PDA

View Full Version : Ubisoft's Audacity



crusader_prophet
05-09-2015, 09:08 PM
:mad:

Admire Ubisoft's audacity to release an AC game this year after the critical failure of AC Unity last year. I seriously hope they deliver 1000% in every aspect a AAA game is supposed to or this franchise will be dead to most of it's customers. And by that I mean significant improvement in storyline, gameplay mechanics, technical fidelity, character uniqueness, deep RPG elements and consistent side missions that tie into overall arch of the core campaign. This game needs to be at least 9.5/10 in critical aspect if this franchise is going to live for another ten years.

Civona
05-09-2015, 09:17 PM
It was audacious of them to release Assassin's Creed 2 after the critical reception of the first game too. The reason they did was because it sold a lot of copies. the reason they're releasing this one is because the series continues to sell a lot of copies. The pattern is not complex. And yeah, I don't like it, but I'm not really surprised by it at all.

crusader_prophet
05-09-2015, 10:11 PM
I guess people love to buy recycled material.

EmptyCrustacean
05-09-2015, 10:42 PM
It was audacious of them to release Assassin's Creed 2 after the critical reception of the first game too. The reason they did was because it sold a lot of copies. the reason they're releasing this one is because the series continues to sell a lot of copies. The pattern is not complex. And yeah, I don't like it, but I'm not really surprised by it at all.

1) AC1 is awesome and has aged extremely well receiving nowhere near the mass panning Unity received.
2) It was innovative with its parkour mechanics and unique story telling.
3) It was technically far more complete than Unity. In fact, Jade Raymond is on record as saying that they spent so much time getting technical aspects of it right that it left very little room for them to create a more dynamic campaign. You could argue that the game is unfinished from a creative standpoint but that's all relevative as art is enever truly finished only abandoned.

Technical issues - that is ensuring the game actually WORKS - is not subjective. Its absolute completion should be a requirement for EVERY game. That is why Ubi deserved another shot after AