Next Prince of Persia Game Promises Fresh Start

Next Gen recently had a chance to sit down with Ubisoft and discuss the next addition to the Prince of Persia franchise. The team is excited that this isn't just another tired rehash of the same characters and setting, however, promising a new prince and open world adventuring on top of the already rich world of the previous games. "'We had a whole story with the previous trilogy, and Prince of Persia is a general universe where several different stories can unfold,' [creative director Jean-Christophe] explains. 'We're starting afresh, in the same universe, and we wanted to bring something new while keeping what worked before. We introduce a new Prince, who won't start as a prince, more a drifter and adventurer, lost in the desert. He'll be confronted by a lot of fantasy settings, as opposed to Assassin's Creed, which was more realistic. Here he will come to a land and be engulfed in the conflict between two ancient gods, in this very specific region of Persia. It's based on an old Persian religion, Zoroastrianism, and the battle between light and darkness.'"

zoroastrianism still exists

[Danny Rathjens]

Religions only become mythology when their number of adherents drop to 0 and that is not the case with Zoroastrianism in Iran or Parsis (the ones that migrated to India (and again to America; I had a Parsi friend in Miami)), despite its ancient origins surprisingly. It doesn't seem like a very bright idea to use an existing religion - in the middle east no less - and fantasize a conflict with it and another religion.

Or maybe that's the idea, stir up a slight bit of controversy to attract attention to their product. ;)

Why Not a New One?

[Arccot]

The first of the series (SoT) was excellent and the time mechanic was almost revolutionary. Sure the sequels weren't outstanding, but they still were decent. I don't get the hating going on here, if they're doing something really different with this one.

I was really impressed with the first, and I'd love to see what they can do if they start fresh again.

Re:!rpg

[Trespass]

Whoever tagged this as "rpg" doesn't know what an "rpg" is.

So...it's an arcade game? A board game? A sport? Just because the video game industry churns out RPG after RPG, doesn't mean it's too broad of a category.

'Gimmicky Brawler/Platformer Hybrid' doesn't have the same ring, I guess.

Re:zoroastrianism still exists

[Hatta]

Religions are always mythology, regardless of the number of followers.

Re:Just what we need

[miscz]

It's "only" 7th in the series and probably beginning of a new trilogy. Sands of Time was a well crafted and self-confined story that you could treat as something that can stand on it's own. Prince of Persia is growing to be something like The Legend of Zelda universe with different Links in different times.

Re:zoroastrianism still exists

[Anonymous Coward]

Religions only become mythology when their number of adherents drop to 0

Funny, I consider all religion was mythology.

Re:!rpg

[mycroft822]

They tried to pawn off Assassin's Creed as an "open world" game, which was complete BS. The open world was really just five ridiculously huge maps that they made you run across for every mission. They were all filled with the same repeated garbage, and all-in-all made for one of the most boring games I have ever played. It sounds like this is just going to be a clone of that. Not interested.

// I actually enjoyed the first PoP remake.

Re:Why Not a New One?

[xhrit]

The first prince of persia was excellent and totally revolutionary. I was really impressed with it, and I'd love to see what they can do if they don't stoop to ripping off other games and bring back Jordan Mechner, the person responsable for making the franchise great.

Who incidently was quoted as saying ov the new games, "I'm not a fan of the artistic direction, or the violence that earned it an M rating. The story, character, dialog, voice acting, and visual style were not to my taste."

Re:zoroastrianism still exists

[Omestes]

Sorry to ruin your self-inquisition, but I didn't see the parent attacking religion.

Myths are stories shared by a group, and are a part of that group's cultural identity, but so are family traditions.

-from about.com [about.com].

Really when it comes down to it, the stories and traditions of your religion of choice are no different that the stories and traditions of other religions from antiquity. The faith and whatnot you feel for yours is also no different that the faith that others felt for their own.

A myth is pretty much a term referring to the NARRATIVE of the religion, as opposed to the worth of the religion. As an atheist, I have read many of the worlds religious texts, not trying to find some "true faith" in them, but for the stories they tell. The Bible is mostly a narrative, and can be seen as such. As well as being the corner stone of meaning for a billion of so people, it also is a book, with all the properties of it.

Is that offensive? How?