PDA

View Full Version : The Problem With Change



king-hailz
04-14-2015, 10:23 AM
We all know that this is a business everything down with these games is for money, and there is nothing wrong with that because that's what everything in the world is done for. When you think of it as a business you have to see that certain things from the brand sell and certain things don't. Some things are sacred to the brand you have created and somethings aren't. The things that make up the brand should never be taken away, they can be altered slightly but they can't be taken away. It's what made people like the series and what made people buy the later games.

Assassins creed gave us a amazing historical setting with a story of tow factions and a secret conspiracy in the present day, it gave us things like synchronisation points, leaps of faith and hidden blades. They have altered certain things and have tried to keep things to keep fans coming for the game. I believe that things like the accents are important to the games, sound is extremely important in games, and to see that they gave us a British accent in unity that went completely against what the games were like before was kinda annoying. Also to see a game that had a certain style to its soundtrack and music was turned into a generic soundtrack that you would hear in any of the 100 action movies coming out this year was also annoying. Most annoying was the compete negligence towards the modern day, people obviously said that the didn't like the modern day in the games, however that didn't stop them buying the games and it's because many people love it!

So all in all I think they should realise what are the actual staples of the series that people love and the things that they can change! I loved the pirate ships in AC4, but that wasn't a staple of the series that the series in known for! They should see that the mysterious feeling, the conspiracys, the eeriness, is all as important as the hidden blades and the historical settings because that's what people associate this series with. That is what most of they should have kept.

The_Kiwi_
04-14-2015, 11:12 AM
The only problem I have with change is that Ubisoft changes the games to cater to the demands of casual twelvies who b*tch and moan about the games because it isn't like Call of Duty
Ubisoft needs to block out all feedback and criticism from the outside and make their own game the way they want to
They need to put real thought into it instead of sending out surveys
Kiwi be protest to Ubi

Shahkulu101
04-14-2015, 11:16 AM
They need to stop making games by spreadsheet and committee. The insincerity in their games is palpable - they are still fun experiences and you can see some passion there, but it's as if they're treating games - art - like a science with regards to their overly similar, cold and indifferent open world franchises.

Markaccus
04-14-2015, 11:25 AM
The only problem I have with change is that Ubisoft changes the games to cater to the demands of casual twelvies who b*tch and moan about the games because it isn't like Call of Duty
Ubisoft needs to block out all feedback and criticism from the outside and make their own game the way they want to
They need to put real thought into it instead of sending out surveys
Kiwi be protest to Ubi

The CoD comunity in general are the biggest bunch of awful, elitist gamer-snobs it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. If you are anything other than a run-and-gun expert who spends 10 hours a day shooting and swearing at people who have a life outside of CoD, then you are "noob" (a word i f**king HATE) and should not be playing their precious game......

To make this post about AC..... the AC comunity dont agree on everything, but at least they rarely call each other "noobs" for liking different aspects of each game. I do think ubi should listen to feedback to some degree, but they should not be designing each new game by international comitee

Namikaze_17
04-14-2015, 12:21 PM
Things change. Sometimes it's best to either adapt or take a break if you're dissatisfied.

That said, I rather don't mind how things have become. Sure, it's different, but I welcome it completely.

Besides, things staying the same basic formula as you described would eventually get stagnant and boring too you know.

pirate1802
04-14-2015, 12:21 PM
They need to stop making games by spreadsheet and committee. The insincerity in their games is palpable - they are still fun experiences and you can see some passion there, but it's as if they're treating games - art - like a science with regards to their overly similar, cold and indifferent open world franchises.

This post is beautiful.

I agree with every bit of it. It's very much evident in ubisoft's recent games, which, while fun, feel like designed to mark checklists. They feel more like science than art, as you said. (Damn, that line has occurred to me as well.)

Shahkulu101
04-14-2015, 12:31 PM
This post is beautiful.

I agree with every bit of it. It's very much evident in ubisoft's recent games, which, while fun, feel like designed to mark checklists. They feel more like science than art, as you said. (Damn, that line has occurred to me as well.)

Sank you very mach

king-hailz
04-14-2015, 01:27 PM
Things change. Sometimes it's best to either adapt or take a break if you're dissatisfied.

That said, I rather don't mind how things have become. Sure, it's different, but I welcome it completely.

Besides, things staying the same basic formula as you described would eventually get stagnant and boring too you know.

I disagree. It wouldn't get boring, it would only get boring and feel the same if they released the game too often and released too many of them. Look at franchises like batman, uncharted, mortal kombat and many others! Uncharted 1 isn't much different than uncharted 4 except from graphics and same goes for the others... mortal kombat has obviously changed a lot because its been around for so long! However they are still pretty much the same games, fatalities, gore, cheesy comedy, crazy characters...

So they wouldn't get Boring if they still had accents, modern day story, conspiracies etc... because if they would get boring then people would have gotten bored of the historical setting aspect as well as the hidden blade and the assassin and templar story...

There are really no franchises that change within the series...

Farlander1991
04-14-2015, 01:36 PM
There are really no franchises that change within the series...

Final Fantasy
Dawn of War
Thief
Tomb Raider
Age of Empires
Deus Ex
Doom
Prince of Persia
XCOM
WarCraft
Diablo
Monkey Island
The Witcher
Gothic
Far Cry
Rayman
Batman Arkham series (more precisely the difference between Asylum and City/Origins/Knight)
And that's not even the beginning of the list.

And even if the genres in those franchises may stay the same, design principles, focus, and sometimes even the core mechanics change (not to mention the side mechanics that change far more often).

This happens all the time as time goes on.

ACZanius
04-14-2015, 01:40 PM
"Change never comes without pain" Adam Jensen ;9

Namikaze_17
04-14-2015, 02:00 PM
I disagree. It wouldn't get boring, it would only get boring and feel the same if they released the game too often and released too many of them. Look at franchises like batman, uncharted, mortal kombat and many others! Uncharted 1 isn't much different than uncharted 4 except from graphics and same goes for the others... mortal kombat has obviously changed a lot because its been around for so long! However they are still pretty much the same games, fatalities, gore, cheesy comedy, crazy characters...

So they wouldn't get Boring if they still had accents, modern day story, conspiracies etc... because if they would get boring then people would have gotten bored of the historical setting aspect as well as the hidden blade and the assassin and templar story...

There are really no franchises that change within the series...

By change, I mean innovation. And with innovation, I mean the different aspects AC sometimes take to make the games feel refreshing.
( I.e Frontier, Naval)

It's these things that make me realize AC has the potential to be whatever it pleases than a specific format that I find limiting, and would eventually get stale whether annual or not.

However, should they get rid of the core aspects that make AC what it is? No, of course not.

But can it become more? I believe so.

king-hailz
04-14-2015, 02:08 PM
By change, I mean innovation. And with innovation, I mean the different aspects AC sometimes take to make the games feel refreshing.
( I.e Frontier, Naval)

It's these things that make realize AC has the potential to be whatever it pleases than a specific format that I find limiting.

As I said before I loves the naval! I want innovation! But don't you think adding naval combat is more innovative than British accents, there is nothing innovative about completely abandoning certain aspects that people have grown to expect..

Also I really don't think the series someone mentioned before changed that much... games don't change much... batman arkham asylum has the EXACT same controls fighting style, graphic style, storytelling as all of them. They only add little things like 'fear takedowns' however recently the batmobile does change a little bit but not much if you think about it... However that's not a problem with batman you can say there is nothing wrong with no change because you don't need to change what ain't broke. With Assassins creed they should have spent more time fixing it then anything else really...

EmptyCrustacean
04-14-2015, 02:10 PM
Agree OP, nothing wrong with a little change and innovation
but getting rid of the FUNDAMENTAL elements that give the game its identity suggests that ubi thinks there's something wrong with AC as a brand.
Unity took away stuff for the sake of it and added stuff that other games do so much better like customisation. Focus on what makes AC great; don't try to be like everyone else.

Shahkulu101
04-14-2015, 02:19 PM
Agree OP, nothing wrong with a little change and innovation
but getting rid of the FUNDAMENTAL elements that give the game its identity suggests that ubi thinks there's something wrong with AC as a brand.
Unity took away stuff for the sake of it and added stuff that other games do so much better like customisation. Focus on what makes AC great; don't try to be like everyone else.

Unity took away stuff that was either useless (i.e only there to look cool) or stuff that was far too OP. The only exception is whistling.

Hardly for the sake of it.

Farlander1991
04-14-2015, 02:23 PM
batman arkham asylum has the EXACT same controls fighting style, graphic style, storytelling as all of them. They only add little things like 'fear takedowns' however recently the batmobile does change a little bit but not much if you think about it...

Mate, there are reasons why there are lots of arguments between people 'which is better: Asylum or City', it's because not changing the core doesn't mean that the game hasn't changed considerably.
Arkham City is NOT an extension of Arkham Asylum. Asylum is a Metroidvania title, Arkham is an open world game with several unique in-door levels. Despite the mechanics being mostly the same, there are huge differences in how the environment is designed, how the player progresses, and how the game itself feels (I personally prefer Asylum to City).

Heck, the very first sequel of AC has changed ****tons of stuff in relativity to AC1. It has a different mission structure, a different mission and narrative design philosophy, AC2 is not an extension of AC1, it's a different game based on AC1 mechanics (which is why, again, there are lots of people here on this very forum who like AC2 and don't like AC1 and vice versa). Extension of AC1 is, in fact, ACU (and partially ACIV, as far as it could with having everything based on the AC2-AC3 part of the series).

king-hailz
04-14-2015, 03:26 PM
Mate, there are reasons why there are lots of arguments between people 'which is better: Asylum or City', it's because not changing the core doesn't mean that the game hasn't changed considerably.
Arkham City is NOT an extension of Arkham Asylum. Asylum is a Metroidvania title, Arkham is an open world game with several unique in-door levels. Despite the mechanics being mostly the same, there are huge differences in how the environment is designed, how the player progresses, and how the game itself feels (I personally prefer Asylum to City).

Heck, the very first sequel of AC has changed ****tons of stuff in relativity to AC1. It has a different mission structure, a different mission and narrative design philosophy, AC2 is not an extension of AC1, it's a different game based on AC1 mechanics (which is why, again, there are lots of people here on this very forum who like AC2 and don't like AC1 and vice versa). Extension of AC1 is, in fact, ACU (and partially ACIV, as far as it could with having everything based on the AC2-AC3 part of the series).

Yeah that is completely true, however when I say change I mean by things that change the identity of the original game, you don't see franchises that change the game from something like ACR, which felt completely different to ac3, different graphic style and feeling of the game... They are good games but they aren't good AC games because they don't have the same identity or feel as previous...

A good example is of what you said, AC2 was extremely innovative compared to AC1 however it still gave the same feel with the type of music the mystery and the eeriness... AC3 innovated but got rid of those aspects...

Sushiglutton
04-14-2015, 03:58 PM
They need to stop making games by spreadsheet and committee. The insincerity in their games is palpable - they are still fun experiences and you can see some passion there, but it's as if they're treating games - art - like a science with regards to their overly similar, cold and indifferent open world franchises.

Not bad Scottish squirrel!

AC seems to be runned by accountants and engineers, rather than passionate game creators. The innovations for Unity were things that were interesting from an engineering pov (aka crowds and interiors), or accountant pov (aka new revenue streams). The content (there's no shortage of it) consists of bitsized, easily varied and massproduced mini-missions that lack soul.

I wish they gave the keys of the franchise to some mad-genius with the order to create a holistic, authentic experience. Everything should add to the overall feel/immersion of the game.

Shahkulu101
04-14-2015, 04:21 PM
Not bad Scottish squirrel!

AC seems to be runned by accountants and engineers, rather than passionate game creators. The innovations for Unity were things that were interesting from an engineering pov (aka crowds and interiors), or accountant pov (aka new revenue streams). The content (there's no shortage of it) consists of bitsized, easily varied and massproduced mini-missions that lack soul.

I wish they gave the keys of the franchise to some mad-genius with the order to create a holistic, authentic experience. Everything should add to the overall feel/immersion of the game.

I think that's a harsh verdict, it might be true to some extent but I doubt any game can be created without any passion whatsoever.

You bring up a good point about Unity though, despite marginally improved core mechanics the game feels really lifeless. The side missions consist of repetitive, simply made objectives with no real context or purpose to them. They're just there in the name of content and nothing else, not to mention they completely lack production values. You're provided with a few lines of incredibly dry dialogue, or worse still a wall of text, to motivate you for the next mission. AC2-ACB had those too in the assassination contracts, but there was only 30 or so of those as opposed to the 75 in Unity (Paris Stories + Social Club Missions) and they didn't make up the bulk of the side missions. In addition to that you had the very well-produced, narratively meaningful tombs for instance.

The team also didn't seem to have any passion for the time period either, the story was totally disconnected from the time period and the portrayal of the French Revolution was completely false and uninteresting. I get that they were trying to avoid another AC3 Forrest Gump situation but they key is to find a balance, they went in the opposite direction which is just as bad. The art team did a fantastic job with the beautiful city, but that's all just artificial window dressing.

I still enjoyed the game, but it just lacked that spark that made me love the series in the first place.

VestigialLlama4
04-14-2015, 06:25 PM
Extension of AC1 is, in fact, ACU (and partially ACIV, as far as it could with having everything based on the AC2-AC3 part of the series).

