news Brotherhood and Revelations allowed ACIII to happen

Article

quote

The big creative leap promised by Assassin's Creed 3 would have been impossible had Ubisoft not annualised the franchise, according to the sequel's creative director Alex Hutchinson.
Speaking to Eurogamer backstage at E3 this week, Hutchinson defended Ubisoft's shift to an annual release model, explaining that it would have been impossible to be so ambitious with the impending third entry in the franchise had Brotherhood and Revelations not kept things ticking over.
"We have multiple groups now working [on the series]. We started this one in January 2010, the same time as Brotherhood and before Revelations," he explained.
"The core team on this one has been working at it for almost three years, which is something you can almost never get in the industry these days - it's too expensive, too risky. So we need the other projects to support that kind of development - these big jumps.

A little late with this one but a fantastic discussion point.

People have been complaining about the annualised release of the previous AC titles, with Brotherhood coming a year after II and Revelations a year after Brotherhood. Alex Hutchinson came forward at E3 this year saying that having their annual releases of the game helped aid the big step they have taken in producing and making Assassin's Creed III, stating they have become better in forward planning, mean that they're possibly currently undergoing discussions for the next AC title, if not already underway developing it. We know that it won't be released within the next 12 months after III though, since the game's releases are going to become more staggered. But with Ubisoft stating they want 10 AC games to go through their conveyer belts, just how long will the series last? How many years in development will the franchise undergo?

With this news though, it shows promise for ACIII being "the best" Assassin's Creed title to date, being bigger and better than ever. But does this also mean Ubisoft have admitted they didn't really know where they were going with the series after the success of Assassin's Creed I? Perhaps, but I'm looking forward to this game either way. It's been 3 years in development, so it should be something spectacular.

Tbh I think they really milked Ezio to death, literally. It was getting really ridiculous to see someone his age to be doing what he does in Revelations. They could have featured a different assassin in each game if they wanted, but that would obviously have cost them more money. The real question now becomes whether or not AC4 will come right after AC3 or will they milk Connor the same way they did to Ezio.

Actually only revelations led to ac3 brotherhood led to Revelations

quote Hayes1987

I actually really enjoyed brotherhood and revelations. Despite what can be said about them(and I'm not saying I disagree with those things) I'm glad they made them. I really enjoyed Ezio's story and to see the whole thing through like that was nice.

In knowing how long it took them to make AC3 though.......should be really good, I'm excited to play it.

We got to see Ezio from the very beginning, and ending it with brotherhood wouldn't had been the best idea really. I don't know why people are bashing it so much, yea it was yearly releases but it got the player to feel as if he lived Ezio's entire life.

I don't mind seeing Ezio again. His story is always great and force me to continuous playing. And at least this time he will have a stable life lol.

I personally disliked the over milking of Ezio and thought we could do without Ezio ever freaking year. By revelations I lost interest but I can understand where Ubisoft is coming from, still don't like how they milked Ezio to death though.