PDA

View Full Version : After I saw this I want to play AC3 AGAIN



Pages : [1] 2

Defalt221
02-09-2015, 06:38 PM
This made me realize how many options AC3 had. And it had so much potential to outperform Black FLag and the sequels.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2tZ8UITvcQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25sBKfKbFRU

EmptyCrustacean
02-09-2015, 06:52 PM
I liked AC3 and I really don't understand the hate towards it.
Yes, it certainly has problems in terms of how it handles its main character - Haytham was more of a Templar than Connor was an Assassin.
But it was a vast improvement over the terrible, terrible Revelations.

wvstolzing
02-09-2015, 07:08 PM
And it had so much potential to outperform Black FLag and the sequels.

Not sure what to make of this -- the mechanics described in this video are *improved* even further in AC4.

AC3 definitely has 'grown on me'; I was seriously disappointed on my first playthrough -- the only aspect I genuinely liked about the game was Raton. On my latest playthrough, though, *after AC4* (which I loved), I enjoyed it a lot better.

Farlander1991
02-09-2015, 07:10 PM
Assassin's Creed 3 has options but barely any place to use them.

The forts are the best content available on the ground part of the game (at least in terms of player freedom), but even they aren't saved from AI with unclear rules and psychic abilities (though the latter one in the forts is not annoying as in the city where stealth killing a guard in an empty alley during Notoriety 3 will bring all guards from the area to said alley), as well as the fact that, quite frankly, even then not everything at our disposal is useful.

Assassin's Creed IV does a much better job at getting the use of its tools and options, and trims out stuff that has no real reason to be used anywhere at all (like AC3 riots, for example). Also, much clearer AI rules. And the freedom of choice is applied much more broadly than in AC3. Which is a shame, because AC3 has a lot of things going for it which sometimes cannot shine.

SpiritOfNevaeh
02-09-2015, 07:57 PM
It's things like this in the game that make me keep coming back to play.

I love the game so much. :o

m4r-k7
02-09-2015, 08:41 PM
If there is one thing about AC 3.. its that the game deserves to be numbered.

I was blown away when I played it. I played it without having read any reviews beforehand and I absolutely loved it. You could feel it was an advancement for the series.
When I read reviews I was shocked to see how many people hated it. This then subconsciously altered my opinions on the game and I started thinking to myself that it was a bad game.

However, looking back now, I loved AC 3 so much. It has its problems yes, but it was a great addition to the franchise IMO.

Megas_Doux
02-09-2015, 09:05 PM
Too bad AC III is THAT linear it only has three open assassinations. The rest??????? Quick time events and missions in which the options and bare to none....

The story is good, although I could not -I stil cant- enjoy the main character mostly due to its VA. The Naval stuff felt greatly innovative, but in the end as an "Assassin simulator", the game fell pretty short in my regard. It didn't help my total dislike for the setting in both theory and practice.

As mentioned above by farlander, AC IV did a MUCH better job with what it had, which was pretty similar to that of AC III....

Perk89
02-09-2015, 09:14 PM
I really liked both AC3 and ACR so im glad to see both of those games aging really well in the eyes of the public.


i honestly think many people decided they didn't like AC3 before it came out because "ARGH AMERICA? NO AMERICA IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE COOL! I WANT TO TEACH THE AMERICANS A LESSON ARRRRRGHHH!"

this is board certainly felt that way prior to its release and you conveniently saw the same posters who didn't even give the game a chance retain that attitude

VoldR
02-09-2015, 09:24 PM
I actually forgot AC3 started the crouching in bush idea, lol

VoldR
02-09-2015, 09:27 PM
I really liked both AC3 and ACR so im glad to see both of those games aging really well in the eyes of the public.


i honestly think many people decided they didn't like AC3 before it came out because "ARGH AMERICA? NO AMERICA IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE COOL!

Actually that is the reason I was interested.. As I know near to squat about the American revolution except what is shown in Day of the Tentacle or few hear says in tv series reacting the event...

wvstolzing
02-09-2015, 10:26 PM
I really liked both AC3 and ACR so im glad to see both of those games aging really well in the eyes of the public.

All the ACs have aged pretty well, in my opinion. Actually, come to think of it, games from the 360/PS3 era have *in general* been aging pretty well. Call me a superficial idiot, but when I try to play certain 'critically acclaimed' games from the early 2000s, especially those that I haven't played 'back in the day', I can hardly endure them for more than an hour -- it's not so much the graphics, but rather the unwieldy UIs, and weird control schemes, and 'floaty' character movements.


except what is shown in Day of the Tentacle

oh boy... How about the shape of the flag? You know that it's not a tentacle costume, right? :rolleyes:

Fatal-Feit
02-10-2015, 12:13 AM
Gotta agree with Mega_Doux and Farlander. AC3's missions has its moments but it's far in between the many others. Black Flag made better use of its tools and options. This mission is comparable to whole of Black Flag, TBH.

Now I wish AC3 (and the other games, excluding Revelations) allowed you to replay fort capturing. They were always super fun. =p

SixKeys
02-10-2015, 01:49 AM
Assassin's Creed 3 has options but barely any place to use them.

The forts are the best content available on the ground part of the game (at least in terms of player freedom), but even they aren't saved from AI with unclear rules and psychic abilities (though the latter one in the forts is not annoying as in the city where stealth killing a guard in an empty alley during Notoriety 3 will bring all guards from the area to said alley), as well as the fact that, quite frankly, even then not everything at our disposal is useful.

Assassin's Creed IV does a much better job at getting the use of its tools and options, and trims out stuff that has no real reason to be used anywhere at all (like AC3 riots, for example). Also, much clearer AI rules. And the freedom of choice is applied much more broadly than in AC3. Which is a shame, because AC3 has a lot of things going for it which sometimes cannot shine.

^ All of this.

AC3 is a frustrating experience. Sometimes I look at these videos, like the beginning of this one, and go "man, that game looked beautiful. Maybe it's not as bad as I remember it". Then I go back and play even one mission and I'm reminded all over again. Even in the above video there are stressful moments where I would feel vulnerable because at any time, a guard might pop into existence next to me out of thin air and alert every other enemy within a 15-mile radius. Or when Connor moves just one step too close to the edge of the stalking zone and stands up like an idiot. If a guard spots you, good luck trying to hide again since Connor simply refuses to dive back into cover again. The AI rules are really unclear and make no sense. For example, why does a guard magically know his friend has just dropped dead 30 feet away without ever seeing or hearing anything?

To this day it angers and frustrates me on so many levels. So much wasted potential, so many baffling design choices.

SixKeys
02-10-2015, 01:51 AM
Now I wish AC3 (and the other games, excluding Revelations) allowed you to replay fort capturing. They were always super fun. =p

Technically you can, you just have to p!ss off bluecoats instead of redcoats. But it is kind of immersion-breaking when Connor is supposedly on the Patriots' side.

Fatal-Feit
02-10-2015, 01:57 AM
Technically you can, you just have to p!ss off bluecoats instead of redcoats. But it is kind of immersion-breaking when Connor is supposedly on the Patriots' side.

Wait, whut. U mean like pretend or smthin? That's lame.

Every time I fast travel to the fort in the video, there's a glitch where 1 redcoat would spawn and he would get mauled by all the bluecoats. =p

SixKeys
02-10-2015, 02:13 AM
Wait, whut. U mean like pretend or smthin? That's lame.

Every time I fast travel to the fort in the video, there's a glitch where 1 redcoat would spawn and he would get mauled by all the bluecoats. =p

Haha, yes, the same thing happens to me. Always amusing to just stand there and watch someone else get beat up for a change.

VoldR
02-10-2015, 02:47 AM
oh boy... How about the shape of the flag? You know that it's not a tentacle costume, right? :rolleyes:

What is it then? A real tentacle?

VoldR
02-10-2015, 03:21 AM
Damn, I just started watching the 4x Inside Assassins creed 3 videos again.

DemonLord4lf
02-10-2015, 04:00 AM
Just admit it. You guys just missed riding around with Paul Revere. :p

Pau1o88
02-10-2015, 05:01 AM
The only thing this video shows me is another reminder of how much the removed from Unity.

- No hiding bodies
- No hide in bushes
- No rope dart

blah blah blah

DemonLord4lf
02-10-2015, 05:02 AM
The only thing this video shows me is another reminder of how much the removed from Unity.

- No hiding bodies
- No hide in bushes
- No rope dart

blah blah blah

But it was so innovative and different :eek: /end sarcasm

Fatal-Feit
02-10-2015, 05:11 AM
The only thing this video shows me is another reminder of how much the removed from Unity.

- No hiding bodies
- No hide in bushes
- No rope dart

blah blah blah

While I would die for some of those to be brought back, especially the rope darts, it doesn't mean Unity doesn't have a bunch of stuff that's not in 3 either. =p

- Phantom / Berserk Blades
- Crouch / Cover Mechanics
- Cherry Bombs
- Controlled Descent

etc, etc, etc

DemonLord4lf
02-10-2015, 05:15 AM
While I would die for some of those to be brought back, especially the rope darts, it doesn't mean Unity doesn't have a bunch of stuff that's not in 3 either. =p

- Phantom / Berserk Blades
- Crouch / Cover Mechanics
- Cherry Bombs
- Controlled Descent

etc, etc, etc

They could've added those to what we already had, instead of gutting everything out... I truly believe they did that because it was a new engine. We'll see how Victory does...

Fatal-Feit
02-10-2015, 05:22 AM
They could've added those to what we already had, instead of gutting everything out...

That was 3's philosophy and look what happened. It was an incoherent mess of a stealth game. If you can even call it one. Don't get me wrong, 3 is one of my top favorite AC games, but its stealth mechanics are NOT a reason for it.

DemonLord4lf
02-10-2015, 05:26 AM
That was 3's philosophy and look what happened. It was an incoherent mess of a stealth game. If you can even call it one. Don't get me wrong, 3 is one of my top favorite AC games, but its stealth mechanics are NOT a reason for it.

True, stealth wasn't a big factor in AC3, but it was still fun. Everyone keeps associating Assassins with Ninjas. Assassins aren't suppose to be all stealth. At least not in my opinion. They are just meant to kill the target and get out. A ninja is suppose to be able to do that without leaving a trace. I feel that an Assassin has more freedom to choose how they kill their target. Not many agree with me on that, which is fine. I believe people should be able to either stealth a mission or go in swords swinging. Thats how the game used to be, until Unity.

Well, enough of my ranting. We'll see what they did with Victory. If they screw it up again, i'll probably never get another AC game. I just hope they don't screw up Watch Dogs like they have with AC. I truly am looking forward to another Watch Dogs game.

Fatal-Feit
02-10-2015, 05:39 AM
True, stealth wasn't a big factor in AC3, but it was still fun. Everyone keeps associating Assassins with Ninjas. Assassins aren't suppose to be all stealth. At least not in my opinion. They are just meant to kill the target and get out. A ninja is suppose to be able to do that without leaving a trace. I feel that an Assassin has more freedom to choose how they kill their target. Not many agree with me on that, which is fine. I believe people should be able to either stealth a mission or go in swords swinging. Thats how the game used to be, until Unity.

You had me until you said that's not Unity. That's exactly what Unity is. Freedom of stealth, navigation, or combat. Whether it's side mission, CO-OP, or the main mission, Unity constantly gives you options. The old games were not like that. No way in hell. Past ACs (excluding the majority of Black Flag and Rogue), aside from side missions, stripped you of freedom and gives you one option. You either eavesdrop, platform, or combat per sequence/mission. AC3 was the most linear AC to date. You would constantly be desynced if you wanted to get into combat. In Unity, you're given the most freedom the franchise has to offer. Every now and then you've got those linear sections that wants you to eavesdrop, navigate, or combat, but they are nowhere as linear and are very, very few compared to previous entries. Very, very few.

If you check out Farlander's blog, he actually has an analysis sheet for this. Unity is by far the most open-ended of the franchise and AC3 is the least. Black Flag, Rogue, and Unity are be far the only ones in the franchise to offer the most options to either go stealth or go in gun blazing. AC1 and Revelations are close, but they can be pretty linear most of the time.

Again, don't get me wrong, these two games are my favorite of the franchise. However I like them each for different reasons. =p

DemonLord4lf
02-10-2015, 05:48 AM
You had me until you said that's not Unity. That's exactly what Unity is. Freedom of stealth, navigation, or combat. Whether it's side mission, CO-OP, or the main mission, Unity constantly gives you options. The old games were not like that. No way in hell. Past ACs (excluding the majority of Black Flag and Rogue), aside from side missions, stripped you of freedom and gives you one option. You either eavesdrop, platform, or combat per sequence/mission. AC3 was the most linear AC to date. You would constantly be desynced if you wanted to get into combat. In Unity, you're given the most freedom the franchise has to offer. Every now and then you've got those linear sections that wants you to eavesdrop, navigate, or combat, but they are nowhere as linear and are very, very few compared to previous entries. Very, very few.

If you check out Farlander's blog, he actually has an analysis sheet for this. Unity is by far the most open-ended of the franchise and AC3 is the least. Black Flag, Rogue, and Unity are be far the only ones in the franchise to offer the most options to either go stealth or go in gun blazing. AC1 and Revelations are close, but they can be pretty linear most of the time.

Again, don't get me wrong, these two games are my favorite of the franchise. However I like them each for different reasons. =p

True, you have more stealth options in Unity then you did in other games. But the combat system suffered for it. I agree that the stealth system was a joke in previous games, but that doesn't mean the combat system had to be gutted. I enjoyed chain kills and human shields. However, I did try to approach the mission in a stealthy way. Some would argue that the combat system in Unity is better, i disagree. If they had set up a better sort of tutorial or made it easier to master the new combat system i would've been ok. However, there are a few missions where you are basically in a situation where you cant stealth at all since you're in open at all times and cant hide among anyone since they're all the enemy.

I'm side tracking here... sorry OP, didn't mean to hijack your thread ^_^

VestigialLlama4
02-10-2015, 07:14 AM
Assassin's Creed IV does a much better job at getting the use of its tools and options, and trims out stuff that has no real reason to be used anywhere at all (like AC3 riots, for example). Also, much clearer AI rules. And the freedom of choice is applied much more broadly than in AC3. Which is a shame, because AC3 has a lot of things going for it which sometimes cannot shine.

The Riot mechanic was adapted into the "Drunken Pirates". And in any ways, its not comparable since AC3 was still a land-based game on settlements.

BLACK FLAG is a streamlined version of III, mostly because it emphasizes sailing more than land environments. The natural environment of AC3 is still a triumph, the trees look and feel like real trees and the rocks feel like actual rocks you climb. In Black Flag, the tree-climbing and natural environment looks more like urban parkour with natural coating than actual trees. The weather element is also unique to AC3 and later games moved away from that, even surprisingly UNITY(when Paris' diverse weather actually led to its own calendar during the Revolution). This is also a case with ROGUE where the natural environment is more streamlined like Black Flag and as such it doesn't feel as immersive as III did. The introduction of Open-World Naval does lead to land environments losing out in comparison.

Fact is with all its flaws, I don't think any game after ACIII has really improved on its ambitions. They aimed lower and did better, that is respectable I suppose but I don't think it's healthy to encourage in the long run. Ubisoft backtracked from it to a great extent, and adapt some mechanics or the other while putting snide-nasty-insults to the star of their best-seling game and pretend that people bought the game for Haytham (who can't climb trees, climb rocks and being the family disappoint that he is, can't even sail). Black Flag took some assets from III and built on it, told an awesome story but they didn't do anything truly new that III did. Even UNITY, the catacombs is simply a development upgrade of the New York/Boston tunnels , the only really new thing they did was develop interiors (First Introduced In III) but overall, they didn't really bring anything new rather than simply try and redo mission structures from earlier games in a poorly concieved but well promoted "Return-To-Roots" program, and needless to say they took the total opposite approach to history that III did and failed miserably.

When AC2 came out, Brotherhood and Revelations built on it and upgraded some of the systems even if story-wise it was a huge setback, the fact is they built and added up on AC2 with smaller stories. After AC3, you see a cutting down and an increasing lack of ambition and guts in the series and I personally think that losing that spirit and learning the wrong lessons is the beginning of the end for AC as a series. Mostly they should fire their marketing team.

VestigialLlama4
02-10-2015, 07:32 AM
That's exactly what Unity is. Freedom of stealth, navigation, or combat. Whether it's side mission, CO-OP, or the main mission, Unity constantly gives you options.

Unity's ideas of Options is "Four Different Ways" to break into a wall. Compared to the options of game-styles, Super-Combat/Social Stealth or Normal Stealth with the earlier games did.


In Unity, you're given the most freedom the franchise has to offer. Every now and then you've got those linear sections that wants you to eavesdrop, navigate, or combat, but they are nowhere as linear and are very, very few compared to previous entries.

Yeah, do this side mission to sneak in this way, and get a quiet assassination without making noise. It is Four Different Ways to get past an obstacle. It doesn't approach the freedom of the Fort Duquesne mission.


If you check out Farlander's blog, he actually has an analysis sheet for this. Unity is by far the most open-ended of the franchise and AC3 is the least.

Analysis sheets mean nothing since people have different ideas of "options". People who compare AC on pure-stealth options will compete against fans who see it as an open-world action-adventure game with social stealth gameplay.

DemonLord4lf
02-10-2015, 07:37 AM
Analysis sheets mean nothing since people have different ideas of "options". People who compare AC on pure-stealth options will compete against fans who see it as an open-world action-adventure game with social stealth gameplay.

Exactly!! The game has always been an open-world action-adventure game with stealth added in. It was a delicate balance that they kept working to fix. I truly believe they didn't change anything for Unity. I think they just gutted things they couldn't get to work and said they made changes to make it more challenging which has bitten them squarely in the ***. Let's hope they fix this in Victory.

Anyways, all this talk about AC3 has actually made me reminisce. I think i'm going to go look for a used copy and give it a go for old times sack :)

VestigialLlama4
02-10-2015, 07:56 AM
Anyways, all this talk about AC3 has actually made me reminisce. I think i'm going to go look for a used copy and give it a go for old times sack :)

I am in mind to do the same thing as it happens.

I was appalled at the backlash and the fact that UBISOFT internalized it. I mean I remember seeing it happen, a small forest fire of a bunch of whiteboy gamers exaggerating reactions and then eventualy even people who know better absorbed it. It IS the best-selling game of the Franchise, while UNITY is commercially a failure (so bad they aren't even releasing the figures and they aren't doing any post-game interviews and Q&As either). It puts me in mind of what happened when Wind Waker and Twilight Princess came out, you had a similar backlash but Nintendo didn't let it affect them too badly and it didn't affect sales and today Wind Waker (whose open world sailing inspired Black Flag) is a strong contender for Best Zelda Ever.

And you know that backlash has affected their thinking and how they actually make games. They have been in reactionary Pavlovian Dog mode rather than be objective. I mean that's probably the worst part of annualization, kneejerk responses in a flash affect overall gameplay decisions and greater power to marketing. So in ROGUE they went back to III and gave them the Whiteboy Templar Fantasy people channeled into Haytham and treated Connor like a leper-patient and put even more snide-remarks into the game just to satisfy this minority. Fact is when a game sells well and has a backlash you should listen to the complaints but not ignore the people who bought, paid and loved the game.

UNITY is the parasitic detritus of that thinking made a game since all the things it can be judged for is a checklist of "Things-People-Complained-About-In-III-But-Which-We're-Not-Doing".

AC3 - Less Stealth, Linear, Too Many Weapons and Gameplay Options.
UNITY - More stealth, less linear, fewer weapons and gameplay options.
AC3 - Too many side activities to explore and all different.
UNITY - Too few side activities and all of them are "Press B" Errands.
AC3 - Too much history and Gump factor.
UNITY - Zero history, generally lies and the Hero is a non-entity in events.
AC3 - Less focus on Assassin rites and rituals (since the Brotherhood is destroyed when Connor arrives so its justified)
UNITY - Fetishize Assassins into Neo-Masons who do nothing but gather in a room and discuss doing nothing with the lizard people.
AC3 - Unique Character who is not an Ezio Clone, who has a distinct personality suited to his time, society and historical setting.
UNITY - Shoehorn elements of all White Characters to a Player Avatar with no personality traits of his own.

It's like the reaction of a lab rat to electricity or the Dog in Pavlov's famous experiment, they can't accept the slightest criticism with any real objectivity and actually think like artists.

SixKeys
02-10-2015, 11:13 AM
UNITY is the parasitic detritus of that thinking made a game since all the things it can be judged for is a checklist of "Things-People-Complained-About-In-III-But-Which-We're-Not-Doing".

AC3 - Less Stealth, Linear, Too Many Weapons and Gameplay Options.
UNITY - More stealth, less linear, fewer weapons and gameplay options.
AC3 - Too many side activities to explore and all different.
UNITY - Too few side activities and all of them are "Press B" Errands.
AC3 - Too much history and Gump factor.
UNITY - Zero history, generally lies and the Hero is a non-entity in events.
AC3 - Less focus on Assassin rites and rituals (since the Brotherhood is destroyed when Connor arrives so its justified)
UNITY - Fetishize Assassins into Neo-Masons who do nothing but gather in a room and discuss doing nothing with the lizard people.
AC3 - Unique Character who is not an Ezio Clone, who has a distinct personality suited to his time, society and historical setting.
UNITY - Shoehorn elements of all White Characters to a Player Avatar with no personality traits of his own.


Ooh, ooh! I wanna play too!

AC3 - Broken stealth, Weapons that differ from each other in nothing but name
UNITY - Challenging but fair stealth, Weapons that actually have different stats for the first time in the series
AC3 - Side activities include: wandering around dark tunnels for hours for no reason whatsoever, "assassination contracts" where a random guard spawns in the middle of nowhere and you just walk over and kill him, Hunting where prey literally walks over to you to get stabbed, Delivery "quests" where you spend hours crafting dolls and buttons for a random person in the middle of the street who only says "thank you", Exciting Homestead missions where you herd pigs and collect flowers and spend hours watching people in Eagle Vision in case they do something interesting
UNITY - Side activities include: Tons of approach-is-free assassination contracts dressed up as Paris stories, club missions, Caf Theatre missions, co-op missions and heists, each with proper context and dialogue to introduce your motivation, Murder mysteries where you have to talk to people and use your brain to figure out the culprit, Glyph puzzles that actually make the database worth perusing
AC3 - Spend the first four hours in a linear tutorial playing as the protagonist's father, then 2 more sequences until you actually have all your assassin gear
UNITY - The city and all its activities opens up after the first 1-2 hours
AC3 - Three open-ended assassinations in the entire game
UNITY - Every single assassination is open-ended
AC3 - Main character is inconsistent in his actions, Swings inexplicably between total navete and shrewd strategist, Is alternately angry and friendly towards all the wrong people,
UNITY - Main character is predictable but consistent
AC3 - Dozens of missions which are literally "Walk to point A, watch cut scene > Walk to point B, watch cut scene > Walk to point C, watch cut scene" etc.
UNITY - All assassinations are open-ended, no forced descynchronization upon detection
AC3 - Main villain gets killed in a cut scene with no player input, in BOTH the modern day and historical storylines
UNITY - Epic showdown with protagonist and villain involving a PoE, combination of stealth and direct attacks
AC3 - Modern day story concludes in a spectacularly disappointing fashion after four games' worth of build-up, Possibly the most epic case of blue balls in history
UNITY - Modern day sucks but plays such a miniscule part it's thankfully easy to ignore


See, I can cherrypick and exaggerate too. :rolleyes:

VestigialLlama4
02-10-2015, 11:45 AM
See, I can cherrypick and exaggerate too.

Yes well that's all you can do, since you obviously can't deny what I have said.

SixKeys
02-10-2015, 12:07 PM
Yes well that's all you can do, since you obviously can't deny what I have said.

Mostly I agree with your points. That still doesn't mean AC3 is in any way better or that Unity's design choices weren't improvements.


AC3 - Less Stealth, Linear, Too Many Weapons and Gameplay Options.
UNITY - More stealth, less linear, fewer weapons and gameplay options.

Yup. All true and it makes Unity the winner. Unity isn't bogged down by unnecessary and badly implemented mechanics. They removed what wasn't working or what was counterintuitive to their goals.


AC3 - Too few side activities and all of them are "Press B" Errands.

Fixed that for you.