That actually makes me wonder if the Core mechanics (as introduced in AC1) is ultimately what AC is really about? Because if UNITY's only claim is returning and going back to the series core (which some harcore crowd claim has been abandoned by all the "forgettable" titles in-between), then why should anyone spend a great deal of money on UNITY instead of playing AC1 again? Are the missions in UNITY better than AC1? Are the characters better? Are the villains better? Is the story better? is it decent as history? Shouldn't the ideal UNITY experience be a game that removes all cutscenes, all dialogue and simply let you mindlessly kill without purpose and context in all kinds of stealthy, sexy ways?

When I say what AC is really about? I mean what the franchise as a whole represents. Why people still buy and play games, why there is so much excitement and discussion about new periods. And I think the point is these games are flexible and have this capacity for changes and shifts. I think until Rogue and Unity, every AC title was distinguishable and unique, even the three Ezio games are fairly different from each other. I mean even if Brotherhood starts where AC2 ends, from the first moment you play Brotherhood, the tone and feel is totally different from AC2.

Honestly, I don't think the franchise is in any need of fixing because what the games were always about was trying to change and bring something new. So long as developers have some passion for the games that they are making, AC will be interesting. A by-the-number title with no guts and no innovations like UNITY and ROGUE will not work.

EmptyCrustacean
04-14-2015, 06:38 PM
Unity took away stuff that was either useless (i.e only there to look cool) or stuff that was far too OP. The only exception is whistling.

Hardly for the sake of it.

I've already listed a number of features that they took away when they could have kept it and still maintained difficulty in a previous thread but I'll repost one example for you:


And where combat is concerned, this is a prime example of how Ubisoft confused 'improving' with taking stuff away. They already increased the AI responsiveness and agressiveness which is the most important element when making combat harder. NOT how you, as a player, performs but how your enemies do becuase you cannot PREDICT your enemies' moves. This is great. But then they took away features in combat that was fun. What they could have done, for instance, with the ability to grab an enemy when another enemy is shooting is not display a red target mark on screen to let us know when an enemy is shooting. And why not have another enemy attack you when you attempt to grab an enemy? That way you maintain the difficulty but you don't lose the features that have shaped the combat thus far. That's basically what the Arkham games do. Batman can do all kinds of stuff but because the enemies all attack at once you have to find ways of outsmarting them with gadgets and strategy. Don't just hack away at features of the core, refine them.

Shahkulu101
04-14-2015, 06:54 PM
That actually makes me wonder if the Core mechanics (as introduced in AC1) is ultimately what AC is really about? Because if UNITY's only claim is returning and going back to the series core (which some harcore crowd claim has been abandoned by all the "forgettable" titles in-between), then why should anyone spend a great deal of money on UNITY instead of playing AC1 again? Are the missions in UNITY better than AC1? Are the characters better? Are the villains better? Is the story better? is it decent as history? Shouldn't the ideal UNITY experience be a game that removes all cutscenes, all dialogue and simply let you mindlessly kill without purpose and context in all kinds of stealthy, sexy ways?

When I say what AC is really about? I mean what the franchise as a whole represents. Why people still buy and play games, why there is so much excitement and discussion about new periods. And I think the point is these games are flexible and have this capacity for changes and shifts. I think until Rogue and Unity, every AC title was distinguishable and unique, even the three Ezio games are fairly different from each other. I mean even if Brotherhood starts where AC2 ends, from the first moment you play Brotherhood, the tone and feel is totally different from AC2.

Honestly, I don't think the franchise is in any need of fixing because what the games were always about was trying to change and bring something new. So long as developers have some passion for the games that they are making, AC will be interesting. A by-the-number title with no guts and no innovations like UNITY and ROGUE will not work.

Look, combat and stealth were objectively terrible mechanics in the past AC games and even in Unity they're bad. I don't want a game that is only focused on the assassination gameplay, that was a problem I had with Unity actually. Assassination should be the main focus IMO (we all have our preferences) but I like a bit of variety here and there and Unity only had about 2-3 main missions that deviated from the formula.

Normally a title like Unity wouldn't get any credit, but the mechanics of the old game were so bad, so dire that it gets points for at least trying to improve them. And hopefully, they'll finally get them right in the next few years. Just compare the stealth and combat mechanics in all the past AC's and compare them to other AAA action titles. They were completely diabolical, rotten and in need of serious refurbishment. Unity went some way towards that, and it deserves credit.

VestigialLlama4
04-14-2015, 07:08 PM
Just compare the stealth and combat mechanics in all the past AC's and compare them to other AAA action titles.

