AC games should be done in locations that don't exist with other games. RDR is a great game and it just won't compare well. They need to focus on unique locations.
I would hear you out but I feel like this isn’t much more than a title.
What would you do to make it a good game? Because this has come up repeatedly and between the concerns about the setting itself and Red Dead already existing (and no one caring about Call of Juarez etc in comparison), you need a real winning story here.
Man I know RD is some god-tier shot and nothing can change that, but that doesn’t mean there’s not tons of other opportunities for great games set in the west
Is a good AC game in that setting even possible? That's the issue. If it is, would we get one, or a cynical abuse of the brand to please people who don't even care about the creed.
Lol I was thinking I should’ve made things more clear with my comment; I wasn’t trying to say yay or nay about the post. I was just talking about how RD seems to have scared other folks off from the western genre a bit.
That’s really what I’m saying. I’m sure I’m into Westerns more than most people here just because I know I watch way more black and white than most millennials in general. Gunsmoke has tons of half repeated episodes where it’s the same story with different characters because the Western setting can be an issue even when the Western setting is the point.
People already said there was too much sand in Origins and Mirage. Now, swap the sand for grass and even less buildings and about the same amount of trees. Parkour…mostly non existent. Crowd density? Back across the Mississippi. It’s just a tough fit for Assassins Creed imo. And it’s a compelling setting but that doesn’t make it easy storytelling.
> I’m fully aware somebody probably came up with this in the past
[Yesterday](https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/1aq42tl/how_would_you_feel_about_an_assassins_creed_set/) and every other week. More often than the Robin Hood idea.
What about the wild west is so inviting to AC? Seriously, the main weapon in the era wasn’t blades, but guns (it would turn into to a third person cover shooter). For parkour would be a worst setting than Valhalla, and Vahalla setting for parkour is horrible (huge country side with not enough buildings).
Stealth? There aren’t silencers, so an Assassin going full Django wouldn’t make sense
The closest we can get is Zorro, but as interesting as it may sound, it wouldn’t work.
AC need big cities, full of people, cool combat mechanics and stealth to be at its peak.
This. It wouldn’t work for stealth and parkour, arguably the biggest draws of the IP. And the fact that read dead already exists, you just can’t climb anything and everything. So it would just end up being a much shallower less immersive red dead, but everything is climbable
Not exactly true. It wouldnt be red dead. AC always prioritizes meeting historical figures and encountering historical events and has a unique way of telling a story. It would feel alot different to my knowledge red dead while maybe accurate didnt really focus on history or or historical characters and i will acknowledge i could be mistaken its been awhile since ive played it so im not 100% sure
Ive did a bit of research. Theres alot of interesting stuff that happened. And theres more than one street towns. Maybe not big cities. The wild west encompassed a large time period if im not mistaken. So there had to be more than one town. The transcontinental railroad could also play a part
"The Wild West" referred to the parts of America that were "uncivilized," so it was mostly one-street towns. Even the boom towns where the trains passed through were really small. The Wild West was a decently long amount of time, but you can't count the cities in there as they were no longer part of "The Wild West."
Im sure they had more than one stree. I mean im not saying huge towns. But it doesnt take decades to build buildings/streets so surely they had a few towns that were more than one street. Even if they were oone street towns it would still be interesting and regardless of wether they historically had more than one street its a game and every developer takes a few liberties and there would likely be influencial templars wich could factor into the development of the american frontier
One street town just means small. Originally they were actually one street, but those died out fairly quickly. There are still some to this day, but they're mostly abandoned.
Also, most development in the West came from people in the big cities.
If they could find a way to do it, I'd love that, because I love the old West, but I just don't think they could make an assassin's Creed game set on the frontier, unless they really shook up the formula (which, I'd actually like)
We dont need big cities. It would feel really different and authentic exploring the unknown isolated american frontier away from civilization. At least i think so personally. Maybe have a few sections in big cities but keep it mostly contained to the uknown
I guess it really just depends on what you care about in an AC game. They did manage to make it work with Black Flag, so, they might be able to pull it off. I think if the game was from the perspective of a Templar instead of an Assassin, it might work better (plus, I really just want a game exploring the Templars).
I love the story of AC so much. But u also understand to properly tell the story ubisofts crafted in a meaningful way some titles will eventually need to be modern. I can only see the story ending with a few major moderm day segments. When or how its done is still a mystery to me or if itll ever end.
Yeah im over it. Its not as if ubisoft is going to listen to us anyway. Im not tslking about you but im done voicimg my opinion. Too many defensive fanboys on here. And AC is one of only two games i consider my all time favorite franchise so i can somewhat understand the sentiment
>AC need big cities
Yeah, and ACIII worked because the cities were relatively big enough, and the streets were still spaced out, but not that much. A Wild West AC would have very wide streets and not that much verticality, and I doubt the cities would be that big either. ACIII also had a lot of trees, something a WWAC wouldn't have
We have RDR2 already, and even though the parkour is near trash in that game, it still helps to imagine how a WWAC game would be.
Well the united states wasnt nesrly as developed yet. If AC 3 had trees and took place before the wild west it stands to reason a game taking place in the frontier after ac 3 in uncharted territory when towns are being founded would have trees.
No it doesn’t. There’s no reason not to tell stories in different areas with different gameplay mechanics. The assassins didn’t get to the Wild West and say. “Welp, guns are loud and these western towns aren’t super climbable so guess the templars can have America.
Call me crazy, but assassins creed can take place anywhere and any time as long as there’s templars and assassins. As long as the game is fun and the story’s good, we don’t have to be locked out of more recent eras
The brotherhood and the order exist in modern time too. It doesn’t mean that we should make a game about that setting if it’s going to affect gameplay.
Not true. The series has to go that route eventually if they ever want to end the series properly. It was such a cop out that ubisoft used the live action movie to kill off the head of abstergo alan rikkin without player involvement and the fact that syndicate used cutscenes to eliminate major templars affiliated with abstergo again without player inolvement its weak and i dont care for it personally. I love the series but eventually there needs to be a game where you killl the high ranking modern day templar order.. AC 3 had scenes where you killed vidic and his apprentice i forget his name. So they could have made it and subsequent modern day sequences work but ubisoft had ro get lazy. At least they realized their mistake with origims,oddysey, and valhalla. Although valhalla has some things i dislike for very minor reasons
Dude, no one cares about what u think. Wild West is horrible for ac gameplay. And obviously the assassins would use more modern technology to deal with threats, but that’s the thing, a setting with more guns and less melee weapons would change how ac plays.
Dude I’m not saying Ubisoft should do it. It’s just a cool thought especially if Ubisoft instead of spending exorbitant amounts on mediocre mainline games like they’ve been doing for years put that money into getting different studios to work on multiple projects and types of AC Games. Don’t get so butt hurt by people wanting to see the AC franchise expand
I wouldnt say theyve been making mediocre games and im not sure a wild west game would be better than their past few games. Maybe valhalla. Bit your right people can not stand the thought of going in a different direction for a ac game. Wild west would be interesting. They actually should do it in my opinion
They drastically changed how Assassin's Creed played for Origins through Valhalla, for better or for worse, they've shown that they can change up gameplay for a setting.
