Jump to content

Ubisoft Confirms Assassin's Creed III Coming in October


OLIVERMC97

Recommended Posts

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/425585_10150576762771633_59685491632_9222405_1455236742_n.jpg

(Not official Image)

During an earnings call today, Ubisoft revealed that Assassin's Creed III will be released in October.

 

According to CEO Yves Guillemot, the game will hit stores on October 30th. Guillemot revealed that the game has been in development for three years and that "what we have seen is just fabulous."

 

Previously, Ubisoft teased that a major Assassin's Creed title would come this year, but this is the first outright confirmation that it's AC III. The game is said to complete the story of Desmond.

 

While no platforms have been announced, recent Assassin's Creed games have hit Xbox 360, PS3 and PC. The game is likely headed to Wii U as well, since an Assassin's Creed game was announced for Nintendo's new system during E3.

Ubisoft Confirms Assassin's Creed III - PlayStation 3 News at IGN

 

Sure are knocking these games out, but I did expect this this year. Really looking forward to playing it and seeing how everything plays out, especially with the end on AC:R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who is not happy about this? Look, I love AC series and that's why I think they should not be yearly titles. They should take their time and make an amazing game rather than rush it just to milk more money out of franchise.

 

AC2 came out 2 years after AC1 but ACB and ACR took only 1 year to be made. I mean the difference is obvious. This and the fact that they're pushing SP to side and make MP their priority makes me sad :( I hope this time they will put actual effort in the story. Will be interesting how they'll wrap up this mindfuck :D But if story concentrates on Desmond will there be ancestors? :think:

 

Quality over quantity please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who is not happy about this? Look, I love AC series and that's why I think they should not be yearly titles. They should take their time and make an amazing game rather than rush it just to milk more money out of franchise.

 

AC2 came out 2 years after AC1 but ACB and ACR took only 1 year to be made. I mean the difference is obvious. This and the fact that they're pushing SP to side and make MP their priority makes me sad :( I hope this time they will put actual effort in the story. Will be interesting how they'll wrap up this mindfuck :D But if story concentrates on Desmond will there be ancestors? :think:

 

Quality over quantity please.

 

AC3 begin to develope when ac2 is out which means it takes 3 years to develope.so i dont think they rushing it.and ya you are the only one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I really hope the focus is not MP. And AC III has been in development for 3 years, so it's not a yearly title really, I mean it is but they have more time to innovate and whatnot.

 

But that just shows they slapped together and put out 2 inferior versions in the mean time just to make some cash :|

 

But they developed the story so... it's ok I guess. :o_O:

Edited by Jonn_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I really hope the focus is not MP. And AC III has been in development for 3 years, so it's not a yearly title really, I mean it is but they have more time to innovate and whatnot.

 

But that just shows they slapped together and put out 2 inferior versions in the mean time just to make some cash :|

 

But they developed the story so... it's ok I guess. :o_O:

Two inferior versions? Brotherhood and Revelations were both much better then ACII IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two inferior versions? Brotherhood and Revelations were both much better then ACII IMO.

 

In terms of gameplay - yes. In terms of story - no. I think AC Brotherhood is the best AC in terms of game-play. ACR felt like downgrade... I mean ACR did have better story and multiplayer than ACB. But the single-player itself felt lacking. The map was small, horse-riding gone, VR training gone and while some stuff were added, the map is still small and incredibly monotonous. Look - we get small but very different-looking maps in AC2. In Brotherhood we get HUGE map that still had some variety. In ACR the map is smaller than Rome and everything look's the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome! Haven't completed Revelations yet but heard it's going to have a different storyline this time, I don't know if Desmond will still be in the game or not.

Desmond's story is the key plot line in the entire Assassin's Creed series so far, so I'd be extremely surprised if they suddenly decide to do away with him. In fact, I'm betting they'll focus more on him this time around... because as the third part in the original trilogy, I expect this game to finally give us some solid answers.

 

This and the fact that they're pushing SP to side and make MP their priority makes me sad

If only multiplayer had any sort of priority at all! The player base has been complaining about not being able to play team games together since the day of release (actually, since the Beta)... yet not a peep from Ubisoft. It's fairly obvious most of Ubisoft is working on ACIII by now. I pity the few who are working on the ACR DLC that's yet to come. Lonely souls. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two inferior versions? Brotherhood and Revelations were both much better then ACII IMO.

 

Inferior to what AC III will be. Like they could have used AC III features but held them back.

Also, I prefer AC II. The different cities were great, loved Venice, especially during the Carnival.

 

The gameplay gets better as you progress through the series, but Brotherhood's story isn't as memorable at all in comparison, I did like Revelations' though. Rome was good and Constantinople was OK, but neither was as good as AC II, different cities FTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inferior to what AC III will be. Like they could have used AC III features but held them back.

Also, I prefer AC II. The different cities were great, loved Venice, especially during the Carnival.

 

The gameplay gets better as you progress through the series, but Brotherhood's story isn't as memorable at all in comparison, I did like Revelations' though. Rome was good and Constantinople was OK, but neither was as good as AC II, different cities FTW.

 

Completely agree. The ability to go between different cities is what sells AC2 for me as well. Instead of one large but consistent architecture, it was way more fun getting to see all the different styles depending on the city you were in. Rome was spectacular in Brotherhood but I still missed seeing the variety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inferior to what AC III will be. Like they could have used AC III features but held them back.

Also, I prefer AC II. The different cities were great, loved Venice, especially during the Carnival.

 

The gameplay gets better as you progress through the series, but Brotherhood's story isn't as memorable at all in comparison, I did like Revelations' though. Rome was good and Constantinople was OK, but neither was as good as AC II, different cities FTW.

I can see that. I liked ACII, but one of the big reasons I didn't like it as much as Brotherhood or Revelations was because the world was one big map, I didn't have to load a new area to visit a different location most of the time. I liked Revelations story more then II's, but Brotherhood's world was my favorite. They all have their pros and cons and I'm sure III will be spectacular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...