Official Assassin's Creed III Thread

[Crotale]

It's fine you don't believe Beiswenger's claim, but it will be up to Ubisoft's legal team to show development actually began prior to January 2003 and that the intent was to create the animus, et al, without having knowledge of Beiswenger's book. Jade Raymond claims 2004 is when development started, yet you are claiming 2002. Why the disparity?

Whether you want to admit it or not, there are many similarities between the book and the games, almost too many to believe it is mere coincidence.

I find it telling that you disbelieve Beiswenger, for seemingly petty reasoning. It stands to reason that a person who isn't an avid gamer probably will not know anything about AC games other than the title names themselves. Aside from that, nothing in the trailers elude to the many of the details mentioned in the plaintiff's complaint.

What irritates me about the case so far is that a bunch of snotnosed gamers decided to give the author a "taste of his own medicine" by rating down his novel on Amazon. There were comments ranging from, "We will teach him not to fuck with us gamers," to "He doesn't know who he's messing with." Really, the guy is going through the court system and they decide to take mob measures. I say let it play out in court. I doubt this will have any effect on AC3's dev cycle.

[Spiderpig24]

It's fine you don't believe Beiswenger's claim, but it will be up to Ubisoft's legal team to show development actually began prior to January 2003 and that the intent was to create the animus, et al, without having knowledge of Beiswenger's book. Jade Raymond claims 2004 is when development started, yet you are claiming 2002. Why the disparity?

Whether you want to admit it or not, there are many similarities between the book and the games, almost too many to believe it is mere coincidence.

I find it telling that you disbelieve Beiswenger, for seemingly petty reasoning. It stands to reason that a person who isn't an avid gamer probably will not know anything about AC games other than the title names themselves. Aside from that, nothing in the trailers elude to the many of the details mentioned in the plaintiff's complaint.

What irritates me about the case so far is that a bunch of snotnosed gamers decided to give the author a "taste of his own medicine" by rating down his novel on Amazon. There were comments ranging from, "We will teach him not to fuck with us gamers," to "He doesn't know who he's messing with." Really, the guy is going through the court system and they decide to take mob measures. I say let it play out in court. I doubt this will have any effect on AC3's dev cycle.

That's absolutely ridiculous, it's pathetic what people will do just because the author is using the legal system to do take part in a legitimate case. It reminds me of users bashing the Metacritic scores of Modern Warfare 3 and Mass Effect 3, knowing that they haven't played it just to give it a bad review. I do wish Amazon would implement some sort of 'report review' feature into their site, as about the only thing you can do now is downvote them and send an email to Amazon's customer service, which I have just done. Hopefully the reviews will be removed. What Amazon will likely have to do in the future is require a purchase in order to give it a review.

[Daemon]

What irritates me about the case so far is that a bunch of snotnosed gamers decided to give the author a "taste of his own medicine" by rating down his novel on Amazon. There were comments ranging from, "We will teach him not to fuck with us gamers," to "He doesn't know who he's messing with." Really, the guy is going through the court system and they decide to take mob measures. I say let it play out in court. I doubt this will have any effect on AC3's dev cycle.

Makes me sick.

[Spiderpig24]

as a gamer, its my job to defend the games i love so much! this man wants money the easy way, by trying to sue a game company who he thinks stole his idea.

What kind of a person does this?

[Pleiades]

What kind of a person does this?

A stupid one.

[Spiderpig24]

There actually is a "Report abuse" feature on Amazon's reviews, so here's to actually seeing if they remove them.

[Throavium]

Game companies don't care about their fans' loyalty to them. If anything, the fans who are defending this are fighting for a pointless cause.

[Leegion]

@Crotale

The game went into development in 2004, as in it started to be created. Before that there was the pre-production phase, like a movie where a script needs to be penned and a setting needs to be decided. Before they even went into development they would've needed to study places they could use in their game, such as Jerusalem and Damascus.