Deliveries? Go here, press B to give stuff to random person.
Tunnels? Go here, press B to light the lamp, exit through the other end.
Frontiersmen? Go here, press B to investigate strange object. End mission.
Hunting? Wait for raccoon, rabbit or deer to run right past you or glitch into a nearby tree, press B to stab. Alternately, press B, X or A in succession to stab wolves and bears. (Woah, slow down there, devs. Don't go overcomplicating things now.)
Fight club? Press B repeatedly to provoke and pummel some random person for no real reason. Connor, the peace-loving assassin!
Assassinations? Press B to kill Haytham, one of the two biggest villains in the game.


AC3 - Less focus on Assassin rites and rituals (since the Brotherhood is destroyed when Connor arrives so its justified)
UNITY - Fetishize Assassins into Neo-Masons who do nothing but gather in a room and discuss doing nothing with the lizard people.

AC3 doesn't have enough focus on assassin rituals and Unity has too much. That means both games failed in this regard.


AC3 - Too much history and Gump factor.
UNITY - Zero history, generally lies and the Hero is a non-entity in events.

And? No lies detected, and yet AC3's approach was the worse of the two.


AC3 - Unique Character who is not an Ezio Clone, who has a distinct personality suited to his time, society and historical setting.
UNITY - Shoehorn elements of all White Characters to a Player Avatar with no personality traits of his own.

Disagree on Arno's characterization and Connor having a "distinct" personality. Connor's inconsistency, which I mentioned earlier, makes him a very difficult character to pin down. And how can a personality suit a particular time and historical setting? Are you saying people like Connor could not exist in any other time or that people like Arno possibly couldn't have in his particular time? Neither makes sense. All kinds of personalities pop up in all different time periods.

VestigialLlama4
02-10-2015, 01:07 PM
That still doesn't mean AC3 is in any way better or that Unity's design choices weren't improvements.

The debate was largely about ambition rather than quality. How later games have actually been less ambitious than AC3 and whether or not that's healthy in the long run. AC3's flaws come from excess and trying many radical things and not fully pulling it off. Shouldn't later games take those excessive things build on it and improve on it, rather than take one small thing and recieve praise for aiming low. Before AC3, all games improved and developed some aspect of open-world gaming and brought variety and freshness to the concept. Since AC3, they have scaled back, while still working on the shadow of the assets it had developed and even UNITY is included in that. There hasn't really been a leap from AC3, and what UNITY ended up being is provide a Template for slicker, quicker products masked under the rubric "return to AC1 style assasinations" and I think VICTORY will follow on the same way.

Leaving aside disagreements about UNITY's Quality, isn't there something backhanded in the praise that it had fewer goals than AC3 and succeeded in that. AC3 had amazingly beautiful natural environments, weather and animals that was a quantum leap over the flat countryside of the Ezio games. UNITY just brings more size to the urban environment of Ezio's Italy and Altair's Levant but its more lifeless and less immersive.


And? No lies detected...

To revive a popular tune:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/954025-ACU-History-A-list-of-demonstrable-lies-and-inaccuracies-**SPOILERS**

Thankfully you no longer have to take my word for it. Listen to David Andress, a professional historian discuss the game on this nice youtube channel History Respawned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r47yZIYBUzc

The game's history gets about one thing right, the revolution happened on 14th July, and the King did die, and Napoleon did exist in that time. Everything else is lies and even worse lies.


Connor's inconsistency, which I mentioned earlier, makes him a very difficult character to pin down.

You know in some Creative Writing classes that is considered a compliment. Since the character is not a specific type and keyed to one dimension. Whereas Arno has a specific easy-to-relate type.


And how can a personality suit a particular time and historical setting? Are you saying people like Connor could not exist in any other time

YES. Connor's generation as you play the game comes from living in freedom in a village in a land that was essentially his. As the revolution comes, his tribe is uprooted and he ends up becoming a minority in a new nation.


Neither makes sense. All kinds of personalities pop up in all different time periods.

Okay can a cowboy exist in the 21st Century. These days cowboys are hillbillies or rodeo performers or farmers. For a representative cowboy you go to the Frontier Era of the Western. Likewise when we think private eyes we think of America in the 40s and 50s, the Film Noir era which Bioshock and LA Noire evokes. Certain characters are part of a certain era and culture.

Anykeyer
02-10-2015, 01:54 PM
you're given the most freedom the franchise has to offer.
And thats exactly why it fails.
It would be great if it was 1st or 2nd game in the franchise, when AC sandbox was still fresh and entertaining. In fact I replayed AC1 at least 10 times before AC2 was even released just bc I couldnt get enough of its sandbox.
But Unity is 7th or 8th major release. Ubi cut down most features and then asked players to entertain themself for at least 50h. Game gives you freedom, yes, but it doesnt give you many toys. Its is like a lego with just 3 bricks. I feel cheated bc I expect games to either give me a lot of new toys or effectively use old ones.
For me AC3 is the best AC game yet, bc it combines both aproaches. Its a great roller coaster inside missions and the most feature rich (among AC games) sandbox outside them.

Megas_Doux
02-10-2015, 03:01 PM
And thats exactly why it fails.
It would be great if it was 1st or 2nd game in the franchise, when AC sandbox was still fresh and entertaining. In fact I replayed AC1 at least 10 times before AC2 was even released just bc I couldnt get enough of its sandbox.
But Unity is 7th or 8th major release. Ubi cut down most features and then asked players to entertain themself for at least 50h. Game gives you freedom, yes, but it doesnt give you many toys. Its is like a lego with just 3 bricks. I feel cheated bc I expect games to either give me a lot of new toys or effectively use old ones.
For me AC3 is the best AC game yet, bc it combines both aproaches. Its a great roller coaster inside missions and the most feature rich (among AC games) sandbox outside them.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion!!!!!

Mine is that, gameplay wise, I do not want AC IIIs uber linear approach ever again.....There are only 2 or 3 open assassinations at best, the rest are either pretty linear with bare to none options at all and or quick time events, QUICK TIME EVENTS!!!!!!!! The rest of the missions are not any better in that regard, for example the WHOLE 8th sequence is linear, not a single bit of "freedom" whatsoever. I understand, it was made that way so you could not free roam in NY before the great fire, but that is why AC III did not feel as an AC game to me. You know, the exact opposite scenario of Unity, which is the most "assassinish" in terms of gameplay, but not so much story wise....

VestigialLlama4
02-10-2015, 03:40 PM
There are only 2 or 3 open assassinations at best

I am personally of a belief that "there are no small parts, only small actors" or quality trumps quantity.The two Open Assassinations (Johnson in Frontier) and Pitcairn (Battlefield) make brilliant use of brand new location styles and situations and gameplay introduced just for AC3. Instead of repeating locations again and again just for the sake of "open-ness". In UNITY, you had one real open-mission (Sivert-Church), all the other Assassination missions are pretty pathetic, even if there are four different ways to get through a door in other missions, but please continue to believe that this is actually different or an improvement.


You know, the exact opposite scenario of Unity, which is the most "assassinish" in terms of gameplay

Again it depends on what your notion of AC gameplay is. If it operates under a limited understanding of the gameplay of AC1 or other stealth games than yes, UNITY is okay. If it depends on AC as an open-world stealth gameplay, which actually means that the sandbox is not just area to participate in assasination missions but a full world, society and culture to immerse yourself (AC2 onwards) than I don't think UNITY can be understood as anything but a step backward. Maybe if it had been a pure stealth game and not a sandbox game, then it could be forgiven.

Shahkulu101
02-10-2015, 04:18 PM
The only one who's claiming that Unity's stealth amounts to four different ways to get into a door is you - and it's a total exaggeration that simplifies Unity's stealth in a way that suits your argument. Both the Johnson and Pitcairn assassinations are laid out for the player anyway. The Johnson one guides the player through an obvious path up the cliff side, through the trees and then right on top of Johnson's house - with Johnson right below you waiting to be pounced on. No assessment of the environments or observing of the targets movement is needed - no thought is needed. Just follow what the developer want you to do like a 'Pavlovian dog' to use a phrase you seem to be particularly fond of. Same with the Pitcairn mission; follow the brush and the path up the trees, land on top of the flag and then you're right on top of your target - with the developers hand holding you all the way.

The great thing about Unity is that you're left completely to your own devices, you have to find the optimal path by yourself and there's no prescriptive mission route. Yes it's not truly open like Dishonored and the mechanics are flawed but it's an improvement that goes some way to making Assassins Creed a credible stealth game. To say that previous games are designed better in terms of core gameplay (Certainly previous titles were better in terms of side missions, world structure) - especially AC3 - is quite ludicrous. ACIV maybe, but before that the games hardly merited the title 'Assassin' and were linear combat fests in which stealth served no purpose.

VestigialLlama4
02-10-2015, 04:58 PM
it's a total exaggeration that simplifies Unity's stealth in a way that suits your argument.

Exaggeration? One, your characters are in interiors most of the time. To approach them you can do some side-missions and set up a unique scripted sequence (which by the way is not there in AC1, this is still Full-Synch post-Ezio territory), you can also lockpick some doors (so two ways to get past doors) or you can crouch around corners like an overgrown turtle(three ways) and that's it I guess. The fact is the options are handed-down and highlighted for you, the missions themselves are designed in a set pattern and do not vary at all. The fact that the targets aren't charismatic (like the AC1 targets or AC3 for that matter) means that it's a fairly boring trudge through repititive designed gameplay. The Church mission is the only one that works in UNITY.

Assassin's Creed are character driven single player games and in that kind of story, for pacing reasons and what not, the story missions will vary between linearity and open-ness. Like even in AC1, some of the Assassination Missions are linear (Tamir in Jerusalem, later missions).


but before that the games hardly merited the title 'Assassin'

Again you labor under a false idea of what that means, you are thinking Hitman, you are thinking Splinter Cell or Metal Gear Solid. Those are not Assassin's Creed games. These are adventure games with stealth. Assassination is about attacking people in audacious ways, doing things that straddle the line between stealthy and brazen. It's about telling Templars that a six-foot tall dude with weapons on his body can come and go as he pleases and none of the surveillance will get him. These aren't realistic games

shobhit7777777
02-10-2015, 05:07 PM
AC3 at its best, barely manages to be an 'OK' Black Flag level.

Revelations and AC4 were the the only games where they managed to nail sandbox design.
Unity is a regressive mess that is even more primitive than ACB and not comparable to the majority of modern stealth-action sandbox games. It gets points for trying though.

Lets see what they do with victory...hope the social strata of the time affects the crowd simulation and blending.

SixKeys
02-10-2015, 05:24 PM
The debate was largely about ambition rather than quality. How later games have actually been less ambitious than AC3 and whether or not that's healthy in the long run. AC3's flaws come from excess and trying many radical things and not fully pulling it off. Shouldn't later games take those excessive things build on it and improve on it, rather than take one small thing and recieve praise for aiming low. Before AC3, all games improved and developed some aspect of open-world gaming and brought variety and freshness to the concept.

The only thing that matters to me is whether or not the game is good. Is it fun? I disagree that all games prior to AC3 improved upon existing concepts. ACR brought almost nothing worth keeping to the table. It "improved" upon ACB's combat by making the animations excruciatingly long, breaking the smooth flow that previous games had had. It "improved" parkour by introducing a gimmick that was so cumbersome and unreliable I wish I could play the game without it. It replaced proper side missions with simplistic scanning for books (a "press X to win" mechanic that carried over to AC3's assassination contracts). It added about 30 different types of bombs, only 3 or 4 of which were useful. That's not improving. That's adding more broken crap on top of already broken crap to hide the fact that it is all crap. The underlying gameplay pillars were unbalanced and the devs knew it. Stealth was a joke, combat was a cakewalk, parkour was getting stale. The very code upon which those systems was based was flawed. So what do they do to "fix" it? Throw in more armor sets to make the combat even easier, throw in a hookblade to make parkour more automatic than before, throw in thunder and poison bombs that kill every enemy within a 20 feet radius so there's no need for stealth.

That's what ALL the games did before Unity. None of them wanted to tackle the underlying core pillars, none of them wanted to start over and rethink the three most important aspects of the franchise. Just keep piling new features on top of the broken ones in hopes that people would be distracted by the shiny.

Now, I do agree that ambition is important. Unity had ambition. It had the ambition to bring the series closer to the original idea. To make you feel like an assassin again. To make planning and stealth an essential feature again. It had the balls to strip all the useless crap that didn't fit its vision - no more insta-kill assassin recruits, no more endless amounts of ammo, no more ships, no more hunting, no more complicated Animus narrative. Just the assassin and his blade, and a huge, open playground where the player could create their own stories. It's a different kind of ambition compared to AC3 which had a lot to prove, being the conclusion of the Desmond saga. I won't deny that AC3 devs made many bold choices. I respect them for trying some different things. But the game still suffered from the same design philosophy as its predecessors: don't trim the fat, just keep redressing it in new clothes. For example the assassin recruits were entirely pointless. They didn't fit the narrative at all. Connor was supposed to be the last one left, the lone man fighting against impossible odds. The recruits didn't fit into the picture, and they were overpowered just as they had always been. So why include them? Because devs were too afraid of removing established features, even if they were unnecessary and worked against the game.


Leaving aside disagreements about UNITY's Quality, isn't there something backhanded in the praise that it had fewer goals than AC3 and succeeded in that.

I don't think so. Unity had simpler goals: take the series back to its roots, bring back stealth and make it work, make combat challenging. It succeeded in all of these goals. AC3 had huge ambitions, but failed miserably in almost every aspect. I'll take a simplistic game that does a few things in a great way than a complex game that does nothing particularly well.


AC3 had amazingly beautiful natural environments, weather and animals that was a quantum leap over the flat countryside of the Ezio games. UNITY just brings more size to the urban environment of Ezio's Italy and Altair's Levant but its more lifeless and less immersive.

No. Just.....no.



To revive a popular tune:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/954025-ACU-History-A-list-of-demonstrable-lies-and-inaccuracies-**SPOILERS**

Thankfully you no longer have to take my word for it. Listen to David Andress, a professional historian discuss the game on this nice youtube channel History Respawned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r47yZIYBUzc

The game's history gets about one thing right, the revolution happened on 14th July, and the King did die, and Napoleon did exist in that time. Everything else is lies and even worse lies.

When I said "no lies detected", I was referring to your statement, not that Unity doesn't have any lies. Basically, I'm saying, I agree with you. I don't know much about French history, but I'm willing to believe there were a lot of fabrications. I'm saying I don't care. It's still a better alternative than AC3. Unlike a lot of people, I don't play these games for historical tourism. I play them because I want to stab people and climb buildings. Accurate history is great, but basically, if I don't know enough about a particular time period to know it's blatantly false, it's not going to affect my enjoyment of the game.


You know in some Creative Writing classes that is considered a compliment. Since the character is not a specific type and keyed to one dimension. Whereas Arno has a specific easy-to-relate type.

*shrug* I don't have a problem with easy-to-relate characters. I like Arno for his sarcastic attitude, quips and his expressiveness. I dislike Connor because even his voice actor sounds bored, and because his actions in the story made no sense. That's pretty much all there is to it.


YES. Connor's generation as you play the game comes from living in freedom in a village in a land that was essentially his. As the revolution comes, his tribe is uprooted and he ends up becoming a minority in a new nation.

Nationality =/= personality. Personality is what we're discussing. Connor's personality type is brash, nave, stoic, protective with a strong sense of justice. Are you saying a person with those characteristics could not exist in any other time period or place? Because right now it sounds like you're saying the only native American personality type that was possible at the time was someone like Connor, which is obviously false.


Okay can a cowboy exist in the 21st Century. These days cowboys are hillbillies or rodeo performers or farmers. For a representative cowboy you go to the Frontier Era of the Western. Likewise when we think private eyes we think of America in the 40s and 50s, the Film Noir era which Bioshock and LA Noire evokes. Certain characters are part of a certain era and culture.

Native Americans are not "characters" that only exist in the past, JFC. They are people still living today. Your suggestion that people with Connor's personality could only exist in that particular time and place smacks of casual racism.

Anykeyer
02-10-2015, 05:49 PM
Sorry, but that talk about game development "vision" or "goal" is just funny. You cant know those things, you can only suspect, and ofc you can mistake things for what they are.
My guess is that Unity dropped a lot of features, even things that would perfecly fit the setting (like horses), just because Ubi's silly network engine cant handle the stuff and they only had one year to do this.
But then again, why would I care? Only the end result is what matters. And what I see is an empty shell, a sandbox without proper tools or purpose, and a game that doesnt make any attempts to entertain the player.

VestigialLlama4
02-10-2015, 06:08 PM
Now, I do agree that ambition is important. Unity had ambition. It had the ambition to bring the series closer to the original idea. To make you feel like an assassin again. To make planning and stealth an essential feature again. It had the balls to strip all the useless crap that didn't fit its vision - no more insta-kill assassin recruits, no more endless amounts of ammo, no more ships, no more hunting, no more complicated Animus narrative. Just the assassin and his blade, and a huge, open playground where the player could create their own stories.

You are making it sound like its Shadow of the Colossus or something. The point is Assassin's Creed is both a social stealth-adventure game and an open-world game. The open-world aspect meant making the background, the culture more detailed and that involved providing more activities to do.

UNITY fails as an open-world game for the fact that its a poor historical game, that its characters generally suck and that the side missions have no variety and the city life is realy flat. I mean it probably has more animations and random activity since its Next-Gen and all but there's no longer a justification to interact with the Crowd because Arno has no story connection to the events around him and nothing really big at stake. In AC1, the Assassins are a Real Organization, they don't exist under front organizations in other nations and societies, they have a clear and specific role in the society they are a part of. When they made Assassins a Conspiracy organization (that is one existing in secret) they naturally had to change and update the open world to accomodate that. Otherwise, you know make a game where Arno is an underworld hitman in the Parisian underworld, period-Hitman or something.


Native Americans are not "characters" that only exist in the past, JFC. They are people still living today.

There are cowboys today as well and there are pirates today as well. That's not the point.

If a developer makes a game about having you play as a Somali Pirate and they have you sailing across the Gulf of Aden and raiding tankers, well it would not quite be the same compared to being a Pirate of the Caribbean in the Golden Age because being a Pirate in one time and one space carries different resonances than it does at other times. Cowboys today don't really mean what they did in the Old West for the same reason. A cowboy today is a Texan and a Rodeo Performer but a Western Cowboy is an outlaw/rebel and a more romantic figure (cf Red Dead Redemption).

A Native American after the Revolution means they grow up in tribes that are under siege by settler expansionists, growing up in Reservations, several failed rebellions, raids or assimilating into the minority of White America. There are great stories told there but that would necessarily make Connor a darker character by default. The idea of The New World, life before arrival of Europeans and what that represents, say there were missed opportunities for reconciliation or peace or integration, provides for a more optimistic character, and that's why it fits the American Revolution setting, which ended up becoming a revolution for white men rather than all men despite the proclamations of the Declaration.

Defalt221
02-10-2015, 06:17 PM
Assassin's Creed 3 has options but barely any place to use them..

COMPLETELY AGREE. If AC Black Flag was released b4 AC3,AC 3 might have blown everyone out of water.

GunnerGalactico
02-10-2015, 06:23 PM
Assassin's Creed 3 has options but barely any place to use them.

The forts are the best content available on the ground part of the game (at least in terms of player freedom), but even they aren't saved from AI with unclear rules and psychic abilities (though the latter one in the forts is not annoying as in the city where stealth killing a guard in an empty alley during Notoriety 3 will bring all guards from the area to said alley), as well as the fact that, quite frankly, even then not everything at our disposal is useful.

Assassin's Creed IV does a much better job at getting the use of its tools and options, and trims out stuff that has no real reason to be used anywhere at all (like AC3 riots, for example). Also, much clearer AI rules. And the freedom of choice is applied much more broadly than in AC3. Which is a shame, because AC3 has a lot of things going for it which sometimes cannot shine.

^ I agree with this too.

Although I still enjoyed my overall experience with AC3, it left a lot to be desired in so many levels. AC3 had the potential to be the best game in this series, but I can honestly say that AC4 has that title because of it's innovation, content and playability. AC3 was wayyy too ambitious and promised a lot of new features which we did not see in the finished product. The gameplay was also too linear compared to the previous games. AC3 also had it's good moments, it's combat system is even better than AC4 and Rogue, the Captain Kidd missions and conquering forts were among my favourites things to do.

All in all, I still love this game. :)

RinoTheBouncer
02-10-2015, 06:34 PM
I adore ACIII in every single way, and every gameplay glitch in it is forgivable. The only thing that bothered me about it was the ending. That part stabbed to death and ruined the story beyond recognition. But everything else was epic.

Namikaze_17
02-10-2015, 07:00 PM
The game obviously had its flaws, and could've been better in so many ways.

Still love it tho. :rolleyes:

Megas_Doux
02-10-2015, 10:32 PM
AC3 at its best, barely manages to be an 'OK' Black Flag level.

Revelations and AC4 were the the only games where they managed to nail sandbox design.
Unity is a regressive mess that is even more primitive than ACB and not comparable to the majority of modern stealth-action sandbox games. It gets points for trying though.


I see it the other way around, Unity is the first game in ages that tried and somewhat achieved improving some of the CORE elements in the franchise aka BEING an actual Assassin. Dont get me wrong, AC IV did great -my personal favorite- mainly because of its PIRATE theme- Lets face it, that game is super fun not because its "AC elements" but due to the raw and sheer fun that the setting provided.

Thing is Ubi accomplished, even more so than with AC II, to deliver the concept of a GTA in a historical times, but as an AC simulator, is not necessary THAT better, mission design aside, of course. I said back in 2014 when Unity was announced that my main concern was how the actual sandbox design would be, considering that I thought AC IV shined mostly thanks to it.

Im not saying Unity is great, but I see that game as a step into the right direction, at least of what I want from this franchise, again BEING an Assassin....It kinda intrigues me why you are so harsh on that game considering that finally there are some stealth mechanics, combat difficulty, customization and such.

ninja4hire10
02-11-2015, 04:22 AM
Valid points, all. But one of ACIII's underused but very much appreciated features was the ability to mess with the NPCs, e.g. choking out random pedestrians and not getting dinged with the ol' "ancestor didn't harm civilians" warning. The choke-outs had zilch to with the story, and weren't "assassin-y" in the least, but one can't deny their entertainment factor...

VestigialLlama4
02-11-2015, 07:30 AM
I see it the other way around, Unity is the first game in ages that tried and somewhat achieved improving some of the CORE elements in the franchise aka BEING an actual Assassin.

The problem is that the idea of "Actual Assassin" cannot exist in a period other than the Crusades, where the Asasiyun were a real historical organization in a real place and real time. In AC1, the idea of a sandbox dedicated to approaching your targets and all missions focused on it in an open world made sense because Altair doesn't have any other purpose than that. Once you take Assassins out of that period and make them part of conspiracy mythology, the series enters the terrain of historical fiction and has the Assassins taking on the role and function of metaphor under several fronts, so Ezio is both Renaissance Patron of Arts and Assassin, Connor is Assassin-Frontiersman-Landlord-Privateer-Revolutionary and Edward is Pirate-Assassin-Businessman. What that means is that the historical element and realization and the open world becomes part of the Core element. You can't magically go back to AC1 and pretend that Revolutionary France is the same as the Crusades.


Im not saying Unity is great, but I see that game as a step into the right direction, at least of what I want from this franchise, again BEING an Assassin....It kinda intrigues me why you are so harsh on that game considering that finally there are some stealth mechanics, combat difficulty, customization and such.

Okay following reasons:

1) The stealth and combat and reintroduction of an open-mechanic is not all that much of a radical shuffle of stealth, as simply bringing in conventional elements from other games and the targets and missions are nowhere as fun as AC1 was.. Why should people spend so much money when they can merely play AC1 again, you know the game that does it right and where it makes sense.

2) Combat is not hard, it's just more elaborate and time consuming, a subtle but important difference. As Robert Rath writes here:
Swordfights in Black Flag felt brutal. By contrast, Unity's fights look elegant and light. It's Hollywood fencing, the sort seen in The Three Musketeers and similar period adventures.http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/criticalintel/12676-The-Good-and-Bad-of-Assassin-s-Creed-Unity


The fact is UNITY is a game of zero ambitions. Simply bringing back the AC1 style(and poorly) without changes in story, approach and character, and improvement in the open worlds (other than simply more size and Next-Gen graphics) does not justify its existence. So I don't see how it can be any step in the right direction.

Defalt221
02-11-2015, 12:51 PM
While I would die for some of those to be brought back, especially the rope darts, it doesn't mean Unity doesn't have a bunch of stuff that's not in 3 either. =p

- Phantom / Berserk Blades
- Crouch / Cover Mechanics
- Cherry Bombs
- Controlled Descent

etc, etc, etc

Things that were removed:
1)Carrying corpses. Bcuz Arno is stupid. No wonder Pierre insults him so much.
2)No rope darts. This video reminds me of what creativity with rope darts was.
3)No countryside.Making Paris exploration after 50+hours a monotonous experience.
4)A longer story. AC U has the SHORTEST STORY in the franchise.
5)Lesser character depth. I don't know why but Unity seems to not flesh out Arno much.
6)Original protagonist. I'm tired of Ezio clone upgrades.
7)Fast awesome combat.

VestigialLlama4
02-11-2015, 01:15 PM
I don't get why people think Phantom Blades is some revolutionary thing, it is a reskin of Throwing Knives/Crossbow/Bow and Arrow/Blowpipe. And Cherry Bombs were already there in Freedom Cry, firecrackers used by Adewale and the like. Only there the context justified the necessity for Improvised Weapons.

Megas_Doux
02-11-2015, 04:08 PM
under several fronts, so Ezio is both Renaissance Patron of Arts and Assassin, Connor is Assassin-Frontiersman-Landlord-Privateer-Revolutionary and Edward is Pirate-Assassin-Businessman. What that means is that the historical element and realization and the open world becomes part of the Core element. You can't magically go back to AC1 and pretend that Revolutionary France is the same as the Crusades.



You have a point there, one that I in fact thought could be a problem when the setting was announced.....Arno did not have anything aside being an Assassin







The fact is UNITY is a game of zero ambitions. Simply bringing back the AC1 style(and poorly) without changes in story, approach and character, and improvement in the open worlds (other than simply more size and Next-Gen graphics) does not justify its existence. So I don't see how it can be any step in the right direction.

Ill try to explain why I see the game as a step into the right direction




1) The stealth and combat and reintroduction of an open-mechanic is not all that much of a radical shuffle of stealth, as simply bringing in conventional elements from other games and the targets and missions are nowhere as fun as AC1 was.. Why should people spend so much money when they can merely play AC1 again, you know the game that does it right and where it makes sense.



For a franchise that claims itself the tittle of "stealth" not having an actual crouch mechanic after like 5 games is just EMBARRASING, mostly considering the fact such thing exists since 1999......For the first time EVER since AC I there are improvements in regards of entering into a building to kill your target/accomplish a mission. Again, not saying it was perfect, but at least is SOMETHING considering it remained the same in AC II, ACB, ACR, AC III and AC IV.......




2) Combat is not hard, it's just more elaborate and time consuming, a subtle but important difference. As Robert Rath writes here:
Swordfights in Black Flag felt brutal. By contrast, Unity's fights look elegant and light. It's Hollywood fencing, the sort seen in The Three Musketeers and similar period adventures.http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/criticalintel/12676-The-Good-and-Bad-of-Assassin-s-Creed-Unity



Again, something......

I know is not hard! Ive saying quite the contrary since december! Thing is that AC players have been accustomed to that FIVE YEARS OLD difficulty - even at hunting, check Read Dead Redemption in comparison- for so long they just cant or dont want to stomach something a little bit harder than that. I find the fact that at least you can die once in a while as an improvement, for I NEVER died in combat, not even against the "elite" archetypes in the previous games. Thats kinda of a joke if you ask me.....




So I don't see how it can be any step in the right direction.


Again, Unity has many flaws in my book, I miss horses, more diversity regarding locations for I wish there was a countryside, more "historic" stuff in the story -not AC III ridiculous levels of shoehorning though, cough, cough Midnight ride, cough, cough- and mostly the LONG forgotten social stealth to name a few....

Thing is you and I think completely different and thus, want different things:

You believe AC IIIs super linear missions in the likes of having more QTEs than open assassinations or even entire sequences such as the 8th one are the right direction and I dont. You prefer easy peasy combat in which the protagonist is this invincible force of nature that obliterates waves and waves of enemies within the matter of seconds like they were nothing regardless their rank and your gear with bare no none effort at all... I welcome more challenge, not Metal gear 3: Snake Eater European Extreme difficulty or Dark Souls challenge, but something......

brotersinarms
02-11-2015, 04:26 PM
That's a great game.Probably my favorite. I wish they would remaster it with with the new gun mechanics and some new outfits like we have in Rogue. I mean i remember it was so good when i first played, i thought it could've been playing Red Dead. However, the problem (to the extent it was) is that it didn't offer everything Red Dead offered. The gun mechanics were awkward, as were the outfit choices getting into the Connor missions. You just looked waaaay out of place, as compared to the Haytham missions.

In addition, there were some epic battles going on, that had me feeling "let me be a part of this", in wanting to just pick up a musket, and let me be a part of those epic line fights. Instead, you were hopping thru trees to get past it, leaving me let down in what the game could've been, and what it's potential could have been. It could have been as successful as Red Dead.

However, there's no doubt the maps were huge with so much to do. Wildlife was naturally roaming around on these huge maps, we had horses (i miss that) with Graphics and maps that i felt were state of the art, as compared to its successors. Black Flag was about smaller patched areas (Islands), and Rogue the same. They jus seemed "cheaper" than AC 3 in the way they were made.

They just got away from the huge non linear maps AC 3 offered.

I really hope they would remaster this great game.

VestigialLlama4
02-11-2015, 05:57 PM
For a franchise that claims itself the tittle of "stealth" not having an actual crouch mechanic after like 5 games is just EMBARRASING, mostly considering the fact such thing exists since 1999......

Social Stealth doesn't need a crouch button. I mean Crouch makes more sense in a combat shooter, where keeping your head down and moving is vital to stay alive. In social stealth, if you walk around people in public in real-life and crouch you will draw attention. I mean Assassins are all about speed, hiding and dashing. They are fast and silent, and achieve everything quickly. If you are a burglar, you can maybe afford to crouch around and take your time, but not Assassins, who are supposed to be those weird shapes in the shadows the guards swore was there or that sound of whistling they don't know is a cricket or insect or whatnot.

Like what purpose does a crouch button serve in a large interior like Notre Dame, or that party mission where you hunt down Levesque. It's a party and you are moving through rooms, but why do you need to crouch and move, it's not like there are video cameras or censors whose light or trigger you need to avoid? If you meet a guard, you have to attack or kill him before he hits the alarm.


You believe AC IIIs super linear missions in the likes of having more QTEs than open assassinations or even entire sequences such as the 8th one are the right direction and I dont.

Where did I say I wanted that? AC3 is a flawed game and I never said otherwise. I always saw it as a game that tried several new things and bursting with ideas but suffering with poor implementation and integration of different mechanics. The fact is that I have far greater respect/sympathy/forgiveness for a game that sins by excess, which actually tried to do something different than for a game that lacks guts.

In any case, as I mentioned to Six_Keys, this thread or rather my comments on this thread, is not really about quality. It's about looking at what AC3 represents in terms of overall development. The point is after AC3, there has not been any attempt at making a game with the same storytelling ambition nor is there an evolution in terms of open-world gameplay. Assassin's Creed as a franchise has made smaller games that spin-offs that cannibalizes its assets but has avoided telling a story or created an open world on that level. I mean UNITY's development and praise is largely the fact that it avoids the problems AC3 ran into, rather than coming up with new solutions and a new approach.

What I mean is AC3 brought radically new things - Natural Environments, Real Trees and Rocks, Weather changes(Snow and Fog), Naval, Hunting, changes in Parkour Traversal, alterations like whistling and blending in stalking zones. Via QTEs it also made baby steps towards developing interiors. Storywise, it introduced the idea of having two protagonists with two different opposing viewpoints, a darker story (AC3 is still the darkest, grayest and most ambiguous story of the entire series) and a historical fiction that really takes the events seriously, it even introduced the Lantern Mechanic in Catacombs as well. Basically it took aspects of the Ezio games and built on it in even more detail. The Homestead is essentially Ezio's Rome and Monteriggioni where the NPCs aren't random copies but characters with names and stories, an entire NPC village and accompanying Crafting Economy. Rather than simply spamming Arrow Storm, you have a range of options to command your Recruits (who are all separate individual NPCs rather than random figures with alliterative names). Whether this is too much or how poorly integrated it was is not the point, the fact is it built and extended on what earlier games did.

The game after that BLACK FLAG, told a more modest story set in a smaller-scale historical period that built on AC3's assets, it streamlined the natural environment, dialled down the land-weather while playing up the sea-weather. Hunting is boiled down to managable chunks and simplified the complicated crafting economy of AC3. The Pirate Ship has only you and Adewale and the crew are random nobodies (Darby McDevitt mentioned a Homestead Idea where different members of your crew are personalized but they dropped it). I am not complaining or criticizing here, I love Black Flag as a game but the fact is it couldn't have been made outside of AC3's shadow, and it does backtrack from some of the stuff that AC3 did while at the same time improving in integrating different features. The Frontier environment in ROGUE is paltry compared to III, and the naval has none of the adventure that AC3 and Black Flag does, and the story is on the level of a well-written fanfiction, in gameplay it completely cannibalizes all of Black Flag and AC3.

With UNITY, the Murder-Mysteries cannibalizes the Clue Mechanic of Hunting and the Frontiersman stories of AC3, the Paris Side Stories have interchangable NPCs despite being famous historical figures and the history is total filthy lies, sometimes having basic errors in facts. In gameplay, it does superficially return to AC1's style of open-mission but I don't think it develops on it or improves on it beyond what AC1 did. It cuts down on the gadgets but hands you a Phantom Blade (which is throwing knives/Crossbow/Bow and Arrow/Blowpipe/Ezio Pistol and not anything new at all), makes stealth harder by removing features rather than making guards and environment smarter and more challenging. It also keeps Full-Synchronization (a hangover from Brotherhood and which I hate by the way, its the main cause for linear missions in earlier titles). But mostly, none of the targets are as charismatic or interesting like AC1 and AC3 are because the writing is terrible. The story isn't gray or dark, the bad guys are one-dimensional baby-eaters and you ally with a sympathetic Templar to fight worse Templars.

So regardless of how I feel about UNITY, I can't find a strong argument against seeing it as anything but a major step back.

Megas_Doux
02-11-2015, 07:03 PM
Social Stealth doesn't need a crouch button. I mean Crouch makes more sense in a combat shooter, where keeping your head down and moving is vital to stay alive. In social stealth, if you walk around people in public in real-life and crouch you will draw attention. I mean Assassins are all about speed, hiding and dashing. They are fast and silent, and achieve everything quickly. If you are a burglar, you can maybe afford to crouch around and take your time, but not Assassins, who are supposed to be those weird shapes in the shadows the guards swore

So regardless of how I feel about UNITY, I can't find a strong argument against seeing it as anything but a major step back.

Back in 2007 AC was not only about the long forgotten concept of social stealth, but also not getting detected in the first place most of the times...Now, you have not played many stealth games have you????

Because saying that a CROUCHING mechanic in a "STEALTH game is "not needed" is pretty telling actually.......... I just cant understand how or why such thing can be consider "unnecessary". If Im given the mission of killing a dude that happens to be a well guarded fortress/place in which NOBODY under any circumstance is allowed, I would crouch in order to make less noise and not being seeing by the guards. In fact, I would include scenarios in which crawling is an option. With that being said, I would continue improving both "regular" and social stealth as well....

I see Unity as a step forward gameplay wise because it finally improves some of the CORE mechanics, rather than coming up with new ones just because for the sake of the setting and make up some the "shame" of annual releases like naval stuff and hunting just to name a few. You know, despite the fact I enjoyed sailing to the high seas in AC III and even way more in AC IV, to me it was like crafting some REALLY beautiful detailed finishes on a a building, but at the cost of having the MAIN structured weakened or at least, not that good in comparison to those details.....

Which is why Im deeply against annual releases by the way, for that affects not only the time developers have in order to improve, or at least try to improve both the core mechanics and side activities and how both interact within the sandbox world, but also the technical side of the game and even the stories....

VestigialLlama4
02-11-2015, 09:46 PM
Because saying that a CROUCHING mechanic in a "STEALTH game is "not needed" is pretty telling actually

I said "Social Stealth" Not "Stealth", they are not nearly the same thing. There was no crouch button in AC1 because it was not needed.


I just cant understand how or why such thing can be consider "unnecessary". If Im given the mission of killing a dude that happens to be a well guarded fortress/place in which NOBODY under any circumstance is allowed, I would crouch in order to make less noise and not being seeing by the guards.

Well, you hardly have Fortress levels in AC (the ones that are there are exceptions), most of the times you attack targets in public in broad daylight. And most of them were exteriors as well, which thankfully allows you to cover your noise. The point is the historical setting and more primitive forms of security allows for more freedom for infiltration. There aren't any cameras or surveillance equipment you have to worry about and the only alarm is a long bell in the middle of an open area, easy to access and visible (and not hidden).


I see Unity as a step forward gameplay wise because it finally improves some of the CORE mechanics,

First of all how can it be a step forward if all it does is return to AC1. Assassin's Creed was never a conventional stealth game for the simple reason its not really possible to play the game without being undetected, you cannot ghost AC1. Again the problem lies in people who define AC1 by a set idea of a stealth game, which it was never really a part of

Megas_Doux
02-11-2015, 11:40 PM
I said "Social Stealth" Not "Stealth", they are not nearly the same thing.

I know they are not the same thing, however that does not exclude the fact that BOTH needed and can be improved......




There was no crouch button in AC1 because it was not needed.


I assume side stuff was not in AC I because "it was not needed" and the same goes for day/night cycle, tree running, SWIMMING, customization, etc, etc, etc etc. Instead of "not needed" I would use "not enough time and/or "this is the first game in the franchise, improvements should/will come". That argument of yours is rather weak being honest.



Well, you hardly have Fortress levels in AC (the ones that are there are exceptions), most of the times you attack targets in public in broad daylight. And most of them were exteriors as well, which thankfully allows you to cover your noise

Not as few as you could say, here some of the ones a remember of assassination within fortresses/HEAVILY guarded places in which nobody but them are allowed:

-
-William of Montferrat.
-Emilio Barbarigo.
- Salviati.
- Many of Savonarolas lieutenants, mostly the ones in the ship and atop the cathedral.
-Baron de Valois
- The two assassination attempts on Cesare Borgia inside Castel Saint Angelo.
-Tarik Barleti.
-Silas.
- William Johnson.
-The first attempt at killing Lee, which ended up with Haytham dead.
-The french dude in the HUGE ship.
-The old Dutch slave owner in AC IV.
-Benjamin Hornigolds two lieutenants.
-Benjamin Hornigold.
-Torres impersonator within Havanas fort.
- Lafrenire, the old man at the graveyard.
- Roberspierre.

And MANY more.....



. The point is the historical setting and more primitive forms of security allows for more freedom for infiltration. There aren't any cameras or surveillance equipment you have to worry about and the only alarm is a long bell in the middle of an open area, easy to access and visible (and not hidden).


Nope, but there are guards with bows and muskets. If spotted, they will fire at you......





First of all how can it be a step forward if all it does is return to AC1....


Well after AC I and due to the backlash Ubi, even the god almighty Patrice, chose to go with the "Lets have a GTA set in historical times" instead of "an assassin simulator" because is more popular and thus they focused on the open world rather than the missions. Cant say that I did not enjoy mostly AC II and AC IV though, the latter has to be one of the richest worlds to explore. But tons of gamers and even famous reviewers like Angry Joe and Total biscuit saying they want AC to become this fully packed action game featuring ships instead of, you know, assassinations should tell you something.

And dont get me started on the "oh combat is too hard, guards kill me" trend....



. Assassin's Creed was never a conventional stealth game for the simple reason its not really possible to play the game without being undetected, you cannot ghost AC1.


You cant "Ghost" all you targets, however you can "ghost" MANY of them. So I will leave this here and walk away:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhCqkrA_v2k


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNrkmmKhExE

and


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N9UDxIcsNA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB06NQaSUWk

ubigamercell
02-12-2015, 03:21 PM
I liked AC3 and I really don't understand the hate towards it.
Yes, it certainly has problems in terms of how it handles its main character - Haytham was more of a Templar than Connor was an Assassin.
But it was a vast improvement over the terrible, terrible Revelations.

I didn't like it as much as I'd have hoped for but it's also due to Desmond and especially Connor who lacks any character development, as he's so bland and uninteresting it doesn't really give me much of a reason to make him likeable.

His father and their comrades were a lot better as interesting characters to follow and I wish their deaths had been optional.

GunnerGalactico
02-12-2015, 05:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB06NQaSUWk

Ahh! This brings back good memories. I enjoyed getting to Sibrand and assassinating him. This is one of the targets I where I approached and remained undetected on my very first play through.

Locopells
02-12-2015, 05:24 PM
Yep, Sibrand's always been one of my favourites for that exact reason. Did a ghost on William once, too.

Defalt221
02-13-2015, 09:52 AM
I didn't like it as much as I'd have hoped for but it's also due to Desmond and especially Connor who lacks any character development, as he's so bland and uninteresting it doesn't really give me much of a reason to make him likeable.

His father and their comrades were a lot better as interesting characters to follow and I wish their deaths had been optional.

I played Rogue and then I began to HATE TEMPLARS. Then I ran AC3 AGAIN to brutally murder those guys who I helped to destroy the brotherhood in Rogue.

Domestico
02-13-2015, 10:06 AM
I liked AC3 a lot, mainly due to the frontier. Something about huge open areas always intrigue me. The forts were great fun as well. Not to mention the huge difference from other AC games when the wilderness played such a huge role. Did not care one bit for Connor though.

Arid_OrchId
02-13-2015, 05:12 PM
Ac3 is the best

DemonLord4lf
02-13-2015, 07:33 PM
Ahh! This brings back good memories. I enjoyed getting to Sibrand and assassinating him. This is one of the targets I where I approached and remained undetected on my very first play through.

When stealth is done right, its a blast, when its done wrong, you need to go full combat. I hope in Victory they do something of a hybrid. Mix the new and old combat systems together. But who knows... this game is probably too far into development for them to change anything...

GunnerGalactico
02-13-2015, 08:12 PM
When stealth is done right, its a blast, when its done wrong, you need to go full combat. I hope in Victory they do something of a hybrid. Mix the new and old combat systems together. But who knows... this game is probably too far into development for them to change anything...

They might even retain the same concept from Unity or introduce us to something new.

VestigialLlama4
02-13-2015, 09:15 PM
You know I have gone forward and started replaying AC3 again. I am actually alternating AC3 and Tyranny DLC. And I am currently in Sequence 7.

One thing that really strikes me about the game is that it's incredibly beautiful. The scenery and landscape already in old-gen has a quality that Unity on Next-Gen doesn't come close to even if in terms of character model its a great improvement. But in overall aesthetic and atmosphere, there are very few open world games that really do this well. The forest looks like an actual forest and the mists and snow, the fog that occassionally blocks your vision is really amazing. The lighting is one reason why the trees in AC3 which you can climb don't stick out obviously. In that it looks like actual gaming scenery you climb rather than a platform telegraphed for you. The sense of terrain and movement is incredible, the way body and horse slow down automatically when you go up a slope or hill. The tree-running in Black Flag and Rogue is really a poor cousin to what they did in AC3, there the trees are obviously visible platforms with clear pathways to Parkour through, in AC3 there's actually a lot of "branching paths" and there are subtle events where you can go left or right, or climb up a declivity, you obviously can't Parkour across the Frontier through tree-tops but I have managed to cover the entire Frontier map via Parkour alone and never feel short-of-breath. In the TYRANNY DLC, the atmosphere is again the main part, it has this really all-pervasive sense of hopelessness and despair. The Frontier feels romantic in the main game but in the Tyranny DLC its an endless war zone.

As for sailing, even after playing Black Flag, the first time you get on the Aquila is awe-inspiring and it's still my favorite ship of the series. The naval missions in AC3 are on the whole more fun as simulations of naval combat whereas Black Flag with the exception of the legendary ships never really had you fight a real battle but here fighting off a fleet of smaller boats while navigating in shallow waters between rocks and points feels pretty tense.

Story-wise the game actually does pretty well into the Bunker Hill mission, but the New York mission and essentially Connor's reunion with Haytham is where the missions get linear largely because it becomes less Connor's story than a playable Father-Son vacation. In many ways, the real problems of AC3 don't come from Connor, it comes from Haytham. Functionally, Haytham doesn't do anything other than serve as an elaborate distraction and a cool plot-twist. The opening missions with him are way more linear than Connor's missions and these missions don't really tell us anything special about his character. He doesn't really have a big plan other than Templars taking over the American Revolution. It's only in his interactions with Connor that Haytham becomes interesting. Ideally this should have fully been Connor's game from the beginning to an end. The prologue from III should have been relegated to pre-Order DLC for ROGUE.

JustPlainQuirky
02-13-2015, 09:57 PM
Unity is superior to AC3 in terms of gameplay.

By far.

VestigialLlama4
02-14-2015, 04:53 AM
Unity is superior to AC3 in terms of gameplay.

By what logic? It's not like the game is something radical. The combat and enemies are cumbersome and nonsensical and the game has fewer stealth options than AC3 (no stalking zones and no rope darts), and instead brings the innovations of the "Crouch button" and walking like a moronic blue turtle. Using firecrackers to distract guards makes even less sense than whistling. The loevel desig in terms of Assassination targets is a lot more open than AC3 but then the targets are such bores that you have no satisfaction in approaching and taking them out.

I cannot fathom why people invoke the Cult of the Gameplay to talk of Unity's virtues when one, the gameplay is not innovative at all, it makes missions harder by taking things away rather than creating tougher missions and enemies. Games like Batman Arkham or Dishonored give you endless tools and means to move in and out of rooms but they provide real challenges and make you use and think about it. Of course AC3 didn't approach that level of design but it at least created new tools whereas UNITY removed tools and provided conventional stealth rooms to clear with only a limited supply of tools to use.

JustPlainQuirky
02-14-2015, 05:10 AM
>The parkour is improved.
>The combat is no longer auto win with easy counter timing.
>There's an actual stealth mechanic now.

Don't get me wrong, Unity is utter crap.

But gameplay is one of the few aspects where the game doesn't fall flat.

If it weren't for ACIV's naval, I'd say it's the strongest gameplay yet.

wvstolzing
02-14-2015, 05:20 AM
and walking like a moronic blue turtle..

That 'moronic blue turtle' has a name, mister; it's Leonardo.

And yes, it was intentional: A plain reference to AC2 & ACB, for those who have eyes to see. Like George Lucas said, "it's like poetry; it rhymes; hopefully it works".

SixKeys
02-14-2015, 06:09 AM
I cannot fathom why people invoke the Cult of the Gameplay to talk of Unity's virtues when one, the gameplay is not innovative at all, it makes missions harder by taking things away rather than creating tougher missions and enemies.

You speak as if the two are mutually exclusive. They're not. They're interlinked. By taking things away, you are by definition creating tougher missions and enemies.

IMO taking things away to create a challenge is precisely what makes for great gameplay. Not just in the case of AC, but ALL games. The most challenging levels in any game are always the ones where you don't have a gazillion tools and weapons yet. Instead of getting harder over time, most games empower the player the further they progress, thereby making subsequent levels easier.

The Last of Us starts off really tense because you have to use resources sparingly. You have to choose between making a molotov or an extra health kit. Either one could save your life in a tough spot. Later on, you get stronger and your health bar increases automatically, so there's less need to create health kits. At the beginning, you also cannot kill Clickers. If one of them gets close, it's game over, no ifs or buts. Later on you get the ability to upgrade your shivs to take down Clickers. At first there's still some tension left, because you can only carry a small number of shivs at a time, and shivs are also used to open locked doors which may or may not hold important resources. Do you hold on to your last shiv in case you encounter a Clicker or do you risk it on breaking open a door with a 50-50 chance of containing whatever resources you need? But then, as you progress further, this tension, too, is nullified because you end up with more shivs than you need and you'll have an inventory full of supplies so you don't really need to open locked doors.

Similarly, in AC the first few levels where you only have a few weapons at your disposal are always the most challenging. You start out with no projectiles, so you are forced to get in up close and personal, forced to sneak from cover to cover instead of just sniping everyone from a rooftop. The first Templar knights you encounter in AC1 are terrifying because those guys will kick your *** with all those moves you have yet to learn (whilst screaming German at you). As soon as you learn counter, the game becomes easy.

