Assassin's Creed 4 Officially Announced

[Splash_King]

Pirate-themed Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag has been officially confirmed by publisher Ubisoft, and will have 60 minutes of exclusive gameplay on PlayStation 3.

Packshot artwork shows that the game will at least be released for PC, PS3, Wii U and Xbox 360.

... Yesterday, numerous leaks hinted at the game's existence and offered up a few extra details - that the game is set in 1715 and stars a pirate assassin named Edward Kenway, father of Haytham and grandfather of Connor from AC3.

source

Well, I'm sure as **** happy that Ubisoft won't be droppin' naval battles just yet... the thought of assassin-piracy also makes me one happy fish.

I'll definitely be lookin' forward to moar oh-so charismatic Haytham Kenway screen time, as it'l be likely that the game will

Spoiler

end on how the Brotherhood was destroyed by said Assassin-turned-Templar. Wouldn't doubt seein' another (ironic) son kills father moment neither. Connor's family sure ain't a happy bunch, are they?

However, it does worry me that ACIV is a prequel which will most certainly have little t' absolutely ****-all screen time for Ratonhnhaké:ton. I'd hate t' see the Kanien'kehá:kan Assassin's story left forever open ended. It doesn't mean we won't see one more game starring Connor made by a Ubisoft B-team, but it certainly doesn't help the chances of the first Native American Assassin returnin' as the main protagonist.

 

[DBloke]

In other news the sun will rise tomorrow

 

[WiiAssasin]

In other news the sun will rise tomorrow

Except that the sunrise is actually enjoyable. Unlike the naval battles.

 

[Splash_King]

Ya can hate on Assassin's Creed's story all ya want, but get the hell outta here when you're bringin' the heat(... shot) t' the Naval battles. T'was damn-well a great system. Easily one'a the best; if not the best; seen in vidya gaems so far.

... Wait, did ya even play AC:III?

 

[WiiAssasin]

Ya can hate on Assassin's Creed's story all ya want, but get the hell outta here when you're bringin' the heat(... shot) t' the Naval battles. T'was damn-well a great system. Easily one'a the best; if not the best; seen in vidya gaems so far.

Because nothing says assassin like half-baked naval battles, and they even somehow screwed up the basic principle of the parkour-ish aspect of the game by removing it, leaving the player with little to enjoy.

... Wait, did ya even play AC:III?

It's funny cuz it's related to ACIV.

 

[Splash_King]

So you'd discourage a (well-done) change of pace in the form'a new gameplay? The focus of Assassin's Creed's gameplay has always been parkour and to a lesser extent rather cinematic CQC, but that don't mean mixin' things up is a bad idea. Naval battles were extremely well received by most players, 'sides maybe the youngin's (that shouldn't even be playin' the game) who do nothin' but run around killin' everyone without a hint of stealth. And we all know how valid those opinions are. Good gameplay is good gameplay. Naval battles aren't horribly out of place, nor are they abruptly or poorly introduced/executed.

Speakin' of, I'm particularly curious how they'l execute Naval battles even better in AC:IV. Ubisoft's always had room t' improve on executing most-everythin', even in cases where they did well enough.

 

[WiiAssasin]

So you'd discourage a (well-done) change of pace in the form'a new gameplay? The focus of Assassin's Creed's gameplay has always been parkour and to a lesser extent rather cinematic CQC, but that don't mean mixin' things up is a bad idea. Naval battles were extremely well received by most players, 'sides maybe the youngin's (that shouldn't even be playin' the game) who do nothin' but run around killin' everyone without a hint of stealth. And we all know how valid those opinions are. Good gameplay is good gameplay. Naval battles aren't horribly out of place, nor are they abruptly or poorly introduced/executed.

Speakin' of, I'm particularly curious how they'l execute Naval battles even better in AC:IV. Ubisoft's always had room t' improve on executing most-everythin', even in cases where they did well enough.

Being forced to run around on foot is not parkour, nor fun. The combat was even less stealthy somehow. And the missions....

Lexington and Concord *shudders*

 

[Splash_King]

Being forced to run around on foot is not parkour, nor fun. The combat was even less stealthy somehow. And the missions....

dat poor execution

How can open combat be stealthy in the first place? :lol: ... Which leads me t' bring up the following random point: I quite liked how easy it was to rope in other soldiers into your fight, as well as added difficulty in losin' 'em. When playin' past AC games, seein' guards just down the street or one roof top away not noticing a guard shrieking as ya shank 'em was... annoyin'. A high-profile kill should always alert a guard if they're in either line of sight or earshot, 'specially both.

 

[InSiiDiouS]

I thought AC3 would be the last to come. Shows what I know. I beat AC3 and still have no clue about what happened in the end.

 

[Splash_King]

Nor does anyone but Ubisoft... endin' on a ridiculous cliff hanger gets old after the second time, don't it? Ain't never any damn closure, just a cheap 'n sudden shutting of the curtains.

 

[WiiAssasin]

I'll enlighten you both: Anything you can come up with is better than what you will get. Especially now that it's become a yearly franchise.

 

[Splash_King]

The whole yearly release bit doesn't really affect the story's quality itself, it's always been **** since they changed direction for AC:II.

 

[WiiAssasin]

Revelations actually wrapped up Ezio half decently. Now the story is just being needlessly dragged on with stupid sudden enemies.

 

[Splash_King]

Oh, the Assassins' stories of old are all fine IMO. It's how ****in' horrible they integrated the ones who came before 'n all that other precursor jazz, and to a small extent Desmond's story. It's why I tolerated; hell, enjoyed; AC1's story. No poorly presented or absurdly unnecessary bullshit. Said game shows that Assassin's Creed would've been fine, if not even better, without the precursor civilization influencing everything. Why couldn't the 2012 apocalypse simply of been Abstergo-Eye's launch? Was all this future-gazing necessary (excluding Ezio's little encounter with the Apple in Brotherhood, wasn't anythin' wrong with that)?

And on that note, I liked the Sci-fi feel AC1 offered with the animus 'n such: t'was closer to science rather than fantasy... but then AC:II and onwards ****ed all'a that up. Instead'a fitting more with the theme of regular ol' Earth with regular ol' humans, Templars and Assassins warring with blades rather than spell tomes, they had t' change the gears to cater more towards fantasy. All because'a the heavy involvement with the precursors, which is all completely unnecessary since Abstergo was enough of a plot device in the future, whereas the war between Templar and Assassin was enough in the past. All'a this unnecessary and outta place garbage is... well, unnecessary. shitty n forced exposition maeks me irate

/endrant

 

[hybrid -x1]