Some 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?

Subscribe
Notify of
43 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Twistedfloyd
Twistedfloyd
8 years ago

COD definitely. The decline in quality year after year is crazy. I can't speak for Revelations or III since I haven't played either one, but it was frustrating to see AC annualized after the pinnacle of the series to me, AC II. Where a lot of time and love was put into it. Brotherhood felt like a big expansion pack, while it was a darn good expansion pack, the story felt quite rushed.

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.

Nas Is Like
Nas Is Like
8 years ago

Black Ops 2 is a great game though. Best one since Modern Warfare 2, which came out in 2009. Just my opinion though.

firesoul453
firesoul453
8 years ago

I agree. People love to hate COD but it does offer a lot to do and black ops is the best one yet in my opinion.

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

StevieRV
StevieRV
8 years ago

yep i agree with Nas, Black Ops 2 is the best since mw2, but having said that, mw2 is still light years better

xenris
xenris
8 years ago

Define the best. If you look at technical elements Black Ops 1 was the best for bringing skill back into the game. No quite scoping, the guns did a little less damage, and the aim assist was less obnoxious.

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.

Underdog15
Underdog15
8 years ago

Shotguns in bo2 have ruined the game. Everyone runs around with shotguns fired from the hip that are more accurate than snipers.

slugga_status
slugga_status
8 years ago

Black Ops 2 is fun..but MW2 was ok..There hasn't been a top notch CoD since the original MW

xenris
xenris
8 years ago

Definitely agree. MW1 was the best CoD to date. It added those features that everyone loves about CoD now like perks, killstreaks etc. But it was still balanced.

Teddie9
Teddie9
8 years ago

I say AC, I could care less what happens to the other series.

Corvo
Corvo
8 years ago

Assassins creed. After the horrible story that was Desmond, i feel they need to go back and look at the story they had going for the present characters in AC1. It was more of a learning experience while the animus provided some epic time travel. Just my opinion though.

Corvo
Corvo
8 years ago

i have an avatar… OMG

Xombito
Xombito
8 years ago

I say both. I can't even keep up. And I want to play AC III. It may be by the end of the year before I get to try it.

TheIllusiveMan
TheIllusiveMan
8 years ago

I thought AC was confirmed for next year anyways though?

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
8 years ago

It was confirmed for Ubisoft's next fiscal year, which runs between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014…chances are, they won't release a new title in the first quarter of 2014, so it'll probably be another holiday title for this year.

Akuma_
Akuma_
8 years ago

Didn't Ubi say they were going to space out the development of Assassins Creed games.

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.

I007spectre
I007spectre
8 years ago

Assassins Creed. Take a year off, then blow our minds on PS4.

Kratoskillall09
Kratoskillall09
8 years ago

This is a no brainer for me. COD needs to take a year off. They needed to 2 years ago. At least AC makes some progression in game play and stuff like that. COD does nothing new with very few tweaks to online portion and just a half a**ed single player campaign.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
8 years ago

COD for sure, it gets old fast (multiplayer, campaign is fine). If they make a big open world shoot out for multiplayer that will be something great. These clowns ain't getting my full money until then.


Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 2/12/2013 12:27:10 AM

Beamboom
Beamboom
8 years ago

For me there is no doubt: Assassins Creed.
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.

bigrailer19
bigrailer19
8 years ago

Agreed. Ubisoft needs to slow down. Although I wouldnt mind an alternating PoP and AC release year after year! ūüėČ

JROD0823
JROD0823
8 years ago

I don't see how this couldn't be a unanimous decision. CoD needs not only one year off, it likely needs five.

Trixta09
Trixta09
8 years ago

Honestly…..both. AC was one of the most original games i've ever played. then a few years later i fell deeper in love with ACII. Thorough time and love is what makes a video game great. Just look at the GTA franchise for example. Or even the Halos and GOW. After AC went annualized i was really let down that such a company would risk AC quality. AC is the definition of an adventure game…but seeing the path the franchise is taking now…im pretty disappointed and really hopeful that it doesn't fall under the COD curse. COD is great too, but lets be honest, i havent been excited about a COD game since the 1st modern warfare. I just buy to play with my friends. I'm sure BO II is a great game, but its still the same ol FPS we've been playing for years. The graphics are starting to look dated and the gameplay is getting repetitive. Bottom line, annualization sucks and in order to keeps us as fans of both games, give it a rest and go back to putting hearts and souls into games for a better experience. No matter how long it takes. Trust me, if it looks good, we'll wait forever.

bigrailer19
bigrailer19
8 years ago

I think AC needs a break honestly. I say that because I really think AC3 did a lot more right in the span of development than AC2, Brotherhood, and Revelations did in the same amount of time. What im getting at is obviously the time spent with AC3 was worthwhile. In the mean time overall quality was degrading from AC2 to Revalations, although I still enjoyed them all.