Which AAA titles? Splinter Cell? or Hitman?

AC games are better than them.


Unity went some way towards that, and it deserves credit.

The fact is Assassin's Creed was never about pure combat or pure stealth. It was always this weird mix. The gameplay always did occupy this particular middle ground which gave it that flexibility. The minute it became focused entirely on "Assassination" missions it becomes Hitman in Period Decor

Shahkulu101
04-14-2015, 07:14 PM
Which AAA titles? Splinter Cell? or Hitman?

AC games are better than them.



The fact is Assassin's Creed was never about pure combat or pure stealth. It was always this weird mix. The gameplay always did occupy this particular middle ground which gave it that flexibility. The minute it became focused entirely on "Assassination" missions it becomes Hitman in Period Decor

Yes, pretty much anything. Even Batman has a better stealth system.

And they might be to you, but mechanically they are far superior. You just can't have a game with bad main mechanics, even if it's entertaining on a superficial level.

Yes, and I said in my post I tonight Unity leaned to far into the assassination direction. I'm just asking for the main mechanics to be somewhat competent, I'm not a hardcore extremist.

VestigialLlama4
04-14-2015, 07:23 PM
And they might be to you, but mechanically they are far superior.

That's because they have a fixed purpose of pure stealth and pure combat. The Arkham games have stealth missions as entirely separate levels from combat, you can't play combat in a stealth area and you can't do stealth in a combat area, whereas you have that flexibility in some AC missions.

From the perspective of conventional stealth games where you crawl in vents or a combat game where you have combos and the like, AC has poor mechanics but on its own terms and what it tries to achieve, it's pretty good. AC was never that kind of game where you would move in shadows, crawl in vents, shoot out cameras, dodge lasers or crouch or the like. They had very good reasons not to be that kind of game and they did a great job for the most part.


Yes, and I said in my post I tonight Unity leaned to far into the assassination direction. I'm just asking for the main mechanics to be somewhat competent, I'm not a hardcore extremist.

Its just that people act as if UNITY is a better game (as in a whole) than AC2, AC3, Black Flag or even Revelations and Brotherhood, or the-first-good-game-since-AC1 and I can't find any argument that really sustains that on any level. I get that some people like UNITY for introducing more conventional elements from other games but so what?

Shahkulu101
04-14-2015, 07:41 PM
That's because they have a fixed purpose of pure stealth and pure combat. The Arkham games have stealth missions as entirely separate levels from combat, you can't play combat in a stealth area and you can't do stealth in a combat area, whereas you have that flexibility in some AC missions.

From the perspective of conventional stealth games where you crawl in vents or a combat game where you have combos and the like, AC has poor mechanics but on its own terms and what it tries to achieve, it's pretty good. AC was never that kind of game where you would move in shadows, crawl in vents, shoot out cameras, dodge lasers or crouch or the like. They had very good reasons not to be that kind of game and they did a great job for the most part.



Its just that people act as if UNITY is a better game (as in a whole) than AC2, AC3, Black Flag or even Revelations and Brotherhood, or the-first-good-game-since-AC1 and I can't find any argument that really sustains that on any level. I get that some people like UNITY for introducing more conventional elements from other games but so what?

I'd say it's only better than AC2, Revelations and AC3 personally. I get why people would like AC2 an Revelations more, they're fun games - but AC3? I just found the main missions to be really badly designed, the majority of the side missions utter garbage and the locations with the exception of the Frontier - which is pretty but devoid of any great content - to be really unappealing. Which was a shame since the story and protagonist were pretty great.

With AC2, I fail to see why it's considered the best in the series still. It was when it came, but the gameplay elements that it introduced where improved in subsequent titles. Narratively I don't understand by it's beloved either when it story is so cliched, with entirely black and white Templars and a stereotypical Casanova protagonist. You say Unity is a disgrace for not taking any risks, well AC2 was completely safe too. All of AC's original elements, including the morally ambiguous story, were streamlined for the lowest common denominator because they were scared the series wouldn't sell if they iterated on AC1. It's the definition of a safe, unambitious title.

VestigialLlama4
04-14-2015, 07:57 PM
I'd say it's only better than AC2, Revelations and AC3 personally. I get why people would like AC2 an Revelations more, they're fun games - but AC3? I just found the main missions to be really badly designed, the majority of the side missions utter garbage and the locations with the exception of the Frontier - which is pretty but devoid of any great content - to be really unappealing. Which was a shame since the story and protagonist were pretty great.