IMO this is a fundamental flaw in ALL of (triple A) game design. The challenge in all games that allow the player to arm themselves and have an upgrade system serve to make later levels easier instead of harder, like logic dictates they should. This is why horror games that don't allow you to fight back are so effective at creating tension. By stripping away your options, you force the player to exercise caution, use their wits and plan ahead. I'm all for games that take away, rather than give you more, if it makes the gameplay more challenging.

I-Like-Pie45
02-14-2015, 06:22 AM
Together all night gameplay and innovation will moan

VestigialLlama4
02-14-2015, 06:34 AM
You speak as if the two are mutually exclusive. They're not. They're interlinked. By taking things away, you are by definition creating tougher missions and enemies.

The most challenging levels in any game are always the ones where you don't have a gazillion tools and weapons yet. Instead of getting harder over time, most games empower the player the further they progress, thereby making subsequent levels easier.

That's not true of Half Life 2, its not true of the Batman Arkham games, its not true of Grand Theft Auto, its not true of Dishonored either. There is nothing "by definition" here. Those games present you a plethora of options and tools and you need to use each one or come up with a use for it to keep going forward. Especially Dishonored, where depending on whether you prefer steath or action, you can choose to upgrade a different set of tools.

In any case for a Franchise sequel, the idea is for a succeeding game to be an update, to ruffle feathers of familiarity, telling them that the enemies have become tougher and you need to be smarter. Saying we are making things tougher by giving stealth rooms, a crouch button and taking away weapons without the justification of you being thrown in prison or kept in captivity, is not very smart at all.

SixKeys
02-14-2015, 06:52 AM
That's not true of Half Life 2, its not true of the Batman Arkham games, its not true of Grand Theft Auto, its not true of Dishonored either. There is nothing "by definition" here. Those games present you a plethora of options and tools and you need to use each one or come up with a use for it to keep going forward. Especially Dishonored, where depending on whether you prefer steath or action, you can choose to upgrade a different set of tools.

Haven't played the other ones, but I disagree on the Batman games. You bring up a good point which is that a lot of games force you to use a specific tool in order to progress further, instead of simply giving you an option whether or not to use it. The Batman games have a lot of side puzzles (Riddler trophies etc.) that tease you with an impossible problem, clueing you in on the fact that you're going to get an upgrade later that will solve that particular problem for you. I don't think that's good game design. All it does is introduce the player to a puzzle they can't solve yet and warn them ahead of time that "don't worry, you can come back later when you're stronger", instead of allowing them to solve the problem in a way that doesn't require the upgrade. Making a situation unsolvable simply because you don't have the right tools yet doesn't make it more difficult, just more frustrating. The Arkham games hand you upgrades out the wazoo, so by the end you have a dozen ways to take out the toughest enemies. Their solution? Throw greater numbers of enemies at you to create a chaotic boss level. Any game can be hard if you simply turn a level into horde mode, but that's a cheap design tactic. Even basic grunts become dangerous when you throw endless numbers of them at the player, like Arkham is wont to do. the best, most challenging levels are the ones where you don't have an infinite number of batarangs to knock out enemies, where enemies become smart to your tactics and you have to improvise (like the Mr. Freeze level in Akrham City, where you can't use the same trick twice).

wvstolzing
02-14-2015, 06:57 AM
All it does is introduce the player to a puzzle they can't solve yet and warn them ahead of time that "don't worry, you can come back later when you're stronger", instead of allowing them to solve the problem in a way that doesn't require the upgrade. Making a situation unsolvable simply because you don't have the right tools yet doesn't make it more difficult, just more frustrating.

I wouldn't write off the so-called 'Metroidvania' style so quickly, though; when *used well*, that element of frustration/puzzlement and its overcoming (including even the backtracking it requires) can be a worthwhile experience.

'Super Metroid' is the locus classicus of this style, in my opinion; Arkham games kinda-sorta implemented it. I'd love to play a modern game that does it as well as Metroid.

DemonLord4lf
02-14-2015, 07:04 AM
I would love to see the AC series take a cue from the combat system in Batman Arkham series. Its challenging but yet still satisfying and makes you feel like a bad ***.

SixKeys
02-14-2015, 07:31 AM
I wouldn't write off the so-called 'Metroidvania' style so quickly, though; when *used well*, that element of frustration/puzzlement and its overcoming (including even the backtracking it requires) can be a worthwhile experience.

I'm not saying it's always bad, but games shouldn't depend upon it too much. The Arkham games rely too much on the upgrade system IMO, especially City. By the end you have so many possible moves it becomes more about memorizing all the combos, Mortal Kombat style, than actual challenge. Just like MK, the player with the best memory wins, not necessarily the person with the quickest reactions or improvisation skills. It goes from "Press X to fire batarang" > "Press X and B to fire multiple batarangs" > "Press X, B and A to detonate batarang-bomb" > "Press X, B, A + L2" to free-aim multiple batarangs and detonate them when they get close to enemies" etc. I'm not a huge fan of the Arkham combat system for this reason.

Sabutto
02-14-2015, 07:34 AM
On topic: Nice video. If only AC wasn't such a broken game. Thou I might replay it after AC:Rogue just cause

Defalt221
02-20-2015, 10:04 AM
Thou I might replay it after AC:Rogue just cause

Makes sense. It'll fell like a long story of the shifts and turns of colonial America.

prince162010
02-20-2015, 12:28 PM
AC3 will never be forgotten <3

Defalt221
03-11-2015, 06:59 PM
AC3 will never be forgotten <3

WOW. Just noticed that you can throw smoke bombs AT PEOPLE IN AC3. which was removed in Black Flag and Rogue....

SpiritOfNevaeh
03-11-2015, 09:20 PM
WOW. Just noticed that you can throw smoke bombs AT PEOPLE IN AC3. which was removed in Black Flag and Rogue....


I didn't even know that either until recently :p

Farlander1991
03-11-2015, 10:43 PM
WOW. Just noticed that you can throw smoke bombs AT PEOPLE IN AC3. which was removed in Black Flag and Rogue....

That's not a compliment for the game, to be honest.

If a feature in a game like AC is discovered 3 years after its release... then it's a feature that's use is not justified by the game/level/world design, ergo useless. BF actually did a lot of fat trimming in that regard, it pretty much removed everything from AC3 that it couldn't put into a coherent useage design-wise.

VestigialLlama4
03-12-2015, 05:01 AM
If a feature in a game like AC is discovered 3 years after its release... then it's a feature that's use is not justified by the game/level/world design, ergo useless.

I am getting really tired of people bringing arbitrary rules about "Game Design" out of their a--ses as if what they are saying is any objective criteria. There are tons of great games with stuff that people don't try on initial playthroughs and discover years later.

Megas_Doux
03-12-2015, 05:06 AM
I am getting really tired of people bringing arbitrary rules about "Game Design" out of their a--ses as if what they are saying is any objective criteria. There are tons of great games with stuff that people don't try on initial playthroughs and discover years later.

AC III has tons of options that you just NEVER get to use because the linearity of its missions.

VestigialLlama4
03-12-2015, 06:00 AM
AC III has tons of options that you just NEVER get to use because the linearity of its missions.

So? Is it not a Sandbox game? In any case, the discussion was about a unique feature of smoke bombs, not about different weapons and the like.

But my point is simple, according to arbitrary rules of "game design" why is this considered a bad thing? Any game features a ton of features most gamers never try in first run, GTA for instance has all these pointless side activities (Darts and the Like) that I have never tried once. AC3 has this really complicated RPG crafting system that's overbearing, and aside from showing that Connor was an amazing accountant and businessman, I don't know what it adds to the game aside from being a more developed form of the economy (though oddly I wish they slightly modified and kept this in Black Flag because it makes way more sense there).It also has these charming but silly BOWLS and Fanorona games, and it has these underground tunnels that is just there (which is actually one reason I like it, its just wandering with a lamp in a dark cavern for no rhyme and reason and collecting masonic manuscripts, it's a great joke and far superior to DEAD KINGS).

AC3 "sins by excess" as the phrase goes but for a game that expensive, it better. These additional side activities at least give a sense of how complex and developed the Colonial Society was and how much more complex an Assassin's responsibilities have become once they went into hiding after the fall of Masyaf, they answer the questions of how they fit in this milieu, time and place. As UNITY showed clearly, removing features is not automatically better design if you don't answer the underlying function those features served. In UNITY, the Assassins make no real sense in Revolutionary France, you don't get any sense of the complexity of the society nor do you get the sense of how far the Assassins have come, how their work has become more complex.

Defalt221
03-12-2015, 06:32 PM
So? Is it not a Sandbox game? In any case, the discussion was about a unique feature of smoke bombs, not about different weapons and the like.

But my point is simple, according to arbitrary rules of "game design" why is this considered a bad thing? Any game features a ton of features most gamers never try in first run, GTA for instance has all these pointless side activities (Darts and the Like) that I have never tried once. AC3 has this really complicated RPG crafting system that's overbearing, and aside from showing that Connor was an amazing accountant and businessman, I don't know what it adds to the game aside from being a more developed form of the economy (though oddly I wish they slightly modified and kept this in Black Flag because it makes way more sense there).It also has these charming but silly BOWLS and Fanorona games, and it has these underground tunnels that is just there (which is actually one reason I like it, its just wandering with a lamp in a dark cavern for no rhyme and reason and collecting masonic manuscripts, it's a great joke and far superior to DEAD KINGS).

AC3 "sins by excess" as the phrase goes but for a game that expensive, it better. These additional side activities at least give a sense of how complex and developed the Colonial Society was and how much more complex an Assassin's responsibilities have become once they went into hiding after the fall of Masyaf, they answer the questions of how they fit in this milieu, time and place. As UNITY showed clearly, removing features is not automatically better design if you don't answer the underlying function those features served. In UNITY, the Assassins make no real sense in Revolutionary France, you don't get any sense of the complexity of the society nor do you get the sense of how far the Assassins have come, how their work has become more complex.

Well said. In short : AC3 aims too high but misses the mark. Unity aims too low and still misses the mark. Black Flag aims just right and BULLS-EYE!!!
But I want Victory to aim really really high and hit the mark.

Defalt221
03-12-2015, 06:43 PM
I am getting really tired of people bringing arbitrary rules about "Game Design" out of their a--ses as if what they are saying is any objective criteria. There are tons of great games with stuff that people don't try on initial playthroughs and discover years later.

Example: Dishonored. At reddit people are discovering TONS of new things. Even now. For example look at this (not off topic. Just some examples):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-d-t0DZ1yU

Then there are so many events they recently discovered in that game. Like the shocking truth of high chaos ending in the Brigmore Witches that nobody knew (Read that here:http://www.reddit.com/r/dishonored/comments/2ue7pc/spoilers_the_brigmore_witches_ending_confusion/ )

Megas_Doux
03-12-2015, 08:56 PM
So? Is it not a Sandbox game? In any case, the discussion was about a unique feature of smoke bombs, not about different weapons and the like.
.

Its a sandbox game ! Thing is aside from the free roam, since there is no tutorial in AC III and a HUGE chunk of the missions and linear, you just dont know those gadgets and options are there. Good luck using bombs on Hickey, Church, Haytham, Lee, Miko, Nicholas Biddle and Edward Braddock. or during midnights ride, battles of monmouth, Lexington and Concord, etc etc etc etc. AC III has TONS of stuff that is there just for padding.......

As I told you before, core mechanics SHOULD come first, in this case being an assassin and everything related to it and then lets make our protagonist an "accountant", sailor, art collector, etc etc etc etc.....



Well said. In short : AC3 aims too high but misses the mark. Unity aims too low and still misses the mark. Black Flag aims just right and BULLS-EYE!!!
But I want Victory to aim really really high and hit the mark.

Unity tried to revamp parkour and make the combat more difficult also redesigning overall structure of the cities - 1:1 buildings with interiors- including crowds, customization and returning to the roots of this franchise, BEING AN ASSASSIN. Because to me, core mechanics come first and then everything else.......
My problem with Unity since I both love/hate that game, is the fact that it should have not been released in 2014, revamping the core of a game takes more time than just introducing side stuff in the likes of den defense, the utter ridiculously executed hunting and the acclaimed naval to mask the shame of having annual games. Im tired that Ubi uses games as tech demos, $60 dollars of more, tech demos for the next games...IT HAS TO STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AC IV was super fun because even though the core mechanics of this franchise are still learning how to walk, the setting provided much more sheer fun ARGHHH PIRATES and also the developers learnt that having every assassination target but Pitcarin and johnson as ugly cheap QTEs is not good....




Example: Dishonored. At reddit people are discovering TONS of new things. Even now.

Then there are so many events they recently discovered in that game. Like the shocking truth of high chaos ending in the Brigmore Witches that nobody knew (Read that here:http://www.reddit.com/r/dishonored/comments/2ue7pc/spoilers_the_brigmore_witches_ending_confusion/ )

I trill try to use the many gadgets AC III has to assassinate hickey and during the midnight Ride tomorrow..... :rolleyes: Oh well :p

Assassin_M
03-12-2015, 09:39 PM
I am getting really tired of people bringing arbitrary rules about "Game Design" out of their a--ses as if what they are saying is any objective criteria.
It's not objective but it holds a lot more weight. You see, there's this thing called experience? I don't know if you'v heard about it and there's this other thing called expertise. Game Design has its rules and discussions, that of course does not close the door for innovation and creativity. It's just so funny that a random bum such as yourself would say that to someone with experience and education such as Farlander pulls rules out of his ***. Now, i'm not saying your opinions and posts are meaningless, god forbid.

Farlander was offering his experienced view as someone who works in the industry. I would love to see you go to a carpenter and tell him "Ugh, i'm sick of people bringing up arbitrary rules about carpentering from their asses". It's his profession. No one said you have to agree with it, it's just the way it is. If a system or feature present in a game does not get exposure then it's useless fluff. If a combat system's mechanics, for example, don't revolve around the system, then it's a broken system. It's a standard. it's common sense. If you're making coffee and add a box of sugar in an effort to sweeten it, you'v done nothing. It's useless because the sugar is inside the box, it'll never mix with the coffee.

JustPlainQuirky
03-12-2015, 09:43 PM
assassin_m can u talk moar about game design in the BUWYL thread? i wanna hear ur stories *starts campfire*

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003940035/5637780174_6061799222_f215364576_z_xlarge.jpeg

Assassin_M
03-12-2015, 09:49 PM
assassin_m can u talk moar about game design in the BUWYL thread? i wanna hear ur stories *starts campfire*

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003940035/5637780174_6061799222_f215364576_z_xlarge.jpeg
When i'm less busy, I promise. We can all even have a long discussion about it on skype. That'd be fun.

TO_M
03-12-2015, 09:49 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZimXBB3gUQ

This video summarizes my feelings for AC3 pretty well.

Press X to assassinate.. UGH

Namikaze_17
03-12-2015, 09:51 PM
And this is why I hate talking about AC3 in this place...

JustPlainQuirky
03-12-2015, 09:56 PM
I disagree with most reviewers on AC3

I agree gameplay is generally easy and stale

but the story is amazeballs quality

most just arent invested in the story and blame connor for it.


When i'm less busy, I promise. We can all even have a long discussion about it on skype. That'd be fun.

i dont use skype anymoar but ok

TO_M
03-12-2015, 10:10 PM
but the story is amazeballs quality

most just arent invested in the story and blame connor for it.



I disagree, AC3's story didn't interest me at all and I don't consider it be high quality either.

Plus it had severe pacing issues, for example: Haytham's going to America how exciting! But first here is a long *** sequence about some captain and a potential mutinee!

But everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

JustPlainQuirky
03-12-2015, 10:17 PM
I disagree, AC3's story didn't interest me at all and I don't consider it be high quality either.

Plus it had severe pacing issues, for example: Haytham's going to America how exciting! But first here is a long *** sequence about some captain and a potential mutinee!

But everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

I felt the scene with the captain and ship was an excellent way to introduce mechanics and lead into this discovery of a new world that is North America in AC3. Great way of establishing tone.

I literally cry almost every time I see the title sequence with the harbor and main theme orchestral arrangement

Namikaze_17
03-12-2015, 10:18 PM
most just arent invested in the story and blame connor for it.

Can't pull that line with all this hate for Unity's story. :rolleyes:

People care about story and hate Arno for its story as hated Connor for his.


I disagree, AC3's story didn't interest me at all and I don't consider it be high quality either.

To be fair, none of the AC stories are masterpieces in terms of story.

Frankly, they're all meh. Just one meh is better than another meh really.

I consider AC2/ACB the most meh of them all in terms of story. ( which on the contrary are fan favorites) what saves them is honestly the gameplay.


I literally cry almost every time I see the title sequence with the harbor and main theme orchestral arrangement

Same, here.

Best opening so far...

JustPlainQuirky
03-12-2015, 10:20 PM
Can't pull that line with all this hate for Unity's story. :rolleyes:

People care about story and hate Arno for its story as hated Connor for his.

that's different

Unity barely even had a story :rolleyes:

Namikaze_17
03-12-2015, 10:31 PM
that's different

Unity barely even had a story :rolleyes:

Some would say the same of AC3...

JustPlainQuirky
03-12-2015, 10:38 PM
Some would say the same of AC3...

what i was saying is a lot of-and i hate to use this word- "casuals" generally arent invested in overarching stories of franchises. Nor are they invested in the hidden deep subtexts. This applies to moviegoers too. Lots of hollywood movies are blockbusters because theyre simple, appealing to the eye, and easy to understand with simple themes and lighthearted characters. This is why characters like Ezio are so likable to a majority. His character is relatively easy to absorb from how expressive and simple to understand he is.

AC3 had so much subtext rather than easy to absorb information. I admit when i first played AC3 i didnt proccess the story at all. i was just looking for some casual fun gameplay (which i didnt really end up getting btw).

this is -what i suspect- why AC3 failed

the problem with unity is -and this is partially due to an era of consumer doubt going on right now- is that unity lacks that subtext- that substance. the story is easy to understand and has repetitive themes/characters. And the audience picks up on this. They're not compelled.

Unity has the elements of a crowd pleaser (charming protag, easy to absorb revenge/redemption plot, complex love situation, etc) but the straight forward minimal delivery/execution just made audience realize that this story just doesnt have much to offer

That's just my theory.

Namikaze_17
03-12-2015, 11:00 PM
what i was saying is a lot of-and i hate to use this word- "casuals" generally arent invested in overarching stories of franchises. Nor are they invested in the hidden deep subtexts. This applies to moviegoers too. Lots of hollywood movies are blockbusters because theyre simple, appealing to the eye, and easy to understand with simple themes and lighthearted characters. This is why characters like Ezio are so likable to a majority. His character is relatively easy to absorb from how expressive and simple to understand he is.

AC3 had so much subtext rather than easy to absorb information. I admit when i first played AC3 i didnt proccess the story at all. i was just looking for some casual fun gameplay (which i didnt really end up getting btw).

this is -what i suspect- why AC3 failed


I've been saying that for awhile... ( pre-forums I mean)

Good that someone else sees it that way.

Not that I'm talking to anybody in particular...


the problem with unity is -and this is partially due to an era of consumer doubt going on right now- is that unity lacks that subtext- that substance. the story is easy to understand and has repetitive themes/characters. And the audience picks up on this. They're not compelled.

Unity has the elements of a crowd pleaser (charming protag, easy to absorb revenge/redemption plot, complex love situation, etc) but the straight forward minimal delivery/execution just made audience realize that this story just doesnt have much to offer

That's just my theory.


But I don't understand. Weren't they supposed to return to their roots as people wanted?

Mr.Black24
03-12-2015, 11:02 PM
what i was saying is a lot of-and i hate to use this word- "casuals" generally arent invested in overarching stories of franchises. Nor are they invested in the hidden deep subtexts. This applies to moviegoers too. Lots of hollywood movies are blockbusters because theyre simple, appealing to the eye, and easy to understand with simple themes and lighthearted characters. This is why characters like Ezio are so likable to a majority. His character is relatively easy to absorb from how expressive and simple to understand he is.

AC3 had so much subtext rather than easy to absorb information. I admit when i first played AC3 i didnt proccess the story at all. i was just looking for some casual fun gameplay (which i didnt really end up getting btw).

this is -what i suspect- why AC3 failed

the problem with unity is -and this is partially due to an era of consumer doubt going on right now- is that unity lacks that subtext- that substance. the story is easy to understand and has repetitive themes/characters. And the audience picks up on this. They're not compelled.

Unity has the elements of a crowd pleaser (charming protag, easy to absorb revenge/redemption plot, complex love situation, etc) but the straight forward minimal delivery/execution just made audience realize that this story just doesnt have much to offer

That's just my theory.
Exactly as I stated before, filthy casuals ruin the AC Experience in general. Whenever new and interesting gameplay or characters, they always tear it down.

"Connur isnt Enzio!!!" "Hiz dumbz and nt funne" "Unity'z combatx iz wayy too hard. Let me pwnd thm all!!!"

"Let mez have navals all de time!"

JustPlainQuirky
03-12-2015, 11:03 PM
But I don't understand. Weren't they supposed to return to their roots?

unity returned to roots gameplay-wise and even expanded on them

though keep in mind the original AC wasnt a critically acclaimed game anyway


filthy casuals

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/541/870/cd3.jpg

Mr.Black24
03-12-2015, 11:11 PM
unity returned to roots gameplay-wise and even expanded on them

though keep in mind the original AC wasnt a critically acclaimed game anyway



http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/541/870/cd3.jpgHahahaha yes! But seriously, I honestly think that what they ask for can damage the AC universe. Like I get that Unity's combat isn't the same, its a bit more difficult this time around, and many people can agree that its a huge improvement from the simple counterkill that everyone has been using *why have been people playing this way, when its more fun going in offense and defense,in the first place I have no idea?* but just because you suck at it doesn't mean you have to hate it. But ehh....

Megas_Doux
03-12-2015, 11:12 PM
And this is why I hate talking about AC3 in this place...


I like AC IIIs story despite the fact Im not pretty fond of Connors VA. However I cannot defend, gameplay wise, an AC in which ALL the assassinations but two -Johnson and Pitcairn- are either HEAVILY linear and not pretty good ones or plain QTES.......




Unity has the elements of a crowd pleaser (charming protag, easy to absorb revenge/redemption plot, complex love situation, etc) but the straight forward minimal delivery/execution just made audience realize that this story just doesnt have much to offer

That's just my theory.



Unity tries to improve the core mechanics but ended up failing as a sand box, mostly comparing to AC IV, the best sandbox in the series. And thats because revamping the core mechanics takes more time and Ive come to conclusion that Ubi kinda does that on purpose. Im tired that Ubi using games as tech demos -$60 dollars of more, tech demos- for the next game...IT HAS TO STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JustPlainQuirky
03-12-2015, 11:18 PM
I honestly think that what they ask for can damage the AC universe

I think that applies to everyone, really. even forumers such as myself.

but yeah some "casuals" saying stuff like AC should go full naval are idiots IMO


Unity tries to improve the core mechanics but ended up failing as a sand box, mostly comparing to AC IV, the best sandbox in the series. And thats because revamping the core mechanics takes more time and Ive come to conclusion that Ubi kinda does that on purpose. Im tired that Ubi using games as tech demos -$60 dollars of more, tech demos- for the next game...IT HAS TO STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh Unity failed as an open world no doubt about that

the parkour and ingame missions are relatively solid but overworld itself is just basically tedious collectathon

Namikaze_17
03-12-2015, 11:19 PM
unity returned to roots gameplay-wise and even expanded on them

though keep in mind the original AC wasnt a critically acclaimed game anyway

Yes, I meant to add gameplay-wise it returned.

But yeah, I agree.

EDIT: Oh, don't take what I said seriously. I meant to insert the ":rolleyes:"


I like AC IIIs story despite the fact Im not pretty fond of Connors VA. However I cannot defend, gameplay wise, an AC in which ALL the assassinations but two -Johnson and Pitcairn- are either HEAVILY linear and not pretty good ones or plain QTES.......

I understand. I'm not fond of Aveline's VA work in Liberation. That, plus the story was poor in my opinion.

Yeah, III's gameplay wasn't all there. Can't deny that.

SixKeys
03-12-2015, 11:23 PM
what i was saying is a lot of-and i hate to use this word- "casuals" generally arent invested in overarching stories of franchises. Nor are they invested in the hidden deep subtexts. This applies to moviegoers too. Lots of hollywood movies are blockbusters because theyre simple, appealing to the eye, and easy to understand with simple themes and lighthearted characters. This is why characters like Ezio are so likable to a majority. His character is relatively easy to absorb from how expressive and simple to understand he is.

