PDA

View Full Version : New games and nostalgia debate



dimbismp
02-15-2015, 02:15 PM
Hi there

As the title suggests,this thread's goal is to discuss whether nostalgia can prevent veterans of the series from truly enjoying the future installments,no matter how good they are.Before i present you my views on this topic,i would like to give my mini AC-History/Biography:I found out about AC from a friend of mine in summer 2011.The game he showed me was ACB.So,i bought ACB and i was truly fascinated by its world!It is my favourite game to date(even though realistically it is not) and it is no wonder why that it is the only game that i have completed every mission,and that Rome is my favourite AC city.So after that i got to play ACR and eventually all games of the series.But,every year the AC games feel less and less special,with a few exceptions like ACIV.

The reason that led me to write this,is an AC2 video that i watched.I felt nostalgic,even though AC2 is by no means close to being my favourite AC.Hell,i even feel nostalgic for AC3 sometimes,even though i initially "hated" it!!In the meanwhile,in the "making of ACU" videos a developer says that"We want people to enjoy the fantasy of being an assassin again".I agree that ACU was the most assassiny game since AC1,but surely ACU felt like "more of the same",instead of:"OMG,it is like doing it for the first time!!!"So,why was i so amazed by ACB?Obviously it was my first AC and also one of my first action/open world games.But it wasn't just that.I fear i will never get that unique feeling back...Was it the beautiful ambient music?Was it Ezio?Was it Desmond and the overrarching MD narrative?

He thing is that especially after AC3 everyone finds something to hate about the games."Connor's emotionless character" in AC3,"Pirate's Creed" in AC4,"Broken mechanics" in ACU....None gives these games a chance because they are stuck in the past.Some people judge the games before they are even out!Because in reality,Connor was not "emotionless", he was just different from Ezio.AC4 was not about the "Pirate's Creed",but in fact it was the most "Assassin's Creed " game since 2007.ACU may have had bugs,but it was the first game to focus and rebuild the core pillars after a very long time.

On the other hand,Ubi also made mistakes.As i said,some games like ACU and AC3 were filled with bugs.Most importantly,though,they abandoned the MD overrarching narrative.Previously the reason why we relived Altair's,Ezio's and Connor's life was to help Desmond.Love or hate Desmond,his story gave a meaning to the series.Now,we are stupid initiates,resulting in self-contained stories,which may or may not turn out to be good.So,here is what is going to happen from now on(unless ubi changes strategy):Every year we will get a new game,with the self contained story of Arno,Samuel Fey etc,but overally the story won't progress at all.

Anyway,maybe i have gone a little bit off-topic.I didn't express my thoughts as well as i wanted,but i hope you get the overall feeling.
Are the veterans of the series doomed to find"cons" in the future game,no matter how good they are?Will a future game ever become the absolute favourite of the community,or are we stuck in the past?

Or is it maybe that the previous games are in fact superior and that Ubi can never reach that level again? (I don't believe this is the case because ACIV is many fans' favourite)

Farlander1991
02-15-2015, 03:20 PM
Well....kinda. I mean, not everyone's that nostalgic about the series yet (as it's not THAT old),but there still are basic symptoms of the whole 'when I was younger unicorns roamed the land and grass was greener and sky was bluer and everything was great' thing. So, yeah, it's a more local and smaller scale representation of 'they don't make good games/music/movies/books anymore' and 'the next generation sucks' thing (EVERY generation says the next generation sucks, fyi :p )

SixKeys
02-15-2015, 03:26 PM
I'm torn on this. ACU was the first game since ACB to really ignite my passion for the assassin fantasy again. ACB came out 5 years ago. Let that sink in. Unity is the first game in 5 years that feels like a "proper" AC game to me.

I enjoyed AC4 for what it was, but I don't have particular desire to go back and replay it, at least not straight away. With the first three games in the series, I was replaying them all the time, because they gave me a feeling no other game could match. ACU isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it must have done something right to make me feel like finally, after 5 years, there was another entry that I really, truly enjoyed again. That feeling of awe at the graphics and detail, the sense of immersion, the open mission structure, the possibilities. The un-evenness of the story doesn't really bother me, I'm more of a gameplay person anyway, and the gameplay is a ton of fun.

What the first three games had over all the others was modern day and a more precise parkour system. That's it. If the new games had the same precision in controls and a captivating overarching narrative - with a sense of direction actually leading up to something - I would consider them just as good as the old ones, maybe better. Problem is, those two elements were a crucial part of what got me into the series in the first place and now they're gone, replaced with stuff I don't care about. Ships are a fine distraction, but I want to climb buildings. Make climbing buildings fun again, instead of a chore. Initiates is the worst piece of corporate bullcrap in existence and I want no part of it. Just give me a game that works with missions I can replay a thousand times in different ways, and make it feel meaningful, not just a buggy pit stop on the way to the next annual release.

TL;DR I can't pick an option because Unity proved to me that the feeling of the old games can be achieved, but I worry that with all the whining about difficulty and whatnot Ubi will scrap the things that worked in ACU and go back to the same dull formula of the past 5 years.

dimbismp
02-15-2015, 03:30 PM
Well....kinda. I mean, not everyone's that nostalgic about the series yet (as it's not THAT old),but there still are basic symptoms of the whole 'when I was younger unicorns roamed the land and grass was greener and sky was bluer and everything was great' thing. So, yeah, it's a more local and smaller scale representation of 'they don't make good games/music/movies/books anymore' and 'the next generation sucks' thing (EVERY generation says the next generation sucks, fyi :p )
Yeah i agree with you.
Most people,especially outside of these forums,treat AC2 like "the best AC Eveeeeeeeeerrrrr!!!!".While,in reality it has some flaws.Its popularity derives drom being the second game of the franchise.If the same game was released today with updated gtaphics and maybe mechanics,it would not be so popular.

Generally,i believe most fans,including me,will find flaws and try to undermine the future games,even if they are great

dimbismp
02-15-2015, 03:36 PM
I'm torn on this. ACU was the first game since ACB to really ignite my passion for the assassin fantasy again. ACB came out 5 years ago. Let that sink in. Unity is the first game in 5 years that feels like a "proper" AC game to me.

I enjoyed AC4 for what it was, but I don't have particular desire to go back and replay it, at least not straight away. With the first three games in the series, I was replaying them all the time, because they gave me a feeling no other game could match. ACU isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it must have done something right to make me feel like finally, after 5 years, there was another entry that I really, truly enjoyed again. That feeling of awe at the graphics and detail, the sense of immersion, the open mission structure, the possibilities. The un-evenness of the story doesn't really bother me, I'm more of a gameplay person anyway, and the gameplay is a ton of fun.

