Which Needs A Year Off More: Assassin's Creed Or Call Of Duty?
See Full ImageSome developers have spoken out against "annualization;" i.e., the controversial practice of releasing one new - or rather "new" - installment in a franchise every year.
This generation, Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed have made a habit of doing that, as we've seen a new title in each series for the past four years running. And as has been recently revealed, it'll happen again in 2013: Activision has confirmed another CoD and Ubisoft has revealed a new Assassin's Creed. Really, nobody is surprised.
Ubisoft did say we could expect a new hero, story and setting, so that's good. And maybe we'll get something entirely new (not Modern Warfare 4) for CoD. However, there are many who believe these franchises should take a year off for the sake of innovation and advancement. But if you had to pick only one, which do you think most needs an extra year to revamp and retool? Which do you think would most benefit from the extra time? And perhaps above all, from a financial standpoint, which company would suffer more if a new entry in their flagship series didn't drop this year?
I hesitate to pick a side on this, because I'd want to see where the new games are headed. If the next AC really looks a lot different and Ubisoft promises some control refinement, and I see the same ol' same ol' from Call of Duty, I know what I'd pick. But you never know; Activision could really surprise us, and Ubisoft might be the publisher simply looking to cash in for another year. What say you?
Tags: call of duty, cod, assassins creed, assassins creed sequel
2/11/2013 9:59:19 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (43 posts)
Nas Is Like
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 12:03:02 AM
2 up, 5 down
firesoul453
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 12:21:35 AM
And I don't think a year off would end up with COD even being that different and I would hate to see assassins creed games go down hill.
Last edited by firesoul453 on 2/12/2013 12:23:21 AM
0 up, 1 down
StevieRV
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 1:11:06 AM
0 up, 2 down
xenris
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 9:54:26 AM
Black ops 2, which fun, is basically MW2 with a futuristic skin. It has the obnoxious aim assist, quick scoping, ridiculous kill streaks, and BS shotguns(thanks to the hit detection they refuse to fix)
The best parts about BO2 are the pick ten class customization, and the attempt to nerf the knife, which is barely noticeable.
It is in every way better than MW2 but MW2 was from a competitive standpoint absolute garbage, and this despite its push towards Esports is not a good game for esports because of the inherent imbalances with the core gameplay.
1 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 10:01:01 AM
2 up, 0 down
slugga_status
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 10:07:23 AM
1 up, 0 down
xenris
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 11:14:07 AM
1 up, 0 down
Teddie9
Monday, February 11, 2013 @ 10:40:48 PM
Reply
2 up, 0 down
Knightzane
Monday, February 11, 2013 @ 10:45:09 PM
Reply
2 up, 1 down
Xombito
Monday, February 11, 2013 @ 11:08:14 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
TheIllusiveMan
Monday, February 11, 2013 @ 11:50:40 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 1:29:55 AM
1 up, 1 down
Akuma07
Monday, February 11, 2013 @ 11:54:33 PM
Reply
They REALLY need to stop doing this, it WILL suffer in the end. AC was one of those amazing new IPs that had such potential, then ACII came out and blew our minds, ACIII is the only truely worthy successor to ACII and they were 3 years apart.
I really am bored with the same games every single year.
1 up, 0 down
I007spectre
Monday, February 11, 2013 @ 11:57:29 PM
Reply
2 up, 1 down
Kratoskillall09
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 12:19:22 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
AcHiLLiA
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 12:21:44 AM
Reply
Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 2/12/2013 12:27:10 AM
1 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 1:22:45 AM
Reply
COD is comparable with a sports game, while AC has a focus on story and is more like a movie in that sense.
It's unfortunate that AC is annual, it trivializes the entire series in my opinion.
0 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 2:27:41 AM
3 up, 1 down
JROD0823
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 1:51:44 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Trixta09
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 2:24:06 AM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 2:24:26 AM
Reply
CoD is what it is at this point and people have accepted it. Activision and the developers obviously have no interest in building a new engine or changing anything about the game.
Ubisoft released AC3, and the franchise (although not even near its last breath) was rejuvenated. They obviously want to create the best possible game and that takes time.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 2/12/2013 2:25:24 AM
0 up, 0 down
gungrave
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 2:44:22 AM
Reply
0 up, 2 down
jugheadjones
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 3:44:14 AM
Reply
0 up, 2 down
Gordo
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 4:11:35 AM
Reply
I loved AC2 but didn't have any urge to buy the next couple of spin offs. Liberation on the Vita is excellent though.
COD is just Madden with guns so that needs to be annual for the increments. Doubt I'd buy a COD ever again.
1 up, 1 down
___________
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 4:38:08 AM
Reply
COD is your typical michael bay film it does not need much time to be created, plus there made by 2 entirely different developers so each game gets 2 years development time.
AC on the other hand is a far more complex beast, just the story alone requires more work than the WHOLE COD game!
i wish ubisoft would go back to the franchises roots, 3 was FAR too much of a departure from the series!
put it on the back burner, go back to the original and look at what made the game so popular.
than look at 2 and why it really did blow peoples minds and why it is to this day THE most improved sequel in the history of the industry!
we need to go back to creating a assassins creed game, and not a red dead wannabee!