AC3 had so much subtext rather than easy to absorb information. I admit when i first played AC3 i didnt proccess the story at all. i was just looking for some casual fun gameplay (which i didnt really end up getting btw).

this is -what i suspect- why AC3 failed

the problem with unity is -and this is partially due to an era of consumer doubt going on right now- is that unity lacks that subtext- that substance. the story is easy to understand and has repetitive themes/characters. And the audience picks up on this. They're not compelled.

Unity has the elements of a crowd pleaser (charming protag, easy to absorb revenge/redemption plot, complex love situation, etc) but the straight forward minimal delivery/execution just made audience realize that this story just doesnt have much to offer

That's just my theory.

I largely agree with this. It's not the only reason AC3 failed, but it goes some way into explaining it. The Ezio trilogy was very broad strokes and easy to follow. AC3 had more complex themes and subdued characters, plus the dubious honor of being the last chapter in Desmond's story.

I disagree on Unity though. Not because I like the game, but frankly, I don't think the story is that easy to understand. It was advertised as such: a love story betwee a Templar and an assassin. Two star-crossed lovers. Romeo & Juliet in the French Revolution. I think people would have been fine with that if that's what the game delivered. But it tried to do more and overcomplicated things. The two lovers who were supposed to be the main focus hardly spend any time together, and there's no real conflict between them that isn't quickly resolved. (Mirabeau's death and Elise potentially being a suspect could have been promising, but Arno immediately convinces the assassins she didn't do it and they believe him.) The game is titled Unity which immediately brings to mind a plot about Templars and assassins having to unite, but this never happens in the game, so the title itself is confusing. It doesn't even have anything to do with the French Revolution. The only thing the word Unity alludes to is the co-op function, which is entirely separate and unrelated to the main campaign.

So Unity is anything but simple. It's too complicated for its own good. Not complicated in a way like "wow, this is so intellectual it's blowing my mind", just complicated in the sense that they had a perfectly good, simple premise they could have gone with (Templar + assassin in love, bam, there it is), but for some reason decided to needlessly burden it with all kinds of disjointed, unrelated crap. It's like they didn't have enough confidence in their own story premise and that's what I think the audience picks up on.

JustPlainQuirky
03-12-2015, 11:27 PM
dont get me wrong - ac3 failed in terms of gameplay as well. just that story/presentation couldnt carry it like something like The Last of Us does for some. (even tho I personally dont find TLoU that impressive)

or alternatively, story couldnt carry it like fnaf or twd


The game is titled Unity which immediately brings to mind a plot about Templars and assassins having to unite, but this never happens in the game, so the title itself is confusing. It doesn't even have anything to do with the French Revolution. The only thing the word Unity alludes to is the co-op function, which is entirely separate and unrelated to the main campaign.

Not to mention the marketing implied Elise and Arno would fight as complex love enemies which never happened at all.


, just complicated in the sense that they had a perfectly good, simple premise they could have gone with (Templar + assassin in love, bam, there it is), but for some reason decided to needlessly burden it with all kinds of disjointed, unrelated crap. It's like they didn't have enough confidence in their own story premise and that's what I think the audience picks up on.

this is a feasible explanation as well

the templar subplot combined with the sudden modern day, anomolies, confusing white rooms, etc did make everything very disjointed.

its simple and complicated at the same time....odd

Namikaze_17
03-12-2015, 11:32 PM
there's no real conflict between them that isn't quickly resolved.

That's an issue I had.

Sure, they're Assassin & Templar, but there wasn't any clash of their ideologies or dynamic between them really.

You could say Arno didn't understand the Creed, but I'm sure he wouldn't take kindly to the Templar ideals either.

JustPlainQuirky
03-12-2015, 11:36 PM
one thing that annoyed me is all the drama between arno and elise would be timeskipped.

when they werent on speaking terms it was timeskipped

when elise ran away it was timeskipped

its hard to get this feeling of emptiness when you're like "oh no ur go- oh there you are"

its hard enough when the characters arent even likable IMO

Namikaze_17
03-12-2015, 11:41 PM
I've warmed up to Arno.

Not my favorite character, but no means terrible as people make him out to be.

Like Cunner, he doesn't deserve the hate he gets.


one thing that annoyed me is all the drama between arno and elise would be timeskipped.

when they werent on speaking terms it was timeskipped

when elise ran away it was timeskipped

its hard to get this feeling of emptiness when you're like "oh no ur go- oh there you are"

Yeah, that did have an affect, I agree.

JustPlainQuirky
03-12-2015, 11:44 PM
i dont think he's terrible

he's just not compelling whatsoever.

same boat as aveline for me.

so i find both of them leaste interesting

adewale would be in there too but he had some interesting characterization in black flag IIRC

Haytham is still the most well-executed AC protagonist thus far IMO

Altair is pretty good also despite a minimalist approach

Edward is really good too but since ACIV feels so un-AC to me I tend to forget about him

ze_topazio
03-13-2015, 12:04 AM
what i was saying is a lot of-and i hate to use this word- "casuals" generally arent invested in overarching stories of franchises. Nor are they invested in the hidden deep subtexts. This applies to moviegoers too. Lots of hollywood movies are blockbusters because theyre simple, appealing to the eye, and easy to understand with simple themes and lighthearted characters. This is why characters like Ezio are so likable to a majority. His character is relatively easy to absorb from how expressive and simple to understand he is.

AC3 had so much subtext rather than easy to absorb information. I admit when i first played AC3 i didnt proccess the story at all. i was just looking for some casual fun gameplay (which i didnt really end up getting btw).

this is -what i suspect- why AC3 failed

the problem with unity is -and this is partially due to an era of consumer doubt going on right now- is that unity lacks that subtext- that substance. the story is easy to understand and has repetitive themes/characters. And the audience picks up on this. They're not compelled.

Unity has the elements of a crowd pleaser (charming protag, easy to absorb revenge/redemption plot, complex love situation, etc) but the straight forward minimal delivery/execution just made audience realize that this story just doesnt have much to offer

That's just my theory.

That's no excuse, you can have a story both deep and entertaining, I have no idea where people got the idea that the two can't coexist.

And in my opinion AC3 is neither deep nor entertaining.

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 12:10 AM
That's no excuse, you can have a story both deep and entertaining, I have no idea where people got the idea that the two can't coexist.

that's not what i was saying. of course it can coexist

just that subtext offers a different form of entertainment. an aquired taste per se

like indie vs mainstream

Birdman vs Avengers

one person may very well enjoy both but fact is theyre meant for two entirely different audiences

problem is we view gaming audience as 1 single audience that is meant to absorb most all games provided

disclaimer not comparing ac3 quality to birdman literally. birdman is vastly superior

Namikaze_17
03-13-2015, 12:14 AM
you can have a story both deep and entertaining

AC4.

At least to me it was both... :/


I honestly don't find AC2/ACB deep or entertaining either to many people's disagreement.

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 12:26 AM
ACIV is a good example of deep and entertaining, yes.

only i still dislike part of it due to not feeling like an AC game IMO.

Rogue had heavy focus on naval too but the entire plot was exclusively assassin/templar conflict

wheras i forgot I was playing an AC game countless times in black flag

but thats a minor side gripe

as a non-AC game, it has a very solid balance of deep and entertaining, but the aura was still very mainstream

not saying thats a bad thing, just that there's a clear distinction of audience that ac3 doesnt share

Namikaze_17
03-13-2015, 12:41 AM
only i still dislike part of it due to not feeling like an AC game IMO.

It can have that affect, it did on me for a time.

But I consider it an AC game, its approach just differs from the rest.

I appreciate being an Assassin wasn't just a step for Edward, it was his final destination.

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 12:47 AM
black flag felt too much like "btw there's assassins and these guys happen to be templars but that doesnt matter"

the AC relations felt so off-handed

but thats my only gripe

like i said it has good balance and is technically my favorite AC game despite me not really considering it an AC game
(but technically still am)

Mr.Black24
03-13-2015, 01:03 AM
I think that applies to everyone, really. even forumers such as myself.

but yeah some "casuals" saying stuff like AC should go full naval are idiots IMO

Lets be fair here, asking for things such as good closure for our 18th century protagonists, compelling Modern Day storyline, and some female Assassins into our Assassin lineup will actually help spice up things, compared to lets say "mor EnZios"

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 01:06 AM
Lets be fair here, asking for things such as good closure for our 18th century protagonists, compelling Modern Day storyline, and some female Assassins into our Assassin lineup will actually help spice up things, compared to lets say "mor EnZios"

aside with the female remark -as i feel the gender of a character neither adds or detracts from an experience- i agree

but cmon we ask for impractical stuff sometimes

i only recently see the impracticalities of a connor sequel, as much as i demanded it when i joined last year

Namikaze_17
03-13-2015, 01:08 AM
black flag felt too much like "btw there's assassins and these guys happen to be templars but that doesnt matter"

Well from Edward's perspective, it was that way.

And honestly, I like it. It was a nice change of pace.

It wasn't the same ol' OMG ASSASSINS FIGHTING TEMPLARS! GET THE PIECE OF EDEN!


But this is off-topic. My fault. :rolleyes:

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 01:13 AM
yeah but there comes a point when it stops being AC.

if you shift gameplay to not feel like ac- the story should still feel like it (like rogue)

if you shift story, the gameplay should still feel like it.

aside from repetative short-lived land gameplay and off-handed remarks, ACIV pretty much changed both

but yeah off topic, apologies

Mr.Black24
03-13-2015, 01:56 AM
aside with the female remark -as i feel the gender of a character neither adds or detracts from an experience- i agree

but cmon we ask for impractical stuff sometimes

i only recently see the impracticalities of a connor sequel, as much as i demanded it when i joined last year Lets be fair here, aside of Aveline, the whole Assassin line up is just one huge sausage fest. Like despite being an open minded Order who takes in folks of all types of genders and orientations, we get to play as no Assassin of female gender. To me, that would be a great refresher. Plus a huge crowd have been demanding a female protagonist for quite a while, with the reasons I mentioned and that the female gamers want to see an actual woman kicking some *** in the name of the Assassin Order, since ya know, representation and all that, and I sympathize with that.

As for Connor's closure, I did make a huge thread dedicated to say how the Kenway Saga isn't really over a few days back, The Kenway Family Plothole, but I rather not bring it up here since that is one whole conversation entirely.

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 01:59 AM
i feel biological elements such as skin color, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender have no value and while it isnt bad to including varying people biologically, it doesnt necessarily add to the experience either.

at least for me. thats what i believe in.

but people liek sixkeys disagree and thats perfectly fine. people have different views on different things

i just prioritize creative freedom over representation for the sake of public interest

Mr.Black24
03-13-2015, 02:58 AM
i feel biological elements such as skin color, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender have no value and while it isnt bad to including varying people biologically, it doesnt necessarily add to the experience either.

at least for me. thats what i believe in.

but people liek sixkeys disagree and thats perfectly fine. people have different views on different things

i just prioritize creative freedom over representation for the sake of public interest Well lets take me for example. I am an hispanic of Central Native American decent, Mayan decent to be more specific. Other than that dumb 12/12/12 prediction event that my ancestors had always never said that the end of the world will ever happen, there was nothing going on there. Not until the legendary mayan mentor, Ah Tabai showed up in Black Flag. Not in a million years did I ever think of seeing my people in a respectful representation like that, much less in a videogame like this, heck even in a high position of an Assassin Mentor! To me, it was incredible, making us something more than that stereotypical "Lol Mayans got it wrong" kind of vib. It showed a wise man who cared about his people, the Order, and fighting for the ideals of peace through freedom. The way he chews up Edward when he put the Assassins in danger, the way he shows concern for the people around him, how proud he was when he saw how much Edward matured over the years. It shows to me that we are....valid. That our experiences and history happened, existed other than outside an encyclopedia. That were aren't forgotten and we're still here. Technically, Ah Tabai and the Caribbean Assassins kind of mirrors how my people's struggle during that time period, trying to carve out their own paradise while escaping persecution from colonial powers. Hell around 40 years ago, we had a freakin genocide of the Mayans by that damm crazed dictator and his army that sized power in the 60s to early 70s. Its something that I need more time to explain a bit more, for my mind is kind of blankish at the moment, ugh, but I do feel so strongly about this.

Ya know, this article right here does a better explination than what I can do, and I agree and feel for this position 100%. http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2014/11/black-steel-in-the-hour-of-chaos-assassins-creed-a.html

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 04:02 AM
i guess....

i just dont get the "my people" mentality

im hispanic and when a spanish speaker goes on screen in a movie i dont ever think "my people" i think "oh, a hispanic person. hm."

i dont see how individuals can see another person with same sex, ethnicity, and or skin and be like "one of us"

not judging you or anything. i respect your views and know there is positivity to it.

i just personally cant view myself other than an individual

VestigialLlama4
03-13-2015, 04:09 AM
It's just so funny that a random bum such as yourself would say that to someone with experience and education such as Farlander pulls rules out of his ***.

First of all I don't know who this Farlander was and what his expertise and qualifications are. The point of a public forum is simple exchange of views and the only criteria is their written argument. Farlander, like me, you and everybody else here are all random bums. No more, no less. Just because AC3 has a few features that don't show up and people discover later doesn't make any difference when every other sandbox game has those features or Dishonored as Defalt pointed out.

The fact of the matter is video games is still a very young industry and the rules and potential aren't mapped out by any means and nothing is set in stone, except for hardware of course.



i feel biological elements such as skin color, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender have no value and while it isnt bad to including varying people biologically, it doesnt necessarily add to the experience either.

It adds a supreme amount of difference to the experience way beyond simple political correctness. But that's a topic that's outside the scope of this forums. AC1 wouldn't and couldn't possibly be the same kind of game if it was say, you know an European Knight who becomes an Assassin for instance.


So Unity is anything but simple. It's too complicated for its own good. Not complicated in a way like "wow, this is so intellectual it's blowing my mind", just complicated in the sense that they had a perfectly good, simple premise they could have gone with (Templar + assassin in love, bam, there it is), but for some reason decided to needlessly burden it with all kinds of disjointed, unrelated crap. It's like they didn't have enough confidence in their own story premise and that's what I think the audience picks up on.

That's simply poor storytelling, it's not "too complicated for its own good".

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 04:12 AM
It adds a supreme amount of difference to the experience way beyond simple political correctness.

you can't just say that and not delve into a back up statement.

and by saying there is a difference, you're basically admitting an element of discrimination? at least at a subconscious level?

Assassin_M
03-13-2015, 05:02 AM
First of all I don't know who this Farlander was and what his expertise and qualifications are.
Then, my friend, you should KNOW first before making yourself look like an idiot. Oh jeez, I wonder why this Farlander guy speaks with such confidence, oh wow, look he has something on his signature, ooohhhh something about Game Design and shiz? Oh oh, I wonder why a lot of people seem to respect Farlander's opinions and views? You know, stuff like that.


The point of a public forum is simple exchange of views and the only criteria is their written argument.
I know what a forum is.


Farlander, like me, you and everybody else here are all random bums. No more, no less.
No. Farlander unlike you and most people here works in the Game industry. His opinions and views hold more weight to people because of that.


Just because AC3 has a few features that don't show up and people discover later doesn't make any difference when every other sandbox game has those features or Dishonored as Defalt pointed out.
Other games having them does not make it okay. I already explained why it's bad design. Your approval wont change the fact that it's bad design. people not complaining about it wont change that fact. It's generally discouraged NOT to highlight a system's feature or mechanic.


The fact of the matter is video games is still a very young industry and the rules and potential aren't mapped out by any means and nothing is set in stone, except for hardware of course.
Oh, i'm sorry. Don't pull nonsense out of your ***, pls.

VestigialLlama4
03-13-2015, 05:38 AM
Then, my friend, you should KNOW first before making yourself look like an idiot. Oh jeez, I wonder why this Farlander guy speaks with such confidence, oh wow, look he has something on his signature, ooohhhh something about Game Design and shiz?

People say all kinds in signatures. I never pay any attention to it.


Other games having them does not make it okay. I already explained why it's bad design. Your approval wont change the fact that it's bad design. people not complaining about it wont change that fact. It's generally discouraged NOT to highlight a system's feature or mechanic.

Well there is also the fact that it doesn't matter if the games are as great as dishonored or as good as AC3.


you can't just say that and not delve into a back up statement.

I said its outside the scope of this forum. It deals with stuff like audience identification, performance arts and social conditioning. Its a complex topic and not easily covered. In a forum post. It might be a good PhD topic if anyone is interested.


and by saying there is a difference, you're basically admitting an element of discrimination? at least at a subconscious level?

Look its a plain fact is that 99℅ of the video games are lined by white males. To say that is deeply problematic is to say the least. To say in this situation that biological identification doesn't matter is disingenuous. That is not to say that a game with minorities would be better on that distinction alone.

Assassin_M
03-13-2015, 05:58 AM
People say all kinds in signatures. I never pay any attention to it.
Well, you should. Consider this free advice. People can have a lot of interesting stuff on their signatures. If you know so well that a forum is a place for discussion, you should also know that endeavoring to know and understand more about the people you're discussing or arguing or debating with is vital.




Well there is also the fact that it doesn't matter if the games are as great as dishonored or as good as AC3.
Oh yes, of course. I must have missed the consensus from the united gamers association that passed a bill of law saying "If people liked the game, pointing out its flaws is moot". My sincere apologies.

Farlander1991
03-13-2015, 08:52 AM
Regarding Dishonored, it clearly defines its abilities and there's no unknown things related to them themselves (i.e., for example, nobody learns years after the games release that you can use Blink to go to lower ground, etc.), the discoverability comes from playing with those defined and known mechanics in the unknown/undefined/dynamic environment, experimenting with them thus creating emergent gameplay. AC3 doesn't have emergent gameplay as it doesn't provide enough situations to play with the tools (with the exceptions of Forts, and even then there's several mechanics that are useless there), and not only that, we just discovered that it doesn't provide clear rules to its most important tools (or situations where these rules would become clear).

Because smoke bombs are a basic tool that is directly related to the core mechanics of the game, learning that you can throw it at people three years after release is like learning that you can throw grenades at people in an action game three years after release, and not just at your feet. You may argue the exact nature of the problem (mechanics, level or world design), but the fact is that there is a problem.

(Also comparisons between smoke bombs and side-activites or hidden content are moot, they're not on the same knowledge priority)

Defalt221
03-13-2015, 09:52 AM
Unity tried to revamp parkour and make the combat more difficult also redesigning overall structure of the cities - 1:1 buildings with interiors- including crowds, customization and returning to the roots of this franchise, BEING AN ASSASSIN. Because to me, core mechanics come first and then everything else.......
My problem with Unity since I both love/hate that game, is the fact that it should have not been released in 2014, revamping the core of a game takes more time than just introducing side stuff in the likes of den defense, the utter ridiculously executed hunting and the acclaimed naval to mask the shame of having annual games. Im tired that Ubi uses games as tech demos, $60 dollars of more, tech demos for the next games...IT HAS TO STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agree. Ubisoft should learn to make games again and stop showing incredible looking tech demos. But i know they won't. So let's not hope and try to board the hype train. Or we'll end up with another kick in the teeth. I just know 4 sure that Ubisoft is wielding an APPLE of Eden on us and so every E3 we get super hyped and cause the sales to sky rocket. Let's break free of the illusion.

pirate1802
03-13-2015, 01:03 PM
i feel biological elements such as skin color, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender have no value and while it isnt bad to including varying people biologically, it doesnt necessarily add to the experience either.

If that was true we would be seeing characters randomized across the board. That we don't, clearly tells you otherwise.

And biological traits add a heck of a lot to an experience. Adewale, his story was interesting and you could feel his anger because of his backstory as a black former slave. If we someday get a Shao Jun game (hopefully) she would be interesting to watch precisely because she is a former concubine of an emperor. Biological elements themselves don't mean nothing, true but they regulate society's reaction to us and that sure as hell shapes a character.

VestigialLlama4
03-13-2015, 02:06 PM
AC3 doesn't have emergent gameplay as it doesn't provide enough situations to play with the tools (with the exceptions of Forts, and even then there's several mechanics that are useless there), and not only that, we just discovered that it doesn't provide clear rules to its most important tools (or situations where these rules would become clear).

That's true enough, I only figured out how Rope Darts work on my most recent playthrough (inspired after seeing the video posted in the OP).


Because smoke bombs are a basic tool that is directly related to the core mechanics of the game, learning that you can throw it at people three years after release is like learning that you can throw grenades at people in an action game three years after release, and not just at your feet. You may argue the exact nature of the problem (mechanics, level or world design), but the fact is that there is a problem.

Well we hardly use smoke bombs much in the game anyway. To me the Rope Darts were the bigger flaw. Thank your for clarifying where you come from and I see your point now. I was rude earlier but it wasn't directed at you more than a general complaint I had about similar statements elsewhere on the board. AC3 is definitely a game with flaws but people keep bringing that up and exaggerating it while ignoring its many virtues. And personally, I don't mind if a game has something extra I missed out the first time.

Farlander1991
03-13-2015, 02:43 PM
Well we hardly use smoke bombs much in the game anyway.

Personally, I think that's a problem as well. Smoke bomb is a basic enemy control/distraction tool (if I remember correctly, guards are attracted to smoke bombs in AC3 when they see them used), you can use it to stun guards or targets to escape or sneak in undetected (or, well, assassinate them without being noticed) or to make them move away to a certain position. Theoretically that should be an incredibly useful tool, pretty much the basics, the bread and butter for emergent gameplay and strategies, but it's not. And now we find out that it can be all that, but at a distance, which should add more depth to its useage, but considering how long after release it was discovered, it's safe to say that it doesn't.


AC3 is definitely a game with flaws but people keep bringing that up and exaggerating it while ignoring its many virtues.

If it makes you feel better, :p , I've spent like 60 hours in the main AC3 game (not counting Tyranny and multiplayer) and I've enjoyed it, and think it's a good game (and there are many things that I love about it). However, I also think that it's very, very messy, and just full of untapped potential.


And personally, I don't mind if a game has something extra I missed out the first time.

I don't think it's a bad thing to miss things out or have things that aren't noticed by players, but I do believe that there are different priorities of what can be missed. How to use smoke bombs is something that shouldn't. Rope Dart, to be fair, also.

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 02:56 PM
If that was true we would be seeing characters randomized across the board. That we don't, clearly tells you otherwise.

And biological traits add a heck of a lot to an experience. Adewale, his story was interesting and you could feel his anger because of his backstory as a black former slave. If we someday get a Shao Jun game (hopefully) she would be interesting to watch precisely because she is a former concubine of an emperor. Biological elements themselves don't mean nothing, true but they regulate society's reaction to us and that sure as hell shapes a character.

i was saying within exception in which biological traits effect story such as themes of slavery or women oppression in iran.

but in regards to most titles where biological traits dont have any influence on story, it doesnt matter

im not saying video games where bio doesnt matter that default should be white male however

im simply stating that whether that person is white or not or male or not should not be relevant to the gaming's criteria as a whole


that biological identification doesn't matter is disingenuous. That is not to say that a game with minorities would be better on that distinction alone.


i wouldnt say it's disingenuous. im a woman and a minority and stand by it doesnt matter.

im saying like if bioshock infinite had an asian protagonist instead of a white one, it shouldnt be considered a better game because of it. not unless it has deliberate themes in the story that coincide with racial discrimination.

this is just a view everyone seems to have and i dont understand.

some say a woman playing as a female character makes the character "more relatable." and im just like wtf why does it matter? the presence of lady parts doesnt make this protagonist any 'closer' to me. and having that mindset kind of bothers me IMO.

if people keep fighting for female representation in games for the sake of representation, these characters will just be seen as "the strong independent woman" rather than a "well-developed character" IMO

VestigialLlama4
03-13-2015, 03:47 PM
im simply stating that whether that person is white or not or male or not should not be relevant to the gaming's criteria as a whole

Well it is relevant whether people want it to be or not. And you know, its a plain fact that any time a game puts out a title with a non-white character you have a lot of complaints that are thinly disguised racism. I saw it when SAN ANDREAS came out, and after that the next major title with a non-white character was AC3 and so he's the most controversial character, controversial in that there's no real consensus, people like him a lot or they hate him, but Ubisoft only listens to the more vocal minority. The joke is that both San Andreas and AC3 were commercial superhits, AC3 is the best selling title of the Franchise and its not a failure by any stretch of the imagination, it has some of the most ambitious and daring ideas of the franchise, several iconic great moments there and it can say with no small amount of pride to tell a better story of the American Revolution than any Hollywood movie (which by and large doesn't deal with the revolution, the only exception being the atrocious THE PATRIOT and AC3 is better than that at least). But because white gamers are unhappy about it, no one at Ubisoft wants to pretend that Connor was anyone other than a leper, you know. At least Darby McDevitt put a great joke about the racism of the character's critics in Black Flag.


im saying like if bioshock infinite had an asian protagonist instead of a white one, it shouldnt be considered a better game because of it. not unless it has deliberate themes in the story that coincide with racial discrimination.

