Are you sure it's the gameplay though? Honestly, for all the reasons I pointed out above and more, the gameplay was far better in ACB. I think that pro-ACR positivity marathon thread is going to backfire considerably, because ACR is going to stick out like a sore thumb against the others. Bombs aren't a gameplay revolution at all - they're just tipping an unfair fight even further in your favour. And how many bomb missions were simply "Stand here. Throw bomb. Now throw bomb again. Well done, have 100% sync". Gameplay, seriously?Originally posted by ProdiGurl:
There is no doubt that the Story/Writing and game length are an issue in ACR.
But where it lacks in those areas, it excels in gameplay imo.
Gameplay to me is more important than a lacking story. If I cared more about story I'd be reading the book.
Something I'm noticing is that people who love ACR are the same people who couldn't complete the Cluster/Truth puzzles in past ACs and found the fighting difficult.
I think there's a problem of game journalism here as well, because the past few years of internet statistics collation have given us headlines that "[Company X] admits only 45% of customers completed [Game Y]" - like it's somehow shameful, and then Company X pledges to make the sequel to Game Y "more forgiving" than its predecessor. In the past, it was expected that most players (probably fewer than 45%) would ever reach the end, and that was fine and good. I've stopped to admire the architecture and fallen off high ledges in ACR's tombs on repeat playthroughs, during runs where I just wanted to wander through without 100% sync, and still beat the time easily. It's very noticeable that Ubisoft is pandering towards the lowest level of ability and intelligence to make those people feel good about themselves.