I really wanted free-aiming, it would have added challenge to the game. ACB and ACR allowed us to go on an absolute rampage with the crossbows, guns and darts because of that lock-on system which guaranteed hits which was frustrating as it made stealth way too easy and we kill too many guards who are only following orders, they arent real enemies and we end up killing like 2o of them in one mission. Pretty disappointed. The aiming system in RDR was challenging and simple and had an option for lock on but it didnt guarantee a kill.
The point is that AC isn't a skill game for combat. Skill in AC is stealth, not combat. In AC you don't control entirely what happens, you aren't the one that does things. even in canon somewhat it makes sense that the Animus does some things automatically.
Point being, if you want skill in combat feel free to play the other games in which that is a viable option, AC is not it. In AC skill requirement comes mainly from choosing how you strike, not from striking. The movement is the focus, not the combat. In AC it is just a swift hit and an enemy goes down, that's just how AC works. Some games focus on the combat, some focus on the movement, AC is a movement game.
As if I haven't said it enough times already, the control of gameplay comes in the movement, not combat. They aren't focusing on making combat like that. It just isn't AC. It isn't a matter of flicking a switch or even going through the trouble of making it. It would be a drastic change in gameplay to have that, truly think about it. Think of the pistol as an instant Hidden pistol and visualize having freeaim with AC mechanics. It just couldn't work, the end result would not only not work, but would also lower the score and sales slightly.
Let me elaborate, the end result would be extremely weak, even if it is just a small added feature for the few that want it, not only would it not work the way they expect it (I mean seriously think about freeaim in AC mechanics), but having sucha flawed system would attract negative reviews and criticisms over a small thing which would lead to less sales. Ridiculous and pointless? Yes, but we know it's the way it works.
Ah but I meant they should add free-aim mechanic for bow to make it more fun to use when hunting or moving stealthy. There would be no sense in free-aim pistols since they are used in fast paced close(/mid) range combat.
I don't have much of an opinion on this, but I'm fine with the decision. I think we should withhold a lot of judgment until we see the actual mechanic, because it doesn't sound like it will be identical to previous games. I always liked the Arkham games where you could manually aim, but the only things worth aiming at ended up being relatively sticky once your aim got near them. In games like Batman and Assassin's Creed, I personally don't want to spend too much of my time manually aiming.
Also in Batman, I believe once you locked onto a moving person the reticule could change to other parts of their body besides their heads, meaning there was still some skill required to keep the reticule aimed at their head so you could knock them out. I'd like to see that for AC3, where perhaps if you don't manage the reticule properly or your prey moves too much, the reticule will switch to other parts of their body where shooting them wouldn't kill them but simply alert everyone to your presence. I could also imagine someone moving out of range of your weapon, thus losing the reticule and requiring you to sneak closer.
For me, Assassin's Creed is fun because of the stalking of the prey before a relatively easy kill. If you don't properly approach them, your ranged weapons may become useless because other guards will start to attack you anyway, and your kill becomes more difficult. In Skyrim, hunting was fun, but the sneaking was a really basic and kind of lame mechanic of just crouching and walking slowly near animals while manually aiming at them. I would like to see the flipside of that in AC3, where the sneaking is a fully fleshed out mechanic forcing you to hunt animals from behind bushes or above them in trees, then having the final kill be a little more straightforward.
oh okay, yea people have been using skyrim as an example a lot, idk why though. but yea it would add more elements to the game. but also for example, lets say you have to kill your target and end up barely missing because you made a mistake, the target and all his guards would know that not only someone is trying to kill (target) but they would know what direction the assassin is in. So now you have to either chase down the target with all the guards ready for you (if he is a runner) or fight him and all his men instead of just killing him and escaping. It would make the game more challenging (maybe harder wasn't the best term to use, but i hope you get my point). Also another issue with the lock-on system is distance. How far can we shoot an arrow? the longest accurate shot was 92.35 meters (101 yd). will we really be able to lock onto a target from that distance and shoot/kill him. With free-aim we could, well with a little adjustments to the bow and arrow gameplay. what i mean is if Connor would automatically adjust for the distance then we could hit any target at any distance as long as it is within his limits. The way the game would know who we were exactly aiming at is it would lightly highlight the target our cross-hair is on, (not lock on to him but just highlight him).
Ah you bring a good point.. Well i wouldn't mind if they did end up putting free-aim now. It would really bring a new twist to the game.
Free aim would NOT make the game harder. Think about it, all of the guns are terrible, but you have the only consistent range weaponry in the game (bow and arrow). Making this free-aim, akin to a TPS, would make the game easier, not harder. You will be able to stand back, and rapidly kill every enemy you come across. You would never be required to enter close-combat. With auto-aim, the developers can put measures in place so that the gameplay is balanced. First, each long-range weapon has a pre-programmed effective range (with free-aim the effective range isn't as specific), firing the weapons with free-aim would be a lot quicker and easier, whereas auto-aim requires the player to wait until they have a precise shot, or risk missing (this gives enemies time to approach the player, forcing close combat).
If any of you had read the first post, or listened to the podcast, then you would know that is isn't just 'hold the ****on to kill' and that you can now choose where to shoot enemies, causing wounds, etc.
I know this might not be possible in the game, but I imagined hitting a redcoat with an arrow in the leg, he hobbles back to his camp as you follow the trail of blood he leaves behind, ambushing the entire camp and killing everybody there, Delaware River style.
Your first paragraph makes no sense at all. You can't miss with auto aim, because its auto aim.
Okay so now you can shoot them in 1 of 5 places, having free aim would allow you to hit them where you want to hit them and would require more precision in your shots. I can think of scenarios where free aim would work (hunting...) And scenarios where you would need the speed and exact precision of auto aim (multiple targets).
I would rather have free aim because i like to feel like i'm actually playing a game and not watching a movie :/ but i can still live on with this minor disappointment, with only a few female dogging posts on it (definitly not as many female dog posts that i have on OSB in MP)
A lot of us did expect free-aiming, since after all, as the AC games progressively get to the modern-era, they will have to put free-aiming in eventually. It's not like free-aiming would ruin the close-combat gameplay either, since the Batman Arkham games had free-aiming, and both Batman and AC gameplay are quite similar.
Arkham City doesn't have free-aiming, the ranged weapons are auto-targeted to certain points (whether it's an object or a point on someones body). It actually sounds like that AC3's aiming is fairly similar to Arkham City's.