Franchise fatigue? Ubisoft’s never heard of that, apparently. With Assassin’s Creed 3 on the way, Gamasutra sat down for an interview with Ubisoft North America executive director Laurent Detoc, in which he insisted that the idea that there can be too many sequels simply isn’t true. So does that mean we’ll see Assassin’s Creed 8, 9 and 10?
“I hope we will,” says Detoc. He goes on:
“I also hope we’ll be able to branch out from within the franchise. It’s very simple to me: There’s no such thing as not being able to annualize a franchise. If it’s good, people will come.”
I get that this guy is talking from a business standpoint. Obviously, a game studio head wants to crank out yearly sequels for a profit – but surely, everyone remembers what happened to some of Activision’s franchises recently, yes? People do get fatigued and move on from franchises. We’ve seen it time and time again.
It seems like some of these studios should worry more about how to offer something new and less about how to crank out the same thing every year. The reason some are excited about Assassin’s Creed 3 isn’t because they’re dying to see what happens to Desmond — it’s because the game finally represents a shot in the arm for the franchise, after several years of re-hashing some of the same ground.
What do you guys think? Is this WTF worthy? Or am I just overreacting? Call me crazy. Do it. Go!
Source – Gamasutra
For movies, it’s said that there is a “10 minute rule” of sorts, which dictates that a film has just that amount of time to convince you of whether or not it’s worth your attention. Usually in that first 10 minutes, you’re kind of like “OK, I’m not sure if I’m feeling this talking dog”, or “those lovable sidekicks better solve that alien mystery”. You know, normal movie stuff. The interesting question though, is: how does the 10 minute rule apply to video games? This is the very idea that a new feature on Gamasutra discusses, titled History, Mystery and Story. It’s a cool look at how games tend to try and capitalize on this concept, and that it has to differ from story games to games in other genres.
It seems to me that while the time in minutes would have to be different, the general idea behind the 10 minute rule would be largely the same. Whereas a movie is just a 90 to 120 minute experience, games typically range anywhere from 5 to 50 hours, depending on what you’re playing. So does the 10 minute rule scale up because of the longer nature of games? Or is it about the same? When you think about the way modern games work, the first 10 minutes places you right in the middle of a boring tutorial. It’s interesting to think about the idea that maybe the majority of people lose patience and make up their mind that early on. Honestly, the only game that had me convinced within 10 minutes in recent years would have to be Limbo, which grabbed me right from the get-go and still hasn’t let go, months later.
So what is your guys’ opinion on this issue? How long does it usually take a game to grab you? Are you typically more or less patient? How long will you give a game before you throw away interest?
Source – Gamasutra
Back in the days of gaming glory, the 8 and 16-bit eras, we gamers didn’t have a whole lot of options when it came to saving games. Games were systematic and based on rote memorization, muscle memory, trial-and-error and the like.
Nowadays, the game saves for you every 10 seconds and even recharges your health and shines your shoes while you wait. Well, not really, but kind of.
That’s why Gamasutra recently posted an article about Save Systems, raising some interesting questions about how they affect gameplay.
Continue reading Saves and Stuff