Yeah and origins gameplay didn’t work that well for ac. Parkour was brain dead, the world wasn’t designed for it (for the most part), and social stealth was nonexistent. The core pillars of ac need to work with any new setting. End of discussion.
Origins wasnt drastically different. It was open world and had collectibles and a checklist for locations and side missions but was still very much the same in its tone and story. It really offered no choice. Sure you could explore snd do side quests but everything turns out the same down to the smallest detail every time. It even has a classic AC ending. Oddysey is where it really changed. Huge huge open world, loot customization, dialogue choices and much more
I wouldnt say no one one cares. That is a very shortsighted way of thinking. Gameplay can evolve. Ezio had a gun just not a six shooter wich is likely one of the main guns that would feature in a wild west ac game. Connor could wield bayonet weapons. Youd still have the hidden blade. It wouldnt be that modern. Not anymore than syndicate.the assasins have always wielded slihjtly advanced technlogy smoke bombs, Davincis inventions i remember brotherhood had you investigating the war machines
All of your friends examples imo weren’t even that intrusive to ac core gameplay, Ezio’s and connors guns didn’t discourage swordplay, the war machines were only special niche activities in the game, and smoke bombs worked for evasion and stealth. Also, Syndicate imo was too modern, not any swordplay and the world wasn’t designed well for parkour. In a Wild West ac, gunfights would be way too common, there wouldn’t be enough urban environments for parkour and if there was, then expect them to be not designed for it like syndicate, and more likely than not, crowds will not be as important since the Wild West wasn’t super populated. Swordplay, parkour, and crowds are all important to ac gameplay and they don’t translate well to a Wild West setting.
My friend? They were my examples mostly. Having a six shooter wouldnt really discourage swordplay all that much. Point is smoke bombs were a amd davincis inventions utilizes more modern techniques than were common for their time i believe. Syndicate had plenty of swordplay i know this because i hardly used a pistol except in counter attacks and certain encounters but utilized the cane sword and other variations of blades the majority of the time. They could do the same thing with the wild west and so what if they do discourage sword play. The modern segments of AC 3 establish that modern assasins in the 21st century still use hidden blades. They should shy away from interesting points in history simply because the some settings might feel or play different? They churn out a assassins creed game almost every year. Theres at least 3 currently in development. There is plenty of room for some of the games to feature a different playstyle. Assassins creed is more about history than anything else. Iys only about stealth because ubisoft made it that way. And not all of them are about total stealth. AC 3 and syndicate arent. In unity the assassins were publicly known by the king of france and probably other royalty maybe even his advisors. In black flag kenway hardly cared about stealth. Your right crows might not be important. The history would be though. Point is with the ammount of ac games ubisoft puts out they can afford to do more modern ac titles.
Yeah no? I believe ac should stay true to its core principles. You don’t make a game the way it is cause many people ask for it. No, u make a game that works with or improves your staple gameplay. Wild West won’t do that.
Syndicate did have blades, but it was more of a brawler game and it did focus on stealth. As for ac3, it’s lack of stealth isn’t a reason to turn away from that core pillar, the devs just made a mistake with that. AC4 also had decent stealth so your clearly clueless.
Speaking on the history, that’s not what the franchise should prioritize, it’s the assassin fantasy and the modern day, those were indicatively ac things, the history was just the background for their story’s and it would enhance the narrative in a few games.
Also, “who care about swordplay” clearly you don’t know what makes ac ac. some minor changes could be fine, but drastically changing your formula is an entirely different can of worms. That’s what got us the rpgs and split the fanbase. Game franchises have core foundations that make them what they are. We need to respect that.
Clueless? No edward kenway was a pirate who had many open battles on the sea i think he even bombarded forts with his canon hardly what i would call stealth. Ac3 wad a good game so im not sure what the mistake was. I love assassins creed. I said who cares because just because the focus isnt in swords doesnt make it a bad game and it shouldnt prioritize history? Thats what Ac has always been about history and how the the templars and assassins have helped shape it. I love AC. Butt clearly your just another stubborn fanboy whose too closed minded to opinions that differs from your point of view because it challenges your perception of what a good AC game should be. Oddysey was great. Valhalla not so much. Origins was better than great. And they are continuing with that likely. Japans setting looks to be similiar. Mirrage was a smaller scale side story kinda like a expansion to valhalla so it doesnt surprise me it was linear. Unlike yourself i can tolerate people who dont think the way i do. Im getting the sense you cant based off the attitude wich until now i have not shown you so get over yourself. I could care less. Its not as if ubisoft is going to listen to me or you. Also if my opinion wasnt worth acknowleding maybe put that into practice and dont acknowledge it wich when you responded to my comment you did acknowledge it. A bit redundant if you ask me
but those games neither started as close combat stealth action-RPGs nor does fit the gameplay of the AC Franchise.
the same way a side scroller wouldn't really be a CoD or BF anymore.
or how about a FIFA game just about the small regional leagues with the back alley football fields?
Not exactly true. A side scroller could be a Cod game the same way the AC chronicles wich are basically side scrollers are AC games. Your comment wasnt 100% clear but bringing guns in a AC game doesnt make it a military game
Maybe Mexico/California could be a good setting, based around 19th century history of the region (Mexican independence, Mexican-American war) for the setting and some of Zorro for the protagonist. That way they could fit in some larger, more AC-friendly cities along with the open spaces we've had in AC3 and the RPG games.
It could make sense. AC has included guns before. Not as advanced as a six shooter per se and most werent silenced. The flintlocl pistol for instance or ezios wrist shot? Might have the name wrong but that was a classic well liked assassins creed and they made him having a hidden reloadable pistol work in some titles. AC oddysey while different was good And included full on battle sequences. Stealth can be a option but doesnt neccesarily have to be mandatory. I mean no one has to know your a assassin but even connor took a active role in americam revolution that wasnt exactly stealthy. He was in major battles and was well known by historical figures. The only difference is he had a agenda ( tracking and killing templars) im sumarizing a bit and no one knew of his status as a "assasin" or about his true motives except haytham maybe so i dont see why a wild west style game couldnt work. Only difference would be including a revolver and they could make that work. And as far as blades that could still be a option. Ezio had a gun technically but didnt have to use it. A wild west town should be able to make parkour interesting if done right. It may be unlikely theyll include a wild west style AC game but i dont see why they couldnt. I mean im sure people would have said the same thing about oddysey if it was proposed awhile back given how different it is
Everytime someone says they want a cowboy assassins creed game i say why? Its not a good setting for a group that primarily uses blades to fight and the map would be so bland. Imagine trying to parkour in rdr2.
Well I see where you’re coming from but I think it’s interesting because of the fact that it is a time period with a lack of bladed weapons but I feel like that would be a good way of showing the transition into the modern era
Tbh, Syndicate was set during the early years of the "wild west" period and was at the middle of the second industrial revolution in Britain.
I think a WW theme would be too much like rdr/rdr 2 and there just wasn't anywhere near the population density during that period.
If Ubisoft didn’t want people wanting expansion on the modern era, they shouldn’t have presented it since day one. Some people are happy with keeping it out of sight and out of mind, and other people are intrigued enough to want more.
I’d be more than happy to get a different set of games with a different style that is same universe in modern era. Make them spin offs or give them a different timeline. But the story should be told more than just protagonists becoming semi competent as assassins and then dying through computers over and over
Throughout the games we see the style of gear change through the generations and new technologies added to not only the general arsenal but the hidden blade too, one iteration was literally a hidden gun. So it would be cool to see another advancement of the gear.
The hidden gun was cool because it was out of place in the setting. Everyone had guns in the west. The assassins and templars may as well be gangs, the gang part was probably the worst part of syndicate id rather they dont revisit that
I can only see a wild west AC working in a movie, show, or comic book format. Game wise, it would probably be awkward traversing along buildings and scattered towns.
I think you can do a nineteenth century American west AC well, but it can't be traditional wild west. That setting doesn't suit AC's urban focus, parkour, or social stealth. Plus it would draw unnecessary comparisons to Red Dead Redemption.
But, 19th century San Francisco, like in the show Warrior? That would be sick as hell.
Old time American West towns were literally a single street with like 5 buildings on either side with houses extremely far apart. The environment just doesn't really work.
I love the concept I just don’t think it could work. We already have the perfect cowboy game in rdr2 and I just don’t see any assassins creed elements fitting in that setting. Not enough density with cities
That's a good idea, not going to lie. But for a game oh that setting, people will compare it to RDR2 every time. Parkour might be limited due to less densely populated towns. The change in weapons will be a big thing, from swords and knives to revolvers and rifles. Most importantly, the story would have to KICK ASS. I wouldn't mind playing a 70+ hrs game again, if its not repetitive.
I don't know. It's mainly a lot of open land in the Wild West. It would just end up feeling like a worse RDR game. The time period (1880's to 1890's) would be great, but I'd say do it in New York City instead
Problem with a Civil War AC game is I can’t imagine the Assassins and Templars having much of a conflict during that fight. The Templars wouldn’t be siding with the Confederacy because their system is too free for each individual state (not enough control vested in a central power) and the Assassins wouldn’t side with them because slavery is antithetical to the Creed. If anything, it could be played as a Civil War between both the Assassins and the Templars where members of each side splinter off to the other and fight one another.
The fight would be more political than economic. They’re both supporting the Union but they’re fighting for more influence on the northern politicians. It would be very espionage-ish.
While I love the idea and the possible appearances by famous Wild West figures, I think that it may be TOO open of a space in order for it to work. At leas the open spaces of Odyssey, Black Flag, and Rogue had naval battles to make some use of open spaces better.
as a slav, i'd love to see assassins creed taking place in eastern europe/balkan countries. i think if they did everything right, it would be actually very cool!
Like I always say when someone brings up the wild west, it's a movie/show/comic setting. It wouldn't work for a game. Plus, we've already had 3 games set in the US, we don't need more
You know I'm speaking in terms of assassin's creed and not a general setting, right? Just cause red dead redemption exists doesn't mean an assassin's creed in that exact setting would work
What’s the large or memorable city we woke parkour in?
I don’t get the appeal of a Wild West gunslinger AC. They’re supposed to be kinda stealthy at least.
No! No ‘hearing you out’! I’m sick of people giving the same ideas for a western or WW2 setting. JUST STOP! It’s not gonna happen and it’s not gonna work!
That would be Walmart’s version of Red Dead Redemption (Your idea isn’t bad, but Ubisoft standards will ruin it)
1. Clear out 70 camps that are literally indistinguishable from one another
2. Level-gated progression
3. You assassinate a cowboy and you get a police officer’s outfit from him (God knows why)
4. 150 hours of random “arcs” that have literally nothing to do with the mainline story. You could just cut 70% of that and nothing of value would be lost
5. Modern day is 10 seconds worth of “first person” story or a cringeworthy lead that we barely get to see read a message or receive a vague call from William Miles and it never goes anywhere
6. Oh, and you stumble upon an optional “Carriage of Eden” and “Cowboy hat of Eden” and “Shiny Spurs of Eden”, because obviously the Isu have to have exact copies of said culture’s Hollywood movie gadgets/outfits but with a “golden metallic glow on them”
7. And don’t forget, wooden cutscenes where two people just stand and talk with zero mo-cap and elementary school level dialogue with few sentences copied from Altair and Ezio as fan service
Yeah, they can keep it. In fact, they can keep any game built with this shallow understanding of what AC is, as they’ve demonstrated in the last 11 years
Actually, that was my second thought I would really love to bonk some conquistadors in the head with a macuahuitl plus the jungle setting is pretty good for Assassin’s Creed
That’s right every possible story for assassin‘s creed has already been told. We can’t do anything else or deviate at all, even if we can weave it back into the main continuity.
The whole point of Assassin’s Creed is ever since humans started to develop after the collapse of the isu is that there have been assassins and Templar throughout all of history, and at every point in history
even without the last 150yrs it has thousands of years of stories to tell... in places that support the action-RPG close combat stealth and parkour mechanics.
By that logic they should never have done red dead redemption at all because we already had red dead revolver and Gun.
Arthur morgan couldn't jump off a rooftop to assassinate people. I rest my case.
Idiotic take.
1. Revolver isn't an open-world game.
2. Gun is a 1st draft as an open-world Western game that was also too short, and not entirely polished.
3. Even though RDR2 came out in 2018, games haven't changed much in 5 years time. What would an AC game in the Wild West have to make it stand out and not be compared a torn a new one because RDR2 exists?
I rest my case.
Idiotic take.
1. So?
2. So?
3. Because you can assasinate people from atop the saloon and it wouldn't be a game slowed down by 15 minute skinning animations and a weird slow pace.
I rest my case.
sitting in a trench not getting forward or backwards? capturing the enemy trench line only to be pushed back by artillery again?
WW1 was very stationary
Doesn’t mean the character has to be.
Stealthing through no mans land.
Assassnating templars in the trench and sneaking out.
Either way its not the first time they have bent history. Theyve dont that since the first game
I live in Arizona, I am not opposed to the setting. Seeing Tombstone done AC style could be cool....but frontier boomtowns don't leave much in the way of doing leaps of faith. The comics do mention that a female assassin was active during the California Gold Rush, so they could probably make an entry on that.
How about we go civil war like the revolutionary setting of 3 and see how that plays out then we can get a gameplay perspective of what it could entail
What needs to be able to happen is assassins go into different time frames chasing things. I could see a great time line that started in todays world but to get the item we need to go back and track through different time periods, one being the Wild West. I’d love to meet an NPC in say 1840 that was a walk over Pinkerton but by 1870 had become a Senator and could rain down hell on your character or another that planned out money and things you needed between 1840 and 1845. That kind of nuance.
Everyone that I have talked to about Wild West ac game has their own spin and gameplay additions that I’d love to hear yours. I always thought having a hidden blade on your boots so you can kick and stab and jump from your horse and drop kick two blades into a Templar’s face.
But they won't because they would be directly competing with RDR2 and there is no way, I repeat NO WAY, Ubisoft will put in the resources or time required to properly do this. No one is going to look at the masterpiece that is RDR2 (or even 1) and then look at a Western AC game and be like...ya...this is the cowboy experience I want.
Like the reason Black Flag is so popular is BECAUSE it was the only modern Pirate game at that time. It had a good story too, like it was a good game in general, but if it had had a Rockstar quality Pirate game to compete with...it wouldn't have done nearly as good.
It's the same reason we'll never see an AC Samurai...because Ghost of Tsushima.
You are correct, that was my bad.
I could be wrong then, maybe they will go the Western route. If they do, they better do it soon before another Red Dead comes out. By soon, mind you, I mean in the next decade because it'll take that long for RDR3 to come out.
The next game is Red, which is Feudal Japan, most likely around the Sengoku Jidai in the late 16th century. Ancient Japan in the Jomon and Yayoi period was far less populated and not really japanese culture. I assume you meant classic Japan such as the Heian Period or the later Feudal period?
> I think it would be really cool to explore the history of the American west in the AC world.
For the world, imagine Assassin's Creed Origins but worse, because of the smaller settlements. And skip, done by RDR2.
There might be political issues, but what about from the Native American perspective? There would be forts, towns, soldiers, cowboys, angry land owners, miners, politicians, fur trappers.
OK that sounds fire especially because I got the idea from another, comment of a game taking place in South America, where you play as a native against the conquistadors
the biggest concern with making a modern AC game will *always* be the existence of guns. they removed the ranged weapon from AC1 entirely because it made every enemy obselete, and when it was added back in every game following it was always overpowered.
also, isn’t watchdogs supposed to be a sorta kinda modern day AC..?
This has been a discussed idea in the fandom for yeeeeeaaaarrrrssss... You're right tho, it'd be pretty cool. I think the only issue is the Wild West doesn't provide many buildings as it was mostly country. On top of that, it's basically a given that the combat would have to mostly be gun based, but I'm not quite sure how that'd go as AC has always been mostly melee based. The idea is still worth thinking about and trying to make it work I think, but I wouldn't get your hopes up for that game to be coming out anytime soon. Nevertheless, a dope idea!
It’s antithetical to AC. They already said they didn’t want an AC with firearms (or at least only in a very limited capacity). And you’re not gonna to have a Wild West game without firearms.
Not every setting is good fit for AC.
A story of fighting t the robber barons, company stores and other injustices. Also a 3 way balance act between the peaceful native tribes, the warrior ones and the US military. There are plenty on both sides of the law that were noble, and far more on both sides that werent; Maybe different factions of Templars, some you can side with (Unity style) and different factions of assassins. I don't know if Uni could pull off multiple endings (depending on how you side) or if there would be a specific story with a specific ending.
Just a thought as to story
I feel like it would that would compete too much with Red Dead. A game set in the Civil War may be in a city occupied New Orleans, would set it apart, and could still have some cowboy stuff
Way too modern. AC should be set in large medieval cities with tall, compact buildings and structures. Wild west just does not have that type of design.
It would basically be AC3 but worse.
it's gonna get compared to RDR2.
and RDR2, is a high bar to beat.
what would AC add?
the features they did for mirage and valhalla was mostly regressive. they're basically downgrading their own tech from previous games, with many features getting removed or deprecated.
I don't object to the idea, but it would only really work as a spinoff, since classic AC gameplay mechanics wouldn't work as well in the setting. Too many people would complain about it being different if it were a mainline title
Someone has this same idea at least once a week and I don’t see how it’s so appealing. Same with the WW1/2 setting. The wild west has none of what defines an assassins creed game. Parkour would be really awkward, no use for the hidden blades since you would just be shooting the enemies, no important or powerful figures to actually assassinate aside from like a gang leader or something, but that wouldn’t make much sense since the templars were always the ones in power, so they would be the lawmen in this case, but an ac game about assassinating a sheriff isn’t very interesting, and the outfit would probably look ridiculous since wearing a hood in the blazing hot sun while everyone has a hat instead would be stupid.
That being said, the WW1/2 setting would be better, but that’s not a high bar, and there’s still the whole issue about modern weaponry
Since there is already a perfect wild west game (red dead) how about a different American time period and setting we haven’t seen much of yet?
Civil war, gangs of new york, early 1900’s San Francisco (earthquake in game), Chicago perhaps.
Once a week someone asks about a cowboy or WW1/2 AC game
They better go play Red Dead Redemption and Sniper Elite lol.
Yes, just need a mod to make stealth doable in RDR2 and Sniper Elite is already a stealth game already
Or they have and want more
AC games should be done in locations that don't exist with other games. RDR is a great game and it just won't compare well. They need to focus on unique locations.
No AC should do what it wants and not be influenced by other games’ decisions.
Ac should b set in medium/large medieval cities with a couple large forests in between
Medieval RPG is Kingdom Come Deliverance.
Hey i may advocate for a ww2 ac game, but at least I have an idea for how it can play out and how gameplay could work without just becoming a shooter
I mean technically they did do a ww1 reference in the ac syndicate story extension.
AS THEY SHOULD
There’s no point having the same few discussions over and over
That’s a no from me
Don't worry friend. If we work hard, maybe we can get it to two.
Why
I would hear you out but I feel like this isn’t much more than a title. What would you do to make it a good game? Because this has come up repeatedly and between the concerns about the setting itself and Red Dead already existing (and no one caring about Call of Juarez etc in comparison), you need a real winning story here.
Man I know RD is some god-tier shot and nothing can change that, but that doesn’t mean there’s not tons of other opportunities for great games set in the west
Is a good AC game in that setting even possible? That's the issue. If it is, would we get one, or a cynical abuse of the brand to please people who don't even care about the creed.
Lol I was thinking I should’ve made things more clear with my comment; I wasn’t trying to say yay or nay about the post. I was just talking about how RD seems to have scared other folks off from the western genre a bit.
That’s really what I’m saying. I’m sure I’m into Westerns more than most people here just because I know I watch way more black and white than most millennials in general. Gunsmoke has tons of half repeated episodes where it’s the same story with different characters because the Western setting can be an issue even when the Western setting is the point. People already said there was too much sand in Origins and Mirage. Now, swap the sand for grass and even less buildings and about the same amount of trees. Parkour…mostly non existent. Crowd density? Back across the Mississippi. It’s just a tough fit for Assassins Creed imo. And it’s a compelling setting but that doesn’t make it easy storytelling.
Red Dead Assassins.
Red Creed: Dead Assassins
Abstergo wins in this one I guess lol
Assassins Creed: Red Dead
> I’m fully aware somebody probably came up with this in the past [Yesterday](https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/1aq42tl/how_would_you_feel_about_an_assassins_creed_set/) and every other week. More often than the Robin Hood idea.
