Assassin's Creed Infinity


Infinity is scheduled for 2024?...so no AC games for 4 years (Valhalla came out in 2020)...they had the right idea with Origins and Odyssey's bi-yearly cycle but eventually they hit a wall with that as well with Valhalla...they should have just taken a 3 year break and came back with a really interesting historical setting and some innovative gameplay features (maybe even return the game to its assassination roots)
 
Infinity is scheduled for 2024?...so no AC games for 4 years (Valhalla came out in 2020)...they had the right idea with Origins and Odyssey's bi-yearly cycle but eventually they hit a wall with that as well with Valhalla...they should have just taken a 3 year break and came back with a really interesting historical setting and some innovative gameplay features (maybe even return the game to its assassination roots)

No AC for four years is the only part of this that sounds right. I'm still not interested, but at least they're taking their time, which is pretty un-ubisoft.

Truthfully, I think the only thing ubi could do to get me Interedted in AC again is another black flag... And even then I'm not sure I'd trust them to not fuck it up.
 
I think what they are going for is cutting development cost by virtually removing actual development. Instead of releasing a new stand alone game every 2 years, they are going to release campaigns for the same game.

The thing is, if they want to make a campaign unique it may as well be a standalone game. If it takes 1-2 years to release a new campaign for Infinity in a different era it may as well be a standalone game. I'm not seeing how it saves on costs. Suppose we won't know until it comes out.

No, procedural generation is necessary and a good thing, you can't expect every rock formation to be hand crafted, I never felt the scenery repetitive in Odyssey or Valhalla, exploration was the main drive for me to play those games. I never though that if the world was smaller the game would be better.

Generally people aren't talking about the rocks or scenery. Long games almost always become repetitive in terms of tasks, stories and the like. Overly long games tend to lack any impact or emotion to the story because you spend half the time doing mundane things.

What? You serious? Small makes it feel fake not real. I hate it when in games there is 500meters between major settlements, or less. Even big games like ghost recon feel unrealistically crowded sometimes, landmarks being too close to one and another and scenery changing too fast to be believable. There is no such thing as too big. A game doesn't become boring because if size it does because of bad design.

All depends on how the game is done. A game with well crafted independent maps/levels is just as good as any open world game. The older Splinter Cell games, Wolfenstien The New Order, Metro games are examples of this. If the map is poorly designed then of course it can be problematic.

Size can certainly be an issue. Some games have far too much traveling which gets tedious fast. In the case of Odyssey there is a lot of traveling to places that have nothing to do. You'll run 500+ meters, maybe get randomly ambushed or attacked by an animal, talk to someone, and run right back. Plenty of quests did just that. In many instances the quests could've been designed without the excessive horse riding and the game would've been better. Ride to quest location, start quest near objective.

I only played RDR2 for a few hours before quitting it, it didn't look particularly attractive, and when I tried to explore in it it gave zero rewards, no hidden secrets, no stashes, no nothing, it's the worst example you could come up with. I picked up several missions in it that forced me to traverse a lot of terrain and found nothing interesting on the journey. In Valhalla and Odyssey your journey is constantly interrupted by points of interest, none of that is in RDR2.

RDR2 map size is around half of Odyssey but half of Odyssey is water. So it isn't that much smaller in playable space. I prefer natural exploration over pop ups, repeating stashes, achievements, and percentage bars to complete on a map. I also like games that make an area of a map feel like a part of a world and not just a place you sprint to to pick up a mission and then never come back. to Which is a massive issue in Odyssey and Valhalla. RDR2 had many locations, and story missions would occasionally take you back to difference places. But it felt natural, like a trek back to a place that had some significance. Most large open world games are just empty locations with junk to hold down E for. You'll never come back, and there is little character or reason to be in a place. It is just that, a bunch of props.

RDR2 is a much more guided game as well than any of the recent Assassin's Creed games. It is pretty much 70% story content, which is wonderful. The side quests are like better, branching versions of the "World Events" found in Valhalla with better voice acting and setups. There are things you can buy but it pretty much is purely for gameplay. Things like new guns and the like. No need to buy underwear that gives you 17% more armor thankfully.

Odyssey on the other hand felt almost like an MMO with constant unlocking, leveling, loot boxes, grinding and repetitive tasks.

In Valhalla it never even occured to me to skip journeys. Wait there is fast travel in RDR2? I could've sworn there isn't and I cursed the game for the lack of it, that's part of why I abandoned it because it was extremely tedious, to gallop through barren land with nothing of interest for miles, do a 1 minute conversation then gallop back, only to get attacked by a proceduraly generated ambush and get killed. So yeah, procedural is not always good. It's not the tools, but how you use them that matters.

The part in bold is exactly the gameplay loop of Odyssey. To a lesser extent, Valhalla as well. Valhalla was the far superior game, just bland and kind of boring. And excessively long, so there were many story lines that played exactly the same and I was forgetting who characters were that I met early in the game. Then your typical copy/pasting of little actions, like "Now, it seems the wind calls me back to Randvi" which got old after the 2nd time.

