PDA

View Full Version : Looking at the AC series so far, What would you change to make it better?



Journey93
02-05-2015, 11:41 PM
Only major titles counted

Examples:
I wouldn't kill off Desmond and make Modern Day more important in Black Flag, Rogue and Unity

I wouldn't make the villians in ACII and Brotherhood so cartoonish

SixKeys
02-06-2015, 01:30 AM
I would have only made one game with Ezio.

I wouldn't have released Unity until it was ready.

I wouldn't have dropped all the interesting subplots like Subject 16, Abstergo's satellite launch, AC1's e-mails, Erudito, Project Legacy etc.

I wouldn't have gone with the yearly release model.

I wouldn't have made AC3 so linear.

I would have introduced at least one major female protagonist already. (Since OP said only major titles count, I'm assuming Liberation doesn't.)

I wouldn't have tried to shatter the universe into a million transmedia expansions. Comic books, mobile games, companion apps, Initiates, the Assassin Network, novels (that sometimes contradict the games)...... Some stuff is fine, but not when they are more or less required just to play and understand the damn games.

I would have kept the Desmond arc as a trilogy (not a quadrilogy as it turned out), then start a new saga with another modern day protagonist.

JustPlainQuirky
02-06-2015, 01:40 AM
I would have only made one game with Ezio.

I wouldn't have released Unity until it was ready.

I wouldn't have dropped all the interesting subplots like Subject 16, Abstergo's satellite launch, AC1's e-mails, Erudito, Project Legacy etc.

I wouldn't have gone with the yearly release model.

I wouldn't have tried to shatter the universe into a million transmedia expansions. Comic books, mobile games, companion apps, Initiates, the Assassin Network, novels (that sometimes contradict the games)...... Some stuff is fine, but not when they are more or less required just to play and understand the damn games.



This.

I wouldn't introduce anti-consumer practices in order to squeeze out as much money as possible, thus hindering the player experience.

I wouldn't introduce online elements that will eventually have to be shut down due to inevitable server support drops thus making long-time re-playability squandered.

I wouldn't make a massive open world just to have most of it pointless empty space nor would I fill it with excessive useless collectibles.

I wouldn't lock in-game content behind other forms of media, thus making player experience very disjointed and un-immersive

I wouldn't introduce a lore-filled universe with infinite storytelling possibilities revolving around connections between past/present/future just to end up completely focusing on detached one-off stories with little to no relevancy to any other future or previous installments.

D.I.D.
02-06-2015, 02:37 AM
[ETA] Noting that I do think Unity is headed in the right direction generally, BUT... :)

On side content:

It's great that there's so much to do in Unity, but what you actually do isn't always good. The events aren't always worth a map icon, if you see what I mean. I think Unity would have been much better if only the main missions, the murder investigations, and a portion of the side missions were marked on the map: let's say 12-15 hours of gameplay. If the rest had been things you found by entering houses, or happening upon unusual commotion in the street and then speaking to the people concerned, it would have transformed the game. Imagine if de Sade's brothel was not marked with an icon, and you went back there just because you were curious about the character, and then you swung your controller in his direction to see the "Speak" option and were then rewarded with one of his missions. Twitter, forums, and the comments sections of gaming news websites would have been full of people swapping stories of the things they found, screenshots of where they found them. It wouldn't matter that many of the events were not particularly great, because if you found one that you hadn't already read about, it would feel like it was "yours". Instead we had a map crammed with icons, and many players said they felt dread looking at it, and I can see why. Although there were lots of fun missions to be found among the side content, if you played the wrong ones then you could easily be put off trying to do the rest.

Alternatively, I'd like to see far fewer missions with more thought and flair put into them. There is a yawning gulf between the respect for history of the visual artists and that of the writers sometimes. You can tell by just a quick glance through Darby McDeviitt's Twitter posts that he really puts time into studying historical data and also breaking down writing approaches in lots of different media, and this shines through in his work on Black Flag. Even small things such as the language in the notes in the collectable bottles was authentic and well observed. By contrast, Unity's writers totally squandered what they had with the French Revolution, and parts of it were infuriating to me.

Due to a bug, the Thomas Paine Paris Story didn't activate on my first run of Unity, and I was better off for not seeing it. Paine is one of my heroes, and I was amazed that he was completely left out of ACIII, but what happened in Unity was worse than a wasted opportunity. There was the absurd anachronism of Paine's three manuscripts needing to be recovered by the player as though they were somehow unpublished by this time, but worse than that, they depicted Paine as repeatedly dismissing his own work as "rubbish" that he could not care less about. This is jaw-droppingly stupid. Sure, Paine was cantankerous and odd, but this representation was indefensible, and it ignored how important Paine was to both Revolutions and how widely read his work was at the time. Part of me initially suspected that this was part of the writers' authoritarian bias throughout the game and an act of deliberate contempt, but on reflection Paine wasn't the only historical figure to suffer from this kind of carelessness. The whole game could have been greatly improved by culling a large number of those missions and putting unique events into them to make them memorable and interesting -- special incidents, special weather, special script, anything -- to give the player a greater sense of contemporary life.

The scattergun approach wasn't satisfying any requirement, either of history, gameplay, or fun. That said, this game had better side content than ever, and it's precisely because Unity's best missions were so good that the worst parts were so glaringly bad.