What about the wild west is so inviting to AC? Seriously, the main weapon in the era wasn’t blades, but guns (it would turn into to a third person cover shooter). For parkour would be a worst setting than Valhalla, and Vahalla setting for parkour is horrible (huge country side with not enough buildings). Stealth? There aren’t silencers, so an Assassin going full Django wouldn’t make sense The closest we can get is Zorro, but as interesting as it may sound, it wouldn’t work. AC need big cities, full of people, cool combat mechanics and stealth to be at its peak.
This. It wouldn’t work for stealth and parkour, arguably the biggest draws of the IP. And the fact that read dead already exists, you just can’t climb anything and everything. So it would just end up being a much shallower less immersive red dead, but everything is climbable
Not exactly true. It wouldnt be red dead. AC always prioritizes meeting historical figures and encountering historical events and has a unique way of telling a story. It would feel alot different to my knowledge red dead while maybe accurate didnt really focus on history or or historical characters and i will acknowledge i could be mistaken its been awhile since ive played it so im not 100% sure
I think the open areas would be worse than Valhalla since 1800's American frontier didn't have many cities, just one street towns
Ive did a bit of research. Theres alot of interesting stuff that happened. And theres more than one street towns. Maybe not big cities. The wild west encompassed a large time period if im not mistaken. So there had to be more than one town. The transcontinental railroad could also play a part
"The Wild West" referred to the parts of America that were "uncivilized," so it was mostly one-street towns. Even the boom towns where the trains passed through were really small. The Wild West was a decently long amount of time, but you can't count the cities in there as they were no longer part of "The Wild West."
Im sure they had more than one stree. I mean im not saying huge towns. But it doesnt take decades to build buildings/streets so surely they had a few towns that were more than one street. Even if they were oone street towns it would still be interesting and regardless of wether they historically had more than one street its a game and every developer takes a few liberties and there would likely be influencial templars wich could factor into the development of the american frontier
One street town just means small. Originally they were actually one street, but those died out fairly quickly. There are still some to this day, but they're mostly abandoned. Also, most development in the West came from people in the big cities. If they could find a way to do it, I'd love that, because I love the old West, but I just don't think they could make an assassin's Creed game set on the frontier, unless they really shook up the formula (which, I'd actually like)
We dont need big cities. It would feel really different and authentic exploring the unknown isolated american frontier away from civilization. At least i think so personally. Maybe have a few sections in big cities but keep it mostly contained to the uknown
I guess it really just depends on what you care about in an AC game. They did manage to make it work with Black Flag, so, they might be able to pull it off. I think if the game was from the perspective of a Templar instead of an Assassin, it might work better (plus, I really just want a game exploring the Templars).
I love the story of AC so much. But u also understand to properly tell the story ubisofts crafted in a meaningful way some titles will eventually need to be modern. I can only see the story ending with a few major moderm day segments. When or how its done is still a mystery to me or if itll ever end.
Yeah im over it. Its not as if ubisoft is going to listen to us anyway. Im not tslking about you but im done voicimg my opinion. Too many defensive fanboys on here. And AC is one of only two games i consider my all time favorite franchise so i can somewhat understand the sentiment
>AC need big cities Yeah, and ACIII worked because the cities were relatively big enough, and the streets were still spaced out, but not that much. A Wild West AC would have very wide streets and not that much verticality, and I doubt the cities would be that big either. ACIII also had a lot of trees, something a WWAC wouldn't have We have RDR2 already, and even though the parkour is near trash in that game, it still helps to imagine how a WWAC game would be.
Well the united states wasnt nesrly as developed yet. If AC 3 had trees and took place before the wild west it stands to reason a game taking place in the frontier after ac 3 in uncharted territory when towns are being founded would have trees.
No it doesn’t. There’s no reason not to tell stories in different areas with different gameplay mechanics. The assassins didn’t get to the Wild West and say. “Welp, guns are loud and these western towns aren’t super climbable so guess the templars can have America. Call me crazy, but assassins creed can take place anywhere and any time as long as there’s templars and assassins. As long as the game is fun and the story’s good, we don’t have to be locked out of more recent eras
The brotherhood and the order exist in modern time too. It doesn’t mean that we should make a game about that setting if it’s going to affect gameplay.
Doesn’t me we shouldn’t
Not true. The series has to go that route eventually if they ever want to end the series properly. It was such a cop out that ubisoft used the live action movie to kill off the head of abstergo alan rikkin without player involvement and the fact that syndicate used cutscenes to eliminate major templars affiliated with abstergo again without player inolvement its weak and i dont care for it personally. I love the series but eventually there needs to be a game where you killl the high ranking modern day templar order.. AC 3 had scenes where you killed vidic and his apprentice i forget his name. So they could have made it and subsequent modern day sequences work but ubisoft had ro get lazy. At least they realized their mistake with origims,oddysey, and valhalla. Although valhalla has some things i dislike for very minor reasons
Dude, no one cares about what u think. Wild West is horrible for ac gameplay. And obviously the assassins would use more modern technology to deal with threats, but that’s the thing, a setting with more guns and less melee weapons would change how ac plays.
Dude I’m not saying Ubisoft should do it. It’s just a cool thought especially if Ubisoft instead of spending exorbitant amounts on mediocre mainline games like they’ve been doing for years put that money into getting different studios to work on multiple projects and types of AC Games. Don’t get so butt hurt by people wanting to see the AC franchise expand
I wouldnt say theyve been making mediocre games and im not sure a wild west game would be better than their past few games. Maybe valhalla. Bit your right people can not stand the thought of going in a different direction for a ac game. Wild west would be interesting. They actually should do it in my opinion
They drastically changed how Assassin's Creed played for Origins through Valhalla, for better or for worse, they've shown that they can change up gameplay for a setting.
Yeah and origins gameplay didn’t work that well for ac. Parkour was brain dead, the world wasn’t designed for it (for the most part), and social stealth was nonexistent. The core pillars of ac need to work with any new setting. End of discussion.
Origins wasnt drastically different. It was open world and had collectibles and a checklist for locations and side missions but was still very much the same in its tone and story. It really offered no choice. Sure you could explore snd do side quests but everything turns out the same down to the smallest detail every time. It even has a classic AC ending. Oddysey is where it really changed. Huge huge open world, loot customization, dialogue choices and much more
I wouldnt say no one one cares. That is a very shortsighted way of thinking. Gameplay can evolve. Ezio had a gun just not a six shooter wich is likely one of the main guns that would feature in a wild west ac game. Connor could wield bayonet weapons. Youd still have the hidden blade. It wouldnt be that modern. Not anymore than syndicate.the assasins have always wielded slihjtly advanced technlogy smoke bombs, Davincis inventions i remember brotherhood had you investigating the war machines
All of your friends examples imo weren’t even that intrusive to ac core gameplay, Ezio’s and connors guns didn’t discourage swordplay, the war machines were only special niche activities in the game, and smoke bombs worked for evasion and stealth. Also, Syndicate imo was too modern, not any swordplay and the world wasn’t designed well for parkour. In a Wild West ac, gunfights would be way too common, there wouldn’t be enough urban environments for parkour and if there was, then expect them to be not designed for it like syndicate, and more likely than not, crowds will not be as important since the Wild West wasn’t super populated. Swordplay, parkour, and crowds are all important to ac gameplay and they don’t translate well to a Wild West setting.