What the first three games had over all the others was modern day and a more precise parkour system. That's it. If the new games had the same precision in controls and a captivating overarching narrative - with a sense of direction actually leading up to something - I would consider them just as good as the old ones, maybe better. Problem is, those two elements were a crucial part of what got me into the series in the first place and now they're gone, replaced with stuff I don't care about. Ships are a fine distraction, but I want to climb buildings. Make climbing buildings fun again, instead of a chore. Initiates is the worst piece of corporate bullcrap in existence and I want no part of it. Just give me a game that works with missions I can replay a thousand times in different ways, and make it feel meaningful, not just a buggy pit stop on the way to the next annual release.

TL;DR I can't pick an option because Unity proved to me that the feeling of the old games can be achieved, but I worry that with all the whining about difficulty and whatnot Ubi will scrap the things that worked in ACU and go back to the same dull formula of the past 5 years.
You make some good points here.Indeed ACU really improved on many aspects.But i didn't like the story that much,so...
As for the climbing,i fear that the rumored grappling hook will make it even more automatic and easier than before
And finally,i disagree with you on ACIV.It may have had a rural environment,but it featured maybe one of the best stories of the series(that explored the Creed),while also adding solid stealth mechanics

VestigialLlama4
02-15-2015, 03:39 PM
The fact is with any Franchise, especially with an Annualized one like Assassin's Creed, nostalgia is not the problem since most people don't give the games a great deal of chance. Annualization is a problem mostly because of the tunnel vision of marketing and knee-jerk fan reactions enduring over reasoned and considered judgments over problems of the game.

The point is that until AC3-AC4, I see every game bursting with ideas and ambitions. There are ebbs and flows in open-ness and gameplay, weak integration of features and mechanics yes, but the basic idea was that the games would try and introduce something really new to the games, either in storytelling, open-world, new features and whatnot. Now did all this work well, no. Sometimes, it bit off more than it chewed, a lot of times you can see it fell flat on their faces.

But UNITY is the absolute pits and nadir. I don't see any inspiration, love, effort or care in this game. The game's much touted open-ness is not open-ness at all, but just poor mission design that is unworthy to be compared with AC1.

SixKeys
02-15-2015, 04:13 PM
You make some good points here.Indeed ACU really improved on many aspects.But i didn't like the story that much,so...
As for the climbing,i fear that the rumored grappling hook will make it even more automatic and easier than before
And finally,i disagree with you on ACIV.It may have had a rural environment,but it featured maybe one of the best stories of the series(that explored the Creed),while also adding solid stealth mechanics

I don't think we disagree on AC4 really. I agree that it has a pretty good story and the gameplay is even better. But I just don't have the same attachment to it as I do to the early games. I started a second replay of AC4 a while ago and I'm not even at the haflway point yet. I just don't have the drive to go back and play it endlessly like I did with the others. Unity at least has more potential to keep me coming back because there's still a ton of content to explore and co-op is fun. It's a shame there are so many (mostly technical) problems that prevent it from achieving true greatness. Even if the early games have flaws, they were at least fully playable.

dimbismp
02-15-2015, 04:13 PM
The fact is with any Franchise, especially with an Annualized one like Assassin's Creed, nostalgia is not the problem since most people don't give the games a great deal of chance. Annualization is a problem mostly because of the tunnel vision of marketing and knee-jerk fan reactions enduring over reasoned and considered judgments over problems of the game.

The point is that until AC3-AC4, I see every game bursting with ideas and ambitions. There are ebbs and flows in open-ness and gameplay, weak integration of features and mechanics yes, but the basic idea was that the games would try and introduce something really new to the games, either in storytelling, open-world, new features and whatnot. Now did all this work well, no. Sometimes, it bit off more than it chewed, a lot of times you can see it fell flat on their faces.

But UNITY is the absolute pits and nadir. I don't see any inspiration, love, effort or care in this game. The game's much touted open-ness is not open-ness at all, but just poor mission design that is unworthy to be compared with AC1.
Actually ACU was by far the best regarding mission design

(Thanks locopells ;) )

Locopells
02-15-2015, 04:23 PM
Welcome.

VestigialLlama4
02-15-2015, 05:03 PM
Actually ACU was by far the best regarding mission design

I have seen that stated as an article of faith, but I have yet to see a single defense for the levels outside of "It's not as linear as <INSERT TITLE> here". The truth is the gameplay of ACU is nothing unique or special. It's simply the basic gameplay adapted for the Next-Gen without any new improvements or additions. And unlike AC1, it has poor mission design to accomodate it. The one genuinely good level is the first one at Notre Dame/Sivert all the others are structured the same way of "four-ways to get past the door".

In fact all I have heard in UNITY's defense is that "It's not as ---- as ----" I have not come across any thread where people discuss great levels or great moments, the way in AC3, people liked the Naval and the Bunker Hill assassination.

Shahkulu101
02-15-2015, 05:08 PM
I have seen that stated as an article of faith, but I have yet to see a single defense for the levels outside of "It's not as linear as <INSERT TITLE> here". The truth is the gameplay of ACU is nothing unique or special. It's simply the basic gameplay adapted for the Next-Gen without any new improvements or additions. And unlike AC1, it has poor mission design to accomodate it. The one genuinely good level is the first one at Notre Dame/Sivert all the others are structured the same way of "four-ways to get past the door".

In fact all I have heard in UNITY's defense is that "It's not as ---- as ----" I have not come across any thread where people discuss great levels or great moments, the way in AC3, people liked the Naval and the Bunker Hill assassination.

No they aren't. Where the hell are you pulling that ridiculous assessment from?

Fatal-Feit
02-15-2015, 05:10 PM
I can't get nostalgic with a franchise that never entirely clicked with me until a few years ago. Ironically, until AC3, I thought AC was just another casual/milked franchise on the market. It's still is, but I'm one of the minority who feels that the later titles have been tremendously better than the early installments.

AC3, while vastly flawed, improved the franchise in many ways. Story and characters being a huge part of it. It was only until recently, starting with Black Flag, that the franchise's core 3 pillars started to evolve and made the franchise feel like a stealth game again (AC2-AC3 were all psuedo stealth, tbh). More development time are given (3-4 years), gameplay balancing is prioritized, and more drastic changes/innovations per title are apparent.


Well....kinda. I mean, not everyone's that nostalgic about the series yet (as it's not THAT old),but there still are basic symptoms of the whole 'when I was younger unicorns roamed the land and grass was greener and sky was bluer and everything was great' thing. So, yeah, it's a more local and smaller scale representation of 'they don't make good games/music/movies/books anymore' and 'the next generation sucks' thing (EVERY generation says the next generation sucks, fyi :p )

Gotta agree with you there, lmfao. It has become a fad with AC. =p

SixKeys
02-15-2015, 05:27 PM
I have seen that stated as an article of faith, but I have yet to see a single defense for the levels outside of "It's not as linear as <INSERT TITLE> here". The truth is the gameplay of ACU is nothing unique or special. It's simply the basic gameplay adapted for the Next-Gen without any new improvements or additions. And unlike AC1, it has poor mission design to accomodate it. The one genuinely good level is the first one at Notre Dame/Sivert all the others are structured the same way of "four-ways to get past the door".

