| Latest Topics | Latest Posts | User [Login] |

Boni Boy Blue wrote:I remember Ubisoft say there were only going make 3 assassin's creed games. Look at them now.

Jake wrote:Boni Boy Blue wrote:I remember Ubisoft say there were only going make 3 assassin's creed games. Look at them now.
Halo was the same. But AC has consistently improved :P
But they realised the original AC2 just wasn't enough to tell the story of Ezio.
Gregorovich wrote:Jake wrote:Boni Boy Blue wrote:I remember Ubisoft say there were only going make 3 assassin's creed games. Look at them now.
Halo was the same. But AC has consistently improved :P
But they realised the original AC2 just wasn't enough to tell the story of Ezio.
So Connor could be the last Assassin...

Boni Boy Blue wrote:I remember Ubisoft say there were only going make 3 assassin's creed games. Look at them now.


Druska wrote:Boni Boy Blue wrote:I remember Ubisoft say there were only going make 3 assassin's creed games. Look at them now.
Tecnichally we only have 2, the others are "expansions", besides I think they said this one will be the end of Desmond's story, but that doesn't mean they won't do more games

Boni Boy Blue wrote:Druska wrote:Boni Boy Blue wrote:I remember Ubisoft say there were only going make 3 assassin's creed games. Look at them now.
Tecnichally we only have 2, the others are "expansions", besides I think they said this one will be the end of Desmond's story, but that doesn't mean they won't do more games
Taking that into consideration. You've missed out Bloodlines, the Facebook game, the DS game and the iPhone game which are all full releases.



Jake wrote:They're kinda running out of history to have any more assassins.
Bringing it much further forward would likely destroy the feel of the games.


Druska wrote:Jake wrote:They're kinda running out of history to have any more assassins.
Bringing it much further forward would likely destroy the feel of the games.
you kidding ? they could do a whole new story without desmond if they wanted to, I mean you have greece, rome, ancient egypt, america's discovery... they could write a whole new plot if they wanted to

Jake wrote:Druska wrote:Jake wrote:They're kinda running out of history to have any more assassins.
Bringing it much further forward would likely destroy the feel of the games.
you kidding ? they could do a whole new story without desmond if they wanted to, I mean you have greece, rome, ancient egypt, america's discovery... they could write a whole new plot if they wanted to
Yeah if they suddenly decided to go back in time...

Jeremy Kill wrote:Would I be alone in saying I was a bit disappointed in this game?
- Spoiler: show
I'd also like to point out that all I did was play through the main missions. I didn't bother doing anything on the side yet.

Gutter Dreams wrote:I think I'm gonna ask for the games for Christmas, but Samuel said the first game wasn't worth playing and I should just start with the second, but my friend says because its a series I need to play the first one even if it is repetitive.


samueeL wrote:I don't know anyone who finished the first game. It was so repetetive that it was horrible experience. People who played first game didn't wanna pick up AC 2 in the first place and I was like that too. Then I gave in years after and AC 2 ended up being one of the best games I've played, so... You definitely do not need to play first game to stay in the plot, it just makes you hate the serie.
More opinions?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests