will definitely be doing one of those. sick as a dog today so ill be abit slower, maybe only 2 comps made

Awesome. Keep up the good work.

Deathadores, they're a gateway to hell.

Rogue was amazing. Sure it didn't bring anything new to the table, but it knew what it was and that it didn't have to.
Great story, incredibly well-written characters and the legendary ship battles were incredible.
But it wasn't a pirate game, by any means. It just had pirate elements.

My two favorites are Rogue and 3. I love Rogue, but I wish the story was longer, and that there was a bigger variety of weapons to choose from, like in 3 or Unity.

The story and characters were quite bland, to be frank. Shay is essentially the Anakin Skywalker of the AC franchise. The story was way too short, as well. The ship battles were pretty dank though.

I still loved it though.

How do you draw parallels between Anakin and Shay? Shay was willing to sacrifice everything he believed in, including himself and his friends, to save innocents.

His story could've been fleshed out a bit more. Honestly, he threw a huge fit over 'slaughtering innocents' when Ezio did the same thing in Cappadocia.

Though the game was a good conclusion to the Kenway saga.

Yeah, but Shay isn't Ezio, and I don't think Shay would've approved of Ezio doing that either. I still can't see the parallels between Shay and Anakin.

Reply limit reached, so I have to start from here.

I think Watchdogs was meant to test the water for a game set completely in modern times, or at least partially. Looks like they're working on building an engine that could easily be used for a game like that. I've wanted a modern-day game since the first one. I remember in the original AC, they never showed the outside world, and 2012 seemed so mysterious at the time. And in AC3 I believe, you get your first proper taste of the outside populated world when you climb that building, when you chase that Templar through the train station, and when you break into Abstergo. It did feel a lot like Watchdogs.

And you end up killing the Abstergo CEO guy in Watchdogs which is pretty neat. Shame the game wasn't that good overall.

Intentionally limiting graphics and handling as well as overhyping a game unrealistically on something to test the waters seems like a bad idea. Then again, Ubisoft hasn't really been full of good ideas lately.
You get a(n incredibly small) taste of the outside world in Brotherhood, as you get to see Abstergo and later on, the new assassin hideout. It didn't quench any of my taste for the outside world, but rather reinforced it.
With 3, I think they did an incredibly job with the outside world. The football stadium, the skyscraper, all of that was absolutely amazing to me. A game like that is what I want.
I really like the way modern Abstergo feels in IV and Rogue.

You really do that in Watch_Dogs? That's fucking cool, I had no idea that they took place in the same universe. Indeed it's a shame that game sucked.

Yeah it must have been a water-testing game but at the same time, it was a big game, so they had to make it unique on its own to be worth it. Oh totally, the outside world stuff was the best. The early games showed such potential for the future of the series but it's all just deflated a bit. The stories set around the ancestors have been solid though. Despite my complaints about Unity, the story involving the sword of eden and the Sage was good.

Yeah he's the head of the office in IV, and they mention his death in Rogue/Unity, that he went to some conference in Chicago and was killed in an accident. But it ends up being the protagonist of Watchdogs that takes him out, in Chicago ofc.

And that's when Rikkin entered the picture. Thanks for that information mate, that's really cool.

Good talking to you man. Take care

Indeed, the pirate game was Black Flag, and that's totally fine. It made sense for Rogue's story that the gameplay elements stayed the same. And fuck me, Ubisoft fucked up with Unity, cause Rogue's modern day story advanced the plot a whole lot more than Unity's. I don't think Unity even told you what the main characters were doing after Desmond's death.

Let's face it though, IV is the one at fault for that.
For 3 to end on a great cliffhanger to that, that we've been working towards for 5 games, saying it's unfair for IV to just go "yeah, he's dead. We're playing someone else now" is far, far more than an understatement. I loved IV to death but what they did with the modern time story was not okay.