In fact all I have heard in UNITY's defense is that "It's not as ---- as ----" I have not come across any thread where people discuss great levels or great moments, the way in AC3, people liked the Naval and the Bunker Hill assassination.

There were people who liked the Bunker Hill mission? All I ever saw was people complaining about it - how it wasn't like the trailer made it appear, how there was an obvious breadcrumb path you were meant to take (reinforced by the full sync objective), how there were only two ways to kill the target, how you didn't even get to escape on your own because Connor did it in a cut scene. The ONLY good thing about the Bunker Hill mission is that it has one option more than most other missions in the game, bringing it to a grand total of two different ways to complete the mission.

Naval is undeniable, that's why they made two more sequels based on that mechanic.

Unity has several great missions. The Sivert one is actually a bit boring because if you've seen all the pre-release demos, you already know the best way to complete the mission.
IMO the best mission is the one where you can poison your target's wine. I've been wanting something like that for years. You get to do some serious sneaking to get close enough and if you're really good, you can sneak out before anyone figures out what happened. And the graveyard one was fantastic. Using Eagle Vision to set a trap at whichever spot you like? Awesome. Great atmosphere too. Loved one of the early ones where you ambush LaTouche (I think?) by lockpicking a door behind all the guards' noses. And the last LaTouche mission at the gallows, bloody amazing, especially if you complete the optional side objectives.

AC3 had those great assassinations where you, um....throw Haytham against some barrels, then do a QTE. That was exciting. And the MD one where you chase Daniel Cross through Abstergo, then a cut scene happens and he's dead. That was great. And the time when Desmond confronted Vidic in a cut scene, drove a random security guard crazy and Vidic just dropped dead after four games' worth of build-up? So, that was a thing that happened.

dimbismp
02-15-2015, 05:38 PM
There were people who liked the Bunker Hill mission? All I ever saw was people complaining about it - how it wasn't like the trailer made it appear, how there was an obvious breadcrumb path you were meant to take (reinforced by the full sync objective), how there were only two ways to kill the target, how you didn't even get to escape on your own because Connor did it in a cut scene. The ONLY good thing about the Bunker Hill mission is that it has one option more than most other missions in the game, bringing it to a grand total of two different ways to complete the mission.

Naval is undeniable, that's why they made two more sequels based on that mechanic.

Unity has several great missions. The Sivert one is actually a bit boring because if you've seen all the pre-release demos, you already know the best way to complete the mission.
IMO the best mission is the one where you can poison your target's wine. I've been wanting something like that for years. You get to do some serious sneaking to get close enough and if you're really good, you can sneak out before anyone figures out what happened. And the graveyard one was fantastic. Using Eagle Vision to set a trap at whichever spot you like? Awesome. Great atmosphere too. Loved one of the early ones where you ambush LaTouche (I think?) by lockpicking a door behind all the guards' noses. And the last LaTouche mission at the gallows, bloody amazing, especially if you complete the optional side objectives.

AC3 had those great assassinations where you, um....throw Haytham against some barrels, then do a QTE. That was exciting. And the MD one where you chase Daniel Cross through Abstergo, then a cut scene happens and he's dead. That was great. And the time when Desmond confronted Vidic in a cut scene, drove a random security guard crazy and Vidic just dropped dead after four games' worth of build-up? So, that was a thing that happened.
+1

I-Like-Pie45
02-15-2015, 05:48 PM
I think a better climax for AC3 shouldve involved Desmond kidnapping Daniel Cross and then torturing him for information, which of course is all player controlled and the player is presented with several options on how to torture Daniel Cross such as waterboarding, cigar burns, beehives, listening to Phil Collins, or reading 50 Shades of Grey thus bringing the AC concept of freedom to its max potential. Of course, to prevent this from being too dark and to prevent the player from feeling like a monster while doing this, music such as The Pogues' Rake at the Gates of Hell, Lynyrd Skynyrd's Sweet Home Alabama, and the theme song from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic can be played to lighten up the mood of the torture scene and make the player feel like a dashing heroic charismatic badass who can do no wrong.

So after killing and torturing Daniel Cross, Desmond learns that William being put on a passenger plane but then Desmond catches up to it on a motorcycle and he kills all the abstergo people on board.

Then Desmond flies the plane into Abstergo's headquarters and gives Warren Vidic the finger before he and William parachute out and the plane crashes into Abstergo and levels the building and sets Rome on fire for twenty blocks all around.

I think gamers would've loved this much more than what was in the game.

SixKeys
02-15-2015, 05:50 PM
I think a better climax for AC3 shouldve involved Desmond kidnapping Daniel Cross and then torturing him for information, which of course is all player controlled and the player is presented with several options on how to torture Daniel Cross such as waterboarding, cigar burns, beehives, listening to Phil Collins, or reading 50 Shades of Grey thus bringing the AC concept of freedom to its max potential. Of course, to prevent this from being too dark and to prevent the player from feeling like a monster while doing this, music such as The Pogues' Rake at the Gates of Hell, Lynyrd Skynyrd's Sweet Home Alabama, and the theme song from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic can be played to lighten up the mood of the torture scene and make the player feel like a dashing heroic charismatic badass who can do no wrong.

So after killing and torturing Daniel Cross, Desmond learns that William being put on a passenger plane but then Desmond catches up to it on a motorcycle and he kills all the abstergo people on board.

Then Desmond flies the plane into Abstergo's headquarters and gives Warren Vidic the finger before he and William parachute out and the plane crashes into Abstergo and levels the building and sets Rome on fire for twenty blocks all around.

I think gamers would've loved this much more than what was in the game.

Where does Garfield come in?

Defalt221
02-15-2015, 06:04 PM
Hi there

As the title suggests,this thread's goal is to discuss whether nostalgia can prevent veterans of the series from truly enjoying the future installments,no matter how good they are.Before i present you my views on this topic,i would like to give my mini AC-History/Biography:I found out about AC from a friend of mine in summer 2011.The game he showed me was ACB.So,i bought ACB and i was truly fascinated by its world!It is my favourite game to date(even though realistically it is not) and it is no wonder why that it is the only game that i have completed every mission,and that Rome is my favourite AC city.So after that i got to play ACR and eventually all games of the series.But,every year the AC games feel less and less special,with a few exceptions like ACIV.

The reason that led me to write this,is an AC2 video that i watched.I felt nostalgic,even though AC2 is by no means close to being my favourite AC.Hell,i even feel nostalgic for AC3 sometimes,even though i initially "hated" it!!In the meanwhile,in the "making of ACU" videos a developer says that"We want people to enjoy the fantasy of being an assassin again".I agree that ACU was the most assassiny game since AC1,but surely ACU felt like "more of the same",instead of:"OMG,it is like doing it for the first time!!!"So,why was i so amazed by ACB?Obviously it was my first AC and also one of my first action/open world games.But it wasn't just that.I fear i will never get that unique feeling back...Was it the beautiful ambient music?Was it Ezio?Was it Desmond and the overrarching MD narrative?