1 up, 0 down
The Real Deal
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 6:40:03 AM
Reply
P.S. I will not buy either iteration until they have had at least a one year vacation from the market. I am a firm believer in using my money to dictate the industry, i do not condone this type of gaming; its pointless and a waste of time. If you buy either of these two annually, then you better have no qualms when purchasing The Last Us, or any other exclusive.
2 up, 0 down
xenris
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 10:05:23 AM
Reply
AC3 was messy. The story falls to crap, the writing is mediocre and the characters specifically the main character are stiff feeling with only Hatham being remotely interesting. The bugs and glitches are numerous, and it just lacked polish. They messed with the controls streamlining them while removing the ability to just run without engaging free running, which becomes quite irritating when your trying for 100% sync.
Oh and why couldn't they be bothered to give some of the main characters different costumes when it was winter? AAA titles are expected to do things like this, it was ridiculous seeing Colins mother run around in a skirt in waist deep snow.
Heck Ni No Kuni being the "non elite" title that even has different costumes.
At any rate AC3 felt redundant and shallow. It had less mission variety than AC2, most of the game is just, follow this guy, eavesdrop, or kill this dude. Nothing fun like AC2, which had you flying a glider, and assassinating a target during a mascarade ball during the cover of fireworks. AC just needs to refocus. I still love the franchise but it needs to add more variety to mission types, and really polish up its core elements.
As for CoD, I want that game to take a permanent leave of absence until they figure out how to make its multiplayer take some semblance of skill, and they put dedicated servers into the game with the billions of dollars they make every year. Why they still don't have dedicated servers is beyond me, oh thats right they clearly don't care about making it the best experience for the gamers as possible. They use Peer to Peer because it costs them nothing.
2 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 5:10:02 PM
They're trying to tell me Paul Reveres ride took place over a single kilometer in a circle?
1 up, 0 down
slugga_status
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 10:14:55 AM
Reply
CoD just needs a deep sleep for a year maybe 2. I don't know if it's because I'm older now, but the new games just don't hold my attention too long. If I throw in the first MW I could play for hours. Now only a hour if that and I'm done with it for that day, couple days, week, etc.
2 up, 0 down
DrRockso87
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 10:17:06 AM
Reply
Seriously, this is just sad. They've ruined any enjoyment to be had with annual releases of, well, what feels like the same game, each time cheapening what made me fall in love with the series.
I don't care if each game is handled by a different developer. That's not the point. I want to take a break from the series for a year so I can grow to miss it. Now the series is like a needy girlfriend. Always around, constantly calling you while you're at work, never giving you a second to yourself.
You have Watch Dogs and Splinter Cell: Blacklist coming out this year, Ubisoft. Give the series a friggin' break!!
2 up, 0 down
WYO1016
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 10:57:42 AM
Reply
If you're going to charge us $60/year for a game and $50 for the map packs you damn sure better let us get our money's worth out of it.
0 up, 0 down
DjEezzy
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 11:05:01 AM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
Nix50
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 12:26:25 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
ulsterscot
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 12:31:00 PM
Reply
as long as the fans love the annual games and the map packs and as long as sales continue to blow away everything else - keep it coming.
if your not a fan - then "take a break" - pretty sure there is no requirement to buy it.
maybe having raven or sledgehammer working full time on their own cod release so each developer has a 3 year cycle could make the franchise even more fantastic - but it already is omnipotent.
as soon as something more fun comes along (if ever) then Activision can give cod a break.
that assassins creed stuff is really stale and needs a break ...
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 5:07:38 PM
The question is... which one would use an extra year best in terms of promoting it's own innovation?
AC is actually far more innovative with each entry (Revelations excepted), but that's mostly due to having more teams working on it than CoD. If you look at the graphical difference between AC2 and AC3... it's like a whole other generation almost.
0 up, 0 down
Darwin1967
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 1:07:45 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
Twistedfloyd
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 3:24:59 PM
Reply
I don't hate on COD because I don't like it. I think COD4 is one of the best games of this gen, WAW was solid and MW2 was very good. But it also started the absurd killstreaks that have ruined this series. BO II is a new low. Bad maps, no innovation and more overpowered killstreaks.
0 up, 0 down
ulsterscot
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 3:28:31 PM
Reply
the fans demand it - ergo ...
I'd be happy enough with new maps and weapons every few months - looking forward to the modern warfare free to play model when it comes west with all the mw maps
0 up, 0 down
ulsterscot
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 3:28:31 PM
Reply
the fans demand it - ergo ...
I'd be happy enough with new maps and weapons every few months - looking forward to the modern warfare free to play model when it comes west with all the mw maps
0 up, 0 down
Twistedfloyd
Reply
Monday, February 11, 2013 @ 10:14:29 PM
It was frustrating and made me not want to get Revelations because I figured it'd be another good game, but not on the same level, or anywhere near it as II.
But COD has just become so bottom of the barrel in my opinion, that I just can't play it anymore. Everything about is just really weak to me, especially the revered multiplayer.
COD gets my vote.