Why do you people want *Ending Spoilers*

#11dillpickle69(Topic Creator)Posted 11/23/2012 11:01:54 PM
riddlebox89 posted...
dillpickle69 posted...
I said there shouldn't be one that's ONLY based on modern day, because one of the biggest selling factors of this game is the history that you can take part in and affect. If there was a mostly modern day game, there would still be parts with significant pieces of history that you can play.


Second part of my post must have gone right over your head didn't it?

Ok then I'll repeat it, by modern day only, they mean it being the main focus of the game, a game that takes place in modern times eighty percent of the time would be modern day focused, whether you hop into the animus for a quick coffee with Leonardo is irrelevant.


Where/when did Ubisoft specifically say that exactly?
---
I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum.
#12ChickenBotPosted 11/23/2012 11:19:59 PM
nubs222 posted...
It was a pretty underwhelming ending to Desmond's story. Here's this guy you've "played" as for three previous games and he pushes a button that saves the world and dies. It's like the rushed ending of a bad fanfic.


This was my main complaint too. I didn't mind Desmond being killed off at all, I just didn't like how it was done. It felt rushed and anti-climatic.

Plus I was hoping for closure and more explanations. Part of my anticipation for AC3 was more exposition on all those Truth puzzles we solved in AC2 and ACB, and more Pieces of Eden. Instead we're just left with another cliffhanger.

I did enjoy the Desmond missions though, I'll give it that.
---
"Building the future and keeping the past alive are one and the same thing."
-Solid Snake, Metal Gear Solid
#13dillpickle69(Topic Creator)Posted 11/23/2012 11:25:01 PM
I know that the whole reason the story got jumbled up and rolled around a lot is because the creative director left, but why is it that he left anyways?
---
I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum.
#14riddlebox89Posted 11/23/2012 11:31:28 PM
dillpickle69 posted...
Where/when did Ubisoft specifically say that exactly?


When they said they wouldn't do a game entirely focused in modern day times because it would go against what they want the main focus of the games to be, which is the ancestors and the times they lived in, meaning animus coffee time for five minutes or not, that game where you're in modern times for 80% of the time isn't happening due to the modern day time being the main focus of the game.
---
I am a dedicated member of the "Walter Sullivan Is Bad-Ass" group!!!
I am the true originator of the Cookie Demon theory on the SH2 and 3 boards.
#15dillpickle69(Topic Creator)Posted 11/23/2012 11:32:16 PM
I mean did they say that in an interview or post an article about it or something? I want to see this for myself.
---
I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum.
#16SymphonicRainPosted 11/23/2012 11:35:01 PM
I don't want him in another game. I don't care for the whole 2012 end of the world stuff in the modern day. Yeah, I know they are the whole reason that we are introduced to characters like Altair, Ezio and Connor, but the appeal for me in these games is playing in the past, the interesting characters and the allies/enemies they deal with.

They could remove the modern day stuff entirely and all it'd mean for me is less disruptions from the story I'm currently into.
---
"invade some poor sap and jihad bomb him" - LazyKenny
#17Rojo_Posted 11/23/2012 11:38:26 PM
dillpickle69 posted...
I know that the whole reason the story got jumbled up and rolled around a lot is because the creative director left, but why is it that he left anyways?


prob because he wanted desmond to get his spotlight after AC2/brotherhood but ubi said no and seeing his baby be taken from him left. On topic tho desmond dying doesnt bug me if it was done justified desmond was a pawn of a bigger lot since the begining born into a world he wanted no part in he had no peace having to hide his idenity live a lie. Having the burden of being somehow important in saving the world. Try as he might the guy just wanted to go back to his family and when he gets to the end of his journey our journey he sacrifices himself for the world. Then juno basically spits in his face saying he was screwed again into being used.

The character was always a pawn he had no real closure so personally i think that if anyone other then desmond kills juno and her army it wouldnt be fitting. Desmond always gets the short end of the stick people say he is boring or uninteresting as if its his fault, its not its ubisofts for not giving him the screen time to do virtually anything to win over fans. its sad it seems as if his story was going in a different direction then what was originally planned. Its a shame.
---
PSN: Rojo-_- /state you're a Gf's user in your friend request.
#18CentrophyPosted 11/24/2012 11:46:37 AM
I had no real issues with Desmond, it was a bit weak how he had almost o screen time/gameplay. I also believe that they could do a modern day game, say Splinter Cell mixed with parkour, they would have to be very careful to not make Uncharted however. It also seems to me as if they're pulling a Lost. I worry that they don't actually have an ending in mind and are just going in by the seat of their pants.
#19ReVenANT1489Posted 11/24/2012 11:51:56 AM
I don't want an all present game (I want Ubi to go back further in time actually) but the way they ended Desmond's story left a lot to be desired. I hope they either release a cinematic movie or explain more in the next AC game.
---
psn: randy_marshh
not changing sig till bears win the superbowl started 12-30-09