He thing is that especially after AC3 everyone finds something to hate about the games."Connor's emotionless character" in AC3,"Pirate's Creed" in AC4,"Broken mechanics" in ACU....None gives these games a chance because they are stuck in the past.Some people judge the games before they are even out!Because in reality,Connor was not "emotionless", he was just different from Ezio.AC4 was not about the "Pirate's Creed",but in fact it was the most "Assassin's Creed " game since 2007.ACU may have had bugs,but it was the first game to focus and rebuild the core pillars after a very long time.

On the other hand,Ubi also made mistakes.As i said,some games like ACU and AC3 were filled with bugs.Most importantly,though,they abandoned the MD overrarching narrative.Previously the reason why we relived Altair's,Ezio's and Connor's life was to help Desmond.Love or hate Desmond,his story gave a meaning to the series.Now,we are stupid initiates,resulting in self-contained stories,which may or may not turn out to be good.So,here is what is going to happen from now on(unless ubi changes strategy):Every year we will get a new game,with the self contained story of Arno,Samuel Fey etc,but overally the story won't progress at all.

Anyway,maybe i have gone a little bit off-topic.I didn't express my thoughts as well as i wanted,but i hope you get the overall feeling.
Are the veterans of the series doomed to find"cons" in the future game,no matter how good they are?Will a future game ever become the absolute favourite of the community,or are we stuck in the past?

Or is it maybe that the previous games are in fact superior and that Ubi can never reach that level again? (I don't believe this is the case because ACIV is many fans' favourite)

It's more to do with the human brain. When you get sth new and unexpecting,it'll remain forever imprinted into your mind.And newer releases of that thing will keep comparing itself to those old nostalgic memories inside your mind. And since you don't get the same excitement from the new releases as much as you got from the first one,you'll be like:"The original was the best. Nothing beats that... etc"
Like how everyone still things Bioshock 1 is better despite Bioshock Infinite being incredibly phenomenal compared to that. So,yeah, "AC2 WAS THE BEST!!! EZIO IS UNBEATABLE. UBISOFT JUST GIVE UP ALREADY! YOU CANT TOP THE BAR SET BY EZIO!!!"

wvstolzing
02-15-2015, 06:49 PM
Where does Garfield come in?

More like 'Where does Trevor Philips come in?' :rolleyes:

I too think that the series is a bit too young for there to be a real debate as to whether people's perceptions of the earlier entries are all conditioned through 'nostalgia'. That kind of debate makes sense in the case of, say, Morrowind vs. Skyrim, or System Shock vs. Bioshock Infinite, old Thief vs. the new Thief, and so on.

When people do 'yearn for' the 'Ezio days' and such, I think it's either out of preference for the 'historical GTA' style, or because they miss all the promises the story *seemed* to make, as a melting-pot of real-life crackpot conspiracy theories. I don't think either has to do with nostalgia.

As to the former, I think the best response is that the series didn't start out as a 'historical GTA', and that it did not somehow go through a golden age just because it catered to *their* particular tastes.

As to the latter, I think it's a bit more involved. When a person complains that you haven't kept your promise to them, you can't say in response: "Ah, but you're just feeling nostalgic about the times when I made that promise to you! Get over it! Those days are over!" -- I think this is what's going on with respect to the story. It seemed to make lots of promises, then forgot all about them; now, PoEs, and Desmond, and Juno, and whatnot, are essentially easter eggs. Or they're simply name-dropped because 'brand identity' requires it. So there's a real frustration on the part of 'veteran players' -- not because they think 'the old days' were better simply because they were old, but because the promise of those 'old days' with respect to the story went down the drain completely.

VestigialLlama4
02-15-2015, 07:00 PM
As to the former, I think the best response is that the series didn't start out as a 'historical GTA',...

It DID start out as Historical GTA and it was always that. In AC1, the Asasiyun are a real historical organization and the first game features a more accurate and correct depiction of how they functioned than most other books and stories did. Showing them not as "Hashish smoking fanatics" but as a medieval vigilante/monk organization. It didn't yet have the database and the obsession with historical architecture but even then you had several historical buildings in Damascus and jerusalem, while Acre was almost wholly fictionalized because they had almost no records for how it was at the time.

People saying that the historical part is not part of AC are playing a very different game in their minds than the one that's in their PC/Consoles.

wvstolzing
02-15-2015, 07:10 PM
It DID start out as Historical GTA and it was always that. In AC1, the Asasiyun are a real historical organization and the first game features a more accurate and correct depiction of how they functioned than most other books and stories did. Showing them not as "Hashish smoking fanatics" but as a medieval vigilante/monk organization. It didn't yet have the database and the obsession with historical architecture but even then you had several historical buildings in Damascus and jerusalem, while Acre was almost wholly fictionalized because they had almost no records for how it was at the time.

People saying that the historical part is not part of AC are playing a very different game in their minds than the one that's in their PC/Consoles.

Calm down, the emphasis was on 'GTA', not the 'historical'.

Geez....

VestigialLlama4
02-15-2015, 07:15 PM
Calm down, the emphasis was on 'GTA', not the 'historical'.

Geez....

Well even there, Patrice Desilets always did say that their goal for traversal and Parkour was to make it feel like travelling around Liberty City. The historical timeline was meant to justify the idea of covering a vast landmass on foot.

SixKeys
02-15-2015, 09:50 PM
GTA is characterized by tons of side content and allowing the player to interact with the world in crazy, reckless ways. AC1 was definitely not about that at all. AC2 took the series in that direction much more, starting with Ezio's devil-may-care attitude.

phoenix-force411
02-15-2015, 10:18 PM
ACB had a good progression modern day and lore, but the whole Ezio story thing was stale. Cesare was absent for 80% of the game and the Borgias didn't do anything about their continuous losses until the very end. AC sucks at boss fights, and only AC1's boss fight was enjoyable.

The modern day is not gone, but the most interesting lore is happening off-screen and the games are not releasing enough story progression to the gamers. That is the problem. AC Initiates has released more interesting lore than Unity as of now. Ubisoft needs to release more story and give the modern day a protagonist, and that protagonist should be Galina Voronina, because she is the female version of Desmond.

Namikaze_17
02-15-2015, 10:36 PM
ACB had a good progression modern day and lore, but the whole Ezio story thing was stale. Cesare was absent for 80% of the game and the Borgias didn't do anything about their continuous losses until the very end. AC sucks at boss fights, and only AC1's boss fight was enjoyable.

The modern day is not gone, but the most interesting lore is happening off-screen and the games are not releasing enough story progression to the gamers. That is the problem. AC Initiates has released more interesting lore than Unity as of now. Ubisoft needs to release more story and give the modern day a protagonist, and that protagonist should be Galina Voronina, because she is the female version of Desmond.


This.


But like fatal, I never had an attachment to the franchise.

I thought it was a meh series with the cliche "baddies" and Ezio. ( Plus I didn't know Alta´r :rolleyes:)

It wasn't till AC3 ( The beginning of the "dark era" here) followed by AC4 was when I truly got into things.

Megas_Doux
02-15-2015, 11:32 PM
Eight main games within an eight years time frame = EXHAUSTION / Eight main games within an eight years time frame + some hardcore misses the likes of a "boring" protagonist + rather dull open world after of the richest to date and disaster of a release= EXHAUSTION and ALIENATION.

That would happen to Arkham, GTA, The Witcher and pretty much any given franchise..


GTA is characterized by tons of side content and allowing the player to interact with the world in crazy, reckless ways. AC1 was definitely not about that at all. AC2 took the series in that direction much more, starting with Ezio's devil-may-care attitude.

AC I was about to be an Assassin, gather information of your targets and then kill them. Gotta admit as a sandbox it was a bad game because aside from the purposely futile flags, there was NOTHING do to but to free roam, felling the atmosphere of the cities....However It was the first game in the franchise, the potential was there. But based on the feedback AC headed into"let┤s have GTA in the past" direction:

Coincidentally AC II/ACB and AC IV, the best received games in the franchise, are the ones in which that "GTA" idea is better achieved in detriment of the "original assassin" idea. Dont get me wrong, I had a pretty good time with those games, even ACB and mostly with AC IV. But in the end I always wanted more focus into Stealth/social stealth, without forgiving the "open world" element. Thing is the majority of people want the latter and not necessary the former.

And thus we have a franchise in that , in order to try to please everybody we have got story driven games -AC III- more open world ones in which the core is not the main focus -AC IV- and an attempt to "revamp" the main mechanics - ACU- and that last one was thwarted by one of the most horrendous launches ever and its awfully implemented transmedia...

In my perfect world we would have both, however annualization just does not allow that.....

SixKeys
02-15-2015, 11:43 PM
Speaking of social stealth, I'm frustrated that it's all but gone. They've introduced new stealth mechanics over the years, but social stealth has been getting ignored. Even the crowds don't react to things the way they used to. They used to comment, even throw stones when they saw a man suddenly climb up a wall, now it's like they couldn't care less. It used to be part of the immersion to see all these people below stare in awe as I did something they couldn't. We don't even have to watch our movements in the crowd anymore. The protagonist automatically pushes people out of the way as he runs. It really takes away a lot of the tension escapes used to have. "Okay run, run, run, the Bureau is right across the....NO NO, get up, you idiot, stop stumbling! Get up and RUN!! Get outta my face, damn beggars! I swear I will end you!"

Altair1789
02-16-2015, 04:57 AM
I've played every game in order when they came out, but I still think AC3 was the best. I voted for No, even though I think there won't be another game like AC3, I kinda liked AC3 and AC4 and other than that there were just Ezio games which were pretty similar.


"AC2 WAS THE BEST!!! EZIO IS UNBEATABLE. UBISOFT JUST GIVE UP ALREADY! YOU CANT TOP THE BAR SET BY EZIO!!!"

I'd run if I were you, some people don't take too kindly to that attitude

I don't at all agree with this though

playlisting
02-16-2015, 06:29 AM
I'd like to think of myself as a series veteran (completed Assassin's Creed 2 about 10-20 times over the years perhaps more, all subsequent games were completed 2-6 times). And I don't think that being nostalgic has much to do with how we view future games. I'm playing all the Assassin's Creeds again (bar AC1, have yet to complete it) and there really is something special about the older games. We're not viewing them with rose tinted goggles, the games are just that good. The cities, the time periods, the music, the cast, are all absolutely fantastic. Jesper Kyd's work in the first 2 Ezio games is particularly amazing. All the pieces come together to give you a living, breathing world that sucks you in with it's fascinating culture. Renaissance Italy is a hugely interesting time period and it's just perfect for Assassin's Creed. The game itself is beautiful from a technical standpoint, but the actual world you're in is beautiful as well. Italian architecture during that time was and still is breathtaking. Assassin's Creed Unity is mostly just pretty from a technical standpoint though there are some places of note where the architecture is very impressive.

The first 4 games of the series deserve to be ported over to Unity's version of the engine. I can't even imagine how awesome that would be. But Ubisoft, if you ever decide to do it, change nothing but the graphics.

phoenix-force411
02-16-2015, 10:16 AM
I'd like to think of myself as a series veteran (completed Assassin's Creed 2 about 10-20 times over the years perhaps more, all subsequent games were completed 2-6 times). And I don't think that being nostalgic has much to do with how we view future games. I'm playing all the Assassin's Creeds again (bar AC1, have yet to complete it) and there really is something special about the older games. We're not viewing them with rose tinted goggles, the games are just that good. The cities, the time periods, the music, the cast, are all absolutely fantastic. Jesper Kyd's work in the first 2 Ezio games is particularly amazing. All the pieces come together to give you a living, breathing world that sucks you in with it's fascinating culture. Renaissance Italy is a hugely interesting time period and it's just perfect for Assassin's Creed. The game itself is beautiful from a technical standpoint, but the actual world you're in is beautiful as well. Italian architecture during that time was and still is breathtaking. Assassin's Creed Unity is mostly just pretty from a technical standpoint though there are some places of note where the architecture is very impressive.

The first 4 games of the series deserve to be ported over to Unity's version of the engine. I can't even imagine how awesome that would be. But Ubisoft, if you ever decide to do it, change nothing but the graphics.

I'd like them to redesign the ACII combat and make it AC1's since the combat was pretty boring at best. Keep the archetypes and such, but change the feel of the combat to resemble the former. Secondly, give Ezio his E3 2009 Demo outfit. Lastly, give it a memory replay on Story missions because it was supposed to have it but due to the amount of time needed to test the memory replay on Story missions it couldn't be done.

RinoTheBouncer
02-16-2015, 02:28 PM
I think it has more to do with how the new style is in comparison with the classic style, even though I can't deny the effect of nostalgia and 'clinging to the past' which set pretty high standards.

For people like me, we loved AC for it's heavily interconnected storyline, modern day story, First Civilization mythology and the episodic nature of the games and their cliffhangers, so when Ubisoft traded that for self-contained stories that are more focused on historical tourism and multiplayer than on actual story-telling and tying up the loose ends, it is only predictable to see those of us who loved the games for the elements of the classic style to not feel as good about the new ones as they used to, before.

For example, the addition of multiplayer, co-op, heists, many outfits, huge city and many NPCs or even gameplay mechanics themselves aren't gonna make me feel better about the game, if the interconnected story and lore were not there. Go back to ACII and add many outfits for Ezio like ACU and more NPCs, and I'll be happy because I loved the story, I loved the lore, I loved the protagonist and the interconnectedness in addition to the modern day and First Civ..etc. so those will be a beautiful edition.

So to me, those stuff are more of a decoration, but the core is what really matters. That's why nostalgia always makes me compare and want that style back so much.

Altair1789
02-16-2015, 07:08 PM
You make some good points here.Indeed ACU really improved on many aspects.But i didn't like the story that much,so...
As for the climbing,i fear that the rumored grappling hook will make it even more automatic and easier than before
And finally,i disagree with you on ACIV.It may have had a rural environment,but it featured maybe one of the best stories of the series(that explored the Creed),while also adding solid stealth mechanics

I think the grappling hook won't be too intrusive. It'll probably only be usable in certain areas or places with a specific type of cieling

kingo757
02-16-2015, 08:00 PM
Assassin Creed 1 (PS3) know that was a game, and that was an amazing story line. We are at AC Unity now 6 games down the road I dont know if its just me, but wow I am so lost with the story line I dont know what the hell is going on. Desmond died (which was stupid), we have these sages running around, I havent seen any really hard prove of this first civilization for awhile. Paris um Paris well I dont even know what I am doing in Paris or fighting for. Can we get back to the story line and start making the rest of the AC games like AC1 but with newer upgrades. Thank U.

king-hailz
02-16-2015, 08:26 PM
Well maybe it is a bit about nostalgia, however if they release a game that is worthy to be claimed the best in the series I will say it is better than AC2. I personally played AC2 first, I loved it! I played ACB and loved it but not as much as AC2. I played revelations and was shocked at how much I loved the story, it is a very very close second! AC3 came out and I was shocked at how much I hated it, mainly because of the terrible controls, the voice acting I thought wasn't as good, and many other things. However at that point when I said it was terrible I got attacked at because I was only saying it because I played AC2 and had nostalgia. I then played AC4, and before I speak about that I will tell you that I tell most people that when I played and play AC2 I get that special feeling... people say it was nostalgia, bit that is the same feeling I had when I first played it and the feeling I had when I first played AC4. I really loved AC4 it had become my new second favorite. And I agree that it is the most Assassins creed related game we have had. Thenew came unity and this was just a bad game... I thought it was a terrible story, loads of bugs, and other things that just didn't work.

Now the biggest problem people have who feel as the games go on they get worse is because ubisoft milked the heck out of this franchise, the original idea of being a trilogy would have had varied responses from people thinking which one was the best... The just carried thus series too long and they all came out too quick and that damaged the reputation and quality for hundreds of fans... It was u bus of to greed that did that, even if they future games are great they will always have this problem. I would say that they need to stop to keep the dignity of this franchise but it's been tarnished so much that it's too late... All we can do is move on..

Assassin_M
02-17-2015, 12:02 AM
I don't really belong in any of the options as I think that AC I is better than some of the new games but as the same time, I think AC II is the worst one. So, i'll just say that they'v all been great games and I never want a game to replicate any feelings from earlier entries.

playlisting
02-17-2015, 12:29 AM
I'd like them to redesign the ACII combat and make it AC1's since the combat was pretty boring at best. Keep the archetypes and such, but change the feel of the combat to resemble the former. Secondly, give Ezio his E3 2009 Demo outfit. Lastly, give it a memory replay on Story missions because it was supposed to have it but due to the amount of time needed to test the memory replay on Story missions it couldn't be done.

What was the difference between 1 and 2's combat? From the gameplay videos I've seen of 1, mechanically, they look the same to me. And after just watching the E3 demo what's the difference between the E3 outfit and the one in the final release? I agree with the last part.

EmbodyingSeven5
02-17-2015, 01:51 AM
I honestly don't know. AC 2 was my first open world game and my first AC. engaging the hidden blade in the city gave me a cool and unique feeling. while playing through the games that feeling faded. I honestly don't think I could feel like I did in the first few ACs with each instalment getting pooped out on an annual schedule. I feel like the game I get now is just a ubi cash in on their fans.

SixKeys
02-17-2015, 02:11 AM
What was the difference between 1 and 2's combat? From the gameplay videos I've seen of 1, mechanically, they look the same to me. And after just watching the E3 demo what's the difference between the E3 outfit and the one in the final release? I agree with the last part.

AC2's counter had a much wider window than AC1. Getting a hidden blade counter in AC1 took good timing, in AC2 you can just hold down the button forever. AC1 guards were able to do some moves that AC2 guards couldn't, like kicking Alta´r in the stomach so he falls to his knees or throwing him on the ground. In AC2 only Ezio could pick up and throw guards, and they couldn't make him fall down (except with a heavy weapon blow, IIRC). In AC1 you can do light attacks by tapping the attack button, or heavy attacks (harder to block) by holding down the button. In AC2 if you wanted to do heavy attacks, you had to buy the upgrades with cash. AC2 enemies could not perform these upgraded attacks (like using a spear to swipe you off your feet) but AC1 enemies could perform heavy attacks on Alta´r. There may be more but that's all I remember at the moment.

LoyalACFan
02-17-2015, 07:48 AM
I think the real problem I personally have with the series now is that they're biting off more than they can chew. Not just with the annual releases (Unity and Rogue launching the same year was too much, let's be honest with ourselves) but with the type and amount of content they're presenting in each game. I think too often we as gamers fall into the trap of thinking that bigger = better, while forgetting that the games we all loved a few years ago really weren't all that big. AC1 thru Revelations were actually not very big games, they just had meaningful content in the places where it mattered; hefty stories and thematically relevant side quests (we can quibble over AC2's beat-up missions, but come on, there were like four of them total). Sure, there were some useless collectibles here and there, but usually not much more than a hundred per game and they were relatively easy to find if you cared.

Now, contrast that approach with that of the later games; relatively light on story, but absolutely chock-f**king-full of meaningless, uninspired sidequests and literally THOUSANDS of collectibles. Unity had by far the best main mission design in the series, but the main story was so short it barely had time to make use of the blackbox approach. Afterwards you're left with a map boasting hundreds of available missions, but every single one of them is just another "hi, I'm historical figure X, go fetch some sh*t for me in that restricted area" scenario. The sheer amount of stuff there is to do detracts from the overall quality of the content itself. Instead of a hundred good missions like we had in the old games, we now get half a thousand mediocre ones and maybe ten or twelve excellent ones.

I think the best illustration of this is AC3 vs. AC4. Yeah, obviously AC4 was technically a newer game, but many reviewers felt it was a return to the classic structure of AC. And it was; the story was lengthy and well-paced (not stuffing its main character into the back 2/3 of its length :rolleyes:) and the sidequests being presented, while limited, were actually fun. Whaling has its own gameplay and set of animations, as do underwater diving and searching for buried treasure. On the other hand, AC3 offered FAR more sidequest strands, but all of them were obviously half-baked ideas slapped together for the final release. I don't even want to hear anyone leaping to the defense of things like delivery requests,frontiersman tales, club challenges, or those mind-numbingly stupid "assassination contracts." All of them were badly explained and added ZERO interesting things on the gameplay front.

So, TL;DR version of this one man's opinion; trim the fatty excess that bogged down AC3 and Unity and relocate those man-hours to delivering a meaty core experience with a few unique sidequest diversions. And for the love of everything holy, stop shoving Initiates/Companion App/Social Challenges/Transmedia/Assorted Other Bullcrap in our faces. If you MUST include it, make it totally optional with no ULC behind it. Actually scratch that, just leave it out completely. It blows, and everyone has told you so.

VestigialLlama4
02-17-2015, 09:52 AM
AC2 enemies could not perform these upgraded attacks (like using a spear to swipe you off your feet) but AC1 enemies could perform heavy attacks on Alta´r. There may be more but that's all I remember at the moment.

I am sorry, but guards can sweep you off with the spear in AC2, it's happened to me quite a few times.

phoenix-force411
02-17-2015, 12:29 PM
What was the difference between 1 and 2's combat? From the gameplay videos I've seen of 1, mechanically, they look the same to me. And after just watching the E3 demo what's the difference between the E3 outfit and the one in the final release? I agree with the last part.

Difference between 1 and 2's combat:
- Health system is different. In AC1, you lose a sync segment per hit(stronger guards reduce you by 2 segments), and you had no medicines. Sync segments do recover over time, but slowly during combat. In AC2, it seems that the more health you have, the more health squares you lose per hit, but then you can survive more hits with more squares. Also, you had medicines and it is impossible to die with full medicines.
- Both AC1 and 2 have combo kill, and both can be executed when the enemy's life is low enough(enemy health bars are not displayed in 1). It requires that you hit the attack button upon your sword making contact with their sword or their bodies to successfully initiate a combo kill. The only difference here is that AC1's combo kill executes immediately whereas AC2's had Ezio come to a complete stop and then he executes it upon the next attack which looks ridiculously fake. Also, AC2 had weapon wave to always help the player tell when their combo is successful and when it fails as indicated by the color of the wave. Red for combo fail, and blue for successful combo streak.
- The countering windows for weapons for AC1 and AC2 are what separates both combat systems dramatically. AC1's countering windows differ with each weapon, whereas AC2's only one weapon had a short countering window. For AC1, the sword had the longer countering window, but it is nowhere as long as AC2's; the dagger had a much less countering window; and the hidden blade required perfect timing. AC2's only short countering window was the hidden blade which required a perfect timing window too, but then you were at less of a risk of being hit since you can block with the bracer. The hidden blade counters in AC1 kills EVERYTHING, and when I mean "everything," I mean EVERYTHING. You can even kill the last boss with it and it would save you like 10 minutes of boss fighting. In AC2, that was not the case, and you could not instantly kill certain enemies that were not scripted to die at that part of the game. Lastly, the dodging window in AC1 is much smaller compared to AC2's, obviously.
- Being countered in AC1 would damage you, and the damage you receive will be based upon the enemy archetype. In AC2, being countered would not hurt you.
- Enemies can break your guard(only guards that can actually counter you can perform all three counters), counter your grab, and counter your attacks in AC1, but in AC2, they could only counter your attack, your grab(depending on the enemy's current health), and the enemies that don't have sword or dagger are the only ones that can bypass your guard. You are pretty much invincible if you block the entire time against sword and dagger enemies in AC2.
- AC1 required you to be more observant on the status of your enemies. If you see a scared guard, you can actually land a free hit on them, and if you had the hidden blade equipped you can actually insta-kill them. Downed guards that are thrown to the ground can be insta-killed with the hidden blade, but you will opened to attacks while you have your hidden blade equipped. In AC2, you can insta-kill grounded enemies too, but you do not need to worry about switching to your hidden blade as it was an offensive and defensive weapon.
- Lastly, your sword damage and the current combat skills you currently have will either hinder you or help you. In AC1, you can't just run to a Templar knight and hope to kill them with such a weak sword, because you won't have the necessary combat skills to take them on yet. For example: If you didn't have counter kill yet, the Templar knight could easily dispatch you because you are pretty much defenseless and you have no countering abilities. In AC2, most of the necessary things you need to kill anything is given to you from the start.



Difference between E3 2009 Demo costume and in-game costume:
- E3 2009 Costume: This costume contains more visible designs on the front of Ezio's robes; the spaulder for Ezio's cape is leather like the spaulders on the armors, but it doesn't cover the right shoulder, it has a unique design on it, and it is a much lighter color; the secondary hidden blade is attached to a right hand leather glove instead; the boots are the leather armor boots; and lastly, the cape is darker



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JOn4qp7SpVA/TFw38w2kntI/AAAAAAAACfc/EDB5dDoklfI/s1600/47552_AssassinsCreed2-Ezio.png
http://files.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/180066_S/Assassins-Creed-II.jpg


- In-game costume: This costume contains less visible designs on the front of the robes; the spaulder for Ezio's cape is very simplistic, different fabric, and bares no similarity to the E3 2009 Costume's spaulder; the secondary hidden blade is introduced with another bracer, the default boots are not the leather armor boots; and lastly, the cape is lighter.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111201034133/assassinscreed/images/a/ad/Ezio-plainrobes-ac2.png

VestigialLlama4
02-17-2015, 12:45 PM
Difference between E3 2009 Demo costume and in-game costume:
- E3 2009 Costume: This costume contains more visible designs on the front of Ezio's robes; the spaulder for Ezio's cape is leather like the spaulders on the armors, but it doesn't cover the right shoulder, it has a unique design on it, and it is a much lighter color; the secondary hidden blade is attached to a right hand leather glove instead; the boots are the leather armor boots; and lastly, the cape is darker

In other words, there is no real difference at all. Thank you for clarifying that.

phoenix-force411
02-17-2015, 01:09 PM
In other words, there is no real difference at all. Thank you for clarifying that.

Not a lot, and only minor, but the defining part of the costume was the secondary blade. That is what ticks off those who did not like the cosmetic changes in the final product. You asked for the differences, and I gave you the contrasts of both. While appearing largely identical, they have defining differences that separates them apart.

ACSisterHood
02-17-2015, 01:14 PM
Playing online, I sometimes miss Brotherhood because of the characters/maps. And now, it is a bit different and there are a few things that annoy me.

So it all depends I guess, but it's probaly a reason why I haven't bought or looked at the new AC games latley.

playlisting
02-17-2015, 06:03 PM
I think the real problem I personally have with the series now is that they're biting off more than they can chew. Not just with the annual releases (Unity and Rogue launching the same year was too much, let's be honest with ourselves)

Agreed. Unity was very unpolished and buggy upon release, and while a lot of the bugs have been removed, it's still not very fun - particularly on consoles - due to the performance. Running around paris at 20-25 FPS is not a fun experience which is primarily why I haven't finished it. Still waiting on a patch that fixes the problem though I'm concerned I'll never see it. I think Rouge was more polished but it was on the same engine as AC4 so the team knew how to use it properly. Unity was FAR too ambitious. The ridiculous thing is they announced Victory while Unity was still in a broken state (which to this day it still kind of is - game still needs some hefty patching). What a great way to get people hyped! Announce a new game after you've just made an arse of the last one!


