Does Assassin's Creed need serious changes? Our thoughts versus Ubisoft dev

Table of Contents

• Does Assassin's Creed need serious changes? Our thoughts versus Ubisoft dev
• Heroes’ charisma
• Leaping forward in history
• Fewer silent assassinations, more and more brawls
• Immersion in the game world
• Mechanics of exploration and conquest
• The neglected contemporary storyline
• The conflict between Assassins and Templars
• Annualization, or serial assassin

Leaping forward in history

The World War II period has already been used as background and will probably be revisited.

When we compare the first few installments with what we are given now, one of the most noticeable things is of course the period in which the stories take place. In the upcoming Assassin's Creed: Syndicate we will be transported to Victorian London; in the past, we got to visit revolutionary Paris, America in the middle of the civil war turmoil, the Caribbean in the golden age of piracy... Can you see a pattern? Each installment is a considerable time jump ahead (the only exception being Black Flag), to another recognizable period. What we got in the second Assassin's Creed (including Brotherhood and Revelations) played out in a relatively similar age. Within the three titles we “experienced” a few decades, which were followed by a crazy series of adventures around the world. There would be nothing wrong with that if it weren’t for the fact that at this rate (and with a new game issued every year) developers will soon run out of historical settings. There will be fewer and fewer "interesting" eras, and unless Ubisoft suddenly changes its mind and decides to cast a more favorable eye at older times, in a couple of years we will be fighting the Knights Templar in the year 2140. Unfortunately, we weren't able to get a comment from the devs on this matter, but it seems that reaching for even earlier periods in the history of the world is the only sensible solution if the series is not to completely lose its identity.