E3 2013
this wiki
Forum page
Hey guys! I know E3 is still months away but ever since AC Brotherhood Ubisoft has said AC WILL be a yearly frachinse whether it is connon or not (but they always are xD ). I wanted to know who of you think what will be annoucned at E3 2013 will be.
Another Connor game? Maybe a young Haytham game, exploring the things said and done in Haytham's novel? I for one would like another Connor game, to see his life progress like Ezio's. Though I would like for him to have a family early in his life so he dosen't meet a fate much like Ezio - leaving a young family.
So, thoughts?! :D (Harlan1500 (talk) 09:29, January 29, 2013 (UTC))
Don't want another Mr. Boring Native game. I'd much prefer forfeiting the yearly stuff and just make a new title. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 11:28, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
Agreed.- Hakametal (talk) 21:39, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
I dont think their doing yearly stuff anymore, i reckon theyll introduce Big DLC to the game, alex hutchinson said they will be introducing more DLC this time. Maybe E3 2014 a new ac?Ezio Kenway (talk) 03:33, January 30, 2013 (UTC)Ezio Kenway
They are doing yearly releases. -- Master Sima Yi Clogs 21:42, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
Assassin's Creed is now destined to whiz down the toilet. That's my thought. THE CRIMSON EAGLE 22:07, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy with a yearlly release (which is what they are doing) just as long as it is never a big a dissapointment as Revelation's was. But I emailed Ubi about the Haytham novel and if there will be a Connor one and they said they were looking at extending Connor's "life span" through more games :) I would take that as a "yes" for another Connor game. (Harlan1500 (talk) 22:15, January 30, 2013 (UTC))
They'll probably just give us 1 more Connor game. Alex said no more trilogies. In my personal opinion, 3 games would be stretching it, not saying Connor was boring or anything, but it'd be like, 'Connor for a third time?' TranquilTempestQu'est-ce que c'est? 23:44, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
I know they said that, and I like that they said that before 'Revelation's' felt like a missive filler game to me. And I honestly can see how they can continue with Connor but after the way it ended, it seems a good place to stop. He was injured, hobbleing, for well over 6months and, I don't know, maybe a new Assassin is needed. Connor just seems like he'd be boring in a 2nd game, to me at least(Harlan1500 (talk) 00:20, February 3, 2013 (UTC))
I remember them saying that, and Revelations did seem like a filler game to me. The setting was nice, but it seemed...hollow. If they had stopped at Brotherhood, that would've worked just fine. I would prefer if they did have a gap between games so they could focus all their attention on the main installments and fix the bugs and glitches. The way AC3 ended Connor's story was a good place to stop, but it would be easy to pick it up several months or weeks after the last memory. However, his injury does call into question how he'd get around and do his Assassin thing. A second game would have to be very creative to work around it and I'd be surprised if he makes a full recovery because his wound still hadn't healed after a year and he was still limping. I highly doubt we'll see his son or daughter as an Assassin, but it'd surprise me if they took that route. TranquilTempestQu'est-ce que c'est? 00:29, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
I 100% agree with you =] I think they should stop with Connor now, let him have just one game. It would be easy to pick up again, which is probs why thye ended it like they did - Connor saw the slaves still being sold and really nothing had changed that much at all, apart from some soldiers leaving America and the Mohawk leaving for Canada (I think thats wheres they went....). But, you're right, his injuries will pose a big threat in how the game will work but I'm sure if they pick up Connor again it may be a few years after AC3 and that assumed time to heal, and how he healed, will be up to us fans and our imagination =p As for children, you bearly see any kids as it is - Darim was seen when he was easily in his 40's and Flavia was 10 and in a stand alone movie. Either way, I would like for them to carry Connor on, but not if they give him the same treatment they did with Ezio(Harlan1500 (talk) 03:24, February 3, 2013 (UTC))
From what I can infer... we are speculating in circles, there hasn't been a definitive conclusion to what we can expect, so here's a proposition... figure for a moment... the survey that Ubisoft launched sometime after Assassin's Creed III.. we can then say... to a fair degree, that they are pushing for a cooperative gameplay component as well as investing in a wilderness terrain. And so, for all we know, there might not even be an AC3.5, but rest assured, we can expect Ubisoft to surprise us. That is all... 174.91.142.231 04:02, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
Mysterious anon, I have a feeling as to who you are. I'm not saying to stop, but it's just talking. We're just hashing things out. Don't comment on it if it irritates you; just ignore it. TranquilTempestQu'est-ce que c'est? 04:06, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
Again, I am just attempting to... enlighten those not privy to the details, or haven't thought of something. I just find it pointless to speculate... when we've all been saying the same thing for well over two months, it's redundant. 174.91.142.231 04:19, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
To you it may be pointless, but to me its fun =] I like it, it makes the wait bearable and when E3 rolls around and someone on here may be right, thats fun too! (Harlan1500 (talk) 21:25, February 3, 2013 (UTC))
