Ubisoft sued as author wants to block sale of Assassin’s Creed III
Author of hit novel Link (never heard of it…) John Beiswenger is suing Ubisoft on the grounds that the entire Assassin’s Creed fiction was his idea. Link explores the same ideas of diving through ancestral memories, futurist’s technology, and even sub plots of religion and God that Assassin’s Creed also dances around. Now since this allegation against Ubisoft mentions it is a “direct copy”, he might be shit out of luck.
Reading through the brief summary, the story only appears vaguely familiar, missing all the fun and stabbing that goes on in the Assassin’s Creed series. In total Mr. Beiswenger is hoping to get at least $1 million if not $5.2 million in damages and he would like everything Assassin’s Creed III related to stop.
He had better hope that Ubisoft doesn’t have to comply with that last part, because I can't be held accountable for what would happen to him. I need my AssCreed fix dammit! Strangely Gametrailers has been roped into this as well for hosting the following trailer. I am going to just make sure we don’t have that one up on the site… brb.
god the people making the horible reviews for the book are funny
I can understand suing for money if he believes its a copy, but telling them not to make the next game? That's just spiteful! Even in the case that it is a copy, I'm sure I like Assassin's Creed better, doesn't that count for something? lol
You must have skipped through a lot, since I 100%ed both single players (B and R) and they took me about 20-30 hours each. they definitely had too few story missions and the story was off the main focus, which is probably why if you mainly played the story you beat it pretty quickly, but the games had a ton of rich content outside of the story that I liked a lot.
and about the first part of your post, you're making the (incorrect IMO) assumption that the two teams did not share information. I believe that finishing Ezio's and Altair's stories was left the AC:B/R team while continuing Desmond's story was left in the hands of the ACI/II team with a small amount of details and progress thrown towards the other team so that they can stay on the main cannon in their games. I kinda liked the way this was played, the only thing that bugs me about the whole ordeal is AC:Embers (the CG short film that continues Ezio's story from AC:R until his death). it made me believe that ACIII would take place in China and I was eagerly anticipating that.
TLDR: ACIII might have been worked on since ACII, but there are a lot of worrying factors to consider as to how much of that time has been devoted to the story and game overall, not just the new engine. I am not saying I wont give ACIII a fair shake, simply that with whats being going on with major series like ME, Final Fantasy, AC and the like I'd rather take news about interesting new games with a grain of salt.
As I said. They say. Yes you are right, if you look up the references and credits, its clear the ACII team is not the ACB/R team. Now I will take this at face value, they could be lying to us, I dont know, few companies get away with that kind of stuff. What I'm saying however, is that even if the team working on ACIII really were working on a totaly new game system and not just tossing a new story ontop of ACII's very attractive engine, there is still the issue of ACB/R existing at all. If you have a story team who have to make a sequel to two games that are in development, your handcuffing them to a story-line someone else is writing, [or in DA2's case, writing a story that wont line up with the existing narrative] this results in A: both teams being forced to work together on the overarching story, with gaps between writers showing up later on to cause issues to fans. b: greatly underdeveloped storytelling. C: A team forced to sit around and wait for the finalized script to show up. Thus even if the ACIII engine has been worked on since ACII the ACIII story has A: Been forced to stay unspecific while ACB/R were developed. B: be written but then when B/R were released rewritten to fit the newly established facts. C: Be rushed out once they finally got there hands on the final script. What I'm trying to say is that the storyline and real gameplay need more time to be built, that the engine might be a work in progress since ACII doesn't mean that the other major elements have had that same development.
As well, you also point out the first major issue with B/R. If they were full games, they would have done something with the story. I agree that the gameplay of B/R are polished but the story and depth of both games have serous flaws. I wont hold liking B/R against anyone. I got lucky and picked up R at boxing day for $20 and traded it back in for $30 against my vita. Lucky on my part. And its not like they didn't have a few good ideas. I loved the grenades in ACR, but they were like the brotherhood from ACB. A great idea with so little development put into them. Maybe I'm just a story junkie but the fact they glossed over such epic idea's like building a brotherhood is just one of many reasons I have issues with B/R.
My total play time in ACII is around 20 hours. Now I'm not a master of games. I try to complete everything I can but I don't have many Plat trophy's. however I beat brotherhood in around 10-12 hours including some casual play of the still active and somewhat interesting multi-player. That's where my issues started. So much of the action and story was implied rather then enjoyed. Yes you could recruit people into the brotherhood, but they were so generic and faceless that I spent 20 minutes just ignoring recruiting options just so i could get a female assassin in my ranks at all. Now R did improve on this, as they added some sort of depth to the recruiting of the brotherhood... and I gotta give them points for the 'mastery' quests you got to do. They really added some depth... resulting in my play though of ACR being a whopping 8 hours.