For an open world game, I'd say RDR2 is a good example of how you can use a big world but still have it focused throughout. The recent three Assassin Creed games are examples of what not to do, IMO.

I'd suggest giving RDR2 another try if possible. It isn't the greatest game but it does have a focused story which I found nice.
 
Last edited:
Didn't read the 2 page thread here but given Ubisofts track record a "live service" AC game is just a more efficient delivery method for DLC and pay to win packs.
 
i don't see it as a problem. it's value for money and you can skip the extra content if you don't want to do it. if you stick to just "main story" missions in their games it's usually pretty standard length. personally i enjoy having a huge amount of content to bite into whenever i want, if i want.
 
i don't see it as a problem. it's value for money and you can skip the extra content if you don't want to do it. if you stick to just "main story" missions in their games it's usually pretty standard length. personally i enjoy having a huge amount of content to bite into whenever i want, if i want.

I don't see it that way at all. Length needs to be long enough (10-12+ hours) but otherwise overall length is inconsequential. It depends on the pacing, variety, and how developed it is. If the game is simplistic and lacks depth, it is probably best to be left at 12 hours. If the game actually has a good story throughout and gameplay that is actually good and not repetitive then it can stretch to 30 hours. Or even more. Problem with recent Assassin's Creed games in particular is the story doesn't hold throughout and the gameplay gets stale.

You can skip "side content", but then you are under leveled. Or miss too much story content. Most side quests in games these days are really not optional. Valhalla was even more extreme. To really finish the game you need to put in 100+ hours. If you decided to rush through Odyssey it would be around 50 hours. With Valhalla the side quests oddly make up the story quest. So you can skip some parts of the story quest to "finish" the game, but you'll still have many regions of main story content left undone. And you cannot even complete the goal that was set for the character near the beginning of the game.
 
With Valhalla especially, they block off giant chunks of the game until you level up. At least 1/4 of the game borders on impossible until you reach level 100-150. Odyssey and Origins weren't as extreme about it, but they also forced you to do a lot of side stuff and grinding to move forward in the main game. If you were having fun with raiding forts and killing Cultists - great. If not, you better get used to it.
I'm all for making a game optionally huge and giving players a choice to play for 20 hours of 200 hours. AC isn't particularly good at that anymore.
 
With Valhalla especially, they block off giant chunks of the game until you level up. At least 1/4 of the game borders on impossible until you reach level 100-150. Odyssey and Origins weren't as extreme about it, but they also forced you to do a lot of side stuff and grinding to move forward in the main game. If you were having fun with raiding forts and killing Cultists - great. If not, you better get used to it.
I'm all for making a game optionally huge and giving players a choice to play for 20 hours of 200 hours. AC isn't particularly good at that anymore.
ahh ok. i'm still playing through origins and i've leveled way past the story missions just doing side stuff, and not even that much of it.
 
This is what ubisoft has dreamed of, single player games with constant internet. Ever since ac2 or whichever one required a constant connection. Tons of Drm, dlc, micro transactions etc 😁
 
I don't see it that way at all. Length needs to be long enough (10-12+ hours) but otherwise overall length is inconsequential. It depends on the pacing, variety, and how developed it is. If the game is simplistic and lacks depth, it is probably best to be left at 12 hours. If the game actually has a good story throughout and gameplay that is actually good and not repetitive then it can stretch to 30 hours. Or even more. Problem with recent Assassin's Creed games in particular is the story doesn't hold throughout and the gameplay gets stale.

You can skip "side content", but then you are under leveled. Or miss too much story content. Most side quests in games these days are really not optional. Valhalla was even more extreme. To really finish the game you need to put in 100+ hours. If you decided to rush through Odyssey it would be around 50 hours. With Valhalla the side quests oddly make up the story quest. So you can skip some parts of the story quest to "finish" the game, but you'll still have many regions of main story content left undone. And you cannot even complete the goal that was set for the character near the beginning of the game.

I love long games but it needs to be filled with a vibrant world, interesting quests and great characters...Ubisoft fills their games with a lot of filler- collectible hunts etc (open 500 chests, find 500 flags etc)...Fallout and Elder Scrolls have done a better job with this...Dark Souls games I never want to see end due to their amazing level design, combat, enemy design etc
 
Infinity isn't even the name of the games themselves like I originally thought, it's just the name of the live-service platform connecting all of them
 
Infinity isn't even the name of the games themselves like I originally thought, it's just the name of the live-service platform connecting all of them
Yes, that was my understanding since they first announced it.

There are no words to describe my disinterest in live service type games.

A game should have a set amount of content and a specific storyline that's all included at release. I'll buy and play the game if it looks interesting, and if it is very good I might play it more than once. I'm also down with large expansions containing their own stand alone storyline and set of missions. What I'm completely disinterested in is "quest of the week" type trickle fed nonsense live service. I ignore those even in the games I adore, and absolutely loved to play originally.
 
