of The Witcher 3 is going to be a game we won’t see hit the market until mid to late 2017, I’d think.
The down side for Ubisoft? They have to skip a year. No Assassin’s Creed for 2016.
I find it very hard to believe they’ll do this. It’s far and away their biggest franchise and the Division could easily flop. Conceivably they’ll do a Brotherhood/Revelation type spinoff instead of what used to be a numbered release, but they’ll publish something AC in 2016.
Sure, but it is a fun nothing to shoot the breeze about.
The Russian Revolution remains my most hoped for setting though. I’ve skipped every AC since Black Flag, and Revolutions and 3 before that. I would buy a game with a backdrop of the war between the Red and Whites.
Oh definitely. That’s why the thread has [RUMOR] all over it.
Still, it’s an interesting jumping off point for discussion. I think even the most ardent fans of the series would agree that some revamping is needed. Unity was already sort of a soft reboot, but not in the way that gamers seemed to appreciate even outside of the technical launch issues. Drawing the game world back down to one city, pushing off the Abstergo stuff, and completely redoing combat worked in some ways but bounced in others. We see that adjustment in Syndicate, but series fatigue and the backlash from Unity hurt its sales.
Plus, hitting the 1900’s makes the low-tech parkour and melee combat stuff seem odd in a world with industrialized gun manufacturing and world wars. Personally, I’d have loved a Chicago World’s Fair setting, but I admit that it may be beyond the capabilities of their engine and the current crop of consoles. Unity choked on the crowds.
. Personally, I’d have loved a Chicago World’s Fair setting, but I admit that it may be beyond the capabilities of their engine and the current crop of consoles.
On the other hand, they already have Chicago assets…
I’d honestly rather they left the engine that Syndicate uses alone. Whatever time frame they choose is fine. Remaking the franchise and combat systems would sadface me very hard.
I mean, a bigger map would be great, open world…well Ubi hasn’t ever really done that correctly ever, so not so thrilling.
Everyone wants harder combat except for me, I guess. I like being an overpowered Assassin. Player progression is okay, but it took forever in Syndicate to reach level 10, in a larger world you might not notice that so much.
It’s not so much that I like harder combat, but that it forces you to think about how you approach situations, especially with larger crowds of enemies. It’s the easiest thing to just jump in and murder anyone in Syndicate, and most of the AC games. I liked how some games (like the original and Unity) required you to be circumspect with how you approached some missions. You can’t really brute force your way through.
I’m pretty sure you represent the majority opinion on that. Most people play AC to be ninja badasses. Not to get hammered by anonymous guy with a pike in alley fight #276. One of the big criticisms that people had about Unity was that they swung the pendulum too far into difficulty in combat.
