PDA

View Full Version : New York City, AC3 vs AC Rogue comparison.



ze_topazio
04-17-2015, 12:53 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-j2gOEJvdM

pacmanate
04-17-2015, 01:06 AM
They were wayy to different.

I love AC3's New York but it just wasnt practical for parkour.
Rogues NY IS practical for parkour but is just too flat and samey.

Xstantin
04-17-2015, 01:13 AM
I think Rogue's version looks very Havana-like and imo ACIII's guards were cooler

SpiritOfNevaeh
04-17-2015, 01:38 AM
According to the video, the colors look very bland in Rogue and felt Havana like. That could be because they built Rogue off of the same engine as Black Flag IIRC.

And yes I still do prefer AC3's map over Rogue, but maybe it looks like that way because of the time periods?

SixKeys
04-17-2015, 01:59 AM
They were wayy to different.

I love AC3's New York but it just wasnt practical for parkour.
Rogues NY IS practical for parkour but is just too flat and samey.

Pretty much this. Rogue's NY gets points for being parkour-friendly, but it doesn't even feel like the same city. Feels much smaller and Havana-like, or maybe Kingston.

I-Like-Pie45
04-17-2015, 03:32 AM
here's tokw as well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KkE1Y3x4fc

VestigialLlama4
04-17-2015, 03:36 AM
According to the video, the colors look very bland in Rogue and felt Havana like. That could be because they built Rogue off of the same engine as Black Flag IIRC.

And yes I still do prefer AC3's map over Rogue, but maybe it looks like that way because of the time periods?

The simple reason is that AC3 cities are much better rendered than Black Flag and Rogue are. When you make games entirely on open-world sailing, land gets compromised. Graphically, Black Flag is a step back from AC3, especially in terms of lighting and subtlety, but it still works there. ROGUE on the other hand uses black flag lighting in AC3 location and hence it looks ugly.

pirate1802
04-17-2015, 06:53 AM
They were wayy to different.

I love AC3's New York but it just wasnt practical for parkour.
Rogues NY IS practical for parkour but is just too flat and samey.

This. Rogue's NY sort of looked faded. But good for parkour. Opposite is the case with AC3's NY.

Defalt221
04-17-2015, 07:50 AM
I personally liked the blown up burnt New York of AC3. And fighting and ambushing guards from odd corners with assassin recruits was kinda fun.
AC 3 NY= Better looking (And more lively 4 some reason). Best for combat and stuffs.
AC R NY= Best for stealth and high building give it a sense of 'huge'.

Shahkulu101
04-17-2015, 11:27 AM
AC3 wins. Much more authentic looking and doesn't have the out of place bright colours that Rogue's NY has. I happen to think both Boston and NY were okay looking in and of themselves but they were just a bit underwhelming compared to the likes of Florence and Constantinople. The atmosphere in AC3's was also much better, the docks and markets were always bustling with active NPC's and the redcoat patrols banging their drums added a persistent sense of liveliness. Rogue's just feels kind of dead. People give it plus points for having better parkour, which it did, but I thought parkour was fine in AC3's NY.

SixKeys
04-17-2015, 03:12 PM
...but I thought parkour was fine in AC3's NY.

I especially enjoyed the opportunities for unexpectedly launching into the sky.


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

RinoTheBouncer
04-17-2015, 03:38 PM
I prefer ACIII version. I don't care if it's not suitable for parkour. I think as long as the setting is true to the story and to the real historical location, I'll be happy. I don't want a setting tailored around parkour, but rather everything tailored to match the story and the real historical location.

Shahkulu101
04-17-2015, 03:52 PM
I especially enjoyed the opportunities for unexpectedly launching into the sky.


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

Is that an updated version of the springboard from the Bonfire of The Vanities DLC that I missed? :p

Anyway, glitches like that are few and far between. And in my experience AC3 overall wasn't terrible in terms of bugs, a lot of minor nuisances but I could deal with it. On the topic of free-running though, I just never had a problem. What were the issues really? I thought it flowed a little less because of the uneven rooftops (which is also an annoyance in Unity) and there maybe wasn't enough beams connecting the buildings but I never found it overly frustrating. I actually find the rooftops of Venice a lot more annoying because there's far too many bloody archers - the A.I isn't telepathic like AC3's but the sheer number of them makes them more of a nuisance.

P.S I love that Youtuber he makes great Saints Row vids.

Namikaze_17
04-17-2015, 04:16 PM
In terms of the overall look, I'll have to give it to AC3. Rogue is superior in the parkour aspect, but I never really had issues with parkour in AC3's version anyway.

GunnerGalactico
04-17-2015, 05:31 PM
I prefer ACIII version. I don't care if it's not suitable for parkour. I think as long as the setting is true to the story and to the real historical location, I'll be happy. I don't want a setting tailored around parkour, but rather everything tailored to match the story and the real historical location.

^ This pretty much.

I didn't experience any glitches of any kind, probably because I'm a console peasant :rolleyes:

RinoTheBouncer
04-17-2015, 05:38 PM
^ This pretty much.

I didn't experience any glitches of any kind, probably because I'm a console peasant :rolleyes:

I play on PlayStation. I didn't face any game-breaking glitches, either. ACIII was pretty amazing, and the only thing I wish was different was the way the ending was executed. Otherwise, everything else was pretty amazing.

I'd be totally cool with a city that doesn't have many high buildings, or set in modern day or in ancient history. Because to me, the game should revolve around the Assassins and Templars throughout history and in present day, whether it's in a big city or a small one and regardless of its architecture.

You can say that I play for the lore more than anything.

GunnerGalactico
04-17-2015, 05:46 PM
I play on PlayStation. I didn't face any game-breaking glitches, either. ACIII was pretty amazing, and the only thing I wish was different was the way the ending was executed. Otherwise, everything else was pretty amazing.

I'd be totally cool with a city that doesn't have many high buildings, or set in modern day or in ancient history. Because to me, the game should revolve around the Assassins and Templars throughout history and in present day, whether it's in a big city or a small one and regardless of its architecture.

You can say that I play for the lore more than anything.

Me too.

I also play on PS. The only thing I ever experienced was an odd frame rate drop now and again, but that got fixed up after the patch.

Personally, I felt that the spacing of the buildings presented more of a challenge, but in a good way.


EDIT: In Boston, you just steer Connor around and he just grabs onto anything close... without even thinking. And that's boring

Kaschra
04-17-2015, 05:58 PM
AC3's New York is probably my least favourite city in the whole series, definitely prefer Rogue's version.

Megas_Doux
04-17-2015, 11:37 PM
Being a setting and gameplay person, I dislike both :p Comparing them, well Rogue´s is more suitable for parkour, but I find it -as expected- even duller architecturally wise than AC III´s. I know you can say it about Kingston -Which I surprisingly liked- however that caribbean city was beautifully delivered.....


By the way, I know is AC III, but I prefer Tyranny´s version of NY over the other two. In fact, I can say I truly like tyranny´s locations, mostly the Frontier, which fulfilled my expectations of an ongoing war/revolution. My problem with AC III´s Frontier, aside from it being a gorgeous wasteland, is the fact it looks like the park near my house instead of North America during the American Revolution.......

SixKeys
04-17-2015, 11:43 PM
Is that an updated version of the springboard from the Bonfire of The Vanities DLC that I missed? :p

Anyway, glitches like that are few and far between. And in my experience AC3 overall wasn't terrible in terms of bugs, a lot of minor nuisances but I could deal with it. On the topic of free-running though, I just never had a problem. What were the issues really? I thought it flowed a little less because of the uneven rooftops (which is also an annoyance in Unity) and there maybe wasn't enough beams connecting the buildings but I never found it overly frustrating. I actually find the rooftops of Venice a lot more annoying because there's far too many bloody archers - the A.I isn't telepathic like AC3's but the sheer number of them makes them more of a nuisance.

P.S I love that Youtuber he makes great Saints Row vids.

I had glitches up the wazoo when I played AC3. Many of them still haven't been patched to this day.

This video pretty much summarizes my experience with AC3. The graphical glitches are what I'd call a minor nuisance (barely noticeable or just amusing), but bull*** like 0:43, 1:45, 5:59 and 7:32 happened aaallll the time.


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

As for parkour, the biggest problem in AC3 was Connor constantly climbing random crap like boxes in the middle of the street, or jumping 3 feet to the left when I pointed him to go straight up. The automation meant that the game too often tried to make decisions for you, which was especially frustrating in timed chases. This imprecision in the controls has persisted all the way into Unity, although it has been tweaked here and there (AC4 was better than both AC3 and Unity in this regard).

Assassin_M
04-18-2015, 12:32 AM
Did someone say parkour in New York?


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

Sixkeys, we all know your game was made by satan just for you.
Seriously, I never came across such an amount of glitches in my 6 playthroughs and 130 hours with AC III. My experience is similar to Shahk's

I-Like-Pie45
04-18-2015, 01:05 AM
the only major glitch I had in AC3 was Connor deciding to glitch under the ground and die at the beginning of Sequence 8.

but that's nothing new in the series. Altair also did that once in Masyaf in AC1 when he fell through the ground and right into the ocean and drowned/died on impact.

SixKeys
04-18-2015, 01:30 AM
Sixkeys, we all know your game was made by satan just for you.
Seriously, I never came across such an amount of glitches in my 6 playthroughs and 130 hours with AC III. My experience is similar to Shahk's

Which is fine. I understand individual experiences can vary greatly, especially on PC. Just as long as people don't try to invalidate someone else's experience just because "I never had any problems". I had pretty much an equal amount of glitches in AC3 and Unity, so I don't get all the "lel Unity was glitchy so it's a bad game" stuff. Someone else might have experienced a lot of bugs with AC2 that I never saw and it may have affected their opinion of that game. I'm not going to deny their experience. First impressions count for a lot, after all. AC3 was super-glitchy for me, so was Unity. The only difference is, I found Unity to be an enjoyable game underneath all the glitches.

VestigialLlama4
04-18-2015, 04:42 AM
Just as long as people don't try to invalidate someone else's experience just because "I never had any problems".

I am sorry but that is a perfectly valid stance to take. If you have had technical problems then you should take it up with Ubisoft or get a new copy (if you care to). Bringing that grudge(after two years since the game has launched and patched itself) in a discussion that had nothing to do with AC3's glitches but largely a question of aesthetics (ROGUE NY versus AC3 NY) is kind of pointless. The same is true if people bringing up UNITY"s glitches in any discussion pertaining to UNITY as a game or who likewise think (like Jeffrey Yohalem does) that UNITY's problems are entirely down to glitches.


First impressions count for a lot, after all.

Not after two years they don't.

Defalt221
04-18-2015, 11:30 AM
Which is fine. I understand individual experiences can vary greatly, especially on PC. Just as long as people don't try to invalidate someone else's experience just because "I never had any problems". I had pretty much an equal amount of glitches in AC3 and Unity, so I don't get all the "lel Unity was glitchy so it's a bad game" stuff. Someone else might have experienced a lot of bugs with AC2 that I never saw and it may have affected their opinion of that game. I'm not going to deny their experience. First impressions count for a lot, after all. AC3 was super-glitchy for me, so was Unity. The only difference is, I found Unity to be an enjoyable game underneath all the glitches.

I'll be honest. I had ABSOLUTELY NO GLITCHES in AC3.
Unity however made me cry out loud in frustration.(That Notre Dame mission!)- I approach the target's confession booth after 15 mins of sneaking and no detection. Just as I'm about to enter the confession booth, Arno goes transparent and falls through the world. I restart and spent another 10 minutes to sneak up on Sivert and I mistakenly pressed the assassinate button too early and Arno drew his sword in the middle of the crowd. Detected. I restart checkpoint (which is basically restart mission) and spend another 20 mins of perfect sneaking and clearing guards. I finally kill Sivert. As I'm about to leave through the window Arno gets overexcited and trips down through the church ledge to his death. 45 Minutes OF USELESSNESS!!! I restart AGAIN and our house-electricity goes off....

