Sequel Confirmed by Joystiq.com
Setting Rumor Substantiated by GiantBomb.com

During the taping of Bonus Round, Pachter let slip that Ubisoft would be changing the time-frame of the freshly confirmed Assassin's Creed sequel from 1191 to “several hundred years in the future” or more specifically, “sometime in the 1700s.” While the time change was presented by Pachter as fact, he went on to speculate that the French Revolution could be a potential setting.

Well I'm down for it... what do you all think?

If they can add some variety so the damn thing isnt boring before you even hit the half-way point.

Agreed, they need many more mission types and they need to let you actually assassinate your main targets through stealth.  I was surprised when I found out you would be forced to fight each one face to face.

The overall design and feel of the original was superb though.  The freerunning was immensely satisfying.  Playing though Mirror's Edge at the moment, I can't help but feel DICE could've designed their parkour better.

AC was handholding you the whole way, free running was stupidly boring. Only thing satisfying about it was the animation.

i didnt like the hold down x to climb everything.. i would like to be more involved with the climbing almost like prince of persia.

I know what you guys mean.  I suppose the main reason behind detaching and simplifying the player inputs from what happens on screen, was to allow you to achieve more for less.  You just had to point your character in the right direction and the game would do all the complicated bits of jumping over gaps and grabbing onto outcroppings for you.

I guess thats why there was a mixed reaction to it.  You could call it handholding or too uninvolving, but I personally preferred it to the staccato nature of Mirror's Edge, where if you slightly mistime your jump or misdirect your character, you end up a bloody mess on the streets below. 

It disrupts the flow.  The end result, the smooth animation was what was satisfying for me as you said VX.

If they could make it more involving without disrupting the flow, that would be awesome too.

I know what you guys mean. I suppose the main reason behind detaching and simplifying the player inputs from what happens on screen, was to allow you to achieve more for less. You just had to point your character in the right direction and the game would do all the complicated bits of jumping over gaps and grabbing onto outcroppings for you. I guess thats why there was a mixed reaction to it. You could call it handholding or too uninvolving, but I personally preferred it to the staccato nature of Mirror's Edge, where if you slightly mistime your jump or misdirect your character, you end up a bloody mess on the streets below. It disrupts the flow. The end result, the smooth animation was what was satisfying for me as you said VX. If they could make it more involving without disrupting the flow, that would be awesome too.

I think i would have been able to live with the repetative missions if atleast the action and running had been involving, it doesnt feel daring if the guy your controlling just does it without blinking, Tomb Raider and Drake's Fortune sends a rush when you make a hard jump.

You see I find Tomb Raider infuriating sometimes, when you have a jump that should be really easy, but you have to press a dozen buttons to do it - and then it doesn't help when the camera is stuck in Lara's cleavage.  Well, you know what I mean...

The cleavage is the only part of tomb raider that isnt garbage.

Her tits are fake.  Laura Croft is the digital poster girl for bad breast augmentation.

You see I find Tomb Raider infuriating sometimes, when you have a jump that should be really easy, but you have to press a dozen buttons to do it - and then it doesn't help when the camera is stuck in Lara's cleavage. Well, you know what I mean...

Well if you cant figure out how to play it, i can see why youd want the game to play itself ;)

Agent Ghost


Her tits are fake.  Laura Croft is the digital poster girl for bad breast augmentation.

And the game is the digital poster for archaic game design that is only selling to fat lonely fucks who beat off to fake tits.

 Well if you cant figure out how to play it, i can see why youd want the game to play itself ;)

Its not that I can't figure it out.  Its times when you know exactly what you need to do, but the control mechanics or the camera wont let you.  Im sure its not just me who knows that feeling. 

I agree Assassin's Creed's controls were too uninvolving - but I can't think of a game that has such a free-flowing end result which also keeps you in the loop for every move.  Previous Prince of Persia games were good.

I'm not crazy about the French Revolution. I can already see what the gay side quests are going to be. "Beat down the guard and give the poor French man some cake." If they can fix the boring/repetitive gameplay it might be okay.

I'm expecting gameplay a la Sabotage/Velvet Assasin or whatever it's called now. Liberating the society by killing guards and destroying stuff, and thereby opening the possibilty to find more of those "Eden" things that the last game ended with.