@mrzero1982pt2 @TohouAsura I'm not going to get into an argument with you on that last statement, for I really don't care for it.
If you would've read what I said, you would've known that the reason isn't because a female role doesn't fit. It's for the sake of continuity and keeping the franchise consistent. The main games have male lead roles. Time and sales have shown this is the most effective decision. Had the market been different, we would've seen a female instead.
Let me ask me this: Would you take it kindly if Tomb Raider had a male lead role suddently? I sure wouldn't.
The very fact people are asking "why isn't there a female lead yet?" is wrong. It's not there because they decided it doesn't work just yet. And I totally respect that, I hate it when companies conform to social conditioning just to look good. Ubisoft doesn't have to prove anything to you, they probably have more female staff than any other studio. The project leader for AC2 was a female.
It's extremely average, not befitting the high quality of AC games. Even GS gave it a 6.5.
Yes, it is one of the best rated titles for the Vita. It also happens to be one of the only titles currently available to the Vita's tiny game library, if you can even call it that.
@Acillatem1993 @TohouAsura Well it sounds to me like most of your reasons are just personal tastes rather than actual changes.
Brotherhood added more than just Chain attack. It also added the Brotherhood micro-management, which, unsurprisingly, stayed in following games. To be noted, AC3's Brotherhood management was abysmal and an after-thought.
Seeing Ezio grow is interesting, yet Ezio as a Master Assassin shows you what a developed character he is now, and how he makes far better choices than he did in the past. But again, to each his own.
First you say Rome is nothing special (which alot of people here are bound to disagree with you on that), and now you say the Frontier is actually a feature? The frontier was impressive, but overly repetitive too and nothing much to see. Tree climbing was the same as Parkour was before only without the buildings. Nothing really changed.
Hunting was very shallow, RDR still did it better, and you never actually needed money in AC3.
No, really, you didn't.
Oh well, no use arguing, your mind is already set it seems.
Expect this comment section to get flooded... Yaaaay.
Whatever. Liberation was largely a failure, and was noted for how shallow of a character Aveline was. If you can't write a good female character, don't.
Besides, AC always had male lead roles, and a fanbase rooted in that. To change it midway for the main games would be a very bad decision that would make alot of people go "WTF".
This is something that should be tried with a new franchise, not a well-rooted one. You are risking too much market for attention whoring. Even Ubisoft won't take that risk.
To be honest though, i'm puzzled as to why we are having a new Protagonist at all.
I mean, we already know what happens at the end of AC3, and that kinda makes the whole battle pointless.
And didn't they say the series was planned to end as a trilogy? Guess they don't give a shit about promises when AC3 sold 12 million.
TohouAsura's comments