Yes, that was my understanding since they first announced it.

There are no words to describe my disinterest in live service type games.

A game should have a set amount of content and a specific storyline that's all included at release. I'll buy and play the game if it looks interesting, and if it is very good I might play it more than once. I'm also down with large expansions containing their own stand alone storyline and set of missions. What I'm completely disinterested in is "quest of the week" type trickle fed nonsense live service. I ignore those even in the games I adore, and absolutely loved to play originally.

My understanding is "Infinity" has:

- A multiplayer game of some kind. Maybe this will be okay. As long as it is a separate thing that would be fine, maybe it will even be good.
- Some phone game.
- From the sound of it, two future single player Assassin's Creed games.

I have little to no interest in the first, and zero interest in the second. The single player games may be regular single player games. In which case I would be fine with it. But if they require some interaction with the multiplayer or phone aspect, I am not interested.

I am not sure if Ubisoft is intentionally bad with communication to draw up controversy, or if their head is so far up their own asses this is actually how they think information should be delivered. It shouldn't be hard to say they plan a multiplayer game, a phone game, and two follow up single player, story based games. Instead they put out a two hour video where they ask each other fake questions and pretend they don't know what single player or multiplayer means.
 
My understanding is "Infinity" has:

- A multiplayer game of some kind. Maybe this will be okay. As long as it is a separate thing that would be fine, maybe it will even be good.
- Some phone game.
- From the sound of it, two future single player Assassin's Creed games.

I have little to no interest in the first, and zero interest in the second. The single player games may be regular single player games. In which case I would be fine with it. But if they require some interaction with the multiplayer or phone aspect, I am not interested.

I am not sure if Ubisoft is intentionally bad with communication to draw up controversy, or if their head is so far up their own asses this is actually how they think information should be delivered. It shouldn't be hard to say they plan a multiplayer game, a phone game, and two follow up single player, story based games. Instead they put out a two hour video where they ask each other fake questions and pretend they don't know what single player or multiplayer means.
I believe infinite is not a game per se, but the name of an unified live service platform for future AC content. Instead of releasing a stand alone game every 2-3 years, there will only be infinite, containing the maps of all 3 games (origins, odyssey, valhalla), and any future ones. And content will be released through that platform for all, essentially ending the need to maintain separate services and code branch for every game. I'd have no problem with it if the content would be long story based campaigns, but I suspect it will be live service type short 2-3 part missions and multiplayer activities.
 
I just hope this leads to tighter content. Every 2nd or 3rd AC game ends up being bloated with questlines that feel randomly generated. I'd rather have multiple smaller games if they aren't written by an AI quest generator.
 
I believe infinite is not a game per se, but the name of an unified live service platform for future AC content. Instead of releasing a stand alone game every 2-3 years, there will only be infinite, containing the maps of all 3 games (origins, odyssey, valhalla), and any future ones. And content will be released through that platform for all, essentially ending the need to maintain separate services and code branch for every game. I'd have no problem with it if the content would be long story based campaigns, but I suspect it will be live service type short 2-3 part missions and multiplayer activities.

Yes Infinity will be a "platform". I didn't bother watching their 2+ hour video so maybe they covered that, but I assume Origins/Odyssey/Valhalla are done. I am hoping the single player stories will more or less be detached. I assume it will work like this:

- "Platform" is launched. Will feature a map and some multiplayer stuff.
- Single player game comes out, is detached experience.
- Update for Infinity comes out, which features the single player game's assets but has a bunch of multiplayer stuff. Similar to GTA Online.
- Next single player comes out, is detached experience.
- Update for Infinity adding those assets.

At least that is what I hope it will be. I don't mind shorter, streamlined and story centered single player games as long as they are separate experiences. If they want to take the content and add some separate MMO thing with it after, fine by me.

But I am sure Ubisoft will make it as aggregating as possible. I loaded up Ubisoft Connect for the first time in a while. And I was bombarded with pop ups about events, things to do within their client and whatnot. Very annoying to say the least.
 
Essentially they will:

- Remove modern day content, put it on Infinity only.
- Remove encyclopedia and put it on Infinity only.

Essentially they're tearing content from the games and putting them on Infinity. This will without a doubt hurt narrative flow which isn't good. I assume these will be online only, even if most of the game is offline. No real reason to remove the encyclopedia/codex from the games because I doubt text entries will take up much space.

They're probably just using it as a bloated mechanism to push more micro transaction sales. Playing the game, want to get a quick history lesson on this place? Load up a bloated launcher, view all the advertisement and find what you're looking for.

I expected something like this. It would be fine if they just left Infinity for the multiplayer modes and social stuff and allowed the SP games to be launched and then have all the content within the game itself without needing to load into their client program.
 
Back
Top