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

gungrave
gungrave
8 years ago

I say neither. Both companies know what their fan base want and they keep delivering. Think about it, if Square would release a FF that kept the old school formula. I would definitely buy FF every year. I say keep at it, should the quality of the titles go down, the fans would speak with their wallets.

Snaaaake
Snaaaake
8 years ago

Both!!!!

jugheadjones
jugheadjones
8 years ago

I haven't found an AC I didn't like. I enjoyed playing all of them. I'm not really into COD type games. I'm more of a stealthy Splinter Cell type. If I have a wide open war game, I would rather it be an RTS. Having said that, though, I believe AC needs the year off more. The reason for that is that they seem to come out at an alarming rate, whereas COD seems to be better paced in their releases. I would hate for them to become stale. Although, I do like how they have been changing direction, and eras, with their recent ones. The female lead in the Vita game is a nice change, too. As I007spectre said, I would like them to take a year off and knock our socks off on the PS4.

Gordo
Gordo
8 years ago

Well, the only way they'll stop is when we stop buying them so the future is in our hands…

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.

___________
___________
8 years ago

DEFIANTLY AC!
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!

The Real Deal
The Real Deal
8 years ago

Clearly neither, seeming how they meet or exceed expectations every year. I can say i have taking a step in the right direction, I didn't buy either. Those asking they take a break, shouldn't buy the next one. Why would a company give up that much profit, It really equates to pennies on the dollar for them to make them. Have you seen there sale numbers, enough said.

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.

xenris
xenris
8 years ago

Amen.

xenris
xenris
8 years ago

Well suffice to say I was terribly disappointed with AC3 on several levels. AC2 was the best in the franchise. It added the most new elements from its predecessor while keeping all the good parts in tact.

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.

Underdog15
Underdog15
8 years ago

I agree about AC3. Story was underwhelming.

They're trying to tell me Paul Reveres ride took place over a single kilometer in a circle?

slugga_status
slugga_status
8 years ago

I'd have to say both. AC is one of my favorites series of the generation. However, I'd rather them slow down with the story instead of speed rushing through. After I beat AC II I jumped right into Brotherhood. Brotherhood seemed to go by real fast. Revelations was better than Brotherhood to me.

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.

DrRockso87
DrRockso87
8 years ago

Assassin's Creed.

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!!

WYO1016
WYO1016
8 years ago

Gotta go with Call of Duty. I'm enjoying Black Ops II quite a bit, but when the new one comes out everyone will jump ship.

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.

DjEezzy
DjEezzy
8 years ago

I think they both need a year off to be honest. Annualization is never really "Good" for a franchise. I'd say the only exception to that is Fifa. I only say that because they really do improve quite a bit each year.

Nix50
Nix50
8 years ago

Assassin's Creed 2 was such an amazing game especially compared to the previous entry and that it was somewhat lackluster. It went a bit downhill with the 'expansion sequels' and I'd hate to see my new favorite franchise die off.

ulsterscot
ulsterscot
8 years ago

dont understand why cod should take a break?

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 …

Underdog15
Underdog15
8 years ago

It's not really a question of what company needs it. Obviously neither need it as they have wonderful cash cows to milk.

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.

Darwin1967
Darwin1967
8 years ago

Call of Duty for sure…you could literally use BLOPS 2 as your base, improve the aspects of the game that are still a consistent nuisance (i.e., re-connection errors when a party member drops, losing game sound forcing a player to re-start, etc.). Then, just keep producing map packs…you could keep that game going for at least a year and half to two years on map pack releases that perhaps include new challenges, badges, and weapons. Same could be said for AC as well….why these games don't do that is beyond me.

Twistedfloyd
Twistedfloyd
8 years ago

BO2 is boring to me. And the multiplayer level design is simple and atrocious. I can't comment on the SP as I didn't play it (just borrowed it from a friend), but the killstreaks are also bad and nothing really new is brought to the table.

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.

ulsterscot
ulsterscot
8 years ago

Its a demand – supply thing

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

ulsterscot
ulsterscot
8 years ago

Its a demand – supply thing

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