[quote]They both seem to get a lot of hate from AC “purists” who don’t like the fact the series changed from its roots. But honestly as a non-AC fan I think they were both were great[/quote] I’d consider this a problem in it of itself. Any franchise that has very many “purists” disliking the newer entries in the series is likely a victim of the franchise deciding to ignore its fans in favor of wider general appeal. And if you ask me, that’s kind of a crummy thing to do.

Why is it crummy? The game makers don’t owe it to anyone to make the game in a particular way. It’s Ubisofts franchise and they have every right to do whatever they like with it. You can’t expect them to keep making the same game every year without people getting bored of it - which is exactly what happened. Sales began to decline. Origins and Odyssey have reversed that trend. So Ubisoft had a choice keep remaking essentially the same game with ever diminishing returns or try something new. They went with the latter. Frankly I couldn’t care less if old fans are butthurt. I don’t care what name they slap on the front of the box - as long as it’s a good game I’ll play it. If you really don’t like the new direction of the game that’s fine that’s your choice - don’t play it. But don’t hold your breath waiting for them to go back to the old style game when the new style is more popular (in terms of sales and critical success). I would also note that many of the fans of the old games also enjoy the new ones. So it’s not a given that your opinion on this is representative of [i]every[/i] ”fans” opinion.

[quote]Why is it crummy? The game makers don’t owe it to anyone to make the game in a particular way. It’s Ubisofts franchise and they have every right to do whatever they like with it.[/quote] If you make something a franchise, you’re implying to your customers that it’s something at least remotely similar (spinoffs aside). That’s why there’s a “2” on the box, instead of a whole new title. [quote]You can’t expect them to keep making the same game every year without people getting bored of it - which is exactly what happened. Sales began to decline. Origins and Odyssey have reversed that trend. So Ubisoft had a choice keep remaking essentially the same game with ever diminishing returns or try something new. They went with the latter. [/quote] AC wasn’t the same game every year. There were a couple that were (the Ezio trilogy, and Black Flag/Rogue), but for the most part each game shook up the formula enough that it always felt new & fresh, while also being familiar. But if sales were declining, and they just wanted to make an RPG, then they should’ve just canned AC and made an RPG. If I see something with “Assassin’s Creed” on the box, I’m picking it up to play a stealth game. [quote]Frankly I couldn’t care less if old fans are butthurt. I don’t care what name they slap on the front of the box - as long as it’s a good game I’ll play it. If you really don’t like the new direction of the game that’s fine that’s your choice - don’t play it. But don’t hold your breath waiting for them to go back to the old style game when the new style is more popular (in terms of sales and critical success).[/quote] The name that’s on the box is important, though. Again, barring spinoffs, if you see a game titled “Halo” you can grab it without knowing anything about it, and know you’re getting an FPS, or you’ll know a Final Fantasy game is an RPG, etc. But you know, if it were at least a good game I could give it a partial pass, like I do with BotW (which I still don’t like, but at least it was enjoyable for what it was), but Origins wasn’t even a good game. Probably the most boring game I’ve ever played.

Your complaint is essentially that they put the Assassins Creed name on a game that strayed too far from the old mechanics. Fair enough. Like I said I don’t care what name they put on the box - I’m more concerned about whether it’s actually a good game than what the game is called. That just me though. You are free to not play it if you like [quote]But you know, if it were at least a good game I could give it a partial pass, like I do with BotW (which I still don’t like, but at least it was enjoyable for what it was), but Origins wasn’t even a good game. Probably the most boring game I’ve ever played.[/quote] Odyssey was a much better game than Origins. But whether or not you enjoy it or not is a completely subjective opinion. From previous posts by you I’m aware of your dislike generally for open world RPG games like this. That’s fine, they aren’t for everyone. This game is modelled more on The Witcher 3 than BOTW. So that’s a better comparison I think. If you didn’t like the Witcher 3 you definitely won’t like Odyssey. Fact is though this style of game is hugely popular even if you personally don’t like them. The response to Odyssey was very positive - and rightly so. It’s a good game (for people who like those sorts of games). I don’t really care if it’s a good Assassins Creed game or not. Edit: Also it’s not without precedent for devs to totally rework a franchise. Look at the latest God of War for example. It plays nothing like the old hack and slash games. Still a great game though. Also Zelda has gone through many many changes over the years. Why not Assassins Creed too?

[quote]Your complaint is essentially that they put the Assassins Creed name on a game that strayed too far from the old mechanics. Fair enough. Like I said I don’t care what name they put on the box - I’m more concerned about whether it’s actually a good game than what the game is called. That just me though. You are free to not play it if you like [/quote] It’s not my only complaint, but yeah it’s the most relevant one. It doesn’t help my opinion that I picked up Origins thinking it was a stealth game. I won’t ever be picking up Odyssey, though. I dropped the series after Origins. [quote]Odyssey was a much better game than Origins. But whether or not you enjoy it or not is a completely subjective opinion. From previous posts by you I’m aware of your dislike generally for open world RPG games like this. That’s fine, they aren’t for everyone. This game is modelled more on The Witcher 3 than BOTW. So that’s a better comparison I think. If you didn’t like the Witcher 3 you definitely won’t like Odyssey. Fact is though this style of game is hugely popular even if you personally don’t like them. The response to Odyssey was very positive - and rightly so. It’s a good game (for people who like those sorts of games). I don’t really care if it’s a good Assassins Creed game or not.[/quote] Haven’t played TW3, and don’t really plan to. I don’t like that style of game at all, but that’s part of why I get angry at this happening so much. Because us folk that don’t like this genre used to be able to sit by and say “Well, at least I have [insert franchise].”. Except, all those franchises decide to hop onboard the open world RPG train, and we get left in the dust. I get really annoyed even when I see it with franchises I don’t play. It’s not that hard to label it as a spinoff, or give it a new jamblasted title.

Times change and gamers tastes change. You can’t blame developers for jumping on a trend. That’s the nature of business - first an foremost big AAA developers have to make money. Me personally I’m not a fan of the Battle Royale trend or the “Live service” looter shooter trend. No use complaining about it though as that’s what people are buying these days.