Hynad said:
Burek said:
Not the first time I see comparisons to AC, but these two games are nowhere close to each other.
1.) AC actually sold very well. Much much better than TO.
2.) AC was well received critically, almost 20 points above TO.
3.) AC did have a lot of cinematics, but it also had a lot of gameplay...some of which was quite innovative at the time. TO has almost no gameplay and certainly nothing innovative in it.
4.) AC actually had a novel and compelling story (that fell apart in later installments, but part one was a really interesting setup). TO has a derivative and meandering story reminiscent of 1990s Will Smith blockbusters.
Those, and many other reasons are why AC is a 70+ million selling franchise, while The Order is barely a million selling dud which doesn't deserve a sequel....heck, it barely deserves a DLC.
|
All of what you said have nothing to do with the idea he shared...
The point he made was that the first Order 1996, just like the first AC, regardless of the scores and sales, are two very flawed games. AC2 built upon what was good in the first game, and improved and corrected everything else to make a much better experience. If the Order 1886 gets a sequel, he's saying that it might do the same as AC2 and become a much better game.
|
I was commenting on his idea of a sequel, and pointing out the reasons why AC got a sequel, and why TO never will.