Well Bioshock Infinite does deal with racial discrimination, and it's quite disturbing that you are playing a white dude who in the backstory slaughtered a whole village and one of the game's two villains is a black lady revolutionary who gets ham-fisted derailed by saying that she's just as bad as the person who's oppressing her. Ken Levine realized a little too late how absurd that was so he retconned that in his DLC, which is a nice cover-your-a-- move but most people wouldn't know it since only a small number of people who buy games buy the DLC.


some say a woman playing as a female character makes the character "more relatable." and im just like wtf why does it matter? the presence of lady parts doesnt make this protagonist any 'closer' to me. and having that mindset kind of bothers me IMO.

Well there's no reason this "mindset" should bother anyone. I mean the worst part of these criticisms of representation is that people automatically assume that critics want affirmative action or some such stuff, you know do the minimum possible thing so that they don't have to hear about racism and misogynyny and be called racist or misogynist because naturally they aren't. That's the worst part of Political Correctness, the inability to accept any criticism at all and say that these things are merely the problems of some groups or interests.

In the case of UNITY, much as I hate and detest the story, if they had made Elise the protagonist, and changed nothing else it would have been automatically a better game, maybe even a good game. For one thing, UNITY is her story, it's not Arno's story. The plot and motivation is entirely hers alone, and also the anti-revolutionary theme would have worked well since overall it wasn't a period that advanced women's rights by much. In terms of plot, she has the same motivation that Ezio and Connor did, dealing with revenge and the like, and the fact that the game doesn't even allow her to kill the bad guy leaving aside the final outcome does show a real problem on the part of developers

ze_topazio
03-13-2015, 04:29 PM
You're talking about the San Andreas that was acclaimed by the critic and gamers alike? Or is a different San Andreas that I never heard about?

Megas_Doux
03-13-2015, 04:58 PM
, its not a failure by any stretch of the imagination, it has some of the most ambitious and daring ideas of the franchise,


Entirely linear sequences and plain awful mission design, only two open assassinations, QTES, QTES, way TOO many QTES. The most cringe worthy modern sections in the franchise in the likes of Minerva appearing out of nowhere to cause the climax and the entire "infiltration" to Abstergo culminating with the fall from grace of the once uber boss and hyped -on the comics at least- character of Daniel Cross........

To each their own, AC IIIs story is good, naval was original and I enjoyed but I cant stand the mission design and setting. Although the later well, is even more subjective than the rest of the stuff I dislike.

About the race issue, I dont think Connors polarizing reception had anything to with his race -in which by the way I believe Ubi did a good job representing, despite Im not pretty fond of its VA- because Arno is white and look what happened to him. Ezios popularity has proved to be may be TOO good for ACs future protagonists. If Ubi replicates Ezio then they will be "stealing themselves" but any other character that is not Ezio, or resembles him will get the treatment of "not being Ezio".


Ezio is the kind of character almost automatically appeals to the masses: Womanizer, funny, witty and charming. I can think of several examples like that: Robin Hood, Tony Stark from the recent marvel movies, James Bond, Nathan Drake, El Zorro, etc etc etc etc etc.....Connor was the first dealing with that, not an easy task......

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 06:22 PM
if they had made Elise the protagonist, and changed nothing else it would have been automatically a better game, maybe even a good game.

I disagree entirely

I feel Elise is just as bad as Arno if not worse.

And I feel the game would probably be received better if she were the protagonist (partially due to her gender and partially due to her character design), and that annoys me.

ofc this theory is very difficult to prove without proper testing and I lack the finances and experience to conduct such tests

m4r-k7
03-13-2015, 06:36 PM
AC 3 was the biggest advancement for the series. It was one of the most ambitious open world games out there for the time. In other words, it could have passed for a next-gen game if it was released a year later with the same graphics and gameplay innovations.

Looking back on the game now, it was a better game than Unity. The problem was that it was too ambitious and so this did put strain on the overall presentation of the game. If I am correct, the engine was actually meant for next-gen consoles.

Whilst Unity and AC 3 share elements in terms of a bad launch, Unity did not push the boundaries like AC 3. In fact, AC Unity did the complete opposite and tried to take things backwards, but it still failed in many departments.

AC 3 was a fantastic open world game. It had its problems, but IMO they were no way near as bad as Unity's problems. Unity had a terrible story, AC 3 had a good story, Unity had a terrible modern day and AC 3 also had a terrible modern day. They both suffered from similar issues but IMO AC 3 comes out on top easily as there was just so much right with AC 3 at the same time.

AC 3 deserved having the number 3 at the end of its name and it paved the way for AC 4 which is one of the series best instalments. I am hoping this will apply for Victory.

Namikaze_17
03-13-2015, 07:51 PM
AC 3 was the biggest advancement for the series. It was one of the most ambitious open world games out there for the time. In other words, it could have passed for a next-gen game if it was released a year later with the same graphics and gameplay innovations.

Looking back on the game now, it was a better game than Unity. The problem was that it was too ambitious and so this did put strain on the overall presentation of the game. If I am correct, the engine was actually meant for next-gen consoles.

Whilst Unity and AC 3 share elements in terms of a bad launch, Unity did not push the boundaries like AC 3. In fact, AC Unity did the complete opposite and tried to take things backwards, but it still failed in many departments.

AC 3 was a fantastic open world game. It had its problems, but IMO they were no way near as bad as Unity's problems. Unity had a terrible story, AC 3 had a good story, Unity had a terrible modern day and AC 3 also had a terrible modern day. They both suffered from similar issues but IMO AC 3 comes out on top easily as there was just so much right with AC 3 at the same time.

AC 3 deserved having the number 3 at the end of its name and it paved the way for AC 4 which is one of the series best instalments. I am hoping this will apply for Victory.


Well put. I agree. :)

Hans684
03-13-2015, 08:39 PM
AC3 unlike Unity is relevant, it has a reason exist. Unity is a fan fiction with no reasons to relive Arno's life. It's handheld standard, a filler. Even Rogue has more relevance, we used Shay's memories as a signal for a second purge against the Assassins. Can even argue Liberation is more relevant, it's Templar propaganda made by Ubisoft(in-universe) & Abstergo Entertainment and I'm (just like I would in real life) a random costumer. Liberations purpose is the costumes falling for propaganda. I'd rather play AC3 again than Unity despite it's core improvent, the story or what it was isn't relevant enough. You can skip it like Liberation and still understand what's going on.

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 08:43 PM
Unity is a fan fiction with no reasons to relive Arno's life. It's handheld standard, a filler.

this

THIS

A THOUSAND TIMES THIIIISSSS

I had this issue with black flag and rogue to a degree.

you could literally skip those and be missing out on nothing

because nothing happened

oops i meant to say a sage who was introduced was immediately killed off and juno is still doing nothing while some templar is sending hate emails to assassins. there all caught up.

Hans684
03-13-2015, 08:47 PM
this

THIS

A THOUSAND TIMES THIIIISSSS

I had this issue with black flag and rogue to a degree.

you could literally skip those and be missing out on nothing

because nothing happened

oops i meant to say a sage who was introduced was immediately killed off and juno is still doing nothing while some templar is sending hate emails to assassins. there all caught up.

True but Black Flag and Rogue has more relevance than Unity, even if the story progress is nearly minimum.

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 08:52 PM
Which is REALLY sad tbh

i was pissed at black flag for the longest time because nothing happened in terms of progressing the overarching narrative

and then unity set a whole new bar

so much so that people forget just how little black flag and rogue have to offer

Megas_Doux
03-13-2015, 08:58 PM
AC III and annualization killed the modern arc.

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 09:00 PM
Ac3's modern day is pretty embarassing

battery
battery
battery
oh look who dis bloke daniel cross oh nvm he ded
battery
vidic: gimme de apple! no wait- *killed by apple*
battery
the world is gonna end unless u touch this thingy and itll stop for some reason
roll credits

Megas_Doux
03-13-2015, 09:04 PM
AC III and annualization killed the modern arc.

Oh And I forgot the many gamers that plain disliked it....Angry Joe and Total Buiscuit for instance. In fact the former says during his top 10 games of 2013 video that he is glad about it being optional and basically gone....

Hans684
03-13-2015, 09:05 PM
Which is REALLY sad tbh

Indeed. They have said the MD from Unity isn't going to stay, that more games is going to have more of it. But more isn't the same as relevant. So even if we got a MD protagonist I could see Ubisoft failing at that to by making the life of the guy we relive being just as irrelevant as Arno and the story progress minimum.


i was pissed at black flag for the longest time because nothing happened in terms of progressing the overarching narrative

Until Unity.


and then unity set a whole new bar

It's disunity.


so much so that people forget just how little black flag and rogue have to offer

More like showed that what little they had did something, Unity doesn't do a thing.

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 09:24 PM
Angry joe is a review who has very 'casual' views and changes his opinion depending on whats popular. Boogie2988 does this too. It's annoying.

Cynical Brit doesnt invest himself in the AC overarching narrative whatsoever. He only cares about oneshots and doesnt even care about what makes assassins creed assassins creed. Hence why he loves BF and insists AC go full naval. Idiotic I know. But his opinions on other things are usually more justifiable.

Namikaze_17
03-13-2015, 09:28 PM
Ac3's modern day is pretty embarassing

battery
battery
battery
oh look who dis bloke daniel cross oh nvm he ded
battery
vidic: gimme de apple! no wait- *killed by apple*
battery
the world is gonna end unless u touch this thingy and itll stop for some reason
roll credits

All MD's are this simple really...

VestigialLlama4
03-13-2015, 09:32 PM
To each their own, AC IIIs story is good, naval was original and I enjoyed but I cant stand the mission design and setting. Although the later well, is even more subjective than the rest of the stuff I dislike.

For me any time I play AC3, the feeling of the forests, the tree-running and climbing, its amazing. The tree-Parkour was done best in AC3, and its pretty much how AC in natural environment ought to be done, or at least it should be bettered from the standards it set. In BLACK FLAG, the land gameplay was severely simplified and stale, the trees were just ugly building features, whereas in AC3, the trees look and feel organic. In that, they look like the kind of trees that would be part of scenery in an earlier game but here its something you can interact with. And that part of the game is the reason why its so special. In a recent playthrough I also felt that Boston was underrated as an AC city. Boston's Docks, with that HUGE Pier is one of the best locations in any AC title and the game's covered markets really work. AC3 also introduced weather elements, and the differences between a snow covered Frontier, in landscape, looks and interactivity with one that is uncovered is amazing, and none of the later games really tackled weather again, except superficially.

And I also think that the Homestead is the best side-missions activity, simply because its the only time the Assassins were genuinely unselfish. Ezio helped Rome and repaired businesses to get back at the Borgia, but Connor helped people even if he didn't have to or even if they weren't being harassed by Templars. Its a game full of grace notes and minor points of beauty and it grows on replaying it.


About the race issue, I dont think Connors polarizing reception had anything to with his race

There are genuine criticisms about Connor but by and large they haven't appeared on most gaming boards. One flaw is that he's a little too heroic and too good (in the game they keep calling him "naive" but he's not naive so much as a little too meek). It's the reason why people aren't big fans of Luke Skywalker and why they prefer Darth Vader (or Haytham) or Obi-Wan (Achilles), only in the case of Connor, his issues and confusions of identity is tied to the story and its reflected a bit in the gameplay. But definitely race is a major reason, I remember reading online about how they wanted to be a Native American warrior who scalped Templars and basically incarnate the angry warrior Mohawk fantasy that people have, much of which is very racist and pretty much dreamed up by white folks (scalping by the way was something White Frontiersman started and introduced to Native Americans by them, it wasn't part of their activities at all). AC3 managed to have an Assassin who had a complex sense of identity which pretty much confused the notions of whiteboy gamers. That must be why the Tyranny DLC was popular, while I like it, it does support the Native American Warrior Assassin cliche (with Connor dressed in animal skins) much more than the main game does.

As for Arno, well peole disliked him because he was too obvious, too blatant and too bland as a "Video Game White Male Lead", he's French-but-not-too-French, he's Assassin-but-not-too-Assassin, and he's taking the trite take-no-sides approach to a political situation and voices unearned wisdom when no one asks for it. But you know pretty much the same people who hated Connor say they are okay with Arno and by and large, people make the glitches the main problem of UNITY and not the story and the historical element. In the case of Ezio what you say is true but the point is that the games were written well and the historical element was diverse enough that it kind of fitted with the theme and made it work.


AC III and annualization killed the modern arc.

Well what it did was open up modern day completely. Now every game can have a new MD story and style, they can have options to try all kinds of stuff, like Time Anomalies in UNITY. I like Desmond and Subject 16 (my favorite MD character) but creatively that story became a dead end. Personally I wouldn't have sacrificed Desmond, I'd have had Juno tell Desmond that she has to kill his father or something to save the world and have Desmond be the Mentor and be in the background of the games. But either way, Desmond's story was done there.

The Modern Day in AC3 is actually quite good. I think the Parkour up the Building and to the top, showed how impossible a Leap of Faith had become in the modern era, likewise the stadium scene showed how hard Parkour and Stealth would be in a modern era. I didn't like the Abstergo Infiltration mission and I'd agree that Vidic and Daniel Cross needed an epic sendoff, preferably with some afterife conversations because why not. The Grand Temple is an awesome Hub level.

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 09:32 PM
@Nami

Brotherhood did it right

#BrotherhoodMDMasterRace

Namikaze_17
03-13-2015, 09:43 PM
@Nami

Brotherhood did it right

#BrotherhoodMDMasterRace

Only Brotherhood though...

The rest are just talking then animus talking then animus.

I will give it to AC3 for at least switching it up a bit though it's basically what you said. :p

Shahkulu101
03-13-2015, 09:57 PM
Brotherhood done pretty much everything right apart from the historical story...which I didn't care about.

God I love Brotherhood.

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 10:00 PM
the historical story to brotherhood is terrible

it sucks because it has my fav MD but least fav ancestry story

Namikaze_17
03-13-2015, 10:03 PM
Can even argue Liberation is more relevant

Well Rogue does give it more substance as seen here...

https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/10991628_1562089817390450_9093588105022546471_o.jp g?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9

All the people to the far left are: Diego Vzquez, Antonio de Ulloa, and Rafael Ferrer.

Aveline killed all those guys. The fact Achilles' brotherhood was after them, makes what she did more important to me.

Same to Connor for the ones in the middle, and Arno for the ones on the far right.

Megas_Doux
03-13-2015, 10:04 PM
For me any time I play AC3, the feeling of the forests, the tree-running and climbing, its amazing. The tree-Parkour was done best in AC3, and its pretty much how AC in natural environment ought to be done, or at least it should be bettered from the standards it set. In BLACK FLAG, the land gameplay was severely simplified and stale, the trees were just ugly building features, whereas in AC3, the trees look and feel organic. In that, they look like the kind of trees that would be part of scenery in an earlier game but here its something you can interact with. And that part of the game is the reason why its so special. In a recent playthrough I also felt that Boston was underrated as an AC city. Boston's Docks, with that HUGE Pier is one of the best locations in any AC title and the game's covered markets really work. AC3 also introduced weather elements, and the differences between a snow covered Frontier, in landscape, looks and interactivity with one that is uncovered is amazing, and none of the later games really tackled weather again, except superficially.




Well what it did was open up modern day completely. Now every game can have a new MD story and style, they can have options to try all kinds of stuff, like Time Anomalies in UNITY. I like Desmond and Subject 16 (my favorite MD character) but creatively that story became a dead end. Personally I wouldn't have sacrificed Desmond, I'd have had Juno tell Desmond that she has to kill his father or something to save the world and have Desmond be the Mentor and be in the background of the games. But either way, Desmond's story was done there.
l.

The Frontier was nice and I liked it as well. My problem is that it felt a little bit empty sometimes, personally I was dissapointed at its " entirely peacefull" atmosphere because I was expecting the one we got in The Tyranny DLC.

The docks of Boston were nice indeed, but the rest of city kinda bores me.



Brotherhood done pretty much everything right apart from the historical story...which I didn't care about.

God I love Brotherhood.

I hated ACB then It grew on me. However and unlike real life Rome, I dont enjoy ACBs version.

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 10:04 PM
@nami

i didnt catch that screen

thats pretty cool

Hans684
03-13-2015, 10:13 PM
Well Rogue does give it more substance as seen here...

https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/10991628_1562089817390450_9093588105022546471_o.jp g?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9

I've seen it.


All the people to the far left are: Diego Vzquez, Antonio de Ulloa, and Rafael Ferrer.
Aveline killed all those guys. The fact Achilles' brotherhood was after them, makes what she did more important to me.

And Aveline has Eve mentioned in her story. We just hasn't reached whatever Eve points to, so currently we're in the dark.


Same to Connor for the ones in the middle.

Reliving his life helped saving the world, biggest achievement so far. Highly relevant.


And Arno for the ones on the far right.

And at the end the hunt for the Sage was a waste of time, not recommend to relive his life unlike someone like Connor.

Namikaze_17
03-13-2015, 10:16 PM
The Frontier was nice and I liked it as well. My problem is that it felt a little bit empty sometimes, personally I was dissapointed at its " entirely peacefull" atmosphere because I was expecting the one we got in The Tyranny DLC.

I agree, a bit too peaceful for revolutionary America.

It should've been something like this:
https://youtu.be/m7whXT8dsAk

From camps, to injured soldiers, random battles breaking out, dead bodies, etc.

Now THAT'S a war. :/


@nami

i didnt catch that screen

thats pretty cool

Thanks, I didn't catch it either tbh.

Gotta thank "the ones who came before" guy/girl for that.


And at the end the hunt for the Sage was a waste of time, not recommend to relive his life unlike someone like Connor.

Of course, I just meant him doing his part in taking out the Templars. :/

m4r-k7
03-13-2015, 10:32 PM
I agree, a bit too peaceful for revolutionary America.

It should've been something like this:
https://youtu.be/m7whXT8dsAk

From camps, to injured soloders, random battles breaking out, dead bodies, etc.

Now THAT'S a war. /

I think if it was on next-gen they could have achieved this. Like with France we see random battles, dead bodies on the streets etc.

Namikaze_17
03-13-2015, 10:40 PM
I think if it was on next-gen they could have achieved this. Like with France we see random battles, dead bodies on the streets etc.

Yes, sadly.

But oh well. What's done is done.

m4r-k7
03-13-2015, 10:46 PM
What I love about the target footage is Connors reaction to everything around him. Like he will feel the environment in different ways, change his movement based on the shape of the tree's etc. Its just so immersive. I hope they can achieve it one day.

JustPlainQuirky
03-13-2015, 10:50 PM
^omfg i agree so much

but push for AI innovation and creating small animations for a bunch of different things seems to be at the bottom of the industry's priority list (with exception of SoM)

edit:

well actually Unity did a pretty good job in terms of having a bunch of diff animations in response to environment. ill give them more credit

Hans684
03-13-2015, 10:50 PM
Of course, I just meant him doing his part in taking out the Templars. :/

That's a good thing he did, he archived something during the time but not beyond his grave.

Namikaze_17
03-13-2015, 10:52 PM
What I love about the target footage is Connors reaction to everything around him.

They kinda achieved that in how he walks around people when in Boston or NY.

It hard to tell because he walks like that everywhere though.

A calmer demeanor or something around the homestead townsfolk would have made it apparent.



Like he will feel the environment in different ways, change his movement based on the shape of the tree's etc. Its just so immersive.

Yeah, that's still the best part of the vid to me.

The branches move so fluid and realistic, just great.

SixKeys
03-14-2015, 01:09 AM
I agree, a bit too peaceful for revolutionary America.

It should've been something like this:
https://youtu.be/m7whXT8dsAk



OMG I just realized, I think the person speaking at 0:48 is Dan Jeannotte, aka Arno.

Namikaze_17
03-14-2015, 01:50 AM
OMG I just realized, I think the person speaking at 0:48 is Dan Jeannotte, aka Arno.

It's faint, but I hear him a bit.

Ubi and their foreshadowing... :rolleyes:

pirate1802
03-14-2015, 07:04 AM
this is just a view everyone seems to have and i dont understand. some say a woman playing as a female character makes the character "more relatable." and im just like wtf why does it matter? the presence of lady parts doesnt make this protagonist any 'closer' to me. and having that mindset kind of bothers me IMO.

It shouldn't bother you because it is very, very natural to relate to your own kind. In a perfect world where people of all race, sex, colour and orientation have equal representation yes it would be bothersome. But not in the present scenario. You don't seem to have that idea because of your enviornment. And please don't take it otherwise, I'm just saying. And it's not just gender. Do you know the first thing that attracted me in Farcry 4? That the characters were speaking in hindi. Almost no game does that, and almost no mainstream movie, or TV show does that too (outside the Indian ones ofcourse, which I don't watch to preserve my sanity). So you can see why I would feel 'at home' with that game's setting. The Order 1886 had an Indian character (and a famous one at that). While it didn't save the game from being utter leper **** in my eyes, that atleast made that character more interesting and relatable that the main guy. The other person said he/she liked Ah Tabai because he was Mayan and you have no Mayans whatsoever in our mainstream.

Those who live away from their homelands would understand this; doesn't your heart warm for a moment when you spot a stranger speaking in your native accent? In your language? About your homeland? So yes it's perfectly natural to relate, and at the same time this is also a function of where/when/how a person grew up. Ask Rino if an Iraqi character doesn't get a few brownie points from him.


if people keep fighting for female representation in games for the sake of representation, these characters will just be seen as "the strong independent woman" rather than a "well-developed character" IMO

Actually if the writers are really invested into the idea of diversity, then what we will see more well-developed characters and less propaganda ones. Seriously I haven't seen a single character in mainstream fiction which stinks of being there just for the sake of being PC. The ones I've seen are either on fanfiction.net or widely criticized for being so. It's a fear that the dudebro generation has, but honestly I feel like this is the normal fear whenever someone seeks to change the status quo. I'm reading a book about two wome's struggles by an author whose first book was almost exclusively about males. It might seem that he chose the subject for the 'sake of diversity' but it frankly doesn't matter because the book is ****ing brilliant. So yes, if the writer is writing cliche strong PC characters, then it's only because he is compensating for his lack of skills. For a talented writer this wouldn't be an issue.

JustPlainQuirky
03-14-2015, 03:08 PM
hnghhh i guess

its just something that bothers me

hnng

Mr.Black24
03-14-2015, 09:13 PM
hnghhh i guess

its just something that bothers me

hnng But lets be fair here, do you want to see diversified well written POC and different genders or the same white male protagonist all the time? Because even though we have lots of well written white male protagonist, something different makes things much better than the same happy meal all the time. I don't want McNuggets anymore mom, I'm a big boy now, give me a BigMac!

I-Like-Pie45
03-14-2015, 09:19 PM
stop stealing white peoples video game franchises with your diversity agenda, go make your own - Shigeru Miyamoto

brotersinarms
03-14-2015, 09:50 PM
There was just a great deal at Amazon for the "America's Collection" with the AC 3, Black Flag and Liberation all in one for 19.99 (US) for PS3. I picked that up in a heartbeat (now its back to 39.99, but keep looking for sales there). AC3 is a blast. I had it on 360, but this as a deal i couldn't pass up for PS3. Going thru the Haytham missions now. I think AC3 is probably the best out of all of them, but that's just me.

JustPlainQuirky
03-15-2015, 01:16 AM
But lets be fair here, do you want to see diversified well written POC and different genders or the same white male protagonist all the time? Because even though we have lots of well written white male protagonist, something different makes things much better than the same happy meal all the time. I don't want McNuggets anymore mom, I'm a big boy now, give me a BigMac!

As i said before, biological traits do not have an effect on me so I wouldn't care either way.