VestigialLlama4
04-18-2015, 12:18 PM
Even I think its unfair to blame UNITY for a power-outage.

I personally didn't have any glitch issues with UNITY when I played it on my friend's PS4. There was a couple of instances but no nightmare-face and other horrors. Iniitally when I played it, like the prologue and later, I liked it, I had a nice first impression but then slowly it started getting intolerable. I liked little-boy Arno more than I did when he grew up. The moment he opened his mouth and spoke, I had this need to punch him somehow. The whole Assassins as Lizard People worshipping cults was upsetting since they seemed more down to earth than the Templars in the past, then you had that hallucinatory scene which was stolen from Arkham Asylum Scarecrow missions. Until say, the Sivert or even Lafreniere Assassination, I thought the game was okay. But the minute Bellec became this pure EVIL guy and the rather simplistic metaphor of "extremism=bad" pissed me off.

Anyway I want people to know that I liked the setting of UNITY, I had a good first impression, no glitches. The reasons for hating the game are entirely its limitless aesthetic failures as entertainment and art.

SixKeys
04-18-2015, 02:59 PM
I am sorry but that is a perfectly valid stance to take. If you have had technical problems then you should take it up with Ubisoft or get a new copy (if you care to). Bringing that grudge(after two years since the game has launched and patched itself) in a discussion that had nothing to do with AC3's glitches but largely a question of aesthetics (ROGUE NY versus AC3 NY) is kind of pointless. The same is true if people bringing up UNITY"s glitches in any discussion pertaining to UNITY as a game or who likewise think (like Jeffrey Yohalem does) that UNITY's problems are entirely down to glitches.

You're right. Clearly the claims about Unity being a rushed game are no longer valid since most of the problems it had at launch are patched out now. The fact that the game now runs perfectly for most people, six months after launch, must mean it was never rushed in the first place. Likewise, AC3 being rushed out the door too early and having tons of glitches at launch is also no longer true, since you personally never had any problems with it.

Also, did you miss the part where I mentioned that most of the glitches I experienced still haven't been patched? The Encyclopedia of the Common Man still locks me (and every other PC player) into the game with no option to back out except force-quitting the game. The mission where Haytham and Ziio ride a cart into the enemy camp has a 50/50 per cent chance of glitching out at a checkpoint and forcing a restart, based on my numerous plays of that mission. Animals still get stuck in the environment all the time. During one mission where Connor has to steal clothes there's a high chance of the NPC you need missing from the map. Etc. I'm not going to buy another copy of a game I hated just on the off-chance that I MIGHT get a less buggy version.

AC3 was a ****y game for a lot of reasons, and most of them had to do with lack of time for polish. That lack of polish is what led to the game having as many bugs as it did at launch (and trust me, I'm not the only one), so it's perfectly valid to criticize the game for being a rushed POS that was pushed out the door 75% finished.


Not after two years they don't.

In that case I look forward to your revised opinion of Unity after 2 years have passed, when you'll be praising that game instead of going by your first impression.

pacmanate
04-18-2015, 04:15 PM
Not after two years they don't.

LOL where did you come from when I was on Hiatus? You're pretty hilarious.

VestigialLlama4
04-18-2015, 04:37 PM
You're right. Clearly the claims about Unity being a rushed game are no longer valid since most of the problems it had at launch are patched out now.

Well I don't think UNITY was a rushed game. It had a good four years of development, in a period of a year and half development UBISOFT put out REVELATIONS and BLACK FLAG, which had no glitches and stuff to speak of, which also introduced a bunch of new elements and design stuff. My complaints about UNITY have had nothing to do with "annualization" or even the "glitches".


Also, did you miss the part where I mentioned that most of the glitches I experienced still haven't been patched? The Encyclopedia of the Common Man still locks me (and every other PC player) into the game with no option to back out except force-quitting the game. The mission where Haytham and Ziio ride a cart into the enemy camp has a 50/50 per cent chance of glitching out at a checkpoint and forcing a restart, based on my numerous plays of that mission. Animals still get stuck in the environment all the time. During one mission where Connor has to steal clothes there's a high chance of the NPC you need missing from the map. Etc. I'm not going to buy another copy of a game I hated just on the off-chance that I MIGHT get a less buggy version.

Well If that is still the case, you should contact to UBISOFT or make a post for it on the PC Forums to find out how to patch it. There is this nice post on KOTAKU about weird PC issues in Black Flag and how to solve it: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/04/one-of-the-weirdest-pc-performance-tweaks-ive-seen-in-a-while/ Who knows maybe there is a simpler solution to your AC3-on-PC issues.


AC3 was a ****y game for a lot of reasons, and most of them had to do with lack of time for polish. That lack of polish is what led to the game having as many bugs as it did at launch (and trust me, I'm not the only one), so it's perfectly valid to criticize the game for being a rushed POS that was pushed out the door 75% finished.

Well AC3 was in development since AC2 ended. That's three years of development, more time than AC2 had, though AC2 had the advantage of having the same AC1 team produce onward whereas AC3 had a new team, though I still don't think that's an excuse. I think AC3 is flawed because it had too much development time. So they had more time to pointlessly iterate and come up with new features instead of focusing on essentials for a single game. My belief is the same applies to UNITY. I think they tried a bunch of things and eventually realized that the game got unwieldy and so corrected stuff, I have a feeling that AC3 and UNITY are more buggy than the others because it was an excessively tinkered game. There is no hard evidence and perhaps Farlander1991 can enlighten me if I am right or wrong about this, but that's just my feeling.


In that case I look forward to your revised opinion of Unity after 2 years have passed, when you'll be praising that game instead of going by your first impression.

As I said above,I personally didn't have any glitch issues with UNITY when I played it on my friend's PS4. There was a couple of instances but no nightmare-face and other horrors. Iniitally when I played it, like the prologue and later, I liked it, I had a nice first impression but then slowly it started getting intolerable. I liked little-boy Arno more than I did when he grew up. The moment he opened his mouth and spoke, I had this need to punch him somehow. The whole Assassins as Lizard People worshipping cults was upsetting since they seemed more down to earth than the Templars in the past, then you had that hallucinatory scene which was stolen from Arkham Asylum Scarecrow missions. Until say, the Sivert or even Lafreniere Assassination, I thought the game was okay. But the minute Bellec became this pure EVIL guy and the rather simplistic metaphor of "extremism=bad" pissed me off.

I am glad that UNITY's bugs and issues have patched up, because people have been acting as if that's the only problem UNITY has and there's this impression that underneath that, there is this great game waiting for them. Even Jeffrey Yohalem says this on the podcast (though I don't blame him). There is no great game underneath it. That said, if after two years I replay UNITY and think its better I will fess up and admit I was wrong. There are tons of books and movies that I didn't like first but later came to enjoy, so maybe there is stuff in UNITY I will come to appreciate though I doubt this very much.

SixKeys
04-18-2015, 05:46 PM
Well I don't think UNITY was a rushed game. It had a good four years of development, in a period of a year and half development UBISOFT put out REVELATIONS and BLACK FLAG, which had no glitches and stuff to speak of, which also introduced a bunch of new elements and design stuff. My complaints about UNITY have had nothing to do with "annualization" or even the "glitches".

A game can be rushed even it's been in development for many years. Look at Duke Nukem Forever or Aliens: Colonial Marines. It comes down to how the devs manage the time given to them. AC3 obviously must have had a lot of production issues, considering they had seven or eight studios working on it for four years, and still ended up having to cut big features from the game less than 6 months before release (Great Fire of New York etc.). Sometimes these things are out of the devs' control, like certain key people leaving, creative visions changing midway through production, priorities shifting, executive meddling etc. Some of this same stuff seems to have plagued Unity's development according to Jeffrey Yohalem. But even if some of it is outside their control, that doesn't change the result. If you cannot effectively manage the time you have to spend on a given project, you will end up with a rushed, incomplete product at the end. AC2 had half the development time AC3 did yet it ended up a much more fun, bug-free and cohesive gameplay experience. The stuff they ultimately cut from AC2 were two complete sequences which were later sold as DLC (and which PC users got for free), whereas we never did get our Great Fire of New York, canoes and frozen lakes.


Well If that is still the case, you should contact to UBISOFT or make a post for it on the PC Forums to find out how to patch it. There is this nice post on KOTAKU about weird PC issues in Black Flag and how to solve it: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/04/one-of-the-weirdest-pc-performance-tweaks-ive-seen-in-a-while/ Who knows maybe there is a simpler solution to your AC3-on-PC issues.

Trust me, there have been plenty of threads about the same problems on the PC forums. But because they're the PC forums, nobody cares and we don't get answers, and Ubi support are completely useless. Why do you think I've been so chill about all the issues regarding Unity? Because I learned about 4 years ago that Ubi loves releasing broken games and then not doing anything to fix them (on PC, at least). I learned to accept it. I was shocked when they actually did something about Unity's problems, and that was only due to their stock dropping in a very public way.


I think AC3 is flawed because it had too much development time. So they had more time to pointlessly iterate and come up with new features instead of focusing on essentials for a single game.

Finally, something we can agree on. AC3's developers were remarkably overconfident in interviews leading up to the game's release, promising the moon and the stars even with just months left. They actually claimed the game was pretty much done around E3 and the remaining months would be spent mainly "polishing" the game, even though at E3 we still heard stories about naval freeroam and the Great Fire. It's clear they overestimated the time they had at the beginning, knowing they had until 2012, and probably changed directions a few times during production thinking "wait, wouldn't it be cool if we focused on this...?". Alex Hutchinson has implied as much in later interviews, saying he learned too late that you should never spend too much time second-guessing your initial vision. The game ended up rushed not because they didn't have enough time, but because they didn't know how to effectively manage it. Same with Unity.


I am glad that UNITY's bugs and issues have patched up, because people have been acting as if that's the only problem UNITY has and there's this impression that underneath that, there is this great game waiting for them. Even Jeffrey Yohalem says this on the podcast (though I don't blame him). There is no great game underneath it. That said, if after two years I replay UNITY and think its better I will fess up and admit I was wrong. There are tons of books and movies that I didn't like first but later came to enjoy, so maybe there is stuff in UNITY I will come to appreciate though I doubt this very much.

That's exactly how I feel about AC3. My initial impression was that it was just a buggy game, but it had good presentation (graphics), so maybe it would get better. Two years down the line, I hate the game more than ever. Some problems have apparently been fixed even before I got a chance to experience them (I never had Connor getting stuck with his hood down at the end, for example), some still persist, but I could forgive the bugs if there was a decent game underneath. Unity is still buggy and runs like crap on my PC, but I enjoy it a lot more as a gameplay experience. I won't talk about the story, since gameplay is more important to me and IMO both games have bad stories. AC3 has just stuck in my mind as the worst offender because it had so much to live up to, being the end of Desmond's saga. Unity basically tried to reboot the series from scratch, unsuccessfully, but at least it didn't have all this baggage weighing it down. It tried to do its own thing while also taking the series back to its roots, whereas AC3 somehow managed to simultaneously innovate and **** up the simplest, most basic things that the series had always been known for.

VestigialLlama4
04-18-2015, 06:51 PM
A game can be rushed even it's been in development for many years. Look at Duke Nukem Forever or Aliens: Colonial Marines. It comes down to how the devs manage the time given to them. AC3 obviously must have had a lot of production issues, considering they had seven or eight studios working on it for four years, and still ended up having to cut big features from the game less than 6 months before release (Great Fire of New York etc.). Sometimes these things are out of the devs' control, like certain key people leaving, creative visions changing midway through production, priorities shifting, executive meddling etc. Some of this same stuff seems to have plagued Unity's development according to Jeffrey Yohalem. But even if some of it is outside their control, that doesn't change the result. If you cannot effectively manage the time you have to spend on a given project, you will end up with a rushed, incomplete product at the end. AC2 had half the development time AC3 did yet it ended up a much more fun, bug-free and cohesive gameplay experience. The stuff they ultimately cut from AC2 were two complete sequences which were later sold as DLC (and which PC users got for free), whereas we never did get our Great Fire of New York, canoes and frozen lakes.

This is all true and it vindicates my feeling that its not annualization in-and-of-itself that's the problem though it is a nice target and shield for hiding problems. Its the games where the developers aren't left alone, the one intended to be "the relaunch game" that causes problems.I think its more about developers not being left alone than anything else. But even then, given its modest ambitions, four years is way too much time, especially for a major IP like AC, especially for an army of studios across the world. How much development time did Bloodborne(a Next Gen leap) have over Dark Souls - four years. So there's no justification or excuse for UNITY's lack of creaitvity or that it isn't polished. And the same applies to AC3 too, in terms of glitches, I didn't have any glitches but there's no excuse for that. They got off lightly (relatively speaking) at the time and they should have learned their lesson but developers decided to blame Connor for being a boring protagonist (as snide, petty, and disgusting jokes in Black Flag and ROGUE make clear) and refused to learn anything. Now with UNITY since they have a whiteboy Ezio clone as a hero, they have no shield to hide under. Instead the bugs has become a shield for the entire game to hide under as a matter of speaking.


AC3 has just stuck in my mind as the worst offender because it had so much to live up to, being the end of Desmond's saga. Unity basically tried to reboot the series from scratch, unsuccessfully, but at least it didn't have all this baggage weighing it down. It tried to do its own thing while also taking the series back to its roots, whereas AC3 somehow managed to simultaneously innovate and **** up the simplest, most basic things that the series had always been known for.

I guess ultimately its a matter of what you can forgive. I tend to be far more sympathetic to people who overreach, fail and fall flat then I do to people who never try anything at all. I like big bold movies like say Gangs of New York which tend to be flawed and a little weak but which had stuff nobody ever dreams of including. A game like AC3 is pretty rare and its unlikely that there will be another game like it whereas there are tons of games like UNITY, which does what UNITY does and far better than it.

I can see why UNITY can be defended for its basic back-to-the-core approach and why some might find that more satisfying than AC3. But I can't see why it can be excused for not innovating and improving the storytelling. It had a longer development time than AC3, had no real baggage or MD to work with, had a modest target. It had the hypothetical "clean slate" and yet it is totally unsatisfying except on the purely dumb mechanical level. The entire game, from its hilariously bad database entries to its atrociously bad research (it goes out of its way to screw up basic details), appeals entirely to ignorance. The story that it chooses to tell is riddled with sexist cliches, with a Hero who's got fewer edges than Mickey Mouse, with zero ambiguity. I don't see how this can be defended by any true fan of the series. The point of a franchise is to try new things, to innovate and go forward, in terms of gameplay, in terms of story, realism, tone and aesthetics.

As of now, AC3 remains the last game where Ubisoft actually tried to do something radically different in terms of style, content and gameplay. And in parts rather than as a whole, it still works very well. Every game after that is a step backwards and scaling down, with the cheapjack ROGUE being the absolute nadir while BLACK FLAG being a diverting and intelligent one-off. I said this elsewhere, people would not be so sentimental about AC3 if Ubisoft continued to make games that were as radical, crazy and innovative. Instead they are making crowd-pleasing entries in fan-request areas (when before the ethos was to do things nobody expected and go to eras no game had done) and now sidescrollers that rip-off actually creative games like Mark of the Ninja.

And you know now people saying New York in Rogue is better even if graphically its such a pallid letdown to the one in AC3.

Farlander1991
04-18-2015, 09:58 PM
Well AC3 was in development since AC2 ended. That's three years of development, more time than AC2 had, though AC2 had the advantage of having the same AC1 team produce onward whereas AC3 had a new team, though I still don't think that's an excuse. I think AC3 is flawed because it had too much development time. So they had more time to pointlessly iterate and come up with new features instead of focusing on essentials for a single game. My belief is the same applies to UNITY. I think they tried a bunch of things and eventually realized that the game got unwieldy and so corrected stuff, I have a feeling that AC3 and UNITY are more buggy than the others because it was an excessively tinkered game. There is no hard evidence and perhaps Farlander1991 can enlighten me if I am right or wrong about this, but that's just my feeling.

AC3 was in development after AC2, but it wasn't a new team (with the exception of Alex Hutchinson who would be a newcomer to AC). After AC2 the team split in two, one was working on ACB, the other (smaller) part got working on AC3 (you don't need many people in pre-production). After ACB, as far as we know, the ACB team (at least most of it) moved to AC3. ACR was a totally new team, one that would develop AC4 after. ACU is a totally new team as far as we know.

It's also important to note that 'in development' doesn't mean 'in production'. AC3 didn't have three years of production and ACU didn't have four years of production. I think AC3 was about 1-1.5 years and ACU around 2 (we do know that it took 2 years to make Notre Dame there), exact dates aren't open to public so that's just presumptions. People tend to dismiss pre-production period as not being development, which is ********, as it's very important, especially for projects that use new technology like AC3 and ACU (which would have a more lengthy pre-production period as well).

And yes, the problems both in AC3 and ACU come from being overly ambitious (I know you argue that ACU wasn't ambitious at all, and purely from a standpoint of concepts, maybe, but that doesn't mean Unity is any less ambitious as a project than AC3 was) and not planning accordingly to the time they have (after all, the yearly release structure makes the whole scheduling kinda rigid, so proper planning and scope is VERY important).

And there's tons of stuff cut from AC3, for example, that most people don't even know about (or things that can only be deduced/presumed at this point). Or changed.

There are a couple of things that can be noticed in Corey May's and Philippe Bergerone's GDC presentation slides regarding AC3 mission design (btw, all GDC Vault presentations from years 2013 and earlier are available now for absolutely everybody, no membership needed in case anybody's interested). For example: a carriage chase sequence in London was planned. In Sequence 2 we'd recruit Paschall and Gardner (I presume Thomas Gardner who died in 1775,not sure who Paschall is, but there's info online of some William Paschall Jr. who died in 1774). Those were changed for other targets, though. Sequence 4 would start in 1755 as opposed to several years later. Blueprints of Boston Tea Party mission being longer, having an escort section towards the harbor that wasn't present in the final game.

Then there's stuff like leftovers in the game hinting at more things planned. For example, in the Lexington/Concord mission, Barrett asks to protect the troops if the British get over the river. Here's the thing - they never do. However, since the mocap for cutscenes (with vo) was recorded a lot earlier than the final mission was actually made, it's safe to presume that they DID cross the river (or were planned to), and that the mission wasn't supposed to be what it is now with just running around and commanding to shoot.

SixKeys
04-18-2015, 10:15 PM
They got off lightly (relatively speaking) at the time and they should have learned their lesson but developers decided to blame Connor for being a boring protagonist (as snide, petty, and disgusting jokes in Black Flag and ROGUE make clear) and refused to learn anything.

I have to disagree there. I don't think the devs ever implied Connor was a boring character, directly or indirectly. The Abstergo stuff in AC4 and Rogue are meant more as light-hearted jabs at gamers, not other devs. It was the playerbase who rejected Connor. However you personally may feel about him, there's no denying that he was a divisive character. That's why he's been buried. Even the stuff in the Rogue database about "oh, he married some girl but had a messy ending" was obviously poking fun at fans who simply will not accept that Connor's story is over and that we need to know every last detail of his life. We're left wondering if that's really true or if Abstergo is twisting the facts again, which perfectly mirrors Ubi's stance on Connor, which is basically that Tumblr should take over and fans should imagine their own ending for him if they really care so much.


I guess ultimately its a matter of what you can forgive. I tend to be far more sympathetic to people who overreach, fail and fall flat then I do to people who never try anything at all. I like big bold movies like say Gangs of New York which tend to be flawed and a little weak but which had stuff nobody ever dreams of including. A game like AC3 is pretty rare and its unlikely that there will be another game like it whereas there are tons of games like UNITY, which does what UNITY does and far better than it.

I respect some of the things AC3 did or tried to do. That doesn't mean I necessarily have to like them. I respect the fact that they went for a non-white hero, but I still don't like him as a character (or rather, I'm ambivalent about him). I respect that they tried to innovate in a lot of areas, but ultimately what matters more is whether those things work. Treerunning was a good innovation, but it's poorly implemented in gameplay. I felt the same way about ACR's hookblade and feel somewhat the same about Unity's restyled parkour. Innovation is all well and good, but I'd rather take something tried and true that works as intended, rather than a half-assed or broken new feature. It's why I was a lot more forgiving of AC4: it didn't really do anything new (apart from allowing naval freeroam) but it took the things that AC3 introduced and made them work. Treerunning in the jungle was a lot more fun because they spent more time designing alternate paths. Naval was more fun because you were allowed to do it anywhere you wanted. Forts were more fun because they brought back the detection system from Ezio games: dumb-as-bricks AI, but better than psychic AI which makes the player feel cheated. AC4 played it safe in many ways, yet it was a more fun experience because everything in it worked. AC3 felt like a blueprint for things to come, a pretty-looking tech demo but with a lot of half-finished ideas.


I can see why UNITY can be defended for its basic back-to-the-core approach and why some might find that more satisfying than AC3. But I can't see why it can be excused for not innovating and improving the storytelling. It had a longer development time than AC3, had no real baggage or MD to work with, had a modest target. It had the hypothetical "clean slate" and yet it is totally unsatisfying except on the purely dumb mechanical level. The entire game, from its hilariously bad database entries to its atrociously bad research (it goes out of its way to screw up basic details), appeals entirely to ignorance. The story that it chooses to tell is riddled with sexist cliches, with a Hero who's got fewer edges than Mickey Mouse, with zero ambiguity. I don't see how this can be defended by any true fan of the series. The point of a franchise is to try new things, to innovate and go forward, in terms of gameplay, in terms of story, realism, tone and aesthetics.

I'm a very visual person, so I can be easily wowed with pretty graphics. Unity's story sucks, but when I think back on it, my first thought isn't the plotholes or the disappointing ending. My first thought is the bright colors of the hot air balloon against the night sky, or the dark, rainy prologue with the medieval guy, what's-his-face (see, I don't even keep up with names). I think about all the times I walked into a church or palace and spent several minutes just staring at a statue or a cake on the table and the way the light bounces off the objects. I think about all the random NPC animations and how they immersed me in the world and made me think of little stories in my head. When everyone else was complaining about the story not making sense, I was going "story? what story? I already forgot about all that. There was a girl involved, I think? But guys, did you SEE the way coffee actually sends off steam in this game?!" :p

I'm not saying graphics are everything, but it does impact the way I feel about the game. If the world is immersive and has good gameplay, that's good enough for me. AC1 had a very barebones story and Altaïr was a pretty two-dimensional protagonist, but it was the atmosphere that drew me in. The atmosphere is what made me like the story. AC3's atmosphere was dull and depressing, there weren't enough details in the world to make me feel immersed. The cities were mostly grey and brown. The Frontier was an empty wasteland. The few moments I remember thinking "man, I love this game" were at the beginning in the opera sequence (filled with color and life and detail) and a couple of times in.... Black Creek, I think? The area with the densest vegetation, huge trees with moss growing all over, light filtering through the trees etc. In those moments, bad gameplay was almost forgivable. But when the rest of the world offered absolutely nothing worth exploring, PLUS gameplay being a letdown? That's a game I simply don't want to play.

