the2real4mafol said:
QuintonMcLeod said:
shikamaru317 said:
The more the better imo. The more AC games they have in development, the faster they can make their way through the list of historical time periods that remain. There are alot of fan favorite time periods left to do still, Feudal/Edo period Japan, Victorian London, Wild West, WW1, WW2, Ancient Egypt, Russian Revolution, British controlled India, South America during the time of the Conquistadors, Medieval China, Medieval Europe, and several more that have decent-large fan followings.
As long as they maintain the current level of quality by keeping the dev cycles long, I'm happy. The last couple of AC titles have all had 3 or more years of development, and they've all been good imo. The only AC game I didn't like was Revelations, and if I'm not mistaken it was the last AC game with only 2 years of development before they bumped it up to 3 or more.
|
No.
The more, the worse. Not the better. Why? Human nature is why. Just because you like sweet peas doesn't mean you want to eat sweet peas every day. Afterawhile you will grow tired of eating the same thing all the time. Ubisoft making a new AC game every year can kill the series, because it can (and will) grow stale.
|
I understand what you are saying but as long as theres a major history event or era they haven't done, this series will carry on. Assassin's Creed is unlike other annual franchises because it is different in this way
|
The setting in which the game takes place doesn't change the fact that you are STILL playing Assassin's Creed. The gameplay mechanics are still the same.
Look. Kids love candy. You can give them 5 pieces of candy and they'll still want more. But if you keep feeding them candy, they'll get sick of it eventually. That's just how it works. You can like something, but if you have it within reasonable increments, you won't grow to hate it.