I judge 100% on an individual based level

but thats me and im st00ps so... :p

Mr.Black24
03-15-2015, 02:11 AM
As i said before, biological traits do not have an effect on me so I wouldn't care either way.

I judge 100% on an individual based level

but thats me and im st00ps so... :pBBBBBBuuuuuuuuuuuuuHHHHHHHHHhhhhh maaaaaaooooooommmm, thats soooo boring!:rolleyes:

pirate1802
03-16-2015, 08:20 AM
hnghhh

hnng

One of these days I'd have to learn how to decipher these audio cues

Defalt221
03-18-2015, 01:06 PM
One of these days I'd have to learn how to decipher these audio cues

There are expert encoders in these forums no doubt.

wvstolzing
03-18-2015, 03:12 PM
Those who live away from their homelands would understand this; doesn't your heart warm for a moment when you spot a stranger speaking in your native accent? In your language? About your homeland?

Not in my experience. Maybe it's just because I'm a self-hating Turk.

ze_topazio
03-18-2015, 04:42 PM
You're Turkish? did you like your country portrayal in Revelations?

pirate1802
03-18-2015, 10:18 PM
Not in my experience. Maybe it's just because I'm a self-hating Turk.

Probably. I'm not exactly an upright patriot either but sure is nice to be at a place where you aren't constantly watching your accent and guarding against slip-ups lest you be ridiculed for it.

M3gaToxic
03-20-2015, 04:04 AM
Yeah I skipped AC3 and went straight to AC4...but recently I got AC3 because I wanted to play it and it was cheep now. My God I am ashamed I waited so long. AC3 is amazing. The only AC game I have spent money on towards DLC. I have over 40hours of playtime. 90% completion. Connor is a very interesting character and one of my favorites. And is outfit in my opinion is the best out of all the AC outfits that have been. Just...the Mohawk is the only thing I don't like but they patched it so the hood is up outside homstead. And the Captain Kidd outfit looks great and the Traditional Colonial Assassin outfit. Shame there wasn't really any cooler outfits like the other games. But yeah the tree climbing and rock climbing are awesome. Also I feel the combat in AC3 is more fluid than AC4. Would like another AC game with Connor.

Defalt221
03-20-2015, 11:31 AM
I disagree entirely

I feel Elise is just as bad as Arno if not worse.

And I feel the game would probably be received better if she were the protagonist (partially due to her gender and partially due to her character design), and that annoys me.

ofc this theory is very difficult to prove without proper testing and I lack the finances and experience to conduct such tests

I thought Pierre Bellec was more interesting than both Arno adn Elise,mainly because PIerre was smarter than both of them. Smart enough to (SPOILER HINTS..) Frame Elise of "his" death by keeling the Templar weapon under "his" bed. Now I'm beginning to wish I could play as Pierre.

Defalt221
03-20-2015, 11:33 AM
Yeah I skipped AC3 and went straight to AC4...but recently I got AC3 because I wanted to play it and it was cheep now. My God I am ashamed I waited so long. AC3 is amazing. The only AC game I have spent money on towards DLC. I have over 40hours of playtime. 90% completion. Connor is a very interesting character and one of my favorites. And is outfit in my opinion is the best out of all the AC outfits that have been. Just...the Mohawk is the only thing I don't like but they patched it so the hood is up outside homstead. And the Captain Kidd outfit looks great and the Traditional Colonial Assassin outfit. Shame there wasn't really any cooler outfits like the other games. But yeah the tree climbing and rock climbing are awesome. Also I feel the combat in AC3 is more fluid than AC4. Would like another AC game with Connor.

While AC3 didn't have many things well, it by far had the most impressive and fluid combat mechanics although it was too easy. And it had way more potential to be a masterpiece.

Xstantin
03-20-2015, 05:38 PM
I've been watching some ACIII walktroughs to kill time and it's kinda funny but the game still feels 'bigger' than Black Flag/Unity/Rogue imo.

SixKeys
03-20-2015, 06:06 PM
I've been watching some ACIII walktroughs to kill time and it's kinda funny but the game still feels 'bigger' than Black Flag/Unity/Rogue imo.

Well, it is bigger in terms of story scope. We follow Connor from a child all the way up to adulthood. We watch him start out as an innocent boy and grow into a warrior. Edward's and Arno's stories are more compact. Edward is already an experienced sailor by the time we meet him and his main quest simply involves getting rich quickly. He's not much older when we say goodbye to him than when we met him. Arno's story only takes a few years and is little more than a love story between himself and a woman who appears in the game maybe 20% of the time.

Xstantin
03-20-2015, 06:41 PM
Well, it is bigger in terms of story scope.

I was thinking more about Desmond holding the MD part together way better than Abstergo Entertaiment stuff but I guess I'll be getting sidetracked here. I'm becoming one of those people who actually misses Desmond :nonchalance:

VestigialLlama4
03-20-2015, 06:47 PM
I've been watching some ACIII walktroughs to kill time and it's kinda funny but the game still feels 'bigger' than Black Flag/Unity/Rogue imo.

It's also a bigger game in terms of assets created and elements introduced. It has two cities, two vast natural environments, naval section and Tombs. And all those areas are unique and original.

In Black Flag, they focused on open-world sailing, so most of the islands are tiny as hell and the landmass is very drab and cut-and-paste. They put more attention to detail on the sea renders than the lands. There are few real original islands in the game. There's also an overal sameness to the game's levels. Like it has these jungle missions, where you move through brambles and thickets from one end of an island and go further inward, and while there's variations, the jungles look the same and they feel like video game levels, whereas the natural environment in AC3 felt alive and organic. Likewise the cities are just there, there's no character or interest to it, with the exception of Nassau. Even the Observatory is simple remade from the Grand Temple in AC3.

There's not a thing in the game that doesn't originate from AC3 except for harpooning and diving. Even the little pullet levers that makes Edward go from deck to the top of the mast is there in a cutscene of one of the naval missions in AC3.

ROGUE is even more pathetic because its graphically poor, and its based on Black Flag's streamlining but is set in the AC3 timeline, just compare the Prologue of AC3 to ROGUE and the natural environment in Braddock's Expedition mission.

AC3 was the last real AAA game, the one for which they built new stuff and came up with new ideas for. All the games after it are pretty much churning out its assets.

M3gaToxic
03-20-2015, 06:51 PM
While AC3 didn't have many things well, it by far had the most impressive and fluid combat mechanics although it was too easy. And it had way more potential to be a masterpiece.
I will agree combat is a bit easy. But at least countering and what have you was fluid, in AC4 it just doesn't seem as fluid. Also, getting the original gamer achievement was a pain...just got it last night and it is the most work I have put towards an achievement (I beat Witcher 2 on Dark difficulty). Morris gave me the most trouble because that inn keeper is a ******. Any way back to the topic at hand. Would love to see more Connor (with his hair grown in again)

Xstantin
03-20-2015, 06:57 PM
It's also a bigger game in terms of assets created and elements introduced. It has two cities, two vast natural environments, naval section and Tombs. And all those areas are unique and original.



Agreed. Imo ACIII cities are awesome and well-thought-out when it comes to looks despite getting all the flak when the game came out.

VestigialLlama4
03-20-2015, 07:10 PM
Agreed. Imo ACIII cities are awesome and well-thought-out when it comes to looks despite getting all the flak when the game came out.

Well mostly because it lacked the touristy charm of the Ezio era, and did away with major monuments and architecture. The ceilings and roofs are much lower, very few tall buildings, and it's mostly these narrow alleys and backyards. It's game where most of the time you are on the ground and the rooftop is not very practical. Those are flaws. Boston itself has amazing variety, the bottom-left is marshy, has a Fort, this huge sloping hill side, but the entire right side From the top to the bototm right is this huge dock yards and the Docks in Boston is incredibly huge and alive.

New york has far less variety and I think if they put the Great Fire in the game then the city wouldn't feel like the afterthought it does. But even then it has a personality, these very tiny narrow alleys and thin rooftops. It really comes alive in the Tyranny DLC where you also have the Pyramid as a Tomb Level.

GunnerGalactico
03-20-2015, 07:36 PM
^ I also didn't have that much of a problem with the cities in AC3. Sure, it didn't look quite as exciting as the cities in AC1 or in all of the Ezio games, but the nitty-grittiness and the Georgian style houses in New York and Boston did capture the whole colonial atmosphere of the setting. The only gripe I have is that it wasn't very fun to parkour on the rooftops.

M3gaToxic
03-20-2015, 07:54 PM
^ I agree. Still I do like AC3 era. I guess I like AC3 more than AC4 because in AC4 you spend most of the time on ship (I mean I know that is why it is called Black Flag), but for an AC game I would rather be on ground most of the time.

Megas_Doux
03-20-2015, 10:52 PM
^ I also didn't have that much of a problem with the cities in AC3. Sure, it didn't look quite as exciting as the cities in AC1 or in all of the Ezio games, but the nitty-grittiness and the Georgian style houses in New York and Boston did capture the whole colonial atmosphere of the setting. The only gripe I have is that it wasn't very fun to parkour on the rooftops.

I do miss the grandeur of previous games, to be honest.

Megas_Doux
03-20-2015, 10:53 PM
environment in Braddock's Expedition mission.

AC3 was the last real AAA game, the one for which they built new stuff and came up with new ideas for. All the games after it are pretty much churning out its assets.


LOL AC III was a tech demo for AC IV, unfortunately.

Same engine, but WAY better used! Mission design and ASSASSINATIONS were more open than all those cheap QTEs that plagued AC III. Naval was improved, parkour within cities was made more fluid, details more polished in the likes of having bakcground music and better outfits. AC IV has better side activites than the out of context "assassination contracts", the super boring tunnels and even though its still there, thank God the player doesnt have to rely THAT much on the super embarrasing land hunting mechanics. The Caribbean as a whole beats the Frontier because there is actually something to do......

PD AC IV is my favorite game in the franchise mostly because its sandbox quality allowed by the setting. However, I dont want another heavily naval/rural/natural AC in the near future.

SpiritOfNevaeh
03-20-2015, 11:33 PM
Agreed. Imo ACIII cities are awesome and well-thought-out when it comes to looks despite getting all the flak when the game came out.


I will agree combat is a bit easy. But at least countering and what have you was fluid, in AC4 it just doesn't seem as fluid. Also, getting the original gamer achievement was a pain...just got it last night and it is the most work I have put towards an achievement (I beat Witcher 2 on Dark difficulty). Morris gave me the most trouble because that inn keeper is a ******. Any way back to the topic at hand. Would love to see more Connor (with his hair grown in again)


It's also a bigger game in terms of assets created and elements introduced. It has two cities, two vast natural environments, naval section and Tombs. And all those areas are unique and original.

AC3 was the last real AAA game, the one for which they built new stuff and came up with new ideas for. All the games after it are pretty much churning out its assets.

Agreed. :)

VestigialLlama4
03-20-2015, 11:50 PM
LOL AC III was a tech demo for AC IV, unfortunately.

How can it be a tech demo, when ACIV's land gameplay is vastly reduced in scope, less organic and more streamlined?

Shahkulu101
03-21-2015, 12:47 AM
How can it be a tech demo, when ACIV's land gameplay is vastly reduced in scope, less organic and more streamlined?

Lesser in scope, far higher in quality. AC3 was too big for it's own good, so much unnecessary filler and mindless side quests like the delivery missions, frontiersman quests and those awful excuses for assassination contracts. The environments are much better looking in AC3 as well as the tree-running but the actual design of the missions - side and main - is vastly superior in AC4.

ACIV took all the things AC3 implemented badly, and used them exceptionally well. The stealth mechanics were good in concept, but the psychic AI ruined them - ACIV fixes that.

Megas_Doux
03-21-2015, 12:52 AM
How can it be a tech demo, when ACIV's land gameplay is vastly reduced in scope, less organic and more streamlined?

Lets see:

1 I played both AC III and AC IV on the same relatively "high end" PC. I had more problems with AC III regarding controls and performance.
2 AC IIIs cities suffered, according to the developers that created them, of not enough parkour options, that was improved in AC IV.
3 AC IV was able to use the new engine in a better manner for what SHOULD matter THE MOST: Assassinations. In AC IV there were open and you could take advantage of both tools/abilities at your disposal, unlike the majority of AC III which consisted of QTEs.

Again, a matter of opinons, AC III is superior in terms combat, but I think AC IV beats it regarding mission design and as a sandbox. Thats why I believe Victory will be superior to unity. I HATE that games are being used as 60 tech demos for new mechanics, though.

SixKeys
03-21-2015, 03:38 AM
Lesser in scope, far higher in quality. AC3 was too big for it's own good, so much unnecessary filler and mindless side quests like the delivery missions, frontiersman quests and those awful excuses for assassination contracts. The environments are much better looking in AC3 as well as the tree-running but the actual design of the missions - side and main - is vastly superior in AC4.

ACIV took all the things AC3 implemented badly, and used them exceptionally well. The stealth mechanics were good in concept, but the psychic AI ruined them - ACIV fixes that.

Agreed with all of this, except I don't understand how anyone could think AC3's environments looked better than AC4. AC4's world is colorful and lush, it has great lighting. The leaves move individually as Edward moves through the trees and bushes. Storms create a huge difference in how the environment looks, with water puddling on the ground and plants whipping wildly in the wind. AC3's world, to me, was just drab and dreary and almost entirely drained of color. It was depressing and barren. One third of it consisted entirely out of nature, but it didn't feel like a real, living environment. The trees were static, weather changes were barely noticeable and animals ran around mindlessly straight into Connor's arms, just to give the player an illusion that there was something to do in the world.

TO_M
03-21-2015, 04:10 AM
AC3 is literally the worst entry in the entire franchise (my opinion).

It's cities are bland, the frontier is not that spectacular; AC4's environments look a lot better for example. And I don't think there's been a more boring protagonist in the entire history of gaming.

AC3 is a semi-decent game overall, but as an AC game it was a huge embarassment, the lack of stealthy gameplay, the cutscene assassinations. the overload of cutscenes for every little thing, and the gimmicky feautures just ruined the experience for me when I started evaluating/rehtinking the whole experience. I tried replaying AC3 once, but about halfway through I just had to stop because I became so bored and frustrated because of the gameplay and the story.

The only good things to come out of AC3 were the naval gameplay and the ropedart.

Plus it's DLC was not that interesting. People make fun of Unity's lack of overall importance to the modern day/main storyline but AC3's DLC all comes down to: lol washington dreamt some stuff while touching the apple. How is that anymore relevant?

M3gaToxic
03-21-2015, 05:02 AM
AC3 is literally the worst entry in the entire franchise (my opinion).

It's cities are bland, the frontier is not that spectacular; AC4's environments look a lot better for example. And I don't think there's been a more boring protagonist in the entire history of gaming.

AC3 is a semi-decent game overall, but as an AC game it was a huge embarassment, the lack of stealthy gameplay, the cutscene assassinations. the overload of cutscenes for every little thing, and the gimmicky feautures just ruined the experience for me when I started evaluating/rehtinking the whole experience. I tried replaying AC3 once, but about halfway through I just had to stop because I became so bored and frustrated because of the gameplay and the story.

The only good things to come out of AC3 were the naval gameplay and the ropedart.

Plus it's DLC was not that interesting. People make fun of Unity's lack of overall importance to the modern day/main storyline but AC3's DLC all comes down to: lol washington dreamt some stuff while touching the apple. How is that anymore relevant?
How dare you! Just...oh I am just gonna walk away.

Xstantin
03-21-2015, 05:47 AM
AC3 is literally the worst entry in the entire franchise (my opinion).

It's cities are bland, the frontier is not that spectacular; AC4's environments look a lot better for example. And I don't think there's been a more boring protagonist in the entire history of gaming.



Ugh, the cities are not "bland". It's always the same argument (and I've seen the same said about ACU's Paris). Just because they are not shiny and pretty it doesn't automatically make the game any less of an accomplishment imo. There's nice variety there. ACIII introduced mixing nature with manmade structures, weather, sloped roofs, uneven terrain. They made a bit of jump from earlier games which could go into some "fantasy" feel.

TO_M
03-21-2015, 05:58 AM
Ugh, the cities are not "bland". It's always the same argument (and I've seen the same said about ACU's Paris). Just because they are not shiny and pretty it doesn't automatically make the game any less of an accomplishment imo. There's nice variety there. ACIII introduced mixing nature with manmade structures, weather, sloped roofs, uneven terrain. They made a bit of jump from earlier games which could go into some "fantasy" feel.
Anyway, words like "bland" and "generic" are overused

I didn't say that it was a fact, it's my opinion.
And to me the best word I'd use to describe the cities in AC3 is "bland", no matter how overused it might be. Both Boston and NY aren't that exciting to me, and I'm not too excited about the frontier either.
But hey everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and if you think AC3's environments were great then I respect that.

VestigialLlama4
03-21-2015, 06:01 AM
1 I played both AC III and AC IV on the same relatively "high end" PC. I had more problems with AC III regarding controls and performance.

I played AC3 and AC4 on Xbox 360, and I had no problems whatsoever, so what exactly is your point?


2 AC IIIs cities suffered, according to the developers that created them, of not enough parkour options, that was improved in AC IV.

Except aside from Nassau (which is an AC3 style city, flat roofs, tiny allies and two or three tall buildings), the cities are pretty forgettable in terms of architecture and environment. There's very little activity to be done there aside from collecting items, almost no city-specific side-missions and very little story reason to be there.


I HATE that games are being used as 60 tech demos for new mechanics, though.

Then how do you explain certain mechanics and functions that are unique to AC3 (just as certain elements are unique to AC1). Rock climbing is there in AC3 alone, tree running was made far more streamlined in later games, with trees rendered into ugly handlebars rather than the far more organic looking trees you saw in AC3.

If we want to throw the tech demo insult, let's be specific. UNITY is a tech demo since it introduces nothing new in gameplay and assets, merely reskin and retool elements from earlier titles, and only serves to show how the brand will look in Next-Gen, in other words its only interest is how it uses technology.


Agreed with all of this, except I don't understand how anyone could think AC3's environments looked better than AC4.

Comparing solely land-based organic environment. In AC3 you felt you were really in a forest, in UNITY, you don't really feel you are on an island.


AC4's world is colorful and lush, it has great lighting. The leaves move individually as Edward moves through the trees and bushes. Storms create a huge difference in how the environment looks, with water puddling on the ground and plants whipping wildly in the wind. AC3's world, to me, was just drab and dreary and almost entirely drained of color.

It really depends on what you mean by color. If you mean bright colours, then Super Mario 64 is the most colourful of all. But AC3's look in different cities, and different parts of the Frontier is superior aesthetically, since its more subtle, its coherent (it acknowledges that it resides in the same general New England area).


The trees were static, weather changes were barely noticeable

So the way the complete map in all four areas of the environment was covered in snow was "Barely notceable". AC3 had the most interesting weather changes and they backed out of it later, even in UNITY set in a city like Paris (a Northern European city, i.e famous for cold winters).


and animals ran around mindlessly straight into Connor's arms, just to give the player an illusion that there was something to do in the world.

You must mean BLACK FLAG, the Animal AI there was the one where it ran straight into the protagonist's arms, especially that side mission with Opia Apito where a White Jaguar magically runs into me. In AC3, it was much less automatic, since that's a game that punished you for shooting your kill with pistols whereas in Black Flag, Edward can hunt them down by guzzling shot into their hides.

Xstantin
03-21-2015, 06:05 AM
@TO_M, I just think they went with the whole "tonality" shift for the setting and it mostly worked (I hoped to see more corpses and dead horses in the Frontier though like ToKW, morbid as it sounds). The game itself is less "happy" than Ezio games but I think it was a nice change back then.

Defalt221
03-21-2015, 07:26 AM
@TO_M, I just think they went with the whole "tonality" shift for the setting and it mostly worked (I hoped to see more corpses and dead horses in the Frontier though like ToKW, morbid as it sounds). The game itself is less "happy" than Ezio games but I think it was a nice change back then.

That was present during the E3 demo. I wonder why they removed it.. Even Alex Hutchinson confirmed that these things would be present in the final build during the e3 press.

Anykeyer
03-21-2015, 08:50 AM
ACIV took all the things AC3 implemented badly, and used them exceptionally well. The stealth mechanics were good in concept, but the psychic AI ruined them - ACIV fixes that.

AC4 repeats itself, over and over and over again. Copypased missions (how many times it asks you to tail someone?), copypasted islands, coppasted plantation raids. ridiculous resources grind through repetitive and annoying boarding mechanic, stupid kenways' fleet battles that you cant.skip.
AC4 is the very definition of "annoyance" when you try to do 100%.
By your logic AC4 is tech demo of Rogue. Rogue was 1000x better.

Megas_Doux
03-21-2015, 09:18 AM
I played AC3 and AC4 on Xbox 360, and I had no problems whatsoever, so what exactly is your point?



AC IIIs port suffered of constant glitches and low performance on many PCs, mine included. AC IVs launch was better than that. Ive played these games since 2007 and Ive learnt everytime theres a either a new engine -anvil next on AC III- or the mechanics are revamped and game is set have a new style/scale -Unity- that will suffer not only technically speaking, but also the way game mechanics are used. Im sure that either Corey May or Alex Hutchinson have expressed their wishes to have MORE TIME -key words here- with the game in order not only to improve MANY aspects already in game, but also to prevent MANY advertised features such as the great fire of New York, canoes, frozen lakes, four seasons, random events, decent sized military camps and more from being cut.......




If we want to throw the tech demo insult, let's be specific. UNITY is a tech demo since it introduces nothing new in gameplay and assets, merely reskin and retool elements from earlier titles, and only serves to show how the brand will look in Next-Gen, in other words its only interest is how it uses technology.




Whereas Unity revamps , or attemps so, the parkour system, navigation and the WHOLE scale of the game due to having 1:1 buildings for THE FIRST TIME. Its true and have said it A LOT OF TIMES, even in discussions with YOU, that is pretty clear that Unity should NOT have been released on november 2014.

This annualization model is leading to games that are basically tech demos for the next one every time either the engine or the style of the game changes, that trend needs to stop. Or else, when the engine changes again in, I dont know, 2017. The game of that year will feel like a test for the one of 2018....





By your logic AC4 is tech demo of Rogue. Rogue was 1000x better.

Now that you mention it, Rogue is PRETTY bad in my book, the only AC Ive forced myself through and the first that I uninstalled just after having finished! Awful acting, fan fiction story, recycled locations -WORST SIN HERE-. But at the same time, combat, parkour, animations and overall navigation feel WAY clunkier than both AC III and AC IV. Its like if Shay doesn't movements on his waist. Hell even its graphics are subpar comparing it to AC IV and even AC III.....


I might have pretty biased from the beginning, though.

Shahkulu101
03-21-2015, 01:30 PM
AC4 repeats itself, over and over and over again. Copypased missions (how many times it asks you to tail someone?), copypasted islands, coppasted plantation raids. ridiculous resources grind through repetitive and annoying boarding mechanic, stupid kenways' fleet battles that you cant.skip.
AC4 is the very definition of "annoyance" when you try to do 100%.
By your logic AC4 is tech demo of Rogue. Rogue was 1000x better.

Repetition was a problem for sure, but AC3 had even worse problems with it's gameplay. Don't even try and delude yourself - awful mission design and a ton of dull, mind-numbing sidequests (which unfortunately buried the few very good side missions AC3 had).

Rogue was a poor mans Black Flag. Worse setting, worse story, worse side missions (seriously how can you call ACIV repetitive and then Rogue 1000x better).


Agreed with all of this, except I don't understand how anyone could think AC3's environments looked better than AC4. AC4's world is colorful and lush, it has great lighting. The leaves move individually as Edward moves through the trees and bushes. Storms create a huge difference in how the environment looks, with water puddling on the ground and plants whipping wildly in the wind. AC3's world, to me, was just drab and dreary and almost entirely drained of color. It was depressing and barren. One third of it consisted entirely out of nature, but it didn't feel like a real, living environment. The trees were static, weather changes were barely noticeable and animals ran around mindlessly straight into Connor's arms, just to give the player an illusion that there was something to do in the world.

To me the Frontier just looks and feels like a real place. The tree's look much more natural as well as the rocks (rock climbing is present in ACIV - just limited) - whereas in IV the trees and rocks are designed so you can clearly tell "Oh yeah, I can climb that." It felt less organic than ACIV's world, and it didn't copy-paste environments, which is so clearly present in IV. How many islands are just slightly altered versions of what you've seen before? And I strongly disagree with regards to weather, snow drastically changed the way the game felt and looked absolutely stunning IMO. The animals don't always run straight to you, but I'll admit hunting was too easy. I loved the animals though, to use one example bears have their own behavioral quirks and personalities. I saw one who was leaning against a rock with his feet outstretched like a human, a mother chasing her cub on the beach front and bears going fishing. I had never tried to observe people in cities before - people are boring - but I love animals and AC3 made me feel so immersed I naturally felt like studying the world. Each district is also noticeably different, there the perilous cliffs overlooking Connor's village, Lexington and Concord and parts of the forest that are far more dense and green (where that tree-based fort is) just to name a few.

I love the Frontier personally.

M3gaToxic
03-21-2015, 03:14 PM
So I have the Thunder and Lighting Animus hack on for when ever Connor kills someone Thunder and lighting follow...wow that make fighting even more fun. Also the weather and time of day hacks are cool. And those three do NOT halt saving, the others do. Trying to go for 100% sync, I have 92& so far. 40+ hours. AC3 I think is the only AC I really want to 100% sync...just so much fun.

SixKeys
03-21-2015, 03:27 PM
Comparing solely land-based organic environment. In AC3 you felt you were really in a forest, in UNITY, you don't really feel you are on an island.

Did you mean AC4? because in Unity, you are not, in fact, on an island.

If you did mean AC4, then I completely, 100% disagree. AC3's Frontier does not feel like a real forest. It feels artificial and empty, whereas AC4 always makes me feel like I'm really in the Caribbean.


It really depends on what you mean by color. If you mean bright colours, then Super Mario 64 is the most colourful of all. But AC3's look in different cities, and different parts of the Frontier is superior aesthetically, since its more subtle, its coherent (it acknowledges that it resides in the same general New England area).

I'm playing Rogue at the moment and its environments are like a combination of the best of AC3 and AC4. The cold, snow-covered areas really feel desolate and cold, better than AC3's handling of snowy areas. And the warmer areas, with their colonial architecture (which I hated in AC3) are like a combination of the best parts of the Frontier and AC4's Kingston. They're colorful and beautiful in a way that makes me want to spend more time in that world. It honestly astonished me because of how much I loathed the environments in AC3. If AC3's cities had been more like Rogue's, I might have actually enjoyed them.


So the way the complete map in all four areas of the environment was covered in snow was "Barely notceable". AC3 had the most interesting weather changes and they backed out of it later, even in UNITY set in a city like Paris (a Northern European city, i.e famous for cold winters).

"Weather" as in dynamic weather. When it rains in AC3, you barely notice the change. The snow segments in AC3 are only limited to certain segments of the game. That's like saying ACR had a great weather system because there was one mission in Masyaf with snow.


You must mean BLACK FLAG, the Animal AI there was the one where it ran straight into the protagonist's arms, especially that side mission with Opia Apito where a White Jaguar magically runs into me. In AC3, it was much less automatic, since that's a game that punished you for shooting your kill with pistols whereas in Black Flag, Edward can hunt them down by guzzling shot into their hides.

Nope, I mean AC3. The game where deer keep getting stuck in trees so "hunting" them is like shooting fish in a barrel. The game where there are several spots in the Frontier with raccoons and rabbits running in a circle chasing each other, and all one has to do is pick them out one by one as they run circles around your feet. The game where facing a pack of hungry wolves or several bears is a slaughterfest....in the assassin's favor. AC4 wasn't much better, but at least AC4 had minimal effort involved since you had to hop on your ship and sail to different islands. In AC3 you can literally walk down a path and a rabbit or deer will throw themselves on your path as if begging to be killed. Once I was running through the Frontier as Haytham and accidentally hit the button that makes the assassin flick their hidden blades. To my surprise Haytham bent down and sank his blade into a poor unsuspecting raccoon and resumed running. It's THAT easy to "hunt" in AC3.

M3gaToxic
03-21-2015, 03:34 PM
Did you mean AC4? because in Unity, you are not, in fact, on an island.

If you did mean AC4, then I completely, 100% disagree. AC3's Frontier does not feel like a real forest. It feels artificial and empty, whereas AC4 always makes me feel like I'm really in the Caribbean.


"Weather" as in dynamic weather. When it rains in AC3, you barely notice the change. The snow segments in AC3 are only limited to certain segments of the game. That's like saying ACR had a great weather system because there was one mission in Masyaf with snow.



Nope, I mean AC3. The game where deer keep getting stuck in trees so "hunting" them is like shooting fish in a barrel. The game where there are several spots in the Frontier with raccoons and rabbits running in a circle chasing each other, and all one has to do is pick them out one by one as they run circles around your feet. The game where facing a pack of hungry wolves or several bears is a slaughterfest....in the assassin's favor. AC4 wasn't much better, but at least AC4 had minimal effort involved since you had to hop on your ship and sail to different islands. In AC3 you can literally walk down a path and a rabbit or deer will throw themselves on your path as if begging to be killed. Once I was running through the Frontier as Haytham and accidentally hit the button that makes the assassin flick their hidden blades. To my surprise Haytham bent down and sank his blade into a poor unsuspecting raccoon and resumed running. It's THAT easy to "hunt" in AC3.

I think AC3 frontier feels somewhat like a real forest. Actually when it rains in AC3 you DO notice it, at least I do anyway. I will agree with you on the animals thing, while they don't always run into you I have seen some deer trying to jump through a tree but couldn't so...I killed it. But it isn't that bad. Does AC3 have some issue...yep it does, but none of them are really game breaking (that I have found). Only annoying issue I come across is sometimes my guns will be different for some reason and I have to change them.

VestigialLlama4
03-21-2015, 03:49 PM
I'm playing Rogue at the moment and its environments are like a combination of the best of AC3 and AC4. The cold, snow-covered areas really feel desolate and cold, better than AC3's handling of snowy areas.

There are no snowy areas in AC3, during winter, the green terrain, i.e. the entire map gets covered in snow. House roofs, tree branches, tree tops, hilltops are covered in snow. Having an Arctic Map as a typical Ice World Level is far less ambitious and more conventional than what AC3 did.

SixKeys
03-21-2015, 03:52 PM
I think AC3 frontier feels somewhat like a real forest. Actually when it rains in AC3 you DO notice it, at least I do anyway. I will agree with you on the animals thing, while they don't always run into you I have seen some deer trying to jump through a tree but couldn't so...I killed it. But it isn't that bad. Does AC3 have some issue...yep it does, but none of them are really game breaking (that I have found). Only annoying issue I come across is sometimes my guns will be different for some reason and I have to change them.

I have had, and still have, several game-breaking issues in AC3. Missions that glitch out at a certain checkpoint, forcing you to restart the whole thing, the Encyclopedia of the Common Man invariably crashing my game, guards appearing out of thin air in the middle of a "don't be detected" mission forcing me to fail, etc. And now there will be people saying "well, I never had those issues, so clearly you're wrong". Which is exactly what I could say about Unity, but of course they'll ignore that.

SixKeys
03-21-2015, 03:59 PM
There are no snowy areas in AC3, during winter, the green terrain, i.e. the entire map gets covered in snow. House roofs, tree branches, tree tops, hilltops are covered in snow. Having an Arctic Map as a typical Ice World Level is far less ambitious and more conventional than what AC3 did.

If an area is covered in snow, then it is by definition a "snowy area". FFS. :rolleyes: Here, let me rephrase: Rogue's scenes where the nature is covered in snow feel more interesting to me than scenes in AC3 when the land is covered in snow. In Rogue it's confined to specific areas, but at least I can visit those areas whenever I want, unlike AC3 where I can only replay the same memories over and over again. I don't care if Rogue's design is less ambitious or more conventional, I care that it feels better.

Edit: Also, there is, in fact, one area in AC3 which fits your definition of "snowy area" (as in glacial): the mission where you have to retrieve a piece of map from a ship sunken in ice. Ironically, it's one of the more enjoyable missions in AC3 precisely due to its atmosphere.

M3gaToxic
03-21-2015, 04:38 PM
I have had, and still have, several game-breaking issues in AC3. Missions that glitch out at a certain checkpoint, forcing you to restart the whole thing, the Encyclopedia of the Common Man invariably crashing my game, guards appearing out of thin air in the middle of a "don't be detected" mission forcing me to fail, etc. And now there will be people saying "well, I never had those issues, so clearly you're wrong". Which is exactly what I could say about Unity, but of course they'll ignore that.
I wont say that because for some reason everyone has different issues. I have run into an issue with side quests such as delivery ones where you accept it but it doesn't activate so you have to go away and come back and then it work (which is no big deal). But yeah I never had any of the guard appearing out of no where and messing up my detection. Trying to recall if I had another other issues but none come to mind.

Shahkulu101
03-21-2015, 04:40 PM
If an area is covered in snow, then it is by definition a "snowy area". FFS. :rolleyes: Here, let me rephrase: Rogue's scenes where the nature is covered in snow feel more interesting to me than scenes in AC3 when the land is covered in snow. In Rogue it's confined to specific areas, but at least I can visit those areas whenever I want, unlike AC3 where I can only replay the same memories over and over again. I don't care if Rogue's design is less ambitious or more conventional, I care that it feels better.

Edit: Also, there is, in fact, one area in AC3 which fits your definition of "snowy area" (as in glacial): the mission where you have to retrieve a piece of map from a ship sunken in ice. Ironically, it's one of the more enjoyable missions in AC3 precisely due to its atmosphere.

If only Rogue's icy areas looked half as good as the Northwest Passage mission - though admittedly that was one mission and Rogue had to build a whole word. Still, Rogue's environments felt very artificial.

Defalt221
03-26-2015, 09:47 AM
Understanding Connor in AC3 (made by fanboys) http://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/30akcs/understanding_connor_his_writing_and_how_he/

ze_topazio
03-26-2015, 12:49 PM
The same old "Connor is the most realistic character ever because he has doubts and flaws", which would be nice if his doubts and flaws didn't felt so forced.

Assassin_M
03-26-2015, 04:00 PM
The same old "Connor is the most realistic character ever because he has doubts and flaws"
That's not really what they said. Did you actually read the post?


which would be nice if his doubts and flaws didn't felt so forced.
Didnt feel forced to me, to be honest. What felt forced is Ezio's chasing of the Templars all over Italy for no other reason than "their names are on this piece o paper, so we'll kill them"


Understanding Connor in AC3 (made by fanboys) http://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/30akcs/understanding_connor_his_writing_and_how_he/
No, that's not what a fanboy is. A fanboy is this guy:


These circle jerk posts about Connor pop up all the time. I have three statements to say about the matter.


Connor is boring. You can deny what you want about his justifications and blah blah but in terms of being charasmatic or exciting you cannot argue that. And most of the time, that's what people want.

ze_topazio
03-26-2015, 04:57 PM
That's not really what they said. Did you actually read the post?

Skimmed through it. http://i.imgur.com/Q1j8gop.gif



Didnt feel forced to me, to be honest. What felt forced is Ezio's chasing of the Templars all over Italy for no other reason than "their names are on this piece o paper, so we'll kill them"

Just like any other protagonist in the series, including Connor, the only difference is that Connor had a wall with nice paintings instead of a paper with names, and that makes me wonder how in the world did Achilles managed to acquire such nice portraits of them all?!



No, that's not what a fanboy is. A fanboy is this guy:




That looks more like a person expressing an opinion in a not very polite way, a fanboy needs to fanboy over something while trashing the rivals, out of context we don't enough about that person.

Shahkulu101
03-26-2015, 05:00 PM
The same old "Connor is the most realistic character ever because he has doubts and flaws", which would be nice if his doubts and flaws didn't felt so forced.

Dat salt.

ze_topazio
03-26-2015, 05:07 PM
Dat salt.

I'm almost having a cardiopulmonary arrest.

Namikaze_17
03-26-2015, 05:23 PM
how in the world did Achilles managed to acquire such nice portraits of them all?

In these three years, I never thought about that...

Perhaps he painted as a hobby? :rolleyes:

Yep, nothing like painting a pictures of your worst enemies. :cool:


But seriously, he still had that Benjamin tallmadge guy who had some form of a connection with the Assassins.

Maybe he kept Achilles updated to paint them, I dunno. XD

Mr.Black24
03-26-2015, 05:31 PM
The same old "Connor is the most realistic character ever because he has doubts and flaws", which would be nice if his doubts and flaws didn't felt so forced.
What are you talking about? Both Connor and Ezio were forced to action, Ezio for vengeance, and Connor for justice, for the wrong doing that has been done. How one less forced than the other?

Assassin_M
03-26-2015, 05:51 PM
Skimmed through it. http://i.imgur.com/Q1j8gop.gif
Well, then.



Just like any other protagonist in the series, including Connor, the only difference is that Connor had a wall with nice paintings instead of a paper with names, and that makes me wonder how in the world did Achilles managed to acquire such nice portraits of them all?!
Not really for Edward. Sure, you can say that Connor also had a list but the difference is, which the post emphasizes, that Connor's world doesn't make the list as simple as "oooh names on list? kill all". Connor follows the same path as Ezio. Heck, Connor IS Ezio, but HIS WORLD, his story, would not allow him the same conclusion as Ezio. It doesn't all go smooth, Connor doesn't want to kill to everyone, he feels regret after killing his first target. That's why the OP on reddit says it's more interesting than Ezio's tale.


a fanboy needs to fanboy over something while trashing the rivals
That's exactly what the post did, lol

ze_topazio
03-26-2015, 07:11 PM
Well, then.



Not really for Edward. Sure, you can say that Connor also had a list but the difference is, which the post emphasizes, that Connor's world doesn't make the list as simple as "oooh names on list? kill all". Connor follows the same path as Ezio. Heck, Connor IS Ezio, but HIS WORLD, his story, would not allow him the same conclusion as Ezio. It doesn't all go smooth, Connor doesn't want to kill to everyone, he feels regret after killing his first target. That's why the OP on reddit says it's more interesting than Ezio's tale.


That's exactly what the post did, lol

Edward had kind of a list too more or less, he met the Templars in the beginning and decided those men were dangerous for him, every time he had the chance he killed them, and finally near the end he went full "bounty hunter" killing all the targets in his "mental list".

For Ezio the Templars were the people who killed part of his family and presented a danger to the remaining ones, only two were truly personal, Rodrigo the ring leader, and Uberto the person who actually got them killed, three if you count Vieri since they knew each other since childhood and mutually disliked each other, the rest was business.

For Connor the Templars were people who could potentially ruin the world and endanger his village, only two were truly personal, Haytham the ring leader and his father, and Charles the man who apparently killed his mother, the rest was business.

It's hard for Ezio to feel any regret when his targets are such good for nothing people, its also a case of different personalities, if their roles were reversed, there's a chance they would have acted in the same manner, Connor would try to understand the Borgia and Ezio would not waste time arguing with Haytham, maybe...

Assassin_M
03-26-2015, 07:26 PM
Edward had kind of a list too more or less, he met the Templars in the beginning and decided those men were dangerous for him, every time he had the chance he killed them, and finally near the end he went full "bounty hunter" killing all the targets in his "mental list".

For Ezio the Templars were the people who killed part of his family and presented a danger to the remaining ones, only two were truly personal, Rodrigo the ring leader, and Uberto the person who actually got them killed, three if you count Vieri since they knew each other since childhood and mutually disliked each other, the rest was business.

For Connor the Templars were people who could potentially ruin the world and endanger his village, only two were truly personal, Haytham the ring leader and his father, and Charles the man who apparently killed his mother, the rest was business.
It's still not a list for the sake of a list. For Ezio, it was literally "here, names, killed your dad, kill those". That wasn't the case for neither Edward nor Connor.


It's hard for Ezio to feel any regret when his targets are such good for nothing people, its also a case of different personalities, if their roles were reversed, there's a chance they would have acted in the same manner, Connor would try to understand the Borgia and Ezio would not waste time arguing with Haytham, maybe...
If you had read the post, then you wouldn't be repeating what it says. This is EXACTLY what it says. Connor is Ezio in Connor's world. Connor's world produces a much more interesting character. Grey conflict, imperfect allies, inevitable end. Contrast that with Ezio's world. Black and white conflict, perfect allies, hopeful end.

Ezio is not a real person. You can't say "Oh, if Ezio was in this world, yadda yadda". He wasn't in it. He can't be in it. It's not really an argument. Connor was the way he is because the world he was in forced him to be like that. It has nothing to do with real people, Connor is literally the fantastical, goody-2-shoes hero. He's interesting because he's a perfect hero in an imperfect world.

Anykeyer
03-27-2015, 09:48 PM
TBH I dont understand what Connor and Ezio characters do with all this. Story matters once, maybe twice. But it cant be the main reason for a good replayability.
That being said AC3 story is probably the only multi-layered AC story, there is so many subtext in most cutscenes. In other games evry little detail is always explained to the player, as if writer thinks we are idiots. But it also feels rushed, they obviously cut a lot of stuff just to release on time.

Defalt221
03-28-2015, 05:44 AM
Edward had kind of a list too more or less, he met the Templars in the beginning and decided those men were dangerous for him, every time he had the chance he killed them, and finally near the end he went full "bounty hunter" killing all the targets in his "mental list".

For Ezio the Templars were the people who killed part of his family and presented a danger to the remaining ones, only two were truly personal, Rodrigo the ring leader, and Uberto the person who actually got them killed, three if you count Vieri since they knew each other since childhood and mutually disliked each other, the rest was business.

For Connor the Templars were people who could potentially ruin the world and endanger his village, only two were truly personal, Haytham the ring leader and his father, and Charles the man who apparently killed his mother, the rest was business.

It's hard for Ezio to feel any regret when his targets are such good for nothing people, its also a case of different personalities, if their roles were reversed, there's a chance they would have acted in the same manner, Connor would try to understand the Borgia and Ezio would not waste time arguing with Haytham, maybe...

WOW. I can only imagine what'll happen if Ezio starts ideology conflicts with Haytham...
First,Ezio tries to stab him. Haytham dodges and they clash. Then a brutal sword fight. Haytham due to his better finesse and skills defeats Ezio.
Haytham: Freedom is an invitation to chaos. The world needs to be enslaved to be truly free.
Ezio: No. Humanity is what matters most. FREEDOM IS... (Haytham swaps a pistol and shoots him)
Unless.... Ezio... I don't know. Who'll win if they clash? Haytham?

pirate1802
03-28-2015, 01:10 PM
^The one whom the writer wants to win, tbh. :p

the_don7684
03-28-2015, 01:40 PM
I loved this game! as linear as it could be at times, this game imo did a wonderful job in moving forward. I still love to play this game. The frontier was awesome with everything you could do and explore in it. I liked Connor and the way he was handled as a Protagonist. I feel Ubisoft did a great job in the research of Connor and the type of background he came from and grew up in. I really hope Ubisoft gets in with the others with remastered stuff. AC3 uses the engine Anvil Next as did AC4, Rogue, and Unity, I believe, so it shouldn't be that difficult to remaster it for next gen consoles.

Defalt221
04-01-2015, 06:05 PM
I loved this game! as linear as it could be at times, this game imo did a wonderful job in moving forward. I still love to play this game. The frontier was awesome with everything you could do and explore in it. I liked Connor and the way he was handled as a Protagonist. I feel Ubisoft did a great job in the research of Connor and the type of background he came from and grew up in. I really hope Ubisoft gets in with the others with remastered stuff. AC3 uses the engine Anvil Next as did AC4, Rogue, and Unity, I believe, so it shouldn't be that difficult to remaster it for next gen consoles.

Pus this game had the longest campaign in the series. AC2 ranks second. AC U ranks LAST.

Megas_Doux
04-01-2015, 06:11 PM
Pus this game had the longest campaign in the series. AC2 ranks second. AC U ranks LAST.

In fact, I would say AC II ranks first, AC III second and Rogue last. Main problem with AC III is its super linearity.....

Namikaze_17
04-01-2015, 06:13 PM
Why does this thread keep coming back?

micksith
04-01-2015, 06:35 PM
I actually forgot AC3 started the crouching in bush idea, lol AC3 didn't Tenchu did ;)

Farlander1991
04-01-2015, 06:55 PM
Pus this game had the longest campaign in the series. AC2 ranks second. AC U ranks LAST.

What is your criteria for campaign length definition?


AC3 didn't Tenchu did ;)

And this is important because...? If we go by this train of logic we can go as far back as Metal Gear 2 where crouching was introduced as a stealth mechanic in the first place. If there's no game earlier that did this. Heck, whenever some game in some series introduces a stealth kill mechanic, let's always point out that Beyond Castle Wolfenstein from the early 80s did it first :p

micksith
04-01-2015, 07:12 PM
What is your criteria for campaign length definition?



And this is important because...? If we go by this train of logic we can go as far back as Metal Gear 2 where crouching was introduced as a stealth mechanic in the first place. If there's no game earlier that did this. Heck, whenever some game in some series introduces a stealth kill mechanic, let's always point out that Beyond Castle Wolfenstein from the early 80s did it first :p

Did Wolfenstein also introduce almost every weapon & ability the AC series introduces as innovation with each title ?? Didn't say it was important. didn't realise every comment on here had to be.

Farlander1991
04-01-2015, 07:29 PM
Did Wolfenstein also introduce almost every weapon & ability the AC series introduces as innovation with each title ?? Didn't say it was important. didn't realise every comment on here had to be.

I just see quite a lot of sayings like 'Tenchu did it first' regarding some AC mechanics, or 'AC stole it from Tenchu', or 'here AC goes taking from Tenchu again!' Also I bring this up because in every thread I've read this evening on the forum (which is just a few, but still) you've mentioned how AC took from Tenchu or how AC just copy/pastes mechanics.

And the question I have is... so ****ing what? Game mechanics are tools. It's like useage of a close-up shot, or a vertigo shot in movies - doesn't matter who did it first, it's how you use them to create an experience. Same thing with games. Everybody associates cover shooting mechanics with Gears of War first and foremost, even though kill.switch had pretty much the exact same cover shooting mechanics about four years before Gears of War came out. Does it make Gears of War any less quality as a cover shooting game? Or less innovative? Nope.

Besides, innovation is not always 'oh this never has been done before', it's also a lot of times 'it's done in a way or combination of ways that's very interesting or hard to reproduce', or the quality of how it's done (though, that would technically be iteration on mechanics more rather than innovation, but still).

AC borrows from Tenchu. And also from a lot of other games as well. Tenchu borrows from games that came before it. And those games borrow from games that came before it. It's part of game mechanics evolution, and just because a stealth game borrows a group of mechanics from a stealth game is like criticizing a first person shooter for borrowing a set of certain mechanics from first person shooters that came before it. Or platformers. Or adventure games. Or RPGs. Or any other game.

micksith
04-01-2015, 10:20 PM
Ok farlander , Gimme a list of permitted comments i can make or ones you deem worthy & i'll consider them. :nonchalance:

Farlander1991
04-02-2015, 09:19 AM
Ok farlander , Gimme a list of permitted comments i can make or ones you deem worthy & i'll consider them. :nonchalance:

*facepalm* Whatever.

I'm trying to facilitate a discussion on the question why (which is what most of the discussions really are, why somebody thinks something), why is this an issue or point of criticism, because I see the Tenchu statement often, and from you in particular, so I'm asking why, at the same time pointing out why I'm asking the question in the first place from my perspective.

Yet you just avoid the subject altogether with these weird 'give me a list of permitted comments' and 'oh not every comment has to be important' (and I realized just now, but my usage of the word 'important' was misunderstood I think).

Defalt221
04-02-2015, 12:25 PM
What is your criteria for campaign length definition?

Right now I'm referring to the sheer length that takes to complete the campaign. Thanks to all those pointless cutscenes and the random chatting with NPC in the campaign in AC3 that felt kinda long. And Alex Hutchinson alsop said it's 20 % or sth longer than AC2....

ACZanius
04-02-2015, 05:58 PM
Lol AC 3 longer than AC 2? My arse, no phucking way, AC2 was longest of the all counting that it had 14 sequences, ahh good old AC days, AC 3 was so short, especially at ending, so rushed and fast, regarding campaign length, i was honestly so hyped for AC 3 before it came out, was supposed to be Ultimate AC game, failed in many ways, some they did fantastic job, the ending was what killed it for me. I was honestly expecting like 14-15 sequences but idk...but yeah there is hardly original concepts today, everything borrows and copies from everything, it's how it is, AC was not original idea, PoP was already there, AC RE-Defined the whole thing.