Now, contrast that approach with that of the later games; relatively light on story, but absolutely chock-f**king-full of meaningless, uninspired sidequests and literally THOUSANDS of collectibles.

Also true. The thing that I don't like is that the total sync level always feels a bit forced on you. It's always somewhere. In AC1-Revelations the sync level was mostly out of the way and was only to be seen if you wanted to. Not to mention that ALL collectibles are permanently on the map now - so even if you don't want to collect them all - you're still forced to have them clutter up your map. I liked it when I was just running along and I'd see the chest out the corner of my eye somewhere. It felt a bit more rewarding.


You're left with a map boasting hundreds of available missions, but every single one of them is just another "hi, I'm historical figure X, go fetch some sh*t for me in that restricted area" scenario. The sheer amount of stuff there is to do detracts from the overall quality of the content itself. Instead of a hundred good missions like we had in the old games, we now get half a thousand mediocre ones and maybe ten or twelve excellent ones.

+1. Quality > quantity.


I think the best illustration of this is AC3 vs. AC4. Yeah, obviously AC4 was technically a newer game, but many reviewers felt it was a return to the classic structure of AC. And it was; the story was lengthy and well-paced and the sidequests being presented, while limited, were actually fun. Whaling has its own gameplay and set of animations, as do underwater diving and searching for buried treasure.

Yeah Assassin's Creed 4's side missions were good fun. The fact that we were in the West Indies made it even better with the whaling and diving as you mentioned.


So, TL;DR version of this one man's opinion; trim the fatty excess that bogged down AC3 and Unity and relocate those man-hours to delivering a meaty core experience with a few unique sidequest diversions. And for the love of everything holy, stop shoving Initiates/Companion App/Social Challenges/Transmedia/Assorted Other Bullcrap in our faces. If you MUST include it, make it totally optional with no ULC behind it. Actually scratch that, just leave it out completely. It blows, and everyone has told you so.

Again, I agree. The apps are annoying and should be entirely optional (which they kind of are, but if you don't sign up for the app - you can't get 100%). More story content please :D

king-hailz
02-17-2015, 07:38 PM
When they made assassins creed they made it so that the hid the design. However after releasing a game every year for 7 years that have the exact same formula we see the design automatically, it's become more of a software then an experience.

TexasCaesar
02-19-2015, 10:54 PM
I think the games have generally gotten better. I'd even say that Ubisoft's main problem isn't that they don't innovate enough, but that they try to reinvent the wheel, throwing out good features of previous games in their search for novelty.

AC1 = Not that good, honestly.
AC2 = Classic AC.
AC3 = Best game for being an assassin.
AC4 = Best pirate game of all time, but not exactly an assassin game, you know?
Unity = The swordfighting and navigation were improved, but it practically embodies "one step forward and two steps back".

EmbodyingSeven5
02-20-2015, 12:28 AM
I think a better climax for AC3 shouldve involved Desmond kidnapping Daniel Cross and then torturing him for information, which of course is all player controlled and the player is presented with several options on how to torture Daniel Cross such as waterboarding, cigar burns, beehives, listening to Phil Collins, or reading 50 Shades of Grey thus bringing the AC concept of freedom to its max potential. Of course, to prevent this from being too dark and to prevent the player from feeling like a monster while doing this, music such as The Pogues' Rake at the Gates of Hell, Lynyrd Skynyrd's Sweet Home Alabama, and the theme song from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic can be played to lighten up the mood of the torture scene and make the player feel like a dashing heroic charismatic badass who can do no wrong.

So after killing and torturing Daniel Cross, Desmond learns that William being put on a passenger plane but then Desmond catches up to it on a motorcycle and he kills all the abstergo people on board.

Then Desmond flies the plane into Abstergo's headquarters and gives Warren Vidic the finger before he and William parachute out and the plane crashes into Abstergo and levels the building and sets Rome on fire for twenty blocks all around.

I think gamers would've loved this much more than what was in the game.
still would have been better than what actually happened. lol

m4r-k7
02-20-2015, 01:03 AM
I think the games have generally gotten better. I'd even say that Ubisoft's main problem isn't that they don't innovate enough, but that they try to reinvent the wheel, throwing out good features of previous games in their search for novelty.

AC1 = Not that good, honestly.
AC2 = Classic AC.
AC3 = Best game for being an assassin.
AC4 = Best pirate game of all time, but not exactly an assassin game, you know?
Unity = The swordfighting and navigation were improved, but it practically embodies "one step forward and two steps back".

Lemme correct this xD

AC1 = Classic AC
AC 2 = Best AC
AC 3 = Best game for being a badass warrior
AC 4 = Best pirate game of all time tied in nicely with assassins
Unity = Trying to get back to classic AC but ultimately failed in many areas.

Altair1789
02-20-2015, 01:26 AM
IN MY EYES this is how it is:

AC1= Classic AC, amazing game back in 2007
AC2= Started AC hype
(apparently we're leaving out brotherhood and revelations)
AC3= Most intense story, sometimes had boring gameplay, kinda lost a few of the traditional AC elements
AC4= Very fun, pretty good story
Unity= Agreed- 1 step forward, 2 steps back. I loved the combat though.


I think a better climax for AC3 shouldve involved Desmond kidnapping Daniel Cross and then torturing him for information, which of course is all player controlled and the player is presented with several options on how to torture Daniel Cross such as waterboarding, cigar burns, beehives, listening to Phil Collins, or reading 50 Shades of Grey thus bringing the AC concept of freedom to its max potential. Of course, to prevent this from being too dark and to prevent the player from feeling like a monster while doing this, music such as The Pogues' Rake at the Gates of Hell, Lynyrd Skynyrd's Sweet Home Alabama, and the theme song from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic can be played to lighten up the mood of the torture scene and make the player feel like a dashing heroic charismatic badass who can do no wrong.

So after killing and torturing Daniel Cross, Desmond learns that William being put on a passenger plane but then Desmond catches up to it on a motorcycle and he kills all the abstergo people on board.

Then Desmond flies the plane into Abstergo's headquarters and gives Warren Vidic the finger before he and William parachute out and the plane crashes into Abstergo and levels the building and sets Rome on fire for twenty blocks all around.

I think gamers would've loved this much more than what was in the game.

This actually would've worked pretty well

playlisting
02-20-2015, 03:00 AM
I think a third option needs to be included in the poll:

No, the latest games just aren't as good.

Assassin's Creed 4 excluded, the newer games aren't as much fun as the older games. I'm playing through the series again and I'm still having tonnes of fun on the older ones particularly the Ezio trilogy