SixKeys
02-06-2015, 03:28 AM
[ETA] Noting that I do think Unity is headed in the right direction generally, BUT... :)

On side content:

It's great that there's so much to do in Unity, but what you actually do isn't always good. The events aren't always worth a map icon, if you see what I mean. I think Unity would have been much better if only the main missions, the murder investigations, and a portion of the side missions were marked on the map: let's say 12-15 hours of gameplay. If the rest had been things you found by entering houses, or happening upon unusual commotion in the street and then speaking to the people concerned, it would have transformed the game. Imagine if de Sade's brothel was not marked with an icon, and you went back there just because you were curious about the character, and then you swung your controller in his direction to see the "Speak" option and were then rewarded with one of his missions. Twitter, forums, and the comments sections of gaming news websites would have been full of people swapping stories of the things they found, screenshots of where they found them. It wouldn't matter that many of the events were not particularly great, because if you found one that you hadn't already read about, it would feel like it was "yours". Instead we had a map crammed with icons, and many players said they felt dread looking at it, and I can see why. Although there were lots of fun missions to be found among the side content, if you played the wrong ones then you could easily be put off trying to do the rest..

I agree. I've thought the same thing before, and the only thing standing in the way is the concept of full synchronization. It's time they got rid of that. The games would become a lot more fun if you could find missions simply by exploring, not just by running from icon to icon to clear the map.

EmptyCrustacean
02-06-2015, 03:38 AM
- I wouldn't retcon the Templars and try to do this forced "grey area" crap where it's not appropriate.
- I wouldn't have so many origin stories.
- I wouldn't have got rid of the modern day story line.
- I wouldn't have killed Lucy.
- I wouldn't have killed Desmond.
- I wouldn't have let Alex Amancio direct Unity.
- I would have had one female protagonist by now.
- I would have had a black man as the man protagonist in Black Flag for the main game.
- I wouldn't have made a pirate game and slapped the AC title on it.
- I wouldn't have made such a big map just to fill it with excessive, pointless collectibles.
- I wouldn't have locked SP player content behind microtransactions, transmedia and MP content.
- I wouldn't have English accents in French Revolution Paris.
- I wouldn't have released Unity. At all.

D.I.D.
02-06-2015, 03:47 AM
I agree. I've thought the same thing before, and the only thing standing in the way is the concept of full synchronization. It's time they got rid of that. The games would become a lot more fun if you could find missions simply by exploring, not just by running from icon to icon to clear the map.

Yeah, I think that worst thing any player can do is to 100% these games, and the removal of those stats would greatly help the replay value and people's general fondness for the games.

I fully agree with all your points too.


- I wouldn't retcon the Templars and try to do this forced "grey area" crap where it's not appropriate.
- I wouldn't have so many origin stories.
- I wouldn't have got rid of the modern day story line.
- I wouldn't have killed Lucy.
- I wouldn't have killed Desmond.
- I wouldn't have let Alex Amancio direct Unity.
- I would have had one female protagonist by now.
- I would have had a black man as the man protagonist in Black Flag for the main game.
- I wouldn't have made a pirate game and slapped the AC title on it.
- I wouldn't have made such a big map just to fill it with excessive, pointless collectibles.
- I wouldn't have locked SP player content behind microtransactions, transmedia and MP content.
- I wouldn't have English accents in French Revolution Paris.
- I wouldn't have released Unity. At all.

I like most of this, except I would have killed Desmond twice, and I think Black Flag and Unity are the best in the series so far.

Fatal-Feit
02-06-2015, 03:57 AM
MD:

*First person camera from the start.

*Ended Desmond's story after AC1

*New first person protagonist every game

*No end of the world shenanigan

*Less First Civ shenanigans (no meeting or Juno/Minerva)

kriegerdesgottes
02-06-2015, 05:00 AM
1. I wouldn't have made the franchise annual.

2. I would have tried to keep Patrice Desilets from quitting and not fire him when he came back.

3. I would have kept Jesper Kyd as the composer.

4. I would have kept Desmond as the modern day protagonist.

5. I would have kept the animus and kept it glitchy./ the bleeding effect concept.

6. Lucy would have not been: Spoilers:....a traitor and she would not have died.

7. I wouldn't have ended Daniel Cross's story the way it did.

8. Subject 16 would have had a way better storyline and ending.

9. I would have kept movement, climbing, navigation the way it was in the first 4 games with the same control scheme. (I miss it)

10. I would never have introduced any MP into the series at all.

Peluso_killer
02-06-2015, 06:32 AM
Just a few things:
*I would have delayed AC3 a whole year.
*I wouldn't have gone with the yearly release model

ENKISHEMU
02-06-2015, 09:57 AM
i believe that story wise the games have been losing their way since the death of Desmond as i thought he as going to be a very important character. i would have kept him alive. but now hes dead, it seems a free for all which has culminated into this vortex of the 18th century.

bring back Desmond - when the Templars retrieved his body and took his DNA, there is room that they could have cloned him to rework on his ancestors like in AC1. but this time he is a vegetable without memory and a willing tool for the Templars. hearing that the Templars have someone locked up, Shaun and Rebecca infiltrate Abstergo entertainment (as seen in Black flag). by the time of AC Rogue, they are the ones responsible for the power cut which we fix but by that time they have claimed Desmonds clone. when safe, they put him back in their animus and send him back into his own memories right up to where he "dies".

Desmond did not really save the world - it was a double cross at the grand temple. the argument between Juno and Minerva is to convince the humans to save he world by pressing that button which kills Desmond, but instead of saving the world from the same fate that killed those who came before, it was also a means to reanimate them and now they're on their way back to Earth to reclaim it from the Humans - Armageddon. but Desmond eventually will lead a charge against them of a united army of Templars and Assassins.

how the assassins creed came to Christendom - Robin Hood. after the events of AC1, King Richard has been upsetting the various kings in the crusade coalition, especially the French king Francis. Templar knights are sent to assassinate him but he is saved by Altair, and an archer of the army, Robin. Robin learns of the Assassins order and is taught by his mentor, Altair during the rift between the assassins under Abbas (revelations). eventually, King Richard dies in France at Châlus-Chabrol where a treasure horde is supposed to have been found by a villager (pieces of Eden? and Cezare Borgia is involved with this place later on) and Richard wanted his share but is killed. the Templars under the Lusignan family go to England to try and turn the new King John into a vassal king as they think him ineffective as a full Templar. Mentor Altair sends Robin home to save England and when he gets there he tries to convince he King of the evil of the Templars, but they persuade John and so Robin is forced out as an outlaw.
he comes to Sherwood forest and the merry men are his brotherhood thwarting the Templar agenda and the Templar Barons and nobles, the sheriff of Nottingham. though Templar influence in England is stemmed for the now, the Lusignans remain in power after the death of John by marrying his widow.

the fall of the Templars - touched on by AC Unity, the French King, Philip iv owes a lot of money to the Templars under Jacques de Molay and so he forces his puppet the Pope to declare them heretics and are rounded up in a dawn raid. legend has is that several Templar ships set sail in the night laden with their treasure and were never seen again. they could have fled north to scotland meeting up with the Sinclairs at Roseline chapel, then continued to Norway where with the Northmen went to the Americas (the region of Newfoundland and further south where they would leave clues to the location of their treasure, this links into ACIII and Rogue...

Nephili@hotmail.co.uk Nothing is true, everything is permitted....

GunnerGalactico
02-06-2015, 10:17 AM
I agree with most of the people here.

* No annual releases
* Use third person protagonists for MD
* We should go back to the Animus (after AC3, I didn't quite like the new direction of the MD)
* AC3 and Unity should've been delayed back a year
* Desmond's death should've provided an opportunity for another MD protagonist and a whole new MD plot
* AC games should be exclusive to PC and consoles, and should not have spin-off titles for handheld consoles ie: Bloodlines and Liberation
* AC3 should've not focused on shoehorning Connor and the missions should've been designed differently.
* They should bring back white room speeches.

ze_topazio
02-06-2015, 12:08 PM
I would have cast Samuel L. Jackson as Connor.

GunnerGalactico
02-06-2015, 01:34 PM
I would have cast Samuel L. Jackson as Connor.

And Sylvester Stallone should've been Ezio :p:rolleyes:

SpiritOfNevaeh
02-06-2015, 05:00 PM
I agree with most of the people here.

* No annual releases
* Use third person protagonists for MD
* We should go back to the Animus (after AC3, I didn't quite like the new direction of the MD)
* AC3 and Unity should've been delayed back a year
* Desmond's death should've provided an opportunity for another MD protagonist and a whole new MD plot
* AC games should be exclusive to PC and consoles, and should not have spin-off titles for handheld consoles ie: Bloodlines and Liberation
* AC3 should've not focused on shoehorning Connor and the missions should've been designed differently.
* They should bring back white room speeches.

This.

And in addition, not forcing players to use outside media to unlock in-game, and micro transactions.

Xstantin
02-06-2015, 05:04 PM
This.

And in addition, not forcing players to use outside media to unlock in-game, and micro transactions.

Yes. Too bad transmedia won't probably go anywhere

GunnerGalactico
02-06-2015, 09:21 PM
And in addition, not forcing players to use outside media to unlock in-game, and micro transactions.

^ Yes, that as well.

Megas_Doux
02-06-2015, 09:26 PM
Where do I begin.....

1 NO ANNUALIZATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 ACB would have been a periodic DLC and I would have included both the Battle of Forli and the Bonfire of Vanities in the main game, as in the PC version.
3 Rogue, Liberation, Revelations and even AC IV - my current favorite- would not exist.
4 AC III would have not been that linear.
5 Unity is released in 2015 with a countryside surrounding Paris that you can travel on a horse. I would have included locations such as Mont Saint-Michel, Avignon and Carcassonne either in the main game or in the form of anomalies....May be some battles of the French Revolutionary wars and even a naval one. I missed a rural location in that game.
6 The story in Unity gets more emphasis on the French Revolution.
7 Instead Juno taking over the world, I would have gone with the satellite launch in the modern arc.
8 NO TRANSMEDIA, ever under ANY circumstance.

That for now....

Altair1789
02-07-2015, 01:48 AM
I agree with most of the people here.

