Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Assassin's Creed Next Year, Will Have Multiplayer

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the two-assassins-one-creed dept.

Games 56

Ubisoft has announced that the next stand-alone Assassin's Creed title will come out next year, and it will be the first in the series to come with an online multiplayer mode. The company also said it will be "shoring up its focus on competitive AAA core titles on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3" in the coming year, making mention of upcoming releases for the Tom Clancy game series and a new Prince of Persia title.

cancel ×

56 comments

I can see it all now... (4, Funny)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762446)

All of six to eight people standing around staring at each other waiting to do a counter...

Re:I can see it all now... (4, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762514)

You're thinking it too simply. Instead of fighting against each other, why not have the assassins work together? More like co-opping. A few players could be going near the target on street and other players assisting from the roofs. Someone making sure that if the target gets away, they're near to block his way. Gameplay that needs simultaneous action from several players. Or two assassins groups trying to assasinate the same target, while trying to protect themself from the other group, the target and his guards and simultaneously trying to execute the job perfectly.

Also Assassins Creed's usual running, jumping and climbing in a large city would make a great races with other players. You have to choose the right ways and know shortcuts and think if you get there faster by climbing to roofs and jumping there over streets.

I love it how more and more games have gone in to this kind of playing, left4dead and borderlands pioneering (and mmo's of course). It's not anymore the counter-strike like two teams or some players against each other.

Re:I can see it all now... (2, Informative)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762562)

> left4dead and borderlands pioneering (and mmo's of course)

Doom had coop more than 15 years ago.

Re:I can see it all now... (2, Informative)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762740)

Even better -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD [wikipedia.org]

(But I see your point -- Doom is easier for the left4dead and borderlands kid to grasp)

Re:I can see it all now... (1)

natet (158905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763138)

I think his point is that there is more ways to do multiplayer than free-for-all or team deathmatch. Left 4 dead and borderlands are some great examples of co-op multiplayer, though certainly not the oldest examples (diablo, for example, featured co-op multiplayer as well).

Re:I can see it all now... (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763602)

More games need co-op multiplayer. I play little else these days (just a touch of team - dm/ctf/... if I need something mindless), and I would love to have enough co-op games to chose between that I actually have choice.

I've played Left4Dead and Borderlands to death, what's the next co-op game due out?

Re:I can see it all now... (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764592)

Army of two, due out this week i believe.

Re:I can see it all now... (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30765680)

Well, I presume you're on about the Army of Two sequel, as the original is nearly two years old.

I hadn't even heard there was a sequel due, and I avoided the original due to:

  • Primarily playing PC games, and it being console-only
  • General dislike of using a gamepad to play shooting games
  • Mixed reviews
  • General dislike of world war / modern day army games

The sequel has had better reviews, but the other points are all still there...

Re:I can see it all now... (1)

pleappleappleap (1182301) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764836)

World of Warcraft?

Re:I can see it all now... (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30765280)

I think you'll find that WoW's been out for a long time.

Re:I can see it all now... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30799834)

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 has a coop mode I believe.

Re:I can see it all now... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30763462)

Yea but the virgin parent poster isn't that old. Nobody past the age of about 16 would think that Assassins Creed would be fun multiplayer since it was as dreadful as modern games come single player.

Re:I can see it all now... (5, Informative)

CraftyJack (1031736) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763686)

Also Assassins Creed's usual running, jumping and climbing in a large city would make a great races with other players.

Oh good. Let's take the most irritating part of the game, and add a 13 year old with a headset.

Re:I can see it all now... (1)

Reapy (688651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770746)

I found ac and ac2's climbing/running system to the most interesting thing in both games. Before AC, I had never seen a 3d climbing and jumping system done better. It was easy and hard all at the same time. If you try to run full out and do not know the route, you mess up and jump to the wrong roof or get stuck up on an object.

It is easy and hard all at the same time. Very well done IMHO.

Re:I can see it all now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30779564)

I agree, the running/jumping is quite fun. But not when done with a group of 13 year olds with headsets.

Re:I can see it all now... (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764090)

You're thinking it too simply. Instead of fighting against each other, why not have the assassins work together? More like co-opping. A few players could be going near the target on street and other players assisting from the roofs

Uh huh, and when I slip my stilleto into your back I will say "oh sorry dude, the targeting system sucks, and i knifed you...tee hee".

I remember playing baldurs gate for the ps2 with a friend of mine, and i was the tank. He would blow up the exploding barrels while I was next to them....on purpose. That is all that will happen here.