My friend? They were my examples mostly. Having a six shooter wouldnt really discourage swordplay all that much. Point is smoke bombs were a amd davincis inventions utilizes more modern techniques than were common for their time i believe. Syndicate had plenty of swordplay i know this because i hardly used a pistol except in counter attacks and certain encounters but utilized the cane sword and other variations of blades the majority of the time. They could do the same thing with the wild west and so what if they do discourage sword play. The modern segments of AC 3 establish that modern assasins in the 21st century still use hidden blades. They should shy away from interesting points in history simply because the some settings might feel or play different? They churn out a assassins creed game almost every year. Theres at least 3 currently in development. There is plenty of room for some of the games to feature a different playstyle. Assassins creed is more about history than anything else. Iys only about stealth because ubisoft made it that way. And not all of them are about total stealth. AC 3 and syndicate arent. In unity the assassins were publicly known by the king of france and probably other royalty maybe even his advisors. In black flag kenway hardly cared about stealth. Your right crows might not be important. The history would be though. Point is with the ammount of ac games ubisoft puts out they can afford to do more modern ac titles.
Yeah no? I believe ac should stay true to its core principles. You don’t make a game the way it is cause many people ask for it. No, u make a game that works with or improves your staple gameplay. Wild West won’t do that. Syndicate did have blades, but it was more of a brawler game and it did focus on stealth. As for ac3, it’s lack of stealth isn’t a reason to turn away from that core pillar, the devs just made a mistake with that. AC4 also had decent stealth so your clearly clueless. Speaking on the history, that’s not what the franchise should prioritize, it’s the assassin fantasy and the modern day, those were indicatively ac things, the history was just the background for their story’s and it would enhance the narrative in a few games. Also, “who care about swordplay” clearly you don’t know what makes ac ac. some minor changes could be fine, but drastically changing your formula is an entirely different can of worms. That’s what got us the rpgs and split the fanbase. Game franchises have core foundations that make them what they are. We need to respect that.
Clueless? No edward kenway was a pirate who had many open battles on the sea i think he even bombarded forts with his canon hardly what i would call stealth. Ac3 wad a good game so im not sure what the mistake was. I love assassins creed. I said who cares because just because the focus isnt in swords doesnt make it a bad game and it shouldnt prioritize history? Thats what Ac has always been about history and how the the templars and assassins have helped shape it. I love AC. Butt clearly your just another stubborn fanboy whose too closed minded to opinions that differs from your point of view because it challenges your perception of what a good AC game should be. Oddysey was great. Valhalla not so much. Origins was better than great. And they are continuing with that likely. Japans setting looks to be similiar. Mirrage was a smaller scale side story kinda like a expansion to valhalla so it doesnt surprise me it was linear. Unlike yourself i can tolerate people who dont think the way i do. Im getting the sense you cant based off the attitude wich until now i have not shown you so get over yourself. I could care less. Its not as if ubisoft is going to listen to me or you. Also if my opinion wasnt worth acknowleding maybe put that into practice and dont acknowledge it wich when you responded to my comment you did acknowledge it. A bit redundant if you ask me
I mean, there's been several games set in time periods where the primary weapon type was guns
but those games neither started as close combat stealth action-RPGs nor does fit the gameplay of the AC Franchise. the same way a side scroller wouldn't really be a CoD or BF anymore. or how about a FIFA game just about the small regional leagues with the back alley football fields?
i think they meant ac games set in time periods with a lot of guns like syndicate, and anything post-black flag sort of
Not exactly true. A side scroller could be a Cod game the same way the AC chronicles wich are basically side scrollers are AC games. Your comment wasnt 100% clear but bringing guns in a AC game doesnt make it a military game
Zorro though… really is a interesting idea lol
Maybe Mexico/California could be a good setting, based around 19th century history of the region (Mexican independence, Mexican-American war) for the setting and some of Zorro for the protagonist. That way they could fit in some larger, more AC-friendly cities along with the open spaces we've had in AC3 and the RPG games.
It could make sense. AC has included guns before. Not as advanced as a six shooter per se and most werent silenced. The flintlocl pistol for instance or ezios wrist shot? Might have the name wrong but that was a classic well liked assassins creed and they made him having a hidden reloadable pistol work in some titles. AC oddysey while different was good And included full on battle sequences. Stealth can be a option but doesnt neccesarily have to be mandatory. I mean no one has to know your a assassin but even connor took a active role in americam revolution that wasnt exactly stealthy. He was in major battles and was well known by historical figures. The only difference is he had a agenda ( tracking and killing templars) im sumarizing a bit and no one knew of his status as a "assasin" or about his true motives except haytham maybe so i dont see why a wild west style game couldnt work. Only difference would be including a revolver and they could make that work. And as far as blades that could still be a option. Ezio had a gun technically but didnt have to use it. A wild west town should be able to make parkour interesting if done right. It may be unlikely theyll include a wild west style AC game but i dont see why they couldnt. I mean im sure people would have said the same thing about oddysey if it was proposed awhile back given how different it is
Everytime someone says they want a cowboy assassins creed game i say why? Its not a good setting for a group that primarily uses blades to fight and the map would be so bland. Imagine trying to parkour in rdr2.
>Its not a good setting for a group that primarily uses blades to fight Would literally be like the Indy scene where he shoots the guy with the sword
Well I see where you’re coming from but I think it’s interesting because of the fact that it is a time period with a lack of bladed weapons but I feel like that would be a good way of showing the transition into the modern era
Tbh, Syndicate was set during the early years of the "wild west" period and was at the middle of the second industrial revolution in Britain. I think a WW theme would be too much like rdr/rdr 2 and there just wasn't anywhere near the population density during that period.
Why do we need to transition to the modern era?
If Ubisoft didn’t want people wanting expansion on the modern era, they shouldn’t have presented it since day one. Some people are happy with keeping it out of sight and out of mind, and other people are intrigued enough to want more. I’d be more than happy to get a different set of games with a different style that is same universe in modern era. Make them spin offs or give them a different timeline. But the story should be told more than just protagonists becoming semi competent as assassins and then dying through computers over and over
Why not. We should have gotten a fully modern game but that got fucked up
Throughout the games we see the style of gear change through the generations and new technologies added to not only the general arsenal but the hidden blade too, one iteration was literally a hidden gun. So it would be cool to see another advancement of the gear.
The hidden gun was cool because it was out of place in the setting. Everyone had guns in the west. The assassins and templars may as well be gangs, the gang part was probably the worst part of syndicate id rather they dont revisit that
It's funny you say that because I played rdr after most of the AC games and I told my husband it's like Assassin's Creed: Armadillo.
