Why did they suddenly stop numbering Assassin's Creed games after ACIV...

Why did they suddenly stop numbering Assassin's Creed games after ACIV? Do you think they'll suddenly make an ACV when they need to reinvent the series again, or is it too late to use that number? It gives off the impression that there are only four main games and everything else is a spinoff, even though they treat these new ones with the same importance.

Attached: ACBF_reg_ed_Cover.jpg (454x600, 59K)

I think I remember them talking about that, but I'm not entirely sure. I assume they stopped numbering them because they thought Assassins Creed 9 would wound weird or excessive. Most series stop numbering themselves after a certain number, usually 3 or 4.

saving it for the inevitable WWII assasin's creed V?

Black Flag was the only really good entry (Origins is pretty cool)

I'll fight anyone on this.

I challenge you to a fencing match.

yeah that is kind of true thinking about it now. Except I don't think jap games do that, look at final fantasy and dragon quest.

Attached: Musroombine.jpg (1200x914, 502K)

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

They'll soft reboot it before numbering again.

I still have no idea why people unironically would want this. There are a trillion WW2 games. Why have the one series that's good for giving underutilized time periods, WW2 of all things? Climbing the Eiffel Tower during WW2 in Unity was fucking cool though. WW2 in that game actually looked kind of scary, with all the sirens going off and everything.

Ultima IX
Wizardry 8
Might and Magic X

Considering how Rogue was another BF, why don't you mention that as pretty cool as well?

Odyssey is just Origins, but better. Difference in whether or not it's "pretty cool" is subjective and not worth fighting over because I could beat up you and your estranged father.

Nah they're saving it for the one with vampires.
>Assassin's Creed V:ampire

So they actually did use WW2 in a game and people are saying "Where's my WW2 AC?" Do the people who demand certain time periods for this game even play the series?

It's less cool when they just repeat the same thing a second time as a cash-in.

>visit countless bland islands that all look exactly the same, with nothing to do but radiant missions and box ticking collect-a-thons, and free run through trees that were obviously placed in front of eachother for you to run on in a non-natural way
>literally impossible to be killed by enemies, I forgot to upgrade my gear until I beat the game because it was so easy
>stealth is pointless because you can massacre everything in sight in 1/10 the time with no risk of death since the game is so easy
wow what a great game

Isn't that basically what Vampyr is? Assassin's Creed with vampires?

Funny you should say that. I fenced Saber for years back in the day. I was rated and everything. You might not win.

Final Fantasy XIX

oh, don't let me paint an inaccurate picture. I haven't played Odyssey. It might be good.

from everything I've seen, BF is just a step up entirely.

Ssh, don't tell anyone. I want a vampire assassin's creed game, damn it. Or Vampires in RDR, something and not the pretty misunderstood kind either. The gather the town and fight off the 30 days of night kind.

>let me exaggerate and be a contrarian for shits and giggles. Please answer me in good faith.
gtfo.

>no Black Flag with all the gay assassin shit stripped out and replaced with interesting economics and joinable factions in a Just Cause style Caribbean sandbox

Dude. I really want that.

If you actually manage to die in this game you have to be either physically disabled or mentally retarded. The amount of time you have to react and press the counter button is completely absurd, and once you get a combo going it's just button mash to win, and occasionally press A to break a big guys guard. You can't tell me that the islands are unique, with the exception of the heavily scripted main quest islands. Please explain to me why I should use stealth? Why would I want to sit in a hay stack for 10 minutes to silently kill enemies that pose no threat to me. Stealth in games like thief works because the enemies are stronger than you in groups. In Black Flag you are literally God's fist

Sea of Thieves

>tfw no Assassin´s Creed V:Empire about Vlad the Impaler

I keep hoping that the three V:tM games will reignite interest in vampire games, but I feel like it'll kill it if shit hits the fan even before they release.

There's three?

But its still super cool. Even if you want to consider it a tier lower than 4, it's still absolutely worth playing. So you can't say the two you mentioned are the only two really good ones. Not to mention Rogue's story and setting were way cooler than 4. It just sucked since it was way lower budget, and it doesn't deny it's essentially 4.5

Yeah, made by three different studios. Some journalists reported it and they link to the devs' facebook pages. One is set in NY if I remember right, and the other one's Bloodlines 2 set in Seattle.

It's been a while... but you very well may be right in the difficulty part of your post. I can only remember once or twice where I got into a bit of trouble... but sailing the seas with a loyal crew kicking ass, singing sea shanties, and taking down forts/man o' wars isn't fun? You're boring.

They stopped numbering them because people inadvertently become less interested in something when it has 9 sequels.

>Assassin's Creed 12: Fuck It Edition

Attached: 1534443254418.jpg (437x461, 64K)

I think the real reason why they don't number ACs is because of how frequently they make them. This and Call of Duty are like the only modern franchises that are up to over a dozen games because they get at least one new game every year. Most franchises wait a few years between them so it takes them a long time to approach 3 or 4. This also has the effect of dampening sequel fear because you don't feel like "Oh I can't play this game, I haven't played the other ones" when it just has a title like Origins.

I don't find pleasure in games unless there is a challenge to overcome and a sense that I can lose (or at least die). What is the point of playing a game if you know you will easily crush everything in your path. If I wanted to watch a movie, I would just watch a movie and not deal with long collect a thons and grind fests

Is that so?

It's not like the numbering mattered. Brotherhood and Revelations were both mainline games that directly carry on from AC2 and end just before AC3, yet they didn't get numbers. AC3 was really AC5.

I'd wager that for fantasy games, having a big number on the end is actually a good trend for marketing purposes, just like how in the book world having an enormous page count is considered a saleable quality for a fantasy book to have.
Another example is MGSV, which is known for being a convoluted story-based series. The big number is actually part of the appeal, it makes you feel like you're being invited to join in on some massive project.
Also why fantasy series typically like to come in trilogies or septilogies.

AC3 was AC3. It jumped to a new ancestor and new time period. AC:B and AC:R weren't numbered because they were intended to be thought of as expansions to AC2, but they fucked up and decided to push the Desmond storyline forward in those games.

>Another example is MGSV, which is known for being a convoluted story-based series. The big number is actually part of the appeal, it makes you feel like you're being invited to join in on some massive project.
Which is ironic in that case considering MGSV isn't really an MGS game. Gameplay and storytelling is completely different. Kojima is fucking weird for soft-rebooting the series on the last game.

The real way they fucked up is that every game after AC4 is unnumbered despite jumping time periods every couple games since then. If they didn't get scared of numbers then Unity would have been 5.