* No annual releases
* Use third person protagonists for MD
* We should go back to the Animus (after AC3, I didn't quite like the new direction of the MD)
* AC3 and Unity should've been delayed back a year
* Desmond's death should've provided an opportunity for another MD protagonist and a whole new MD plot
* AC games should be exclusive to PC and consoles, and should not have spin-off titles for handheld consoles ie: Bloodlines and Liberation
* AC3 should've not focused on shoehorning Connor and the missions should've been designed differently.
* They should bring back white room speeches.


Where do I begin.....

1 NO ANNUALIZATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 ACB would have been a periodic DLC and I would have included both the Battle of Forli and the Bonfire of Vanities in the main game, as in the PC version.
3 Rogue, Liberation, Revelations and even AC IV - my current favorite- would not exist.
4 AC III would have not been that linear.
5 Unity is released in 2015 with a countryside surrounding Paris that you can travel on a horse. I would have included locations such as Mont Saint-Michel, Avignon and Carcassonne either in the main game or in the form of anomalies....May be some battles of the French Revolutionary wars and even a naval one. I missed a rural location in that game.
6 The story in Unity gets more emphasis on the French Revolution.
7 Instead Juno taking over the world, I would have gone with the satellite launch in the modern arc.
8 NO TRANSMEDIA, ever under ANY circumstance.

That for now....

I agree entirely with both of these, except for the ideas about not having Rogue, Liberations, Revelations, or AC4

legacy_neworder
02-07-2015, 11:35 AM
1) No annualisaton
2) AC1:
-not so repetitive story/gameplay. More variation (like AC2)
-add monitary system
-skills don't just disappear
-more modern day story instead of just desmond going back to sleep

3) AC2: all DLC already available from launch
4) ACB: don't make lucy a templar and not kill her off
postpone release. Add some more stuff. Put Ezio's future wife Sofia in this one instead
5) ACR: Doesn't exist. Sofia put in ACB. Perhaps make some Altair centric DLC for brotherhood. Of make it another full altair game, released when ready.
6) AC3: postpone until ready. Other modern day story. Improve Connor's story. Put all AC4 improvements into this one. the small DLC like extra missions is put in the released game. Put the Connor meets Aveline mission (from Connor's POV) from ACL in this game instead.
7) TOKW: doesn't exist. Make some other Connor DLC that did happen.
8) ACL: postphone and improve (just like AC3)
9) AC4: doesn't exist. All improvements are in AC3. Perhaps make some carribean DLC for Connor.

The Connor DLC + the Liberartion port can be released as a stand-alone game the year later. Think GTA: EFLC.

10) Rogue: was AC4 recycled. Doesn't exist.
11) Unity: released as real AC4. Postphoned untill ready.
12) Victory: released as AC5 (when ready)

Shahkulu101
02-07-2015, 01:04 PM
Number one thing I'd do:

I would have iterated on AC1's assassin simulator concept instead of abandoning that in favor of a historical GTA in order to gain mass appeal.

VestigialLlama4
02-07-2015, 05:04 PM
Until Unity and Rogue, I was mostly okay with the Franchise on the whole.

But anyway.

INDIVIDUAL GAMES

1) Assassin's Creed would have had Assassination Missions or activities in the Kingdom portion of the Map, which would have us use unique natural elements to blend in the field or rocks to get to the target. We should also have had a full sequel with Altair as Mentor, fighting against Abbas or some other villain. We should also have had options to blend in, by say changing costumes to fit in with the colour schemes of the environment and so on, and Jump Assassinations and Ledge Assassinations as well as Bench-Assassinations should have been included in the game but the combat should have been curtailed. Altair should only use Hidden Blade, Throwing Knifes and Hidden-Blade Counter-Kill, or Disarm his opponents. No swordplay (since he doesn't have the build or armour for it) whatsoever.

2) AC2 would have Girolamo Savonarola as the main villain and end with the Bonfire of the Vanities, since the heart and soul of the game is Florence. I also wouldn't necessarily make him a Templar, or have the Templars be the total bad guys they are in the game.

3) Assassin's Creed Brotherhood will deal with the Borgia. But rather than the simple one-dimensional plot, we'll have an intricate story about bringing the Renaissance to Rome and so on. Rodrigo Borgia would be shown in greater complexity and we would see Rome's Jewish Quarter (which he had supported and protected). The game will have a gray story dealing with the return of the Medici to Florence, where Machiavelli quits the Assassins after being tortured and exiled, and generally we see that Ezio's story has a lot of ambiguity and poignance to it. Also, we would see Michelangelo and Rafael in sub-missions and DLC

4) ACRevelations would have an actual Assassin, either Greek, Jewish, Romani or Turkish in Istanbul. Yusuf Tazim would have made an awesome hero, and ideally it should be his game.

5) AC3 would have had Aaron Burr as a Founding Father and Assassin. Also, Charles Lee would actually be responsible or culpable in some fashion for the destruction of Connor's Tribe with Haytham either being oblivious or self-denying. At the end of the game after finishing off Charles Lee and the others, Connor would actually make a truce with surviving Templars having them promise to work in America in democratic fashion of opposing political parties/secret societies rather than killing each other all the time, representing the realities of American democracy formed by compromise and loyal oppositions deciding to work in collegiate fashion for the most-part.

6) Black Flag would have James Kidd DLC along with Freedom Cry, so that we can play as Mary Read. (She had a child who was a nobody and this was an idea they had discussed). We would also have an option for Stealth Sailing where we can actually take over a vessel the way real pirates did (with Stealth, Fear, Timing and Use of Flags and Intimidation to avoid bloodshed) with naval battles saved for key moments.

7) UNITY would be a totally different game, with an actual story and actually researched historical context. There would be three player characters, representing opposing factions or interests (Say - Arno, Elise and Pierre Bellec are all playable) who all clash in the course of a game. It would have variable side-missions depending on player character, different gameplay and there would be select missions where all three are required and you can toggle between them real-time (and/or play Co-Op). DLC will have playable Napoleon having us play him from his rise from soldier to general to Dictator and Emperor.

8) ROGUE would have followed on the Revelation of the Blood Vials in BLACK FLAG and give us something the games have lacked, having us inhabit a character as he dies. Shay's DNA actually comes from the Body discovered by Otso Berg when he excavated the Observatory. And the game builds to his final days. The final mission (Following on the Reusing of Artifats from Black Flag) will have Shay trying to chase Connor to the Observatory to stop him from recovering the Skull. He'll have a battle with the Aquila (which will be a Legendary Ships type Boss-Fight) and then both ships get damage and land on the Island, this leads to a multi-part boss fight where Shay briefly has the upper hand until Connor kills him, and the Templars are clueless about what happened to the Skull and other artifacts after that.

MODERN DAY LORE
9) Abstergo would have more internal tensions between different Templars and there would be some Templars who actually protected or shielded Assassins during the Purge. It would not be a monolithic Good-Vs-Evil thing.

10) The Bleeding Effect should not have been removed so quickly. They should make a game dealing entirely with it. The gameplay should have a synchronization and sanity meter. Synchronization allows you to match your ancestor and progress to next level, however the more you synchronize with your ancestor, the weaker your resistance to separating your identity from your ancestor. Players have to balance between Linearity(Synchronization) and Sanity(Openness).

11) Lucy would not have died. Desmond however would have died.

12) John from IT would have been Subject 16, and Clay Kaczmarek would have been a Sage, having uploaded his consciousness to different individuals on his death. It would have built lore and provided consistency to the series and made use of one of the more interesting modern-day characters.

Megas_Doux
02-07-2015, 08:35 PM
I agree entirely with both of these, except for the ideas about not having Rogue, Liberations, Revelations, or AC4

Constantinople is my favorite city of the old gen and AC IV the the I line the most overall, but that is the way I feel...........

Farlander1991
02-07-2015, 09:11 PM
This thread bugs the hell out of me. Not because of the ideas/thoughts per se, but because of how it's set up and expressed.

It's perfectly normal to criticize and state your opinions how you think things could've been better (and AC has a huge fair share of what could've been better in the series in my opinion as well), but when we formulate like 'I would've done/not done this and it would've been better', it means that we're saying if we were in the developers shoes and situation at the time, we would've done so and it would've been amazing, thus elevating ourselves higher than those people who actually worked on the games. Which is quite frankly ********, as all what is said here we get from our imagination of a perfect scenario where instead of every variable that is met during game development we have perfect spherical horses in vacuum, so to speak. No consideration for budget, manpower, time, technological limitations, things like what seems a good idea not actually being one or the fact that whatever game you set out to do the final result is never what you thought it would be (which is not always a bad thing, though), and many other things.

And while the "I would've" way of expressing usually is not noticeable when mentioned offhand, or among other things (and is fine on its own, really), when there's a whole thread of people just stating what they would rather see in THAT way is... disheartening at least.

Why can't we continue this thread with saying like it is - what we wish the AC series would be, or something like that. "I wish it had this, I wish there would be this, it would be awesome if it had this and wouldn't have this etc." It's much more respectful and a lot less arrogant than a bunch of people saying how they just know better and would've done better (even if they don't mean to sound like that). We are, after all, just stating what we think would be the best result, so let's formulate it like that.

SixKeys
02-07-2015, 09:48 PM
This thread bugs the hell out of me. Not because of the ideas/thoughts per se, but because of how it's set up and expressed.

It's perfectly normal to criticize and state your opinions how you think things could've been better (and AC has a huge fair share of what could've been better in the series in my opinion as well), but when we formulate like 'I would've done/not done this and it would've been better', it means that we're saying if we were in the developers shoes and situation at the time, we would've done so and it would've been amazing, thus elevating ourselves higher than those people who actually worked on the games. Which is quite frankly ********, as all what is said here we get from our imagination of a perfect scenario where instead of every variable that is met during game development we have perfect spherical horses in vacuum, so to speak. No consideration for budget, manpower, time, technological limitations, things like what seems a good idea not actually being one or the fact that whatever game you set out to do the final result is never what you thought it would be (which is not always a bad thing, though), and many other things.

And while the "I would've" way of expressing usually is not noticeable when mentioned offhand, or among other things (and is fine on its own, really), when there's a whole thread of people just stating what they would rather see in THAT way is... disheartening at least.

Why can't we continue this thread with saying like it is - what we wish the AC series would be, or something like that. "I wish it had this, I wish there would be this, it would be awesome if it had this and wouldn't have this etc." It's much more respectful and a lot less arrogant than a bunch of people saying how they just know better and would've done better (even if they don't mean to sound like that). We are, after all, just stating what we think would be the best result, so let's formulate it like that.

I disagree that it's necessarily arrogant to say "I would have done this and I think it would have been better". There's some stuff even the devs have more or less admitted in hindsight as bad ideas (Den Defense, overcomplicating the Desmond arc, not planning ahead enough, etc.).
Sure, none of us really know how things would have worked out if we were in charge, games are always group efforts and one person can't decide about everything. But some decisions were clearly for the detriment of the franchise or the individual games. I don't think it's arrogant to say "this was a really bad decision and by saying I would have done things differently, I hope they will think twice before pulling something like that again".

Farlander1991
02-07-2015, 10:06 PM
There's some stuff even the devs have more or less admitted in hindsight as bad ideas

Doesn't really go against my point though, that's different.


I don't think it's arrogant to say "this was a really bad decision

Yes, that's not arrogant, I wasn't arguing against that either (as I stated, criticizing the decisions is fine)


and by saying I would have done things differently

This, however, is a problem.
And I already stated that on its own it's not a problem, but when there's a thread of what is essentially JUST that coming from everybody, that feels disrespectful.

Maybe this is just my view as a game developer. I have no problems critiquing my own work and admitting bad ideas, I also don't have problems hearing how people would've done it in my place (in the context of discussion of those things), but I know that if there would be a thread solely dedicated to a game I worked on and everybody would just say that they would've done things differently (and since everybody likes/dislikes different things, then accumulated it would be like at least 75% of the game(s) differently), I know that would've had a very depressing reaction to it, because everybody would essentially say that I and the team I was in didnt know what the hell we were doing and all those people in the thread in our shoes would make it better. I know it might seem silly, but this kind of collective attitude is VERY different critique.

SixKeys
02-07-2015, 10:13 PM
Maybe this is just my view as a game developer. I have no problems critiquing my own work and admitting bad ideas, I also don't have problems hearing how people would've done it in my place (in the context of discussion of those things), but I know that if there would be a thread solely dedicated to a game I worked on and everybody would just say that they would've done things differently (and since everybody likes/dislikes different things, then accumulated it would be like at least 75% of the game(s) differently), I know that would've had a very depressing reaction to it, because everybody would essentially say that I and the team I was in didnt know what the hell we were doing and all those people in the thread in our shoes would make it better. I know it might seem silly, but this kind of collective attitude is VERY different critique.

I'm gonna have to disagree. As an artist, it doesn't offend me when someone says "I would have used different colors" or something like that. I can either go "yeah, now that you mention it actually, maybe I should have done that" or I just shrug and think to myself "okay, but you're not me".

I also acknowledge that many decisions for triple A games do not solely rest on the developers' shoulders. The annual release cycle was an order from above. I can't imagine any of the actual devs working for Ubi at the time thought it was a great idea. There's even an interview pre-ACB's release where one dev gets asked about releasing another game so soon after AC2 and he says "we'll probably take a year's break after this one". So these criticisms aren't just directed at game devs but Ubi's corporate decisions as well.

I-Like-Pie45
02-07-2015, 10:13 PM
Add some

HORSE****!

SixKeys
02-07-2015, 10:15 PM
Add some

HORSE****!

They did in Unity. :p

I-Like-Pie45
02-07-2015, 10:21 PM
They did in Unity. :p

I mean as a weapon!

HORSE****!!

Saints Row got nothing on the real deal!

Farlander1991
02-07-2015, 10:33 PM
As an artist, it doesn't offend me when someone says "I would have used different colors" or something like that. I can either go "yeah, now that you mention it actually, maybe I should have done that"

As I said, that's not a problem in and of itself when somebody says that.

But your artist analogy is not full in the context of this thread.

Imagine you have a painting. There's a red circle, blue square, and green triangle. You put it out for all people to marvel at it. You then go to the official forums of your painting, where there's a community of, essentially, your most devoted fans who have looked at your every picture and know every your work from the inside out. And then you see a thread, "Looking at SixKeys painting series so far, what would you change to make them better?"

And in that thread all the posts you see are:
User 1. Oh, I would've done all squares, it would be great. Three shapes? Not so much.
User 2. I would've made circle green and triangle red.
User 3. Yeah, I agree, but I also would've changed square to yellow.
User 2. Oh man, yellow would've been so awesome?
User 4. I wouldn't release the last picture at all.
User 5. I would've made two squares and a triangle, it would've looked better that way.
etc.

Now, granted, everybody has their own opinion and it's fine (and I repeat, nothing wrong with "I would've" on its own too), but wouldn't you feel disheartened if there's a whole thread that posts opinions in such a manner that makes all your fans essentially say that you don't know how to draw pictures properly?

I just feel like... when there's a thread where everybody critiques decisions, it's a critique of your work. But when you have a thread of people collectively saying what would they have done in your stead to make the work better (without any context of conversation, just info dump in such a manner), then that becomes criticism of the person, not the work, because it becomes a collective amalgamation of "you're wrong on everything" addressed to the creator.