But yea - counter is the ez button. Not that combat is hard in this game. The game is about being as stealthy as possible

Re:I can see it all now... (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30767654)

Even better, eight players sat around the computer watching the unskippable twenty-minute monologue before the fight.

fuck that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30762464)

let me be the first to say "fuck that". what the fuck are they thinking, it's a stealth game. multiplayer doesnt work

Re:fuck that (2, Insightful)

greyline (1052440) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763872)

Assassin's Creed is not what I would call a stealth game.

No PC version? (2, Insightful)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762484)

Not that I've got round to playing the first version yet, but are they not going to mention the PC version again? Assassin's Creed 2 has been on the gaming shows already for XBox and PS3, but the PC version (the proper version for a proper machine) won't be out until late February in North American and "2010" in the rest of the world.

Surely they are developing on PCs, and the XBox is a cut-down PC, so they should be able to release it at the same time (and it should be better, since PCs can do more than XBoxes).

Re:No PC version? (3, Insightful)

marmoset (3738) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762520)

Game corporation in "focusing on platforms where they make money" shocker.

Re:No PC version? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30799858)

What? I don't see a Wii version.

Re:No PC version? (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762534)

I guess its more like some kind of licensing deal with Microsoft and Sony. The first game was also released exactly the same way, 2-3 months later on PC (and leaked on the internet months before it was available in stores). Same stupid thing like with GTA series, which really sucks, but I would think they do the same thing with the third version again.

Re:No PC version? (1)

Minimalist360 (1258970) | more than 4 years ago | (#30779058)

Piracy.

Re:No PC version? (3, Insightful)

BeardsmoreA (951706) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762548)

Or to look at it another way, an XBox is a tightly specified closed platform and so waaaaaay easier to do proper robust testing on than the plethora of possible hardware combinations in the generic PC market.

Re:No PC version? (1)

Calinous (985536) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762634)

XBox was a cut down PC, but XBox 360 is something else entirely - no longer x86, and so on.

Re:No PC version? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30762670)

I think its about piracy. If they release all versions at the same times, people will pirate it for their pc rather than buying it for their console. By staggering the releases, impatient gamers have to pay for the game. Sure, you can pirate console games if you mod your console, but that's usually too much of a hassle for the aforementioned impatient gamers.

There's still money to be made from honest PC gamers, so the game eventually gets a PC release, and this way the pirates who will buy the game if they can't download have to pay.

Re:No PC version? (1)

AstrumPreliator (708436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30772272)

I don't think it's necessarily piracy, I just think consoles are more profitable than the PC. As someone above you mentioned, the Xbox is a closed platform. Most of my friends are console gamers and they buy a lot of DLC. I'm a PC gamer myself and I just can't justify the cost of the DLC (on top of the $60 price tag for the console game) when I generally get that stuff for free on the PC or through modifications, community maps, etc...

Now I'm not saying I'm entitled to lots of free stuff, I've just always enjoyed this aspect of PC gaming. I think generally developers favor consoles more because they can make more money through things like paid DLC and map packs.

Re:No PC version? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763948)

and the XBox is a cut-down PC,

Xbox the original was. Xbox 360 isn't. It even uses a PowerPC processor.

Multiplayer? Oh, shit. (4, Insightful)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762708)

Looks like the single-player campaign in Assassin's Creed III is going to suck.

Re:Multiplayer? Oh, shit. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30762742)

How is that different from any of the other Assassin's Creeds?

Re:Multiplayer? Oh, shit. (1, Insightful)

Yamata no Orochi (1626135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764250)

Classic example of -1 Disagree.

Dipshit mods.

Re:Multiplayer? Oh, shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30765398)

The first game was completely ruined by the repetitious gameplay, sure, but at least the mechanics were somewhat innovative.

The second game fixed EVERY issue I had with the first, no exaggeration. I had written a mostly negative review of the first game, but when I went back to look at all my complaints, every single one of them was addressed beautifully. It was the first time I've been blown away by a sequel.

Plus, da Vinci, man. Leonardo dafuckken Vinci.

For their hard work on the second game, I am willing to give them a chance to wow me again.

Re:Multiplayer? Oh, shit. (2, Insightful)

Cornelius the Great (555189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763238)

The addition of multiplayer in Uncharted 2 didn't seem to hinder single player quality.

Re:Multiplayer? Oh, shit. (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763978)

A single exception doesn't disprove the rule. Generally, for a game that implements both single player and multiplayer, one or the other of the experiences is going to be lacking.

Personally, I've seen way too many multiplayer games lately. Sometimes I just want to come home, plop down on my couche, and play by my self. I'm glad at least Dragon Age is seeming to stick to it's single-player mission.

Re:Multiplayer? Oh, shit. (2, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30765952)

A single exception doesn't disprove the rule. Generally, for a game that implements both single player and multiplayer, one or the other of the experiences is going to be lacking.

Personally, I've seen way too many multiplayer games lately. Sometimes I just want to come home, plop down on my couche, and play by my self. I'm glad at least Dragon Age is seeming to stick to it's single-player mission.

Another complaint is the lack of bots for multiplayer. After finishing the single-player mission, I also want to plop on the couch and play single-player, but want to just play some bots instead of having to do the whole matchmaking thing. Sometimes I just feel I need to sit down and kill/blast something. Especially since I'm not that great a player and want to do a quick few minutes before getting on with life.

Or I have a friend over and we'd like to have someone to challenge with.

Re:Multiplayer? Oh, shit. (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 4 years ago | (#30766078)

I suppose it's hard to hinder something that was never good to start with.

I just beat Uncharted 1 and man, was that game fucking annoying.

Re:Multiplayer? Oh, shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30766700)

The multiplayer is so bad in that game that the single player just seems very nice.

Re:Multiplayer? Oh, shit. (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764118)

Just like Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory's campaign did?

No, if anything is going to suck, my money is on the multiplayer mode. But seeing what they did with the SC series, even that is a bit doubtful for me.

Why? (-1, Offtopic)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762712)

When I wasn't logged in I had the option to vote this article dow but having tried to vote it gets me to logged and I can no longer vote. What's going on?

Re:Why? (-1, Offtopic)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762720)

And it seems to have affected my language skills! Not logged in: option to vote, trying to vote forces me to log in. Having logged in, can no longer see the option to vote this article down. Why?

Re:Why? (1)

Calydor (739835) | more than 4 years ago | (#30765344)

Probably because the vote action happened when you logged in.

This should be interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30762922)

If Uncharted 2 online is anything to go by, subtract the numerous guns and add more freedom with respect to climbing and you have equally awesome gameplay.
Of course, the 3rd person perspective kind of takes away from the sneaking in both cases, more so in AC since that is one of the biggest facets of the gameplay.

And this is just going by what you'd expect to see, we don't know about modes, upgrading characters and so on.

I just hope they don't cut back on single player much.

This is great news for me! (5, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762934)

Because the one thing I hate more than anything else is having to decide whether to play a new game, instead of the latest version of the game franchises that I've already committed to.

Mind you, there's still a bit too much choice in the market. Assassin's Creed is way too much like Prince of Persia for my tastes. Couldn't they combine them in some way so that I don't have to make any choice at all? And just call it Jumpy Swingy Stabby so that I know what I'm getting?

Likewise with having to decide between Tom Clancy versus Metal Gear - why not just make Sneaky Snappy Shooty?

Come on, games industry, get with the program. There's no need for all this confusing, infuriating choice and originality! Just give us more of what we already like, every year, forever. Where's my Drive Pimp Murder Drive 2010?

Re:This is great news for me! (1)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 4 years ago | (#30762990)

Yeah. Choice sucks. We should have LinWinMacs for operating systems and Chrome Fire Explorers for web browsers. . . Are you trying to be funny or satirical? Because if not, then what the hell are you thinking?

Re:This is great news for me! (2, Funny)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763896)

It's whoosh Jim, but not as we know it.

Re:This is great news for me! (1)

Yamata no Orochi (1626135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764284)

Whoosh. I would think, "Jumpy Swingy Stabby," would've clued you in.

Re:This is great news for me! (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30799888)

I'm playing Swim Swim Hungry for now.

Multiplayer (5, Funny)

glwtta (532858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763100)

So, does that mean they are going to call this one "Assassins' Creed", then?

moD uP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30765548)

and abroad for are tied up in lubrication. You it's going, BSD machines, Baby take my perform keeping our ability to diseases. The

mod l$down (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30765884)

Get ready for rampant idiocy (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 4 years ago | (#30766702)

...as multiplayer seems to inevitably bring it out somewhere. You might find some great players, but you may find some who insist on getting you killed by guards and then teabagging you, or find some other way to grief you.

That said, it still sounds like it has some serious fun potential, especially if it's cooperative.

Woo (1)

kentnarrows (1721264) | more than 4 years ago | (#30769350)

I like multiplayer sandbox games. Though I'm more hyped for Crackdown 2.

another game with multiplayer? (1)

Seahawker101 (643662) | more than 4 years ago | (#30776146)

Why can't developers just stick to games that have no multiplayer? I don't get the rampant need for every game that comes out to have a multiplayer option. Whatever happened to just sitting down and playing a game at home without the option for multiplayer? Sure playing a game with friends is nice, but now a mainly stealth games need a multiplayer option as well? I'll most likely get the game, but I can live without multiplayer.

Multiplayer? (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30782452)

Has someone bitched about "why does every game have to be multiplayer" yet like the Dragon Age thread?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...