I was very hesitant about accepting the whole "Abstergo is making Assassin's Creed games" stuff. But looking back, it was a neat idea. It is a good way for the company to trick people into gathering Templar info for them, and it kinda makes sense that Abstergo would play on the video-game trend. I've accepted it now. And I also liked the idea of playing as an Abstergo employee discovering the truth. I liked the Sage stuff. It made IV feel like a vital entry to the series.

But then Rogue did the same thing, with a different employee. Alright... Sure, at least we get some cool backstory on Desmond and his father, and we have learned more about Desmond's friends, that's cool. Then Unity tried the lame trend that has popped up a lot recently = you are the star, you are the protagonist, you must play this game in order to get info for the assassins, blah blah. We learned nothing of the over-arching story. What a waste of a game.

I think Desmond will be back though. I don't think he is truly dead. There have been hints here and there in the games. We'll see.

I agree with all of that entirely, it was a great way to start a new arc of the story, while funny and meta.
It was, however, a shitty way of finishing the previous arc. You don't take out the last chapter of a book just because you're making a good sequel, even if you have an intention to put it somewhere else later on.

Yeah they should make each game feel like a main-series title, and not some skippable side thing for the diehards. I think Unity is totally skippable. You can still understand all of what's going on without playing it. Rogue, however, was way more essential. They really got that backwards.

Plus Rogue's story really nicely connected AC3, AC4 and Unity together. Remember the ending sequence of Rogue? It left me with the stupidest grin on my face. What a fuckin game.

Indeed, Unity is about as essential as Liberations. I think Ubisoft tried to listen to average gamers instead of the AC fanbase with that game - implement more multiplayer in a more casual environment while focusing on upgrading yourself constantly, while the fans were asking for more story, both historically and in modern times. I'm not saying you should always market everything to the fans and never try to leave any doors open, but Unity was just entirely backwards.
I wouldn't say Rogue was essential in any way. It tied up 3 and 4 really well, but you don't really miss out on anything story-wise if you don't play it.
But I'd still recommend it to everyone - Shay is such a great character, and his story is interesting. When people tell me I exaggerate Shay's kindness, I like to remind them that "the first bossfight you win entirely by blocking".

I think Rogue is essential for how it portrays Templars. Up until now, the Templars have been this completely evil faction in every game. The Assassins are always the good guys fighting to save the world. But what Rogue shows is that you can actually have some Templars with Assassin ideals. Shay was completely against the Assassins after they used him to destroy that town, but the way he conducted himself and talked about his beliefs, you could swear he was an Assassin as we've seen them so far.

I think this is gonna be important for the future of the story. I think things will stop being so black and white. I'm hoping for some Assassins doing bad things, and some Templars doing good things. I want to be torn between the two factions instead of just "Assassins are the good guys."

This is the only way that the series can deliver a huge payoff for me. It's planted the seeds for something like this, and that's why Unity was so disappointing.

I kind of figured they put so much emphasis on templars having a point too simply to justify Shay's choice. Not that I mind, I just think it feels a bit forced.
In my opinion, Haytham is the ultimate choice when it comes to showing both sides. According to me, he's the best written character in that universe, and as a rational, moral man it really shows a lot that he chose the templar life despite growing up with an assassin father and sister, especially seeing as a templar killed his father.
He really showed me there were two sides to the coin objectively, while Rogue showed us that templars are superior and every other entry that assassins are.

Oh completely. Haytham was amazing. He didn't do things to choose sides, he did things because he believed in them. I agree that he is the best-written character. Him and Edward Kenway. You could argue Ezio as well, since we pretty much followed him from birth to death, but that's a different matter. What do you think of Syndicate?

I can't relate to Edward in the least, but I still think he's an incredibly well written character. I'm not incapable of relating to him as a man is to a wall, but rather as a man is to another man. My point being that he seems very threedimensional.
Ezio is my favourite character but a lot of times the writing of him falls short. For a young man set entirely on vengeance, he's very patient, for one.
I'm carefully optimistic regarding Syndicate - something tells me it's a hit or miss kind of thing. While it doesn't seem bad story-wise, I'm immediately disappointed by the setting, the Unity mechanics and the annual release thing.
I'd love to give it a chance but sadly I will be very, very poor for a long while.
What are your opinions of it?

Yeah Ezio was a lot more straightforward than later characters, but he's still one of the best. I really liked Shay and Edward, so I'm not sure who my favourite protagonist is. It changes.
I am in the neutral zone for Syndicate. I avoided all the trailers and gameplay demos for Black Flag, and when I got it, it felt like the best thing ever. I saw a lot of the gameplay and stuff for Unity, and found myself disappointed. Perhaps there is no relation between these things, because Black Flag was clearly the stronger game, but I've tried my best to avoid seeing much of Syndicate in the hope that is will pleasantly surprise me. I know they got rid of multiplayer, which is good. Very good. I am looking forward to exploring Victorian London, but I'm annoyed that all of the Jack the Ripper content will be paid DLC. Fucking moronic.
So, kinda neutral, kinda optimistic.

Let's just hope Ubisoft gets their collective heads out of their asses and works a long time on a great game that's mostly story-based. Now I know that's unrealistic at best, but for some reason I still have hope for the series.
At the very least I'd like to see feudal Japan if it keeps being annual.
Call me a weeaboo but I'd like nothing more than an assassin with a katana.

I feel like they'll cover that in a side game like they've been doing with Chronicles. It's unfortunate because I'd like to see feudal Japan too. But apparently they've expressed interest in an ancient Egyptian setting for a future main title. That's a good fuckin plan. I am 100% behind that.

Let's hope not. Chronicles is simply not very good. It's simply Mark of the Ninja, except without the love, dedication and many mechanics.
It's funny because they've recognised that the player community would love feudal Japan/wild wild west AC, but they've simply dismissed it with "we like to explore less popular time periods". A year later they release a game during Victorian era in London. To me it comes off more like "we're not interested in changing the engine or making new models to fit into those very different cultures".
Egypt would be nice though. Me, subjectively, have never liked that culture or area, but objectively speaking I think it would make a good game. I've always enjoyed snowy areas far more than sunny ones in games.

The most appealing thing about ancient Egypt for me is the potential to explore the various gods. Cause obviously they weren't real/were just men, so it would be cool to see that play out. An assassin working for a god and finds out he isn't really a god, then turns against him. I dunno. It could work.

Ubisoft's burden is this 'one game a year' stuff. It forces them to take shortcuts like working within the confines of their current engine and the games suffer as a result. I also found it weird that they shot down Victorian London and here we are. I guess it was the easiest idea to go with as a step forward from Unity. Meh. I hope they're working on some new stuff for the future games now. They have the manpower. Plus they've realised that adding a whole new multiplayer element is too ambitious and takes away from the singleplayer experience, which is the core of AC.

On the other hand, we wouldn't want it like they did in AC3 - just segue between different historical events like you're on some magical time traveling tour bus. Not that we want Unity either - personally I expected a whole lot more Napoleon (or any history at all, for that matter) but they pretty much completely ignored that.
The most concrete thing I can say about the idea of Egypt is that I'd like to see how it plays out. I can see it going either way.

What would you think of a Biblical setting? Maybe going back and exploring the Adam and Eve stuff at the end of the First Civ.

It would be funky at best, but I can definitely see it working if pulled off correctly. The full "trailer" in Assassin's Creed 2 was an amazing revelation (pun not intended) for me.
What I'd like the very most is a game completely in modern times though, taking place in New York or something, dedicated completely to moving the story forward.
I don't think that'll happen though.

I found it hilarious that Rogue was 7 times better than Unity, and Ubisoft didn't even bother releasing it on next-gen consoles. But yeah, Shay was the best.

We are almost done cataloging names...

lol

Also if anyone wants to believe in a god they have every right to do so. I'm not trying to convert anyone.

Yes! Haha, but seriously I asked her beforehand if it was okay for me to hold her

No. And Jesus heavily implied that there's a scale: John 19:11 "Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.""

Hmm, I had thought so but that's apparently a deduction made from the book of James... "Anyone who breaks one part of the law has broken it all"