(Note that I actually enjoyed the first episode of ToKW a lot, despite it having a lot of the same problems as the main game, simply because the same map was tweaked to be more visually interesting and the wolf power made gameplay not only tolerable but fun.)



As of now, AC3 remains the last game where Ubisoft actually tried to do something radically different in terms of style, content and gameplay. And in parts rather than as a whole, it still works very well. Every game after that is a step backwards and scaling down, with the cheapjack ROGUE being the absolute nadir while BLACK FLAG being a diverting and intelligent one-off. I said this elsewhere, people would not be so sentimental about AC3 if Ubisoft continued to make games that were as radical, crazy and innovative. Instead they are making crowd-pleasing entries in fan-request areas (when before the ethos was to do things nobody expected and go to eras no game had done) and now sidescrollers that rip-off actually creative games like Mark of the Ninja.

To be fair, French Revolution always seemed like it was on the cards. It's just the way they handled it that was problematic, not the fact that it was chosen as a setting.

As for crowd-pleasing entries, Black Flag was hardly a crowd-pleaser when it was first announced. A lot of people cried "pirate's creed" and how they couldn't possibly make AC work in a setting like that, but they did. Right after that they tackled slavery in Freedom Cry, another controversial theme yet one which I felt was much better presented than the native American tragedy in AC3.

I do agree that by now the fan service seems to have begun in earnest. First the French Revolution, soon Victorian London, plus China, India and Russia in Chronicles. I just find it hard to get mad that they're not innovating anymore, because I've accepted that the franchise has changed. It has become something much more straightforward with each new entry, more concerned with action and bloated maps than sprawling conspiracies and cryptic messages. It's not the same franchise I fell in love with years ago, but there are elements I still enjoy on their own terms. It just remains to be seen how long those elements can keep the ship afloat.

Shahkulu101
04-18-2015, 10:21 PM
Farlander, I think ACU was developed by the core ACB team as I definitely heard one of the producers say so during an interview. Some one here linked it to the forums to prove a point a while back but I forgot who, if you're out there do us a favour, eh? :p

Farlander1991
04-18-2015, 10:31 PM
Farlander, I think ACU was developed by the core ACB team as I definitely heard one of the producers say so during an interview. Some one here linked it to the forums to prove a point a while back but I forgot who, if you're out there do us a favour, eh? :p

Ah. Ok, I didn't know that. Well, that would make sense. Though, still, a core team is like 10, max 20 people, the other 80 that worked on ACB still had to go somewhere, right? :p

Shahkulu101
04-18-2015, 11:01 PM
Ah. Ok, I didn't know that. Well, that would make sense. Though, still, a core team is like 10, max 20 people, the other 80 that worked on ACB still had to go somewhere, right? :p

Really? I didn't know that's what core team meant, I assumed that would be mean the majority of the ACB team plus a relatively small amount of newbies. The more you know.

And in that case you're probably correct then yeah. :p

SixKeys
04-18-2015, 11:01 PM
The concept of "the same" core group working on several games is a bit iffy in general, since there are always people coming and going between games. Darby and some others who worked on ACR also went on to do AC4, but Ashraf Ismail was new and presumably also brought in some other new people. Alex Amancio left after ACR and returned in time for Unity. So the team that made ACR is not really the same group who made AC4, nor is the same team who made ACB the same one that made Unity.

Shahkulu101
04-18-2015, 11:05 PM
The concept of "the same" core group working on several games is a bit iffy in general, since there are always people coming and going between games. Darby and some others who worked on ACR also went on to do AC4, but Ashraf Ismail was new and presumably also brought in some other new people. Alex Amancio left after ACR and returned in time for Unity. So the team that made ACR is not really the same group who made AC4, nor is the same team who made ACB the same one that made Unity.

In an ideal world it would be the exact same team (more or less) developing the games on a non-annual basis. :)

Then again, if it weren't for annualisation we would have never had games like Black Flag. Heck, Darby would probably have never worked on the games - and his writing is one of my favourite things about AC.

VestigialLlama4
04-19-2015, 05:58 AM
And yes, the problems both in AC3 and ACU come from being overly ambitious (I know you argue that ACU wasn't ambitious at all, and purely from a standpoint of concepts, maybe, but that doesn't mean Unity is any less ambitious as a project than AC3 was)

I really don't see how anyone can call ACU ambitious. I mean okay its in Next-Gen, did it invent Next-Gen? No it was something which every game was doing (FROM SOFTWARE was making Bloodborne, Rocksteady were making Arkham Knight, Naughty Dog were busy with Uncharted 4). Mechanically, the game streamlines and provides more control in Parkour to accomodate the bigger size, you also have harder and more challenging combat (though with absolutely zero boss fights or advanced enemies to provide a payoff for that system, where are the Legendary Duelists of UNITY). So the Parkour and Combat systems were rebuilt from the ground up to accomodate a bigger world, now that's to be credited but It can't really be called innovation since its a natural development to accomodate the bigger size and capacity of the new systems. Likewise the interiors, which again is probably ACU's biggest credit. But then to accomodate the interior gameplay they developed a new style, i.e. crouch buttons and the like that is properly speaking taken from other stealth games and not something original to them.

UNITY is pretty much a systems-driven game, in that it resembles BROTHERHOOD and REVELATIONS, one city-games both of them. The vast map and crowds of NPCs accomodate open-world Co-Op. In other words its the most casual-friendly game in the entire franchise and those cannot, by definition, be considered ambitious. The idea seems to have been as you said provide something workable to achieve in a limited time frame. In theory anyway, since the game was a bigger mess than the more ambitious AC3. The vast map and crowds of NPCs accomodate open-world Co-Op. In other words its the most casual-friendly game in the entire franchise and those cannot, by definition, be considered ambitious. Black Flag was vastly more ambitious than UNITY even if borrowed and streamlined all of AC3's systems, it still used that to create something new.


I have to disagree there. I don't think the devs ever implied Connor was a boring character, directly or indirectly. The Abstergo stuff in AC4 and Rogue are meant more as light-hearted jabs at gamers, not other devs. It was the playerbase who rejected Connor. However you personally may feel about him, there's no denying that he was a divisive character.

If he's a divisive character, then why is it that only the opinions of the people who dislike him carry weight? I mean yeah the Black Flag video was great in that it hit on the racist bias of the fans who hated him and yeah, he isn't as popular as Ezio but shouldn't the opinions of the great number of people who bought the game and the 2 millions sold in the year after first release carry some amount of weight?


Even the stuff in the Rogue database about "oh, he married some girl but had a messy ending" was obviously poking fun at fans who simply will not accept that Connor's story is over and that we need to know every last detail of his life. We're left wondering if that's really true or if Abstergo is twisting the facts again, which perfectly mirrors Ubi's stance on Connor, which is basically that Tumblr should take over and fans should imagine their own ending for him if they really care so much.

And that's what I mean by being snide and disrespectful. ROGUE is the pits of that because it gave us backstory on Connor's Ship but not Connor himself and put snide remarks there and apparently there's one NPC that makes a joke about "Where is Charles Lee" which is far less lame than the same game that did "I make my own luck" ad nauseam (and in any case Shay never did make his own luck). We know everything about Altair, Ezio, Haytham, Adewale, Achilles, Connor's Ship. All that adds up to a kind of ostracism that should not be tolerated or written off. The fact is there's no way a game like AC with its basis on history can say, "Yeah we don't know what happened to him even if it is too hundred years in the past". It's not consistent with their gameplay and its entirely based on snide crude self-congratulating jokes. The message of ROGUE is clear, "Here's a white Templar dude for attacking those coloured Assassins, enjoy your guilt-free white imperialist fantasy because when you put an African in charge and he'll bring an earthquake down and sink the world."


I'm a very visual person, so I can be easily wowed with pretty graphics. Unity's story sucks, but when I think back on it, my first thought isn't the plotholes or the disappointing ending. My first thought is the bright colors of the hot air balloon against the night sky, or the dark, rainy prologue with the medieval guy, what's-his-face (see, I don't even keep up with names). I think about all the times I walked into a church or palace and spent several minutes just staring at a statue or a cake on the table and the way the light bounces off the objects. I think about all the random NPC animations and how they immersed me in the world and made me think of little stories in my head. When everyone else was complaining about the story not making sense, I was going "story? what story? I already forgot about all that. There was a girl involved, I think? But guys, did you SEE the way coffee actually sends off steam in this game?!"

Okay so the appeal of UNITY is solely as a pretty dollhouse and dumb toy, that is fair. There are dollhouses and scale models that likewise allow you to create your own stories and vow you into thinking up what to do, you know these little models here and there, you can make your own story and have a tea party. You have Ken(Arno) and Barbie (Elise) to move around and play. Some people might feel that a virtual creation should apply to a wider in-depth appeal but obviously that's just their opinion (Internet Speak = "They are wrong and don't matter"). Who cares if the history is all wrong and that the Paris is less authentic than MGM musicals like GIGI or AN AMERICAN IN PARIS.

CyrussNP
04-19-2015, 06:14 AM
There is no comparison between the two games' iteration of New York if you look at it objectively. New York in AC Rogue is exponentially better in every way compared to the New York of AC 3. In AC Rogue it is actually fun to traverse New York. The layout of the city is much better for free running. Add to that, the added verticality and the fact that there is just loads more to do compared to the New York of AC 3.

Mr.Black24
04-19-2015, 07:36 AM
I have to disagree there. I don't think the devs ever implied Connor was a boring character, directly or indirectly. The Abstergo stuff in AC4 and Rogue are meant more as light-hearted jabs at gamers, not other devs. It was the playerbase who rejected Connor. However you personally may feel about him, there's no denying that he was a divisive character. That's why he's been buried. Even the stuff in the Rogue database about "oh, he married some girl but had a messy ending" was obviously poking fun at fans who simply will not accept that Connor's story is over and that we need to know every last detail of his life. We're left wondering if that's really true or if Abstergo is twisting the facts again, which perfectly mirrors Ubi's stance on Connor, which is basically that Tumblr should take over and fans should imagine their own ending for him if they really care so much. Thats true, the devs, like Darby, even praised the ones who understood Connor and why he behaved in such a way. I mean that line in the Analysis video practically gave us Connor fans a huge thumbs up, and slapped the ones who called him dumb for being "boring" and 'savage", "...that although Ratohnhaketon his early life will be some of interest to our more educated viewers, it is unlikely that his story will appeal on a broader scale...being too "foreign" as it were, to normal audiences"

We won't accept Connor's story is over, mostly due to the fact that he had such a ****ty ending. A lack of GOOD closure or sendoff, tragic or happy. Like Arno's sendoff in Unity is way better. It showed that Arno had reflected on what he did in the past, on what the Creed means, that revenge is not the way to go, he feels that he had redeemed himself, and that he will keep on fighting for the better. But for Connor??? We see him at Evacuation Day, look at slaves, gives a weird look

https://33.media.tumblr.com/0629694c855d208ef24bc55394a1bf85/tumblr_nmnq9pcf5Z1si1x2go4_540.gif
and he literally exists stage left and thats it! We are indicated to run to New York next for....nothing....no note on what he will do next. If it weren't for the novel, Initiates, and that leak of his speech, we'd know exactly nothing on what he does next.

I mean think about it, sure we know of Connor's speech, but that is like 15-20% of the AC Fanbase. Everyone still thinks that he is a dumb brute that knows nothing hence why he failed his original mission. No one really knows that the guy had mature fully and became a much more determined freedom fighter for the people. Plus why is it that asking for new innovative or improved gameplay is cool, but it is sin to ask for a better or a complete ending for Connor. We all want things, Connor's ending is one of them, and I'll be dammed if that is the crap ending that we are sticking with. What is worse is what if they will pull a stunt like this on another character? Like what if this new person in Victory has all the good qualities, and gets a crap ending like Connor, I know people are going to riot. Its bad that Connor gets this end, but also Shay and Aveline too??? Will every character have a bad sendoff or lack there of?

" that Tumblr should take over and fans should imagine their own ending for him if they really care so much."

I remember when Darby went with that, everyone got pissed since that is the most lazy way to go. Sure its cool that you want us to imagine an ending for Connor, and want to see how we'd take it, but at the end of the day, it is not real, just false words to delay the realization that Connor had never gone the way that the person thinks. That there is a gaping hole in his story that a lot of us wants to know.


I respect some of the things AC3 did or tried to do. That doesn't mean I necessarily have to like them. I respect the fact that they went for a non-white hero, but I still don't like him as a character (or rather, I'm ambivalent about him). I respect that they tried to innovate in a lot of areas, but ultimately what matters more is whether those things work. Treerunning was a good innovation, but it's poorly implemented in gameplay. I felt the same way about ACR's hookblade and feel somewhat the same about Unity's restyled parkour. Innovation is all well and good, but I'd rather take something tried and true that works as intended, rather than a half-assed or broken new feature. It's why I was a lot more forgiving of AC4: it didn't really do anything new (apart from allowing naval freeroam) but it took the things that AC3 introduced and made them work. Treerunning in the jungle was a lot more fun because they spent more time designing alternate paths. Naval was more fun because you were allowed to do it anywhere you wanted. Forts were more fun because they brought back the detection system from Ezio games: dumb-as-bricks AI, but better than psychic AI which makes the player feel cheated. AC4 played it safe in many ways, yet it was a more fun experience because everything in it worked. AC3 felt like a blueprint for things to come, a pretty-looking tech demo but with a lot of half-finished ideas. I mean I don't want to repeat myself, so I'll let this post that perfectly sums up how the Connor fans feel when people don't like him for the wrong reasons:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/22d84cffa572004fb0ec6249c3ad08f9/tumblr_mgjb3qf9mw1r6tmsdo1_500.png
And this post barely scratches the surface!

I do agree that AC4 Naval did the thing that was promised in E3 for AC3, open free roam Naval. If you recall the guy who was explaining Naval gameplay for the first time at the E3 Demo, he said that it was free roaming, however when the game was released, it was no such thing. That was one of the many let downs for me in AC3.
However I'm trying to figure out the differences in tree climbing in AC3 and AC4, they literally feel the same to me.


I'm a very visual person, so I can be easily wowed with pretty graphics. Unity's story sucks, but when I think back on it, my first thought isn't the plotholes or the disappointing ending. My first thought is the bright colors of the hot air balloon against the night sky, or the dark, rainy prologue with the medieval guy, what's-his-face (see, I don't even keep up with names). I think about all the times I walked into a church or palace and spent several minutes just staring at a statue or a cake on the table and the way the light bounces off the objects. I think about all the random NPC animations and how they immersed me in the world and made me think of little stories in my head. When everyone else was complaining about the story not making sense, I was going "story? what story? I already forgot about all that. There was a girl involved, I think? But guys, did you SEE the way coffee actually sends off steam in this game?!" :p
I totally agree with you on this. The lighting, the effects, the environment, it was amazing. Walking down through an actual busy street in Paris is awesome, something that should have been in AC3 since its a growing colony, it should have been very busy. I remember how when it gets rainy, the mood is very dark and somber, like something tragic is brewing. When you walk around, people are doing much more things then they do in AC3, like how one of our guys found a group singing, and I thought things like that were very neat! I wanted more of this, this is Assassin's Creed, going through a living environment, with actual busy people, an actual living city, running around, hiding, and fighting.
If they'd give it more polish, I can't imagine what it would have looked like in its full potential....:)




To be fair, French Revolution always seemed like it was on the cards. It's just the way they handled it that was problematic, not the fact that it was chosen as a setting.

As for crowd-pleasing entries, Black Flag was hardly a crowd-pleaser when it was first announced. A lot of people cried "pirate's creed" and how they couldn't possibly make AC work in a setting like that, but they did. Right after that they tackled slavery in Freedom Cry, another controversial theme yet one which I felt was much better presented than the native American tragedy in AC3.

I do agree that by now the fan service seems to have begun in earnest. First the French Revolution, soon Victorian London, plus China, India and Russia in Chronicles. I just find it hard to get mad that they're not innovating anymore, because I've accepted that the franchise has changed. It has become something much more straightforward with each new entry, more concerned with action and bloated maps than sprawling conspiracies and cryptic messages. It's not the same franchise I fell in love with years ago, but there are elements I still enjoy on their own terms. It just remains to be seen how long those elements can keep the ship afloat. And that is where the problem lies, just because they are changes, doesn't mean they are good ones. And with that, I agree that it has changed, unfortunately its a terrible one, one that I fear that may break the overall series of AC.

I acknowledge the change, but I also know that it ain't a good one.

Hans684
04-19-2015, 01:50 PM
Thats true, the devs, like Darby, even praised the ones who understood Connor and why he behaved in such a way. I mean that line in the Analysis video practically gave us Connor fans a huge thumbs up, and slapped the ones who called him dumb for being "boring" and 'savage", "...that although Ratohnhaketon his early life will be some of interest to our more educated viewers, it is unlikely that his story will appeal on a broader scale...being too "foreign" as it were, to normal audiences"

It's a subjective matter either way, do you find Ezio "boring" or "savage? Still a good video, poking fun at the fans.


We won't accept Connor's story is over, mostly due to the fact that he had such a ****ty ending.

His first arc is over, his first arc was about The Key. But his life isn't over, if we are gonna play him again. Then he needs another arc, we need a reason to relive more of his life. Simply wanting and demanding it isn't enough. Unity is as example of wanting and demanding, people finally got a French Revolution game(with better core) but we don't have a single reason to relive Arno's life. Connor's future story shouldn't be as big waste of time(and filler) as Arno's if where gonna see him again, what we done should have impact and move the story. Unity doesn't do that.


A lack of GOOD closure or sendoff, tragic or happy.

Good is subjective but if he's gonna get a closure(wether tragic or happy) his second arc should have a conclusion.


Like Arno's sendoff in Unity is way better. It showed that Arno had reflected on what he did in the past, on what the Creed means, that revenge is not the way to go, he feels that he had redeemed himself, and that he will keep on fighting for the better.

The only problem with Unity is it's existence, it's a filler bigger than handhelds.


But for Connor??? We see him at Evacuation Day, look at slaves, gives a weird look
https://33.media.tumblr.com/0629694c855d208ef24bc55394a1bf85/tumblr_nmnq9pcf5Z1si1x2go4_540.gif
and he literally exists stage left and thats it! We are indicated to run to New York next for....nothing....no note on what he will do next. If it weren't for the novel, Initiates, and that leak of his speech, we'd know exactly nothing on what he does next.

The last we heard is that he's training Eseosa. Nothing since then, it's a build up that's not done something about. We have Eseosa, Aveline and Petience Gibbs all at the homestead then silence.


I mean think about it, sure we know of Connor's speech, but that is like 15-20% of the AC Fanbase. Everyone still thinks that he is a dumb brute that knows nothing hence why he failed his original mission. No one really knows that the guy had mature fully and became a much more determined freedom fighter for the people.

And it could still grow, if so many know of the speech it's going to be heard in discussions about him. Give it time. He defiantly is a brute but hardly dumb, he's a Hunter, Marksmen, Courier, Merchant, Captain, Privateer, Detective and Colonial Master Assassin. He's just taken a some bad decisions.


Plus why is it that asking for new innovative or improved gameplay is cool, but it is sin to ask for a better or a complete ending for Connor.

It isn't, it just feels like it since he isn't the most popular character. And by a complete ending I hope you don't mean death, we don't need to know absolutely everything about everyone. A complete ending would be finishing a second story arc.


We all want things, Connor's ending is one of them, and I'll be dammed if that is the crap ending that we are sticking with. What is worse is what if they will pull a stunt like this on another character?

Good point, I want more Shay just as much as I don't. The reason I don't want more of his story is because I expect a generic and unoriginal death by the Assassins. When he could have gone to America an made peace(that last at least a decade or two) with Connor. It fits both characters.


Like what if this new person in Victory has all the good qualities, and gets a crap ending like Connor, I know people are going to riot.

People always riot and for different reasons. Sometimes it's just louder than usual.


Its bad that Connor gets this end, but also Shay and Aveline too??? Will every character have a bad sendoff or lack there of?

Most likely, it's one game per character from now on.


That there is a gaping hole in his story that a lot of us wants to know.

And that is?


I mean I don't want to repeat myself, so I'll let this post that perfectly sums up how the Connor fans feel when people don't like him for the wrong reasons:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/22d84cffa572004fb0ec6249c3ad08f9/tumblr_mgjb3qf9mw1r6tmsdo1_500.png
And this post barely scratches the surface!

Seems like the normal tragic hero no one understands speech about the not so popular character from X franchise.

Mr.Black24
04-19-2015, 07:31 PM
It's a subjective matter either way, do you find Ezio "boring" or "savage? Still a good video, poking fun at the fans. No, Ezio is fine. My main issue is that comparing characters who totally live different lives, on what should be and should not be. Like if one would say, "I don't like Connor, I prefer someone who is more outgoing",that is fine. However, if one would say, "Connor is stupid, why isn't he funny and charismatic like Ezio?!", than that is totally absurd! Thats like me saying, "I hate butter, since it doesn't taste like pizza" Well duh! They are totally different things, why should it be the same? They both serve different purposes. Both Connor and Ezio live different lives.




His first arc is over, his first arc was about The Key. But his life isn't over, if we are gonna play him again. Then he needs another arc, we need a reason to relive more of his life. Simply wanting and demanding it isn't enough. Unity is as example of wanting and demanding, people finally got a French Revolution game(with better core) but we don't have a single reason to relive Arno's life. Connor's future story shouldn't be as big waste of time(and filler) as Arno's if where gonna see him again, what we done should have impact and move the story. Unity doesn't do that. Of course, in that I agree. Give him a worthy closure story, something that isn't just a filler to get out of the way. And yes, even though Unity looks good, it really didn't serve much purpose story wise.




Good is subjective but if he's gonna get a closure(wether tragic or happy) his second arc should have a conclusion. What I mean by good, is an actual closure, not something like Unity's ending. Like I get Ubi's joke of trolling us, but since the whole story itself is one big filler with no actual impactful outcome to the story, it makes the ending a big slap to the face.




The only problem with Unity is it's existence, it's a filler bigger than handhelds.Can't argue with that! :rolleyes:




The last we heard is that he's training Eseosa. Nothing since then, it's a build up that's not done something about. We have Eseosa, Aveline and Patience Gibbs all at the homestead then silence. That is the thing right there, if you're going to add more to something, finish it or don't add anything in the first place. I mean what is the point of building up story tension if there is no payoff in the end? Its like leading me to the promise land, just to find out that its just sand and rocks. After all that talk of an oasis, that includes a lifetime supply of milk, bread, steak, and honey.....




And it could still grow, if so many know of the speech it's going to be heard in discussions about him. Give it time. He defiantly is a brute but hardly dumb, he's a Hunter, Marksmen, Courier, Merchant, Captain, Privateer, Detective and Colonial Master Assassin. He's just taken a some bad decisions. Exactly, the guy is flawed, but that what makes him human, we humans ain't perfect, yet people never got the gist of this....




It isn't, it just feels like it since he isn't the most popular character. And by a complete ending I hope you don't mean death, we don't need to know absolutely everything about everyone. A complete ending would be finishing a second story arc. No, just a well written sendoff, tragic or happy, that is the bare minimum. If they gave us his death, I don't mind it either. Just something that wraps up the big questions.




Good point, I want more Shay just as much as I don't. The reason I don't want more of his story is because I expect a generic and unoriginal death by the Assassins. When he could have gone to America an made peace(that last at least a decade or two) with Connor. It fits both characters.I understand, I mean even when Shay was an Assassin, he proposed the idea of an truce and alliance with the Templars, which got shot down by Chevillar. And that is the cool thing, I want to see how this plays out, and how it will fail, since Abraham Lincoln's death proves that the Templars assassinated him which had the Assassins kill his assassin. Although that is a big if, since in their ending speeches, they both realize that Assassins and Templars are not meant to be and since they both are very dedicated to their respective causes.

And dude, that generic death is understandable. Its like with how Adewale died, I mean he is one of the toughest dudes out there, but in Rogue, he got the lamest death, he runs around in circles, and to kill him, you can just shoot him 2 to 3 times...what the hell?! I expected an epic boss fight not a shooting gallery.




People always riot and for different reasons. Sometimes it's just louder than usual. Yeah, but when the ending is bad as Unity's, its understandable. Like honestly, do you agree with how it went?




Most likely, it's one game per character from now on. Which is fine, as long as the ending wraps up anything that indicates a sequel for the protagonists. No one needs fake leads that ends up to an dead end alley.




And that is?
I made a huge thread that asks a bunch of questions regarding Shay, Arno, Connor, and Aveline a while ago, we even had a podcast episode discussing this: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1022017-The-Kenway-Family-Plothole-Its-far-from-quot-Over-quot?
Here are some basics that a fellow fan had provided: How did he recover physically and emotionally after the events of ac3? Do we get to see him actually rebuild the american brotherhood to its former glory? What’s his opinion on how -er- “controversial” the methods of the colonial brotherhood were? Does he know about shay? Do they ever meet? What’s his involvement in the War of 1812? What about Eseosa? What does he teach him? Does he still work alongside Aveline? What’s his wife like? Is she an assassin like him? A former templar? an ally? What about their children?

Like sure, some of these questions are minor, but there are really big ones that do tie along side the minors. Like learning about Shay will mean learning about Connor's opinion on how the former Colonial Brotherhood worked. Mentoring Eseosa will reveal the fact that Shay killed his grandfather, and he will want to know why, hence Connor telling the tale of the Brotherhood's fall. Working with Aveline would surly mean that her encounter with the Precursor disk will be told to Connor and co. But the whole deal is in that thread.



Seems like the normal tragic hero no one understands speech about the not so popular character from X franchise.More like they are two different people that handle things differently and not everyone is the same and people have to understand that, yet they don't, hate character for it, and everything goes to hell....
https://40.media.tumblr.com/0eea6eda4c23cef240ae09267b08e22d/tumblr_nmnyceN3KO1r6tmsdo1_500.png

Hans684
04-19-2015, 08:42 PM
No, Ezio is fine.

As expected.


My main issue is that comparing characters who totally live different lives, on what should be and should not be. Like if one would say, "I don't like Connor, I prefer someone who is more outgoing",that is fine.

Agree.


However, if one would say, "Connor is stupid, why isn't he funny and charismatic like Ezio?!", than that is totally absurd! Thats like me saying, "I hate butter, since it doesn't taste like pizza" Well duh! They are totally different things, why should it be the same? They both serve different purposes. Both Connor and Ezio live different lives.

Apples and oranges. They can be compared but it's about the context they care each other with. Character wise their not comparable in but let's say in term of skill or legacy, that can be compared. Something that's around the same level, their characters is like day and night.


Of course, in that I agree. Give him a worthy closure story, something that isn't just a filler to get out of the way.

It's the game he deserves but not the one we need right now.


And yes, even though Unity looks good, it really didn't serve much purpose story wise.

It doesn't have any purpose. Liberation is less filler than Unity.


What I mean by good, is an actual closure, not something like Unity's ending. Like I get Ubi's joke of trolling us, but since the whole story itself is one big filler with no actual impactful outcome to the story, it makes the ending a big slap to the face.

A closure without any build up after it. No more hits after the game is over. I agree on that.


Can't argue with that! :rolleyes:

A wise desition :rolleyes:


That is the thing right there, if you're going to add more to something, finish it or don't add anything in the first place. I mean what is the point of building up story tension if there is no payoff in the end? Its like leading me to the promise land, just to find out that its just sand and rocks. After all that talk of an oasis, that includes a lifetime supply of milk, bread, steak, and honey.....

...then nothing and you stave to death in the desert.


Exactly, the guy is flawed, but that what makes him human, we humans ain't perfect, yet people never got the gist of this....

Why do you think Batman is so popular? He's that perfect mastermind and fighter that's able to defeat the entire Justice League despite being only a human. Flawed anti-hero's/hero's and gray stories isn't that popular because it goes against the power fantasy of being the unstoppable good guy.


No, just a well written sendoff, tragic or happy, that is the bare minimum. If they gave us his death, I don't mind it either. Just something that wraps up the big questions.

Great, some people consider death an conclusion. Just had to be sure.


I understand, I mean even when Shay was an Assassin, he proposed the idea of an truce and alliance with the Templars, which got shot down by Chevillar.

Both the idea and Shay got shot by Chevillar.


And that is the cool thing, I want to see how this plays out, and how it will fail, since Abraham Lincoln's death proves that the Templars assassinated him which had the Assassins kill his assassin.

Shay must be dead by then and another corrupt Templar most likely became GM. Something must have gone wrong if they had peace.


Although that is a big if, since in their ending speeches, they both realize that Assassins and Templars are not meant to be and since they both are very dedicated to their respective causes.

Shay's speech simply had him say he's a committed Templar and question if he might be wiser. Shay's a guy who questions. Connor's speech was about a compromise and that he will continue fighting for a better future. He hopes for the best. Nothing says they can't make peace.


And dude, that generic death is understandable. Its like with how Adewale died, I mean he is one of the toughest dudes out there, but in Rogue, he got the lamest death, he runs around in circles, and to kill him, you can just shoot him 2 to 3 times...what the hell?! I expected an epic boss fight not a shooting gallery.

I don't know about you but during that mission I went to the right and on the roofs running above Adéwalé before going down and went to the corner that's in his path while being distracted by Haytham. I stealthy assassinated him, wasn't that generic for me but it wast epic either. He should have discover me since he has Eagle Vision and he should have had his FC weapons(machete, blunderbuss and blow pipe) for a proper fight.


Yeah, but when the ending is bad as Unity's, its understandable. Like honestly, do you agree with how it went?

Connor and AC3's ending is miles better than Unity's. AC3 isn't a filler, Connor's life is important and he finishes what Juno wanted so we saved the world(MD).


Which is fine, as long as the ending wraps up anything that indicates a sequel for the protagonists. No one needs fake leads that ends up to an dead end alley.

More comics, Initiates(old lore version), novels etc... then. Expanding in details while still giving each protagonist one game.


I made a huge thread that asks a bunch of questions regarding Shay, Arno, Connor, and Aveline a while ago, we even had a podcast episode discussing this: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1022017-The-Kenway-Family-Plothole-Its-far-from-quot-Over-quot?

I've read the thread and heard the podcast.


Here are some basics that a fellow fan had provided: How did he recover physically and emotionally after the events of ac3?

Got his *** kicked by Patience Gibbs in his attempt at recruiting her and is mostly at the Homestead judging by Initiates. Better but not as good as before.


Do we get to see him actually rebuild the american brotherhood to its former glory?

We know he's recruiting and the members isn't nobody's. Eseosa is trained, Patience Gibbs is recruited, Aveline is an field operative Assassin and his six recruits from AC3. Beyond that we don't know.


What’s his opinion on how -er- “controversial” the methods of the colonial brotherhood were?

Based on his personality he'd be against Achilles Brotherhood.


Does he know about shay?

Possible during his lecture but that can't be confirmed.


Do they ever meet?

Possible but that would just be speculation.


What’s his involvement in the War of 1812?

Unknown.


What about Eseosa?

Under training beyond that is unknown.


What does he teach him?

Unknown.


Does he still work alongside Aveline?

They've worked together twice and she's been to the Homestead, it's a huge possibility.


What’s his wife like?

Blond and crazy :rolleyes:


Is she an assassin like him?

Unknown.


A former templar?

Unknown.



an ally?

His wife.


What about their children?

Taken away by his wife so he's left to wonder where it all went wrong :rolleyes:


Like sure, some of these questions are minor, but there are really big ones that do tie along side the minors.

Yet none of them gives a reason to continue reliving his life, what important thing did he do or find after the AR that's going to help the MD Assassins or Templars? That's the million dollar question, why should we continue to relive his life?


Like learning about Shay will mean learning about Connor's opinion on how the former Colonial Brotherhood worked.

Interesting but not enough.


Mentoring Eseosa will reveal the fact that Shay killed his grandfather, and he will want to know why, hence Connor telling the tale of the Brotherhood's fall.

Same as above.


Working with Aveline would surly mean that her encounter with the Precursor disk will be told to Connor and co. But the whole deal is in that thread.

Now this could give a reason, the Precursor Disk had a message. It could have more and it's "keys" could be anything and anywhere.


More like they are two different people that handle things differently and not everyone is the same and people have to understand that, yet they don't, hate character for it, and everything goes to hell....
https://40.media.tumblr.com/0eea6eda4c23cef240ae09267b08e22d/tumblr_nmnyceN3KO1r6tmsdo1_500.png


I'm well aware of that their different people and I've read that confession. But i was talking about he/she that confessed, the confession is like that. "You simply don't understand him and he's had a more tragic life than Ezio(pissing contest), so your wrong."

Namikaze_17
04-19-2015, 08:53 PM
I thought this was a debate about New York...

Farlander1991
04-19-2015, 09:41 PM
The concept of "the same" core group working on several games is a bit iffy in general, since there are always people coming and going between games. Darby and some others who worked on ACR also went on to do AC4, but Ashraf Ismail was new and presumably also brought in some other new people. Alex Amancio left after ACR and returned in time for Unity. So the team that made ACR is not really the same group who made AC4, nor is the same team who made ACB the same one that made Unity.

While that's certainly true, factually, there's also the matter of the members of existing group having a certain influence due to their experience together. Everybody brings something to the project, especially from the core team each of whom is an experienced member (and usually in one of the leading or semi-leading positions for their fields), and when a big part of that group already worked together before, that influence gets, how to put it, more 'contagious' than in a totally new group. Basically, while Ashraf Ismail is the creative director of AC4, if he'd join an ACB core group to work on AC4, the overall output would've been different than the ACR core group AC4. Not just the story or smth, but the overall experience, principles, style, etc.


I really don't see how anyone can call ACU ambitious. I mean okay its in Next-Gen, did it invent Next-Gen? No it was something which every game was doing (FROM SOFTWARE was making Bloodborne, Rocksteady were making Arkham Knight, Naughty Dog were busy with Uncharted 4). Mechanically, the game streamlines and provides more control in Parkour to accomodate the bigger size, you also have harder and more challenging combat (though with absolutely zero boss fights or advanced enemies to provide a payoff for that system, where are the Legendary Duelists of UNITY). So the Parkour and Combat systems were rebuilt from the ground up to accomodate a bigger world, now that's to be credited but It can't really be called innovation since its a natural development to accomodate the bigger size and capacity of the new systems. Likewise the interiors, which again is probably ACU's biggest credit. But then to accomodate the interior gameplay they developed a new style, i.e. crouch buttons and the like that is properly speaking taken from other stealth games and not something original to them.

UNITY is pretty much a systems-driven game, in that it resembles BROTHERHOOD and REVELATIONS, one city-games both of them. The vast map and crowds of NPCs accomodate open-world Co-Op. In other words its the most casual-friendly game in the entire franchise and those cannot, by definition, be considered ambitious. The idea seems to have been as you said provide something workable to achieve in a limited time frame. In theory anyway, since the game was a bigger mess than the more ambitious AC3. The vast map and crowds of NPCs accomodate open-world Co-Op. In other words its the most casual-friendly game in the entire franchise and those cannot, by definition, be considered ambitious. Black Flag was vastly more ambitious than UNITY even if borrowed and streamlined all of AC3's systems, it still used that to create something new.

As I said, you're looking at it from the 'conceptual' stand point. "AC3 has more concepts of new systems, therefore it's more ambitious" - that's, basically, from what I gather is your line of thought. And as I said, from that perspective, that may be true. But from the perspective of, well, actually making the game, it is not.

Let's take a look at some examples.
1. Crowds. ACU has the capability to show, process, animate and control up to 5000 NPCs, with around a 1000 being seen on the screen a lot (while many more might be hidden from view, for example in parallel streets, they'd still be processed though on a more basic level to be ready for when the player gets to see them). Now, you might say that AC3 has the capability to show 2000 NPCs, for battles and such, which might be technically true (as we see such situations in the game), but it can't handle 2000 actual NPCs. Just about a hundred, like all the games before it. Let's take a look at some examples of big crowds in AC3.

The crowds you see in the distance in the city? Those are actually just 2d sprites (which get replaced with actual models when you get closer not very conspicuously to be honest).
The Battle of Bunker Hill army in the distance? That's sprites mixed with low poly non-animated models with absolutely no AI (sprites get replaced with more models as you get closed). They're basically trees. The only part where we see them all being animated, moving and doing stuff, is when Connor looks through the spyglass, and when he does that it's actually a video file (you can see that based on the artifacts that are present in videos that wouldn't appear in real-time rendering, also frame rate changes). That's also why they don't allow to move close to it in the game - it wouldn't be able to handle all those people actually doing something.
The crowd during execution? Incredibly low poly (if you look close at it, you'll notice that those people just have blocks instead of hands), with no AI or anything and just an animation loop. How many people are there when nobody has to do anything? A 1000? About so I guess. How many people there are on the street the instant when they all have to start running away and chaos ensuing? About 40-50.

Basically, AC3 uses trickery, illusions, to make its big crowds. Unity has actual big crowds, with their AI, animations, behavior loops, everything (not to mention all the conversations and situations that they do). That's a huge undertaking, there's no other game that does that.

2. Co-op. So we've got this place with absolutely huge crowds in it. And now what happens is that we've got to synchronize all that stuff between four players online. Again, there's no other game that does this. It's insane risk and undertaking.

3. 1:1 building scale. While technically not all Paris is 1:1 (depending on area, it's 1:1 or 1:2 or 1:4 I think or smth like that... there was an interview about this), and it's just one city (as opposed to, let's say, AC2's five) the world and asset creation doesn't become easier with it being just one city. It's just as ambitious as AC3's Frontier environment, even if it's not a new concept technically.

4. Time rifts. Now, this is only a presumption on one part, however, this kind of stuff happens in AC all the time. AC2 was supposed to have a full city of Rome, it had only one linear mission in it. AC3 was supposed to have naval free-roam, all naval was localized with no free-roam. Given Jeffrey's mention of the Red Violin, the fact that we have the time anomalies at all, I think it's safe to presume that time rifts weren't originally supposed to be linear, but explorable open world as well. One city in a bunch of time periods is incredibly ambitious, something that presumably had to be cut down.

Add to that all the core mechanics rework and a bunch of smaller stuff (I'm sorry, I'm kinda getting lazy to continue writing this huge post :p ), and you get one hella of an ambitious project. Even if it might not look that way from the eye of the consumer.

EDIT: Also, as a game developer, even though I love AC4 and consider it to be the overall best crafted game in the franchise so far, I can assure you - it's not an ambitious game (which is, ironically, one of the reasons why it's so damn well crafted). Not that it doesn't have its own share of problems to go through mid-development and advancements it accomplished (seamless land/water gameplay, boarding, underwater), it's a very safe project (much, much, much safer than Unity), with lots of abilities to scale down in case of problems without damaging the overall product (heck, and I presume it was scaled down, we just don't notice it for the most part).

Mr.Black24
04-19-2015, 10:46 PM
Apples and oranges. They can be compared but it's about the context they care each other with. Character wise their not comparable in but let's say in term of skill or legacy, that can be compared. Something that's around the same level, their characters is like day and night. Skill and legacy is ok, however people always compare them both Character wise. That is the grip in the argument. Its fine if one prefers another over Connor, but hating him for such miniscule reasons is just plain stupid.



It's the game he deserves but not the one we need right now. Understandable. Although the only reason why I say a Victory DLC is fitting for the 18th century protagonists closure is that the time period are much closer. I know people will be pissed if there were a DLC of this attached to a Japan or India game, so Victory, at least to me, is our best bet.




Why do you think Batman is so popular? He's that perfect mastermind and fighter that's able to defeat the entire Justice League despite being only a human. Flawed anti-hero's/hero's and gray stories isn't that popular because it goes against the power fantasy of being the unstoppable good guy. Meh, casuals. Unfortunately I am aware of how that goes. Hence why we can't get nothing new....



Both the idea and Shay got shot by Chevillar. You cheeky Templar you...:rolleyes:



Shay must be dead by then and another corrupt Templar most likely became GM. Something must have gone wrong if they had peace. Oooohhh perhaps igniting the Civil War?



Shay's speech simply had him say he's a committed Templar and question if he might be wiser. Shay's a guy who questions. Connor's speech was about a compromise and that he will continue fighting for a better future. He hopes for the best. Nothing says they can't make peace. Not saying they can't, but only because since they are both dedicated to the people, they might see each other as too much of a threat, so for the greater good, they would be advisories, but respectful ones. A truce indeed is a possibility too, I ain't disagreeing on that.



I don't know about you but during that mission I went to the right and on the roofs running above Adéwalé before going down and went to the corner that's in his path while being distracted by Haytham. I stealthy assassinated him, wasn't that generic for me but it wast epic either. He should have discover me since he has Eagle Vision and he should have had his FC weapons(machete, blunderbuss and blow pipe) for a proper fight. Hence my point of it being a proper boss fight. All that skill, wisdom, and ability, only to be caught by a stealth assassination....meh.


More comics, Initiates(old lore version), novels etc... then. Expanding in details while still giving each protagonist one game. I like this idea:), although, Hehehe some people here would disagree with this.



Got his *** kicked by Patience Gibbs in his attempt at recruiting her and is mostly at the Homestead judging by Initiates. Better but not as good as before.


We know he's recruiting and the members isn't nobody's. Eseosa is trained, Patience Gibbs is recruited, Aveline is an field operative Assassin and his six recruits from AC3. Beyond that we don't know.
Possible during his lecture but that can't be confirmed.

Possible but that would just be speculation.

Unknown.

Under training beyond that is unknown.

Unknown. So many unknowns, too many to be considered closure, but its something that the fanbase would wish to know. I mean I know there are many things we would like to know in the lore, wanting to know Connor's later life is never a bad thing.


They've worked together twice and she's been to the Homestead, it's a huge possibility. Seeing that play out is one of my big interests.


Blond and crazy :rolleyes:Oh man....


His wife. Of course.....http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/862/065/0e9.jpg

Before marriage is what that meant....

Taken away by his wife so he's left to wonder where it all went wrong :rolleyes: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/862/065/0e9.jpg

That line still gets me!!!! Like it can mean anything!!!! Hahahaha Ubi knows how to send us on the run lol


Yet none of them gives a reason to continue reliving his life, what important thing did he do or find after the AR that's going to help the MD Assassins or Templars? That's the million dollar question, why should we continue to relive his life? One can say the same about Freedom Cry and Bloodlines, but we have it. Simply, the devs wanted to expand the lore of certain characters, and we Connor fans want the same for Connor, as well as for Shay, Arno, and Aveline of course.

Plus I'm that kind of guy that once I start something, I finish it. I hate leaving unfinished business behind. Hence my gripe when playing Unity, which kind of blunted my experience playing the game. For me it is nerve racking seeing the time go from 1789 to 1794 and wonder what is Connor and Co. are up to. Seeing it is the magic, that is what we want to know. Sure, we know what pie looks like, but no one wants to see a picture of one, we want the real thing in our hands and be able to eat it!



Now this could give a reason, the Precursor Disk had a message. It could have more and it's "keys" could be anything and anywhere. This and the fact that the Box is still around. Are they connected somehow? Will they fight for them? What was Haytham's original plan for the Box and will Shay carry out his planned mission? It is easy to say that Shay would hide it, but its a huge doubt since its obvious that Haytham had huge plans for it and Shay is about furthering the Templar cause.


I'm well aware of that their different people and I've read that confession. But i was talking about he/she that confessed, the confession is like that. "You simply don't understand him and he's had a more tragic life than Ezio(pissing contest), so your wrong." Well Connor did have a more tragic life then Ezio, I mean you honestly think the guy will be happy and cheerful as Ezio after going through all that in the end?


I thought this was a debate about New York... Sorry! I think me and Hans are about done here.

VestigialLlama4
04-20-2015, 05:40 AM
As I said, you're looking at it from the 'conceptual' stand point. "AC3 has more concepts of new systems, therefore it's more ambitious" - that's, basically, from what I gather is your line of thought. And as I said, from that perspective, that may be true. But from the perspective of, well, actually making the game, it is not.

Well I don't think concepts are all that cheap. Creating new stuff and new technical advancements, better graphics and the like should ultimately have a purpose to serve. Otherwise the games are a pointless demonstration for Next-Gen technology, curious for how it demonstrates the new system's graphical ability to generate more crowds and the like, and useful for understanding the problems it runs into as well how to avoid the mistakes it makes, but nothing more.


Basically, AC3 uses trickery, illusions, to make its big crowds. Unity has actual big crowds, with their AI, animations, behavior loops, everything (not to mention all the conversations and situations that they do). That's a huge undertaking, there's no other game that does that.

The fact remains that all these NPCs with variable AI, as big an undertaking as it is, doesn't serve any real function in the end. It's just scenery. There are no new variations or pitfalls to social stealth, there are no new interactions (sure you can see some random NPC animation and the like but that's a fairly common and utterly meaningless open-world activity) and there isn't even any real bond between player and crowd since Arno and the game by large is counter-revolutionary and sees them as evil poor morons following Templar whims and the game essentially makes the crowd work and function in that manner. You don't even have anything like the ACR Bomb Mechanic (developed by Amancio also).


3. 1:1 building scale. While technically not all Paris is 1:1 (depending on area, it's 1:1 or 1:2 or 1:4 I think or smth like that... there was an interview about this), and it's just one city (as opposed to, let's say, AC2's five) the world and asset creation doesn't become easier with it being just one city. It's just as ambitious as AC3's Frontier environment, even if it's not a new concept technically.

Again what purpose does this serve? There has to be a reason why Paris is larger and bigger, why it has more crowds and the like. The Houser brothers when they talked about the shift between the GTA3 games and GTA4 Liberty City noted that they increased the size and feel of the game to make it more like a real city and recognizable culture. GTA4 likewise didn't have as many concepts as San Andreas did but it was far more consistent to its limited set of goals, it managed to create a Liberty City that felt like New York more than any game set in New York did.

The logical reason why Paris should be bigger and larger is a promise of increased realism, greater historical fidelity and density of detail. You know make it as much like the Paris of that time would be. All those goals are totally compromised since the game's background and history is almost entirely false and its even less faithful than idealized glass-bowl creations like Rome and Istanbul.

The fact is UNITY is a Next-Gen game governed entirely by obsolete logic and poor design decisions.


4. Time rifts. Now, this is only a presumption on one part, however, this kind of stuff happens in AC all the time. AC2 was supposed to have a full city of Rome, it had only one linear mission in it. AC3 was supposed to have naval free-roam, all naval was localized with no free-roam. Given Jeffrey's mention of the Red Violin, the fact that we have the time anomalies at all, I think it's safe to presume that time rifts weren't originally supposed to be linear, but explorable open world as well. One city in a bunch of time periods is incredibly ambitious, something that presumably had to be cut down.

At the end of the day, with all the features and stuff cut out of AC3, the game is still impressive and innovative. The same cannot be said of UNITY. The concept of a single city in multiple eras is fairly radical and they should have devoted their time and attention to putting that to work, however hard and time consuming it would have been (and it would be) rather than turn to a Revolution-set-AC game as what seems like a backup plan. That laziness is reflected in the game since all the interesting and "magical" moments are when it's set in other eras and the developers and writers display zero interest in the subject.


EDIT: Also, as a game developer, even though I love AC4 and consider it to be the overall best crafted game in the franchise so far, I can assure you - it's not an ambitious game (which is, ironically, one of the reasons why it's so damn well crafted). Not that it doesn't have its own share of problems to go through mid-development and advancements it accomplished (seamless land/water gameplay, boarding, underwater), it's a very safe project (much, much, much safer than Unity), with lots of abilities to scale down in case of problems without damaging the overall product (heck, and I presume it was scaled down, we just don't notice it for the most part).

I only said BLACK FLAG is more ambitious than UNITY. I don't think its an especially ambitious game. It borrows all its assets from AC3 (even the animation of Edward rapelling from the deck to the mast via that elevator, and dropping down from the hook is there in an AC3 cutscene). The land gameplay is really, really simplified from AC3, the islands are super-tiny. It is more ambitious than UNITY simply because you have a protagonist who is really morally ambiguous, a real a--hole and idiot in fact, it also drastically deconstructs and challenges the pirate fantasy even while it provides the most triumphant example. Edward Kenway might be safer than Connor but he's far more ambitious than Arno and that irish guy.

Hans684
04-20-2015, 04:58 PM
Skill and legacy is ok, however people always compare them both Character wise. That is the grip in the argument. Its fine if one prefers another over Connor, but hating him for such miniscule reasons is just plain stupid.

Hatred blindes, simple as that.


Understandable. Although the only reason why I say a Victory DLC is fitting for the 18th century protagonists closure is that the time period are much closer. I know people will be pissed if there were a DLC of this attached to a Japan or India game, so Victory, at least to me, is our best bet.

I don't like DLC because it's DLC, I'd rather have the entire game. Just raise the price and it's fine.


Meh, casuals. Unfortunately I am aware of how that goes. Hence why we can't get nothing new....

It's why I approve Rogue despite being black and white since it creates a gray erea by simply existing, we've has 3 games with cartoon villains and Rogue balance that. Unity simply adds insult to injury. I'd expect one sided writing in Star Wars but not AC.


You cheeky Templar you...:rolleyes:

I make my own luck :rolleyes:


Oooohhh perhaps igniting the Civil War?

How original, a Templar starting a war. We've never had that before, black and white stories is gonna be new to AC. Black and white stories is something I consider comedy, Rodrigo's "There is no mercy when crossing a Templar" is as ridiculous(poorly written) and funny as anything Chevalier says.


Not saying they can't, but only because since they are both dedicated to the people, they might see each other as too much of a threat, so for the greater good, they would be advisories, but respectful ones. A truce indeed is a possibility too, I ain't disagreeing on that.

Fair enough but the fact that they do care for the people why I can't see them fight.


Hence my point of it being a proper boss fight. All that skill, wisdom, and ability, only to be caught by a stealth assassination....meh.

True, still better than fighting him and see him run in circles.


I like this idea:), although, Hehehe some people here would disagree with this.

Thank you, I care for the lore and story.


So many unknowns, too many to be considered closure, but its something that the fanbase would wish to know. I mean I know there are many things we would like to know in the lore, wanting to know Connor's later life is never a bad thing.

True.


Seeing that play out is one of my big interests.

Indeed it is, more story is fine.


Oh man....

She tasted forest fruit.


Of course.....http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/862/065/0e9.jpg

Before marriage is what that meant....

His girlfriend.


http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/862/065/0e9.jpg
That line still gets me!!!! Like it can mean anything!!!! Hahahaha Ubi knows how to send us on the run lol

Like what?


One can say the same about Freedom Cry and Bloodlines, but we have it.

Their not main games, main games isn't supposed to be filler(Unity is that). They are side games that's also filler but it's fine since it's only meant to expand the lore.


Simply, the devs wanted to expand the lore of certain characters, and we Connor fans want the same for Connor, as well as for Shay, Arno, and Aveline of course.

That would require a main game if want all.


Plus I'm that kind of guy that once I start something, I finish it. I hate leaving unfinished business behind. Hence my gripe when playing Unity, which kind of blunted my experience playing the game. For me it is nerve racking seeing the time go from 1789 to 1794 and wonder what is Connor and Co. are up to. Seeing it is the magic, that is what we want to know.

Fair enough.


Sure, we know what pie looks like, but no one wants to see a picture of one, we want the real thing in our hands and be able to eat it!

I don't want to eat pie, pie would taste funny. If you gonna eat pie you gave to eat a lot, like Brian the Bear. You don't want him hunting you, Brain represent Bears. Harming one is harming all.


This and the fact that the Box is still around.

Their fighting over the Box in MD, another reason.


Are they connected somehow?

Unknown.


Will they fight for them?

They always fight each other over artifacts, "because only they know how to use it". That's the mentality of both orders.


What was Haytham's original plan for the Box and will Shay carry out his planned mission?

His mission was to get the Box. He has it, so he completed it.


It is easy to say that Shay would hide it, but its a huge doubt since its obvious that Haytham had huge plans for it and Shay is about furthering the Templar cause.

What "huge plans"? Do you even know the Templar cause? What they fight for? What it means to be one? What's against their ideology? Most people are as ignorant as apes when it comes to Templars.


Well Connor did have a more tragic life then Ezio, I mean you honestly think the guy will be happy and cheerful as Ezio after going through all that in the end?

Didn't say it wasn't true.


Sorry! I think me and Hans are about done here.

I doubt that.

KoloheB
04-20-2015, 09:52 PM
This is an interesting comparison. AC3 hands down, btw. When I was playing Rogue, I noticed that New York just didn't feel right... wasn't "New York"-y enough. Didn't capture the feel I expected. Now I know why. The buildings in Rogue just aren't right for NY... too much like any other city. And the haze in the air in AC3 was *perfect*. Looks at them side-by-side, it's clear as day that AC3 was a near-perfect rendition of colonial New York, and Rogue was just off the mark. (Good game otherwise though.)

As for all the Connor comments, I loved him. I thought his character was relatable in a way that Edward (and Arno) weren't, and his story was flushed out and well done. Good backstory. I wish they would have continued with him and made more games with him.

SixKeys
04-20-2015, 09:58 PM
As for all the Connor comments, I loved him. I thought his character was relatable in a way that Edward (and Arno) weren't, and his story was flushed out and well done.

Connor's story was definitely flushed out.

Or did you mean fleshed out?

Megas_Doux
04-20-2015, 10:39 PM
I thought this was a debate about New York...

Indeed....

Back on topic, well I dislike both, but I choose AC III´s NY.

Sabutto
04-20-2015, 11:02 PM
I prefer Rogues NY had a lot of fun running around in it. Ac3s looked better but wasn't as enjoyable for me.

Randome note: Almost every area in Rogue had a lot of different pathways to take zig zagging around with the parkour rlly fun

SixKeys
04-21-2015, 12:38 AM
Rogue's NY has one more advantage: proper quick-travel instead of boring tunnels.

Mr.Black24
04-21-2015, 01:22 AM
I don't like DLC because it's DLC, I'd rather have the entire game. Just raise the price and it's fine. So would I man, in fact the only reason why I ask for a DLC is because mostly everyone here will complain about another entire game set in America again. Just one last game, is all I'm asking for, and yet its hellfire for some reason....




It's why I approve Rogue despite being black and white since it creates a gray area by simply existing, we've has 3 games with cartoon villains and Rogue balance that. Unity simply adds insult to injury. I'd expect one sided writing in Star Wars but not AC. Rogue's story of Shay going Templar from Assassin is rather rushed to me....that is an talk for another time!




How original, a Templar starting a war. We've never had that before, black and white stories is gonna be new to AC. Black and white stories is something I consider comedy, Rodrigo's "There is no mercy when crossing a Templar" is as ridiculous(poorly written) and funny as anything Chevalier says. Perhaps those reasons aren't so black and white. Too quick to assume, it could be something different of course.



Thank you, I care for the lore and story. Same, hell, that is the main reason why I play these games. I'm a story kind of person. While innovation is nice, I like Story progression, Completion, and Expansion. The fact that Rogue is a "Black Flag DLC" bothers me not.



She tasted forest fruit. Bruh....:rolleyes:



Like what? Who knows mate? Perhaps she did go crazy. I highly doubt it, but with Ubisoft and how they written the games now these days....I fear for the worst.




I don't want to eat pie, pie would taste funny. If you gonna eat pie you gave to eat a lot, like Brian the Bear. You don't want him hunting you, Brain represent Bears. Harming one is harming all. Lulz, I'm a bowhunter, I'm bagging me some bear burgers tonight, alongside my pie! ;)




They always fight each other over artifacts, "because only they know how to use it". That's the mentality of both orders.


His mission was to get the Box. He has it, so he completed it.
What "huge plans"? Do you even know the Templar cause? What they fight for? What it means to be one? What's against their ideology? Most people are as ignorant as apes when it comes to Templars. Simple, why did Haytham want the Box? Why for him? What is it going to be used for in favor of the Templar Order? How so?
And maybe if Rogue, for a Templar game, actually expanded on Templar Ideology, instead of calling Assassins heathens all the time, then the story would have been much better! I mean seriously, we could have gotten more things like of who is "The Father of Understanding" and why Shay thinks the Templars are right. I mean the only reason why he joined them is to stop the Assassins, but nothing on how else he was convinced into their way of thinking.



I doubt that. You are right, however I wanted to stop, since it would be rude for our other fellow members to hijack a totally different Thread into a Connor Sequel Thread....as it has been done numerous times. Maybe over PM?


Rogue's NY has one more advantage: proper quick-travel instead of boring tunnels.
The tunnels should have been filled with some neat treasure, or even some kind of Assassin Artifacts. Or even accidentally coming across Freemasons holding one of their meetings! It could have been more fleshed out indeed.

Megas_Doux
04-21-2015, 01:33 AM
Oh and guys, I´m not a mod and don´t mean to offend you, but this off-topic Connor/kenway saga discussion is kinda out of place.



Rogue's NY has one more advantage: proper quick-travel instead of boring tunnels.

That´s true.!!! You know, I might be biased, but the fact of visiting NY again makes me dislike Rogue´s version even more......

I-Like-Pie45
04-21-2015, 01:40 AM
I wouldn't care if you went and killed some polar bears

In fact I would give you a medal if you killed all of them