With AC2, I fail to see why it's considered the best in the series still. It was when it came, but the gameplay elements that it introduced where improved in subsequent titles. Narratively I don't understand by it's beloved either when it story is so cliched, with entirely black and white Templars and a stereotypical Casanova protagonist. You say Unity is a disgrace for not taking any risks, well AC2 was completely safe too. All of AC's original elements, including the morally ambiguous story, were streamlined for the lowest common denominator because they were scared the series wouldn't sell if they iterated on AC1. It's the definition of a safe, unambitious title.

AC2 was pretty ambitious in that it actually used basic video game mechanics to portray a historical and cultural setting with a great deal of accuracy. And that was reflected in all its layers, the fact that the revenge theme related to the Italian feuding families, the secret societies and occult bits worked as metaphors for the greater knowledge in that period. It was the game where AC became historical tourism, the fantasy of visiting the past, and it also introduced the idea of shifting tones. It moved from a bleak Crusades setting to a high adventure story. It was incredibly ambitious and not at all lowest-common-denominator (A true ldc is say going to the Crusades and having a White Dude become an Assassin or doing a modern-day AC game which so many people ask for but will not like if and when they get it).

In any case the Templars in AC2 were vastly more complex than the ones in UNITY (a pack of semi-dimensional psychopaths whereas the Renaissance ones were fully one dimensional). As for the other games, REVELATIONS is far superior It's-All-About-The-City game with a genuinely modest story. And AC3 is overall the better game than UNITY - more ambitious, more tragic, more innovative (no other game after AC1 introduced as many new elements and new ideas) - and it has a far better excuse for being unsatisfying, it tried too many things, it sinned by excess, whereas UNITY has no such excuses at all, since it fails even on its own modest ambitions.

dxsxhxcx
04-14-2015, 08:27 PM
and it has a far better excuse for being unsatisfying, it tried too many things, it sinned by excess, whereas UNITY has no such excuses at all, since it fails even on its own modest ambitions.

there's no excuse for that, I believe part of the development process is knowing what you can do with the schedule you have and they failed at it, it's too easy to just put the blame on the higher ups for everything wrong that happens with the franchise, they (the higher ups) have a lot to be blamed for, but the developers have their share of guilt as well, after all they are the ones with the know-how to create a game...

EmptyCrustacean
04-14-2015, 08:37 PM
Look, combat and stealth were objectively terrible mechanics in the past AC games and even in Unity they're bad. I don't want a game that is only focused on the assassination gameplay, that was a problem I had with Unity actually. Assassination should be the main focus IMO (we all have our preferences) but I like a bit of variety here and there and Unity only had about 2-3 main missions that deviated from the formula.

Normally a title like Unity wouldn't get any credit, but the mechanics of the old game were so bad, so dire that it gets points for at least trying to improve them. And hopefully, they'll finally get them right in the next few years. Just compare the stealth and combat mechanics in all the past AC's and compare them to other AAA action titles. They were completely diabolical, rotten and in need of serious refurbishment. Unity went some way towards that, and it deserves credit.

Wut? Do you know what 'objectively bad' means? Unless it's quantifiably measurable all opinions here are subjective. For example:
Fact: AC has combat mechanics.
Opinion: AC's combat mechanics sucked.

Now, that's out of the way...

You go on about difficulty level and then say that the first few AC games had terrible mechanics even though the combat and parkour in the first few games are harder than in Black Flag and ACIII combined!

LoyalACFan
04-14-2015, 09:32 PM
Wut? Do you know what 'objectively bad' means? Unless it's quantifiably measurable all opinions here are subjective. For example:
Fact: AC has combat mechanics.
Opinion: AC's combat mechanics sucked.

Now, that's out of the way...

You go on about difficulty level and then say that the first few AC games had terrible mechanics even though the combat and parkour in the first few games are harder than in Black Flag and ACIII combined!

Combat laughably easy even in the first game. "Oh, but you could time your attacks and chain combos!" yeah, or you could win every fight by spamming Counter-Kill. And it's literally impossible to be killed in combat in Brotherhood. Try it. Just sit with your controller on your lap and let some schmuck hack away at you.

As for parkour, AC1-ACR's was no harder than AC3's ilk, you just had to hold an extra button.

Shahkulu101
04-14-2015, 09:36 PM
Wut? Do you know what 'objectively bad' means? Unless it's quantifiably measurable all opinions here are subjective. For example:
Fact: AC has combat mechanics.
Opinion: AC's combat mechanics sucked.

Now, that's out of the way...

You go on about difficulty level and then say that the first few AC games had terrible mechanics even though the combat and parkour in the first few games are harder than in Black Flag and ACIII combined!

Oh Black Flag and AC3 have very flawed combat systems as well - I never denied that. Those games - and Rogue - are included when I say past games. From AC2 onwards their idea of improving the combat system was "add features to make it easier!"

Sushiglutton
04-14-2015, 09:49 PM
I think that's a harsh verdict, it might be true to some extent but I doubt any game can be created without any passion whatsoever.

You bring up a good point about Unity though, despite marginally improved core mechanics the game feels really lifeless. The side missions consist of repetitive, simply made objectives with no real context or purpose to them. They're just there in the name of content and nothing else, not to mention they completely lack production values. You're provided with a few lines of incredibly dry dialogue, or worse still a wall of text, to motivate you for the next mission. AC2-ACB had those too in the assassination contracts, but there was only 30 or so of those as opposed to the 75 in Unity (Paris Stories + Social Club Missions) and they didn't make up the bulk of the side missions. In addition to that you had the very well-produced, narratively meaningful tombs for instance.

The team also didn't seem to have any passion for the time period either, the story was totally disconnected from the time period and the portrayal of the French Revolution was completely false and uninteresting. I get that they were trying to avoid another AC3 Forrest Gump situation but they key is to find a balance, they went in the opposite direction which is just as bad. The art team did a fantastic job with the beautiful city, but that's all just artificial window dressing.

I still enjoyed the game, but it just lacked that spark that made me love the series in the first place.


Yeah, I'm pretty unreasonable and unfair tbh. What can I say, AC has made me bitter :p.

In all honesty most OW games struggle with content imo. I just finished Shadow of Mordor (bought it at launch lol) and the content is worse than say AC4 imo. From what I've heard about Dragon Age it's also filled with very mundane content. It's obv very difficult to create the amount of content gamers seem to demand, while at the same time maintaining some sort of standard.

Best solution imo is to only have structured content of very high quality and then fill out the experience with systemic stuff.

EmptyCrustacean
04-14-2015, 10:11 PM
Combat laughably easy even in the first game. "Oh, but you could time your attacks and chain combos!" yeah, or you could win every fight by spamming Counter-Kill. And it's literally impossible to be killed in combat in Brotherhood. Try it. Just sit with your controller on your lap and let some schmuck hack away at you.

As for parkour, AC1-ACR's was no harder than AC3's ilk, you just had to hold an extra button.

I didn't say it was hard. I just said it was harder than Black Flag and ACIII. In AC2 you actually had to time your jumps to do a full leap. Then suddenly Connor and Edward were moving in like 2 or 3 strokes when you only it the joystick once. And combat... good Lord. It was like they weren't even trying.

LoyalACFan
04-14-2015, 10:52 PM
I didn't say it was hard. I just said it was harder than Black Flag and ACIII.

... it really wasn't, though. It was still just counter -> instakill -> chain. And as I said, you can't die in ACB.


In AC2 you actually had to time your jumps to do a full leap.

No you didn't. Unless you're talking about climb leaps, which A). didn't really require much timing since Ezio hung in the air for a second and waited for you to grasp, and B). returned in Unity.

Jexx21
04-15-2015, 01:23 AM
oh my god stop posting

Jexx21
04-15-2015, 01:28 AM
Even Batman has a better stealth system.

uh.. Batman has one of the best stealth systems, so I don't know what you mean by the "even"

Also I wouldn't say they're "far superior," AC's stealth is functional and can be fun, and I haven't even played unity

Jexx21
04-15-2015, 01:33 AM
(I personally prefer Asylum to City)..

I'm a City man, gameplay is more fun imo, and the story is better imo. But City did loose the spooky atmosphere that Asylum had, but still maintained the mysterious atmosphere.

I-Like-Pie45
04-15-2015, 01:44 AM
hey jexx wanna play some fetch

Jexx21
04-15-2015, 01:50 AM
I'll play fetch if you tell brian to check his twitter

I-Like-Pie45
04-15-2015, 01:55 AM
sure thing!

Shahkulu101
04-15-2015, 09:13 AM
uh.. Batman has one of the best stealth systems, so I don't know what you mean by the "even"

Also I wouldn't say they're "far superior," AC's stealth is functional and can be fun, and I haven't even played unity

Well the stealth sections in Batman aren't quite the main focus. It's mainly a hand-to-hand melee combat game with some stealth on the side, yet it's stealth is better than a game in which stealth is supposedly the main focus gameplay-wise - AC.

And I would say far superior, I mean the A.I in the AC games is extraordinarily dumb and the stealth is laughably simple. It can be fun at times yes but it's just far too basic, it doesn't hold a candle to either Far Cry or Watch Dogs or most other AAA action/adventure title with stealth in it.

EmptyCrustacean
04-15-2015, 11:17 AM
Well the stealth sections in Batman aren't quite the main focus. It's mainly a hand-to-hand melee combat game with some stealth on the side, yet it's stealth is better than a game in which stealth is supposedly the main focus gameplay-wise - AC.

And I would say far superior, I mean the A.I in the AC games is extraordinarily dumb and the stealth is laughably simple. It can be fun at times yes but it's just far too basic, it doesn't hold a candle to either Far Cry or Watch Dogs or most other AAA action/adventure title with stealth in it.

Wut? The invisible predator missions is one of the core pillars of the game and is one of the best stealth designs ever especially if played on hard. And the way the music swells after each takedown and then the voiceover from the boss informing the thugs that they're one down... just awesome. In Arkham City towards the second half of the game if you want to get collectibles or access certain areas it is imperative to be stealth as half of the enemies are armed with assault rifles. Arkham is way more stealthy than any of the AC games combined.


Mate, there are reasons why there are lots of arguments between people 'which is better: Asylum or City', it's because not changing the core doesn't mean that the game hasn't changed considerably.
Arkham City is NOT an extension of Arkham Asylum. Asylum is a Metroidvania title, Arkham is an open world game with several unique in-door levels. Despite the mechanics being mostly the same, there are huge differences in how the environment is designed, how the player progresses, and how the game itself feels (I personally prefer Asylum to City).

Yep, this. The only title that was similar was Arkham Origins - which played like the stuff that got left on the cutting room floor of the Arkham City editing stages. Just awful in every possible way.

VestigialLlama4
04-15-2015, 11:35 AM
Wut? The invisible predator missions is one of the core pillars of the game and is one of the best stealth designs ever especially if played on hard.

I have played Arkham on hard (and New Game Plus), and stealth in AC always felt more satisfying and interesting to me than Arkham's does. In Arkham, the stealth is there only for select sections, in other words its not part of the core pillar. The core is the rhythm combo and the gadgets and the traversal (Grappling and Gliding). The stealth is also fairly easy, easier than AC in fact. If you want a real stealth game, among recent titles there's Dishonored or the recent title Mark of the Ninja.

pirate1802
04-15-2015, 12:47 PM
Sank you very mach

This reminded me of that Chinese scientist whom Jensen rescues in DEHR and afterwards he only sits in a corner and says that. Sank you. Sank you so mach.

EmptyCrustacean
04-15-2015, 05:48 PM
I have played Arkham on hard (and New Game Plus), and stealth in AC always felt more satisfying and interesting to me than Arkham's does. In Arkham, the stealth is there only for select sections, in other words its not part of the core pillar. The core is the rhythm combo and the gadgets and the traversal (Grappling and Gliding). The stealth is also fairly easy, easier than AC in fact. If you want a real stealth game, among recent titles there's Dishonored or the recent title Mark of the Ninja.

It's not easier than AC because in every game - apart from Unity - breaking stealth would not get you killed.
And Arkham on hard is great because you only get to use some resources once. Enemies can figure out your tactics and then start dismantling them which meant you had to adapt and get used to new methods of takedowns that, depending on your play style, you wouldn't normally use.

Sorrosyss
04-15-2015, 07:39 PM
The problem with change is that is not always for the better.

What really annoys me is when developers listen to a tiny minority of their fanbase, without proper research. I am at least encouraged that UbiSoft sent me a survey after Unity about what I thought, and what I would like to see. I feel polling in this way is far more suited than listening to the often vocal minority found on forums and social media. As the saying goes, the content do not complain. If a game is doing something right, it is usually reflected in the sales, but I do think surveying is a strong tool to use to engage the silent majority - especially given how small a portion of the series' gamers likely use these forums.

Sushiglutton
04-15-2015, 07:49 PM
The problem with change is that is not always for the better.

What really annoys me is when developers listen to a tiny minority of their fanbase, without proper research. I am at least encouraged that UbiSoft sent me a survey after Unity about what I thought, and what I would like to see. I feel polling in this way is far more suited than listening to the often vocal minority found on forums and social media. As the saying goes, the content do not complain. If a game is doing something right, it is usually reflected in the sales, but I do think surveying is a strong tool to use to engage the silent majority - especially given how small a portion of the series' gamers likely use these forums.


I dunno. I'd prefer if the devs didn't listen to either the survey or social media, but thought about what they would feel really passionate about creating. That is kind of utopian though I suppose.