What if no one is right? What will you do then? We need to strive to think critically when we speculate, we can't just go around in circles, saying the same things, over and over again, it accomplishes nothing. If you really want to make the wait bearable, then find a hobby or something else worth doing. There's more to life than just Assassin's Creed. 174.91.142.231 21:35, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
I know there is more to life than video games. I'm not stupid. I have a full-time job, a life. Video games ARE my hobby and waiting for them to come out is part of said hobby =] (Harlan1500 (talk) 00:17, February 5, 2013 (UTC))
Then find another video game to play, or replay one of your Assassin's Creed games. Clearly, we aren't going to be given any information about the next installment and not any time soon. We may as well get used to that. We had to wait... technically, three years for AC3, I expect to wait another four for AC4. 174.91.142.231 00:22, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
But we had filler games inbetween the numbered titles. I have backlog to play, Spec Ops The Line, DmC...but I still believe that Ubisoft intend to keep their yearly release so that means some information must come out at E3 in June this year =] (Harlan1500 (talk) 00:59, February 5, 2013 (UTC))
Perhaps, but I remain highly sceptical of this. Did we expect ACB directly after AC2? I wasn't expecting to see Ezio again. What if the roles have been switched, and Connor doesn't appear in a sequel? We must think outside the box and consider any and every angle. This is what makes good speculation. 174.91.142.231 01:08, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
While Alex Hutchinson thinks that milking out games on an annual basis is alright, I don't. He mentions that Ubi Montreal can come out with good quality games, but we all know that Revelations was poor and AC3 had its various faults and problems. Don't even get me started on how the Multiplayer has progressed.
However, if the series went forward because Ubisoft actually invested the time and effort into their games that went past annual releases, the series would be much richer for it. If they can make a widely received game like AC3, but gave it the time to mature over two or even three years, they might actually have something that doesn't gauge at average for their long-term fans. Slate Vesper (talk) 01:13, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
AC3 was in developtment for almost three years - Ubisoft made a big point about that. (Harlan1500 (talk) 01:18, February 5, 2013 (UTC))
Yes, AC3 was in development for three years, which is why, I prefer to wait rather than receive another title update to the franchise only a year after the preceeding game. I want to wait four years, give or take a few, for the development of AC4. So consider this, quantity or quality? It's a tough choice to make, because we want more AC but we also want it to be extremely well made. 174.91.142.231 01:25, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
Quality. It is a hard choice but I rather wait years for an amazing game rather than one year for a filler game. Or they could just not have told us about the yearly games and we'd be none the wiser until Ubi comes out with the new info on the new game =p (Harlan1500 (talk) 03:44, February 5, 2013 (UTC))
Call of Duty really messed up everyone's insight on annual releases. There is actually nothing wrong it but since CoD everyone thinks "oh god it is going to be like CoD the series is crap now" when if they make it good its ok to make it annual it's their choice. Now me on the other hand I am neutral about yearly and waiting but if the quality is good, then hell i'll buy it. Ubisoft is a good company and care about their fans, well with the ending of AC3 it seems they didn't care that much but they still do so trust them to come with a good quality game ~ACF122~
Well now we know it isn't another Connor game and that Ubi has been working on it while, at the same time, working on AC3. New Assassin, new time period, new city/country - it's gonna be good and E3 2013 will give us more info and a games trailer, maybe a demo =] (Harlan1500 (talk) 21:17, February 12, 2013 (UTC))
Anyone else think that a Daniel Cross game would be good? His progression from Assassin to Templar, not to mention the Orelev component. We know for a fact that Orelev did things that would be considered "in the wilderness," like Tunguska. That would give us at least St. Petersburg, Moscow, and a wilderness area like in AC3, although obviously it would have a completely different look and feel. Thoughts?
But Daniel's story has already been told - through the comics. I highly doubt that Ubi would make another game based on a person that Desmond has already killed >.< And most people, myself including, have read the comics so there would be no need. BUT you have a point. The comics were set in the late 1800's and early 1900's, that is moving forward....but E3, and time, will tell =p (Harlan1500 (talk) 23:13, February 16, 2013 (UTC))
OR... what about the wars for independence in Latin America? That would be completely new ground for video games in general. Learning about it in my history class and I can see it working out wonderfully. So many political complications during that time that the Ubisoft team could do wonders with the assassinations. Team up with Bolivar or Martin, go all over the Andes, go to Buenos Aires, Santiago, Cuzco... Anyone else with me? Not to mention it would still be moving slightly forward.
They need to develop Connor's character more, whether it be through lots of DLC or a new installment either way i just wanna see more Connor, no more Revelations-type-games, although they killed two birds with one stone they also killed an Ezio.Trever09 A place for Chivalry | Blog 00:25, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
The Tryanny of King Washington may do just that! Though, at this stage, I think its highly unlikley that we'll see Connor again....(Harlan1500 (talk) 09:45, February 21, 2013 (UTC))