SixKeys
02-08-2015, 12:02 AM
As I said, that's not a problem in and of itself when somebody says that.

But your artist analogy is not full in the context of this thread.

Imagine you have a painting. There's a red circle, blue square, and green triangle. You put it out for all people to marvel at it. You then go to the official forums of your painting, where there's a community of, essentially, your most devoted fans who have looked at your every picture and know every your work from the inside out. And then you see a thread, "Looking at SixKeys painting series so far, what would you change to make them better?"

And in that thread all the posts you see are:
User 1. Oh, I would've done all squares, it would be great. Three shapes? Not so much.
User 2. I would've made circle green and triangle red.
User 3. Yeah, I agree, but I also would've changed square to yellow.
User 2. Oh man, yellow would've been so awesome?
User 4. I wouldn't release the last picture at all.
User 5. I would've made two squares and a triangle, it would've looked better that way.
etc.

Now, granted, everybody has their own opinion and it's fine (and I repeat, nothing wrong with "I would've" on its own too), but wouldn't you feel disheartened if there's a whole thread that posts opinions in such a manner that makes all your fans essentially say that you don't know how to draw pictures properly?

I just feel like... when there's a thread where everybody critiques decisions, it's a critique of your work. But when you have a thread of people collectively saying what would they have done in your stead to make the work better (without any context of conversation, just info dump in such a manner), then that becomes criticism of the person, not the work, because it becomes a collective amalgamation of "you're wrong on everything" addressed to the creator.

Honestly, I don't think I would be offended in such a case, because the variety of opinions proves that it's all highly subjective. One person says I shouldn't have used the color yellow at all, another person says the whole painting should have been yellow. The fact that they're both fans on a forum dedicated to my work tells me they don't hate my work, they just have varying opinions on my ability as an artist on the whole. One person thinks my first painting ever may have been unrefined in technique, but had something special that I haven't been able to replicate ever since. Another person thinks I keep getting better with each new painting. Both are valid opinions.

Fatal-Feit
02-08-2015, 03:09 AM
This thread bugs the hell out of me. Not because of the ideas/thoughts per se, but because of how it's set up and expressed.

It's perfectly normal to criticize and state your opinions how you think things could've been better (and AC has a huge fair share of what could've been better in the series in my opinion as well), but when we formulate like 'I would've done/not done this and it would've been better', it means that we're saying if we were in the developers shoes and situation at the time, we would've done so and it would've been amazing, thus elevating ourselves higher than those people who actually worked on the games. Which is quite frankly ********, as all what is said here we get from our imagination of a perfect scenario where instead of every variable that is met during game development we have perfect spherical horses in vacuum, so to speak. No consideration for budget, manpower, time, technological limitations, things like what seems a good idea not actually being one or the fact that whatever game you set out to do the final result is never what you thought it would be (which is not always a bad thing, though), and many other things.

And while the "I would've" way of expressing usually is not noticeable when mentioned offhand, or among other things (and is fine on its own, really), when there's a whole thread of people just stating what they would rather see in THAT way is... disheartening at least.

Why can't we continue this thread with saying like it is - what we wish the AC series would be, or something like that. "I wish it had this, I wish there would be this, it would be awesome if it had this and wouldn't have this etc." It's much more respectful and a lot less arrogant than a bunch of people saying how they just know better and would've done better (even if they don't mean to sound like that). We are, after all, just stating what we think would be the best result, so let's formulate it like that.

This, right here, is exactly why the community isn't as enjoyable as it once was. I, and the many others I've spoke to, are just not having fun on the forums anymore. It used to be so much more engaging. Controversial topics were active, fun, and constructive. Now I've just been reading what feels like arrogance and self-entitlement everywhere. As of recent, I've seen many people leave and it's not the games that has made them lose interest, it's the community.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with this thread in general. People are free to express their opinions however they like. But for me, this thread feels like the epitome of what might be the forum's downfall.

SixKeys
02-08-2015, 12:11 PM
This, right here, is exactly why the community isn't as enjoyable as it once was. I, and the many others I've spoke to, are just not having fun on the forums anymore. It used to be so much more engaging. Controversial topics were active, fun, and constructive. Now I've just been reading what feels like arrogance and self-entitlement everywhere. As of recent, I've seen many people leave and it's not the games that has made them lose interest, it's the community.

I think it's a bit of both, really. The games have become increasingly divisive as the series has become more and more popular. You have people with different expectations because they started with the new parkour system or prefer the old combat, hate or love modern day etc.

There used to be more controversial topics because: 1) the games themselves used to be more controversial (religion, politics) and 2) there was an overarching storyline which created a lot of speculation and fan theories. Now there's simply not much left to discuss. Each game has a self-contained story, the First Civ stuff seems to be losing all meaning and there's no meta-narrative to keep you guessing where we might go next.

TBH I'm still here more for the community than the games. I really don't care about Rogue at all, but I want to play it anyway just so I can keep partaking in discussions.

EmptyCrustacean
02-08-2015, 12:24 PM
As I said, that's not a problem in and of itself when somebody says that.

But your artist analogy is not full in the context of this thread.

Imagine you have a painting. There's a red circle, blue square, and green triangle. You put it out for all people to marvel at it. You then go to the official forums of your painting, where there's a community of, essentially, your most devoted fans who have looked at your every picture and know every your work from the inside out. And then you see a thread, "Looking at SixKeys painting series so far, what would you change to make them better?"

And in that thread all the posts you see are:
User 1. Oh, I would've done all squares, it would be great. Three shapes? Not so much.
User 2. I would've made circle green and triangle red.
User 3. Yeah, I agree, but I also would've changed square to yellow.
User 2. Oh man, yellow would've been so awesome?
User 4. I wouldn't release the last picture at all.
User 5. I would've made two squares and a triangle, it would've looked better that way.
etc.

Now, granted, everybody has their own opinion and it's fine (and I repeat, nothing wrong with "I would've" on its own too), but wouldn't you feel disheartened if there's a whole thread that posts opinions in such a manner that makes all your fans essentially say that you don't know how to draw pictures properly?

I just feel like... when there's a thread where everybody critiques decisions, it's a critique of your work. But when you have a thread of people collectively saying what would they have done in your stead to make the work better (without any context of conversation, just info dump in such a manner), then that becomes criticism of the person, not the work, because it becomes a collective amalgamation of "you're wrong on everything" addressed to the creator.

I'm sorry but this is perhaps the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read and the worst part is that I think you believe that your analogy is somehow "clever". It's not.
That is the thing about art - it's entirely subjective. The fact that even on this thread people can be seen disagreeing with one another about what they would have done, in itself, proves you can't take anything that is said here to heart. We all have our own personal tastes and preferences and it doesn't necessarily take away from any of the work the team at Ubisoft have done.
You also have to remember that whilst there are many things we might have changed there are many that we love and are thankful for - which is why we even post here in the first place.

Farlander1991
02-08-2015, 01:35 PM
I think you believe that your analogy is somehow "clever". It's not.

Whenever we have a conversation you keep putting words in my mouth or make presumptions about my thoughts or motivations. Please stop that. (and no, I don't believe my analogy was somehow 'clever', just a tool that I used to try to express my thoughts)

At any rate, I don't disagree with you, but what you're saying is not entirely related to what I'm trying to say. And I'm gonna drop this topic because I think I have problems bringing my particular point across, and that's never good for a constructive conversation.

Perk89
02-08-2015, 05:13 PM
In both the MD and historical side, I would have a grand, over-arching narrative that gave the series' direction and each individual installment purpose.


thats what the series needs more than anything else

Perk89
02-08-2015, 05:20 PM
I think it's a bit of both, really. The games have become increasingly divisive as the series has become more and more popular. You have people with different expectations because they started with the new parkour system or prefer the old combat, hate or love modern day etc.

There used to be more controversial topics because: 1) the games themselves used to be more controversial (religion, politics) and 2) there was an overarching storyline which created a lot of speculation and fan theories. Now there's simply not much left to discuss. Each game has a self-contained story, the First Civ stuff seems to be losing all meaning and there's no meta-narrative to keep you guessing where we might go next.

TBH I'm still here more for the community than the games. I really don't care about Rogue at all, but I want to play it anyway just so I can keep partaking in discussions.

This here hits the nail on the head. I was here when this forum was chock full of excellent speculative posts, loaded with photographs, historical insight, excellent speculation and etc etc.

Those things haven't died out because of the community. If anything they should increase. They've died out because the series itself has regressed, both intellectually and narratively. There simply isn't compelling stuff to speculate on anymore, and, ironically, in hindsight, the fans in their speculation wrote a much better narrative for the series than the developers ever did.

EmptyCrustacean
02-08-2015, 05:25 PM
Whenever we have a conversation you keep putting words in my mouth or make presumptions about my thoughts or motivations. Please stop that. (and no, I don't believe my analogy was somehow 'clever', just a tool that I used to try to express my thoughts)

At any rate, I don't disagree with you, but what you're saying is not entirely related to what I'm trying to say. And I'm gonna drop this topic because I think I have problems bringing my particular point across, and that's never good for a constructive conversation.


It's compeltely related to what you said. You said that when group of members just list off things we would have done differently as opposed to going into depth to critique the creative decisions that it's somehow a "personal attack" on the artist which is absolutely ridiculous. People do that all the time in every entertainment medium. "Oh I would have made the filmer shorter", "Oh I would have chosen this song to be released from the album rather than that song". We're not saying that we're better than the creators or even that we know better. We're just stating our preference and what we personally would have done. Again, the fact that everybody's list is different is self explanatory. That is art for you.

Xstantin
02-08-2015, 05:32 PM
This here hits the nail on the head. I was here when this forum was chock full of excellent speculative posts, loaded with photographs, historical insight, excellent speculation and etc etc.

Those things haven't died out because of the community. If anything they should increase. They've died out because the series itself has regressed, both intellectually and narratively. There simply isn't compelling stuff to speculate on anymore, and, ironically, in hindsight, the fans in their speculation wrote a much better narrative for the series than the developers ever did.

Agreed. The last piece of new info was the bit about settings based on Unity guide pic iirc, which is not even in game.
Unity had some things like Abstergo's Sage list, First Civ video snippet, Juno's followers but that was mostly pushed to the side imo