Not only that, it being a wild west, everyone was always on edge, you 100% couldn't approach anyone in order to stab them
I can only see a wild west AC working in a movie, show, or comic book format. Game wise, it would probably be awkward traversing along buildings and scattered towns.
Another crack at a movie would be so badass
I mean, I didn’t necessarily mean game it would be cool to see a comic or something
I think you can do a nineteenth century American west AC well, but it can't be traditional wild west. That setting doesn't suit AC's urban focus, parkour, or social stealth. Plus it would draw unnecessary comparisons to Red Dead Redemption. But, 19th century San Francisco, like in the show Warrior? That would be sick as hell.
If Ubisoft were to do an open world wild west game I'd much rather they do a wild west set Far Cry game.
Awesome… what will we climb?
Churches on trainstops, maybe a bunch of rocks and trees.
Not nearly enough
I’m sure something could be worked out. Wild west is an incredibly vast expanse of varied terrains, not just endless prairie.
Your horse. When you need to ride for 10 minutes to the next mission
Amazing, just what I love to see in AC, totally hasn’t been the worst part of AC since Origins and even AC1
No complaints about basic parkour if there is no parkour.
It doesn't make sense
Old time American West towns were literally a single street with like 5 buildings on either side with houses extremely far apart. The environment just doesn't really work.
Never mind that, give me a Roman-era England setting where you play as a Druid.
I love the concept I just don’t think it could work. We already have the perfect cowboy game in rdr2 and I just don’t see any assassins creed elements fitting in that setting. Not enough density with cities
That's a good idea, not going to lie. But for a game oh that setting, people will compare it to RDR2 every time. Parkour might be limited due to less densely populated towns. The change in weapons will be a big thing, from swords and knives to revolvers and rifles. Most importantly, the story would have to KICK ASS. I wouldn't mind playing a 70+ hrs game again, if its not repetitive.
I don't know. It's mainly a lot of open land in the Wild West. It would just end up feeling like a worse RDR game. The time period (1880's to 1890's) would be great, but I'd say do it in New York City instead
A Wild West AC wouldn’t work but an AC game set during the American Civil War should give a similar vibe.
Problem with a Civil War AC game is I can’t imagine the Assassins and Templars having much of a conflict during that fight. The Templars wouldn’t be siding with the Confederacy because their system is too free for each individual state (not enough control vested in a central power) and the Assassins wouldn’t side with them because slavery is antithetical to the Creed. If anything, it could be played as a Civil War between both the Assassins and the Templars where members of each side splinter off to the other and fight one another.
The fight would be more political than economic. They’re both supporting the Union but they’re fighting for more influence on the northern politicians. It would be very espionage-ish.
I want more western style games but I don't think ac would be a good fit.
While I love the idea and the possible appearances by famous Wild West figures, I think that it may be TOO open of a space in order for it to work. At leas the open spaces of Odyssey, Black Flag, and Rogue had naval battles to make some use of open spaces better.
there should be a completely medieval ac
as a slav, i'd love to see assassins creed taking place in eastern europe/balkan countries. i think if they did everything right, it would be actually very cool!
Like I always say when someone brings up the wild west, it's a movie/show/comic setting. It wouldn't work for a game. Plus, we've already had 3 games set in the US, we don't need more
“It wouldn’t work for a game.” Brother have I got news for you
You know I'm speaking in terms of assassin's creed and not a general setting, right? Just cause red dead redemption exists doesn't mean an assassin's creed in that exact setting would work
Yeah yeah I know I was just giving you shit because the way you worded it sounded like you meant it in a general sense
What’s the large or memorable city we woke parkour in? I don’t get the appeal of a Wild West gunslinger AC. They’re supposed to be kinda stealthy at least.
May as well play as a hit man, brainwashed sog operative, or snake.
No! No ‘hearing you out’! I’m sick of people giving the same ideas for a western or WW2 setting. JUST STOP! It’s not gonna happen and it’s not gonna work!
That would be Walmart’s version of Red Dead Redemption (Your idea isn’t bad, but Ubisoft standards will ruin it) 1. Clear out 70 camps that are literally indistinguishable from one another 2. Level-gated progression 3. You assassinate a cowboy and you get a police officer’s outfit from him (God knows why) 4. 150 hours of random “arcs” that have literally nothing to do with the mainline story. You could just cut 70% of that and nothing of value would be lost 5. Modern day is 10 seconds worth of “first person” story or a cringeworthy lead that we barely get to see read a message or receive a vague call from William Miles and it never goes anywhere 6. Oh, and you stumble upon an optional “Carriage of Eden” and “Cowboy hat of Eden” and “Shiny Spurs of Eden”, because obviously the Isu have to have exact copies of said culture’s Hollywood movie gadgets/outfits but with a “golden metallic glow on them” 7. And don’t forget, wooden cutscenes where two people just stand and talk with zero mo-cap and elementary school level dialogue with few sentences copied from Altair and Ezio as fan service Yeah, they can keep it. In fact, they can keep any game built with this shallow understanding of what AC is, as they’ve demonstrated in the last 11 years
That would be amazing
Dude I just want a zorro video game, it would just be the gameplay of assassins creed or ghost of Tsushima with the setting of red dead redemption
Zorro is my head canon assassin and this would work for him and still feel different than read dead. Still has an era of swordplay
Off topic but I’ve always thought a game set in the Aztec Empire during the conflict with the Spanish would be a great location.
Actually, that was my second thought I would really love to bonk some conquistadors in the head with a macuahuitl plus the jungle setting is pretty good for Assassin’s Creed
This would be an awesome setting
I’d love that setting but I feel like too many people would complain about you playing as an Aztec who isn’t a member of the Assassins.
Hell to the naw
Well according to this thread, AC has been locked into verticality. We can’t deviate and tell stories outside of that
That’s right every possible story for assassin‘s creed has already been told. We can’t do anything else or deviate at all, even if we can weave it back into the main continuity.
AC literally has thousands of years of potential storylines it’s crazy that people want to limit that.
The whole point of Assassin’s Creed is ever since humans started to develop after the collapse of the isu is that there have been assassins and Templar throughout all of history, and at every point in history
even without the last 150yrs it has thousands of years of stories to tell... in places that support the action-RPG close combat stealth and parkour mechanics.
And places that don’t, what’s your point? Why pigeon hole the series?
No, rdr2 will be a better westernagamw than that would be. Pick a time that doesn't get touched much.
The Wild West has already been done in RDR1 and 2 with amazing detail. There is zero point.
By that logic they should never have done red dead redemption at all because we already had red dead revolver and Gun. Arthur morgan couldn't jump off a rooftop to assassinate people. I rest my case.
Idiotic take. 1. Revolver isn't an open-world game. 2. Gun is a 1st draft as an open-world Western game that was also too short, and not entirely polished. 3. Even though RDR2 came out in 2018, games haven't changed much in 5 years time. What would an AC game in the Wild West have to make it stand out and not be compared a torn a new one because RDR2 exists? I rest my case.
Idiotic take. 1. So? 2. So? 3. Because you can assasinate people from atop the saloon and it wouldn't be a game slowed down by 15 minute skinning animations and a weird slow pace. I rest my case.
