They already did Persia, China and Russia as the shitty 2d platformers no one cared for.Caring for historical accuracy in Ubisoft games is like caring for the taste of popcorn while watching a movie. Arguing over it is pointless, because neither accuracy nor taste were the point in the first place. Seriously, who fucking cares. Fetch quests, bland enviroment and health-spoonges enemies could be the really issue. Performance, bugs, that sort of stuff too, as usual. Odyssey had a giant loading screen for virtually everything and every time more than five NPCs appeared on the screen, the game went apeshit. This is the real problem.
Anyway, Assassin's Creed is such a huge franchise, they could place their next game anywhere they want - this is, like, the one and only opportunity to explore some of the more overlooked historical settings in a triple-A game. They could set it in ancient Persia, some of pre-columbian cultures, maybe ancient China, anywhere. And they chose Europe during medieval times, holy shit.
Also, they really need to stop with this whole "first civilization" nonsense, no one cares about it (and I hope no one ever did) and it actively hurts the whole experience. Assassin's Creed has always been about a particular style, not a specific story or event.
Infinitron is thirsty for some asscreed booty,he keeps on posting asscreed games as RPGs,same was with we wuz killing kangz, and greek macho womun. The quality of the codex is really falling down this days .What exactly is this doing in the General RPG forum?
Is a 90% action game with a small sprinkle of unlockables & stats on top already enough?
Caring for historical accuracy in Ubisoft games is like caring for the taste of popcorn while watching a movie.
Swedes.if vikings weren't gay then explain sweden
Jesper Kyd returns as composer:
Jesper Kyd returns as composer:
Hm I thought Wardruna were making the OST for the game.
Doesn't assassins creed have mythological creatures in it now?
Who cares about realism, let me play as a buff viking chick.
Exactly - given the mythical elements in the last couple of AC games (and also evidently in Valhalla as well) having shield maidens is hardly much of a stretch.
Biggest problem with me for AC is how repetitive they are in order to get that "magical" hundreds of hours of gameplay. I'd rather they were shorter but with more unique content personally.
I don't care very much about AC although I enjoyed some of the first games, but sooner or later you favorite franchise will be destroyed. This is total war.
Ubisoft being accused of copying Witcher 3 is humorous considering Witcher 3 copied the Ubisoft formula.
Doesn't assassins creed have mythological creatures in it now?
Who cares about realism, let me play as a buff viking chick.
I really wish they'd make a separate game. Keep everything the same - just don't call it Assassin's Creed 23. Call it "Eng-Land: Shadow of Varyag" or whatever.
On a mechanical level AC Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla have moved so far from the origins of the series that they are basically unrecognizable. It really is more Witcher 3 or Fallout 4 than it is Assassin's Creed.
On a narrative level, Assassin's Creed consistently keeps being a boulder on the writers' ankle rather than a benefit. The modern storyline has ended with AC 3 and had nothing interesting every since. All of the setting's secrets are already known. We know there are no gods - it's just ancient alien holograms faking it. We know there is no magic. The Pieces of Eden have long since stopped being interesting or even relevant. Animus is irrelevant even as a framing device. The "genetic memory" premise is just restricting the writers who want to write lesbians or whatever.
I just want a game about a cool viking Odinson throwing runes and casting axes at people. Am I being greedy? Is this too much to ask? How many decades of Assassin's Creed will it be until we are finally free?
but it was too barebones in the RPG section
witcher 3 was as barebones as it got.