That would have taken at least a year, so it puts it back in 2003 sometime. Then Ubisoft would've had to have approved the script the writer submitted. And let me say this: A story takes years to develop which means the writer probably started penning it years prior to actually submitting it to Ubisoft. Meaning either 2000, 2001 or 2002 is likely when they wrote the scripts for the game and Link wasn't even out yet.

Also, the Amazon rating is low because the book sucks (I never rated it, but I'd give it a 2 out of 5, because the idea is good, but the outcome is boring and bland). I read it, found it in the library, it's god awful. Beiswenger's choice of vocabulary and his writing style in general are both bland, boring and redundant. At no time in the book do you ever think that there's danger ahead for a character, at no time do you feel anything for the characters in his book and you're not amazed at this "Biological Synchronizer" because he explains it in the most monotonous way humanly possible.

Oh I see there, yeah, rating a book low without reading it is wrong. They shouldn't do that.

He doesn't have a case here, I'm sorry, but he just feels annoyed because someone used a similar idea and made more money from it than he did. Sure the ideas might be "similar" but who's to say Beiswenger didn't see an earlier script of AC and rip it off himself?

[Spiderpig24]

@Crotale

The game went into development in 2004, as in it started to be created. Before that there was the pre-production phase, like a movie where a script needs to be penned and a setting needs to be decided. Before they even went into development they would've needed to study places they could use in their game, such as Jerusalem and Damascus.

That would have taken at least a year, so it puts it back in 2003 sometime. Then Ubisoft would've had to have approved the script the writer submitted. And let me say this: A story takes years to develop which means the writer probably started penning it years prior to actually submitting it to Ubisoft. Meaning either 2000, 2001 or 2002 is likely when they wrote the scripts for the game and Link wasn't even out yet.

While they most likely did start the game before the release of the Link book, they still have to be able to prove it in court. Just saying that it SHOULD have been in pre-production SOMETIME before/during 2003 and that it SHOULD take a certain amount of time to develop the story isn't enough.

[Leegion]

While they most likely did start the game before the release of the Link book, they still have to be able to prove it in court. Just saying that it SHOULD have been in pre-production SOMETIME before/during 2003 and that it SHOULD take a certain amount of time to develop the story isn't enough.

I agree with you, I just hope they can provide the proof. I know it existed in 2002, I've seen the original script. I just hope they haven't lost it.

[Crotale]

I agree with you, I just hope they can provide the proof. I know it existed in 2002, I've seen the original script. I just hope they haven't lost it.

If Ubisoft has proof, then they are likely in the clear. However, there is still more to the argument than simply the dates involved. Ubisoft would need to show non-repudiated evidence with those dates. Even a registered copyright of the AC name won't suffice.

The reason I feel this may have a case, even a remote one, is that there are far too many similarities between the stories as listed in the complaint. You say you read the book and you came away seeing some parallels but but nothing substantial. The only way to prove or disprove the book was used to create the base story for AC games is to allow for discovery. In the off chance that Ubisoft may have misappropriated the story, finding and damages will be based on the percentage of similarities that appear to be more than coincidental.

[RAiDeN-209]

New trailer released:



Badass, right? Well there's more.

If enough people 'like' Revelations here, they'll release a brand new gameplay trailer.

[Pleiades]

New trailer is out.



This is looks like a big improvement over Revelations, in terms of gameplay.

[Leegion]

Now that I've seen the new trailer I hope it doesn't get delayed at all. Just noticed that this Beiswenger case is tripe again. Saw a statement from his lawyer, according to the claim, Beiswenger is seeking damages from AC due to three specific details "Assassinations, Biblical and spiritual tones and the battle between good and evil." Sorry Beis, but Assassinations aren't yours, the bible doesn't belong to you and the battle between good and evil has been seen in quite literally, every single transformative work over the past 200 years.

Please, if there is a GOD do not let this game get delayed.