Rathclav, you've completely missed the fact that the Team that made ACI and ACII is the team making ACIII whilst AC:R and AC:B were made by separate teams, and that also seems to be the reason they moved very little in Desmond's plot.
Personally, I liked AC:B and AC:R a lot, I think they polished the gameplay of ACII to perfection and added a lot of fun perks and additions. if you don't like them that's your right, but don't tarnish them as quick cash grabs - they each had a crap ton of content with many improvements and features not present in ACII.
people will buy it anyway, if it winds up being the same old game with a few tweaks and a new and yet highly implausable storyline theyll what complain? moan on the internet? People wont care if it sucks or not,they wont read reviews or play the dmeo in their masses.
Anyway ive yet to play ACR, need to pick up Ottoman when it goes <£20, it just looks like the same old game since 2, willing to play them but they are in no way day one urchases.
Agreed OPG. They have some good ideas but that's running against a company that just wants to milk sequels rather then pay for the development of real games. It sounds like this game was done by a separate subdivision of ubisoft but will it stand up to the test? Time will tell. And I hope if it does blow, people can wait for the truth to leak out before 3.7 million copy's sell like rev did in its first few weeks.
Didnt they claim AC3 has been in development since the middle of AC2's development? seem to remember reading that about a month ago, at the very least i remember it claims it had been in production since before Brotherhood came out, so thats a few years atleast. But,yes it is annoyingly going the way of generic FPS, new game every year, not enough content to care.
Ubisoft ripped the majority of ideas for Brotherhoods mp from a company they purchased and then booted out a window, they arent going to care about this.
No, unpolished and in need of better effort. A lot of idea's in both games worked great. But beside that, I never said I wanted them to lose this court case. I could care less about what he thinks he wants and didn't even see the part about gametrailers until after I had posted. That act makes this extra laughable, but I stand by my view that the seires could use a major delay as early on as possible to make sure they work on improving the game its self and not simply extra dlc or something silly like that. And as a final note: Threat to the dev's lively-hood? Come on man, this is a company that is so bloated with cash they pump out sequels every 9-12 months, even in there fitness games. They are as much at risk from some silly lawsuit as McDonald's is threatened by people who claim they got fat and its all McDonald's fault.
I wonder if William Shakespear was still alive he'd sue Disney for making The Lion King, which is basically the story of Hamlet
Just because your personal opinion dictates that the past few games are bad, doesnt mean that you should want this game delayed. Im all for the whole "in my opinion" stuff, but when your opinion directly threatens the livelihood of a game dev, as well as an innocent review company, i just see "ignorance" ... .. . although those games did suck
Sorry Sean but to tell the truth, I support him. Not because I think he is right, but because after the pathetic rush job/cash grab of brotherhood and revelations, I would rather see the next ac game delayed for two or three years and get worked on with some real care and effort instead of just being shit out as another yearly franchise that loses a huge amount of its creative depth. I'm not saying I don't belief there claims that ACIII has been worked on since ACII was released, I'm just saying that after everything they have done wrong with the series, It would be far better imho if they just took some time and polished this game properly.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to have done the lawsuit when the first AC game came out and not 4-5 games later. Makes it seem like he just wants a quick buck after the AC became a huge hit money-wise and the reports of AC III potentially being the biggest money maker in the series.
Honestly, all I see from the book synopsis is that it shares the concept of remembering the past. It's a shared idea between the two, but I wouldn't go far as to say that it really is that special of an idea to claim as being unique enough to warrant a lawsuit. It in a way is trying to say that Star Wars and Star Trek are similar enough, and that one ripped off the other.
I honestly think that an out of court settlement (if anything) will be the resolution. Judging by how niche his stuff appears, I'm pretty sure if a small segment of the (gaming) population did a review bomb of his stuff link what has happened to other gaming related stories, he might reconsider himeself...
Pff, it's not like he even has a chance.
Lol, I was about to mention that.
He's probably so desperate for food he might eat it XD. BRING OUT THE HORSE DOODOO!
No idea is truly original, stop your whining and be flattered they were inspired by you.
I would get my lazer and etch on his house:
"John Beiswenger is a big poo-poo head"