its what i said, in the first replyDaemon300;362288 said:This isn't Assassin's Creed III. I've read in one of the interviews, that someone said that it's like Assassin's Creed 2.5
Daemon300;362755 said:Multiplayer. Ezio. Rome.
*Cough*left4dead2 *cough*minusthecharacters *cough*Arseface;362817 said:So you're saying any sequel which features the same characters, new features and a new setting isn't a true sequel? You're not making sense, mister.
Necromancer11;362812 said:It's the next game in the series, so as long as it's not officially named Assassin's Creed 2.5 (which it obviously won't be), it's Assassin's Creed 3 to me.
Shirosaki;362831 said:The game will be called "Assassin's Creed 2 Episodes"
Arseface;362844 said:Yeah, but it doesn't make it any less a sequel. The gap between Fable II and Fable III is 50 years, whereas the gap between the first two is 500 years. Does that mean that Fable III is actually Fable 2.1? No.
i just finished bio shock 2 and i can say that it feels like no.2 not 1.5 IMOZjuggernaut;362852 said:I see where you're coming from but people have said BioShock 2 feels like BioShock 1.5 because not enough has changed. It has the same sort of feeling to it.
Since it isn't actually the sequel, there isn't any point of going on about it.