[Bastart]

Those sea battles looked to be a nice change and an interesting expansion to the already fun combat/stealth gameplay.
I'm even more looking forward to the title and I really hope it's breathing some new life into the franchise.

[Pleiades]

Assassin's Creed III: Liberation impressions

I've just had a chance to see a hands-off demo of Assassin's Creed: Liberation, the new Assassin's Creed game exclusive to Sony's handheld Vita. I've complained in the past that Assassin's Creed combat is way too easy, and yet this newest iteration in the franchise manages to make combat even easier.

Though well, it also makes combat harder. Let me explain.

In broad strokes, the game plays similarly to other Assassin's Creed games. As I watched, the protagonist, a Creole woman named Aveline, crept along a rooftop above some Spanish guards—in the game's setting of New Orleans, the Spanish and French are fighting, and the Spanish are the Templar bad guys. In true Assassin's Creed fashion, Aveline took a couple of them down in one flying leap.

What happened next was a surprise, though. The action paused, the color faded, and icons lit up over the remaining soldiers. My demonstrator then tagged the soldiers using the Vita's touch screen, and Aveline automatically wiped them out, one at a time.

This power, called a "chain kill," isn't some one-time-only superpower; it's something players can do whenever they want, and is designed to let players who don't want to deal with long swordfights bypass them.

Of course, it's optional, so if you want a more challenging experience, you can forgo the chain kills. Interestingly enough, the chain kills seem to have been added because the core combat has (actually!) been made more difficult. Ubisoft giveth, and Ubisoft taketh away.

The added difficulty comes because there's no longer a perpetual block button—players can't just hold down the button and then mash the "counter" button to do an instakill. Instead, you have to feint and draw opponents out, then perform counters while remaining vulnerable to attack. I didn't have a chance to play the game, but as I watched my demonstrator get his ass kicked by some spanish guards, it became clear that he was unable to do the old Assassin's Creed block-parry two-step.

A few other things I noticed about the game:

• Liberation has a dedicated jump button, the X button. The right trigger runs, but doesn't automatically jump at ledges instead, you have to press X to jump. That's a big change from a series that typically hasn't had a real jump button.
• I watched a sequence similar to more recent console games' horse and buggy chase sequences; the demonstrator tapped the touch screen to increase the horses' speed and held his finger down to make them slow down. I'm unsold on how fun this would be, but then, I didn't like those sequences in the console games either.
• The game will have an economy like in the console games, though it will be different and "exclusive to the Vita," whatever that means.
• We have confirmation on the alligators in the bayou sections. There will be alligators. Alligators!
• The top devs did the requisite fact-finding trip to New Orleans, and a lot of the city's famous buildings are looking mighty nice.
• Aveline's animations are totally new, and use the same animation tools as Assassin's Creed III; Aveline has a lot of Connor's moves, including pulling up an enemy as a human shield when faced with gunmen.
• Aveline has a machete, which I didn't see used, and a blow-gun, which I did. While she was in one of the series' ubiquitous haystacks, she fired off a dart that poisoned one guard, luring another over to his location for a good neck-stabbing.
• The characters in the game are all based on real historical figures, with the exception of Aveline herself; she's an amalgamation. If a character in the game dies, they died in real life at the same time.

Source: Kotaku

This sounds better than Connor's game.

[Throavium]

Assassin's Creed III: Liberation impressions



Source: Kotaku

This sounds better than Connor's game.

Thanks

[Daemon]

This sounds better than Connor's game.

Sounds kind of the same to be perfectly honest, minus the jump button. I just wish it was on consoles or PC.

[Pleiades]

Sounds kind of the same to be perfectly honest, minus the jump button. I just wish it was on consoles or PC.

The more difficult combat system sounds infinitely better than what's been in any of the previous games (and I assume ACIII).

And I don't see the need for Liberation to be on other systems. The Vita needs this.

[Throavium]

Sounds kind of the same to be perfectly honest, minus the jump button. I just wish it was on consoles or PC.

Assassin's Creed III will be on consoles though.