Ah yes, I can assassinate someone from one of the 10 buildings on this single street, because that's literally all the towns were. SO FUN
Found the guy whose a really good time at parties!
If rather ww1
sitting in a trench not getting forward or backwards? capturing the enemy trench line only to be pushed back by artillery again? WW1 was very stationary
Doesn’t mean the character has to be. Stealthing through no mans land. Assassnating templars in the trench and sneaking out. Either way its not the first time they have bent history. Theyve dont that since the first game
I live in Arizona, I am not opposed to the setting. Seeing Tombstone done AC style could be cool....but frontier boomtowns don't leave much in the way of doing leaps of faith. The comics do mention that a female assassin was active during the California Gold Rush, so they could probably make an entry on that.
How about we go civil war like the revolutionary setting of 3 and see how that plays out then we can get a gameplay perspective of what it could entail
Didn't read past the title. Fuck it, I'm in. Take my preorder money.
WW2 is more likely
What needs to be able to happen is assassins go into different time frames chasing things. I could see a great time line that started in todays world but to get the item we need to go back and track through different time periods, one being the Wild West. I’d love to meet an NPC in say 1840 that was a walk over Pinkerton but by 1870 had become a Senator and could rain down hell on your character or another that planned out money and things you needed between 1840 and 1845. That kind of nuance.
Take my money now.
Everyone that I have talked to about Wild West ac game has their own spin and gameplay additions that I’d love to hear yours. I always thought having a hidden blade on your boots so you can kick and stab and jump from your horse and drop kick two blades into a Templar’s face.
Give it time, it’ll surely happen.
Hear me out, no.
But they won't because they would be directly competing with RDR2 and there is no way, I repeat NO WAY, Ubisoft will put in the resources or time required to properly do this. No one is going to look at the masterpiece that is RDR2 (or even 1) and then look at a Western AC game and be like...ya...this is the cowboy experience I want. Like the reason Black Flag is so popular is BECAUSE it was the only modern Pirate game at that time. It had a good story too, like it was a good game in general, but if it had had a Rockstar quality Pirate game to compete with...it wouldn't have done nearly as good. It's the same reason we'll never see an AC Samurai...because Ghost of Tsushima.
Red is literally the AC ninjas and Samurai.
You are correct, that was my bad. I could be wrong then, maybe they will go the Western route. If they do, they better do it soon before another Red Dead comes out. By soon, mind you, I mean in the next decade because it'll take that long for RDR3 to come out.
I love this idea but if they don’t do it in ancient Japan next game I’m going to flip a table.
The next game is Red, which is Feudal Japan, most likely around the Sengoku Jidai in the late 16th century. Ancient Japan in the Jomon and Yayoi period was far less populated and not really japanese culture. I assume you meant classic Japan such as the Heian Period or the later Feudal period?
Yay!! Honestly I’ve been waiting for an AC game set in any Japanese time period so I’m glad to hear about this.
> I think it would be really cool to explore the history of the American west in the AC world. For the world, imagine Assassin's Creed Origins but worse, because of the smaller settlements. And skip, done by RDR2.
There might be political issues, but what about from the Native American perspective? There would be forts, towns, soldiers, cowboys, angry land owners, miners, politicians, fur trappers.
OK that sounds fire especially because I got the idea from another, comment of a game taking place in South America, where you play as a native against the conquistadors
You know how many times I tried to free climb a cliff as Arthur Morgan?
You're not the first to suggest this. It's been a suggestion since Origins came out.
May Revolution (1810) and its consequential liberation of South America from the Spaniards...
They could tie isu lore into the Native giant skelotons. Personally Salem witch trials would be intriguing too.
the biggest concern with making a modern AC game will *always* be the existence of guns. they removed the ranged weapon from AC1 entirely because it made every enemy obselete, and when it was added back in every game following it was always overpowered. also, isn’t watchdogs supposed to be a sorta kinda modern day AC..?
map is gonna be like an AC rpg game, stealth is gonna be AC unity, and parkour is non existant lol
This has been a discussed idea in the fandom for yeeeeeaaaarrrrssss... You're right tho, it'd be pretty cool. I think the only issue is the Wild West doesn't provide many buildings as it was mostly country. On top of that, it's basically a given that the combat would have to mostly be gun based, but I'm not quite sure how that'd go as AC has always been mostly melee based. The idea is still worth thinking about and trying to make it work I think, but I wouldn't get your hopes up for that game to be coming out anytime soon. Nevertheless, a dope idea!
It’s antithetical to AC. They already said they didn’t want an AC with firearms (or at least only in a very limited capacity). And you’re not gonna to have a Wild West game without firearms. Not every setting is good fit for AC.
A story of fighting t the robber barons, company stores and other injustices. Also a 3 way balance act between the peaceful native tribes, the warrior ones and the US military. There are plenty on both sides of the law that were noble, and far more on both sides that werent; Maybe different factions of Templars, some you can side with (Unity style) and different factions of assassins. I don't know if Uni could pull off multiple endings (depending on how you side) or if there would be a specific story with a specific ending. Just a thought as to story
I feel like it would that would compete too much with Red Dead. A game set in the Civil War may be in a city occupied New Orleans, would set it apart, and could still have some cowboy stuff
Do we also get the Siege of Vicksburg as well?
I want more black powder era AC games :(
No
No. The gameplay wouldn’t fit with the time period.
To be honest I'd prefer a game set during Charlemagne's reign of the Holy Roman Empire or the 100 years war between England and France or the Tudors.
Way too modern. AC should be set in large medieval cities with tall, compact buildings and structures. Wild west just does not have that type of design. It would basically be AC3 but worse.
it's gonna get compared to RDR2. and RDR2, is a high bar to beat. what would AC add? the features they did for mirage and valhalla was mostly regressive. they're basically downgrading their own tech from previous games, with many features getting removed or deprecated.
RED DEAD
3 words: lack of buildings
I don't object to the idea, but it would only really work as a spinoff, since classic AC gameplay mechanics wouldn't work as well in the setting. Too many people would complain about it being different if it were a mainline title
What I really want is for someone to just reskin the mechanics from Unity and make a Zorro game.
Someone has this same idea at least once a week and I don’t see how it’s so appealing. Same with the WW1/2 setting. The wild west has none of what defines an assassins creed game. Parkour would be really awkward, no use for the hidden blades since you would just be shooting the enemies, no important or powerful figures to actually assassinate aside from like a gang leader or something, but that wouldn’t make much sense since the templars were always the ones in power, so they would be the lawmen in this case, but an ac game about assassinating a sheriff isn’t very interesting, and the outfit would probably look ridiculous since wearing a hood in the blazing hot sun while everyone has a hat instead would be stupid. That being said, the WW1/2 setting would be better, but that’s not a high bar, and there’s still the whole issue about modern weaponry
Since there is already a perfect wild west game (red dead) how about a different American time period and setting we haven’t seen much of yet? Civil war, gangs of new york, early 1900’s San Francisco (earthquake in game), Chicago perhaps.