Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games

New Assassin's Creed Next Year, Will Have Multiplayer 56

Posted by Soulskill
from the two-assassins-one-creed dept.
Ubisoft has announced that the next stand-alone Assassin's Creed title will come out next year, and it will be the first in the series to come with an online multiplayer mode. The company also said it will be "shoring up its focus on competitive AAA core titles on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3" in the coming year, making mention of upcoming releases for the Tom Clancy game series and a new Prince of Persia title.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Assassin's Creed Next Year, Will Have Multiplayer

Comments Filter:
  • by Shadow of Eternity (795165) on Thursday January 14, 2010 @07:09AM (#30762446)

    All of six to eight people standing around staring at each other waiting to do a counter...

    • by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Thursday January 14, 2010 @07:20AM (#30762514) Journal

      You're thinking it too simply. Instead of fighting against each other, why not have the assassins work together? More like co-opping. A few players could be going near the target on street and other players assisting from the roofs. Someone making sure that if the target gets away, they're near to block his way. Gameplay that needs simultaneous action from several players. Or two assassins groups trying to assasinate the same target, while trying to protect themself from the other group, the target and his guards and simultaneously trying to execute the job perfectly.

      Also Assassins Creed's usual running, jumping and climbing in a large city would make a great races with other players. You have to choose the right ways and know shortcuts and think if you get there faster by climbing to roofs and jumping there over streets.

      I love it how more and more games have gone in to this kind of playing, left4dead and borderlands pioneering (and mmo's of course). It's not anymore the counter-strike like two teams or some players against each other.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheLink (130905)
        > left4dead and borderlands pioneering (and mmo's of course)

        Doom had coop more than 15 years ago.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Antiocheian (859870)

          Even better -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD [wikipedia.org]

          (But I see your point -- Doom is easier for the left4dead and borderlands kid to grasp)

          • by natet (158905)
            I think his point is that there is more ways to do multiplayer than free-for-all or team deathmatch. Left 4 dead and borderlands are some great examples of co-op multiplayer, though certainly not the oldest examples (diablo, for example, featured co-op multiplayer as well).
            • More games need co-op multiplayer. I play little else these days (just a touch of team - dm/ctf/... if I need something mindless), and I would love to have enough co-op games to chose between that I actually have choice.

              I've played Left4Dead and Borderlands to death, what's the next co-op game due out?

              • Army of two, due out this week i believe.
                • Well, I presume you're on about the Army of Two sequel, as the original is nearly two years old.

                  I hadn't even heard there was a sequel due, and I avoided the original due to:

                  • Primarily playing PC games, and it being console-only
                  • General dislike of using a gamepad to play shooting games
                  • Mixed reviews
                  • General dislike of world war / modern day army games

                  The sequel has had better reviews, but the other points are all still there...

              • World of Warcraft?

              • by KDR_11k (778916)

                Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 has a coop mode I believe.

      • by CraftyJack (1031736) on Thursday January 14, 2010 @10:28AM (#30763686)

        Also Assassins Creed's usual running, jumping and climbing in a large city would make a great races with other players.

        Oh good. Let's take the most irritating part of the game, and add a 13 year old with a headset.

        • by Reapy (688651)

          I found ac and ac2's climbing/running system to the most interesting thing in both games. Before AC, I had never seen a 3d climbing and jumping system done better. It was easy and hard all at the same time. If you try to run full out and do not know the route, you mess up and jump to the wrong roof or get stuck up on an object.

          It is easy and hard all at the same time. Very well done IMHO.

      • by furby076 (1461805)

        You're thinking it too simply. Instead of fighting against each other, why not have the assassins work together? More like co-opping. A few players could be going near the target on street and other players assisting from the roofs

        Uh huh, and when I slip my stilleto into your back I will say "oh sorry dude, the targeting system sucks, and i knifed you...tee hee".

        I remember playing baldurs gate for the ps2 with a friend of mine, and i was the tank. He would blow up the exploding barrels while I was next to them....on purpose. That is all that will happen here.

        But yea - counter is the ez button. Not that combat is hard in this game. The game is about being as stealthy as possible

    • by drsquare (530038)

      Even better, eight players sat around the computer watching the unskippable twenty-minute monologue before the fight.

  • No PC version? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IBBoard (1128019) on Thursday January 14, 2010 @07:14AM (#30762484) Homepage

    Not that I've got round to playing the first version yet, but are they not going to mention the PC version again? Assassin's Creed 2 has been on the gaming shows already for XBox and PS3, but the PC version (the proper version for a proper machine) won't be out until late February in North American and "2010" in the rest of the world.

    Surely they are developing on PCs, and the XBox is a cut-down PC, so they should be able to release it at the same time (and it should be better, since PCs can do more than XBoxes).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by marmoset (3738)

      Game corporation in "focusing on platforms where they make money" shocker.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sopssa (1498795) *

      I guess its more like some kind of licensing deal with Microsoft and Sony. The first game was also released exactly the same way, 2-3 months later on PC (and leaked on the internet months before it was available in stores). Same stupid thing like with GTA series, which really sucks, but I would think they do the same thing with the third version again.

    • Re:No PC version? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BeardsmoreA (951706) on Thursday January 14, 2010 @07:30AM (#30762548) Homepage
      Or to look at it another way, an XBox is a tightly specified closed platform and so waaaaaay easier to do proper robust testing on than the plethora of possible hardware combinations in the generic PC market.
    • by Calinous (985536)

      XBox was a cut down PC, but XBox 360 is something else entirely - no longer x86, and so on.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think its about piracy. If they release all versions at the same times, people will pirate it for their pc rather than buying it for their console. By staggering the releases, impatient gamers have to pay for the game. Sure, you can pirate console games if you mod your console, but that's usually too much of a hassle for the aforementioned impatient gamers.

      There's still money to be made from honest PC gamers, so the game eventually gets a PC release, and this way the pirates who will buy the game if they

      • I don't think it's necessarily piracy, I just think consoles are more profitable than the PC. As someone above you mentioned, the Xbox is a closed platform. Most of my friends are console gamers and they buy a lot of DLC. I'm a PC gamer myself and I just can't justify the cost of the DLC (on top of the $60 price tag for the console game) when I generally get that stuff for free on the PC or through modifications, community maps, etc...

        Now I'm not saying I'm entitled to lots of free stuff, I've just always
    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      and the XBox is a cut-down PC,

      Xbox the original was. Xbox 360 isn't. It even uses a PowerPC processor.

  • by Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) on Thursday January 14, 2010 @08:07AM (#30762708)
    Looks like the single-player campaign in Assassin's Creed III is going to suck.
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How is that different from any of the other Assassin's Creeds?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The addition of multiplayer in Uncharted 2 didn't seem to hinder single player quality.
      • by MBGMorden (803437)

        A single exception doesn't disprove the rule. Generally, for a game that implements both single player and multiplayer, one or the other of the experiences is going to be lacking.

        Personally, I've seen way too many multiplayer games lately. Sometimes I just want to come home, plop down on my couche, and play by my self. I'm glad at least Dragon Age is seeming to stick to it's single-player mission.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tlhIngan (30335)

          A single exception doesn't disprove the rule. Generally, for a game that implements both single player and multiplayer, one or the other of the experiences is going to be lacking.

          Personally, I've seen way too many multiplayer games lately. Sometimes I just want to come home, plop down on my couche, and play by my self. I'm glad at least Dragon Age is seeming to stick to it's single-player mission.

          Another complaint is the lack of bots for multiplayer. After finishing the single-player mission, I also want to

      • by Xtravar (725372)

        I suppose it's hard to hinder something that was never good to start with.

        I just beat Uncharted 1 and man, was that game fucking annoying.

    • by Draek (916851)

      Just like Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory's campaign did?

      No, if anything is going to suck, my money is on the multiplayer mode. But seeing what they did with the SC series, even that is a bit doubtful for me.

  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Thursday January 14, 2010 @08:57AM (#30762934) Homepage

    Because the one thing I hate more than anything else is having to decide whether to play a new game, instead of the latest version of the game franchises that I've already committed to.

    Mind you, there's still a bit too much choice in the market. Assassin's Creed is way too much like Prince of Persia for my tastes. Couldn't they combine them in some way so that I don't have to make any choice at all? And just call it Jumpy Swingy Stabby so that I know what I'm getting?

    Likewise with having to decide between Tom Clancy versus Metal Gear - why not just make Sneaky Snappy Shooty?

    Come on, games industry, get with the program. There's no need for all this confusing, infuriating choice and originality! Just give us more of what we already like, every year, forever. Where's my Drive Pimp Murder Drive 2010?

  • Multiplayer (Score:5, Funny)

    by glwtta (532858) on Thursday January 14, 2010 @09:26AM (#30763100) Homepage
    So, does that mean they are going to call this one "Assassins' Creed", then?
  • ...as multiplayer seems to inevitably bring it out somewhere. You might find some great players, but you may find some who insist on getting you killed by guards and then teabagging you, or find some other way to grief you.

    That said, it still sounds like it has some serious fun potential, especially if it's cooperative.

  • I like multiplayer sandbox games. Though I'm more hyped for Crackdown 2.
  • Why can't developers just stick to games that have no multiplayer? I don't get the rampant need for every game that comes out to have a multiplayer option. Whatever happened to just sitting down and playing a game at home without the option for multiplayer? Sure playing a game with friends is nice, but now a mainly stealth games need a multiplayer option as well? I'll most likely get the game, but I can live without multiplayer.
  • Has someone bitched about "why does every game have to be multiplayer" yet like the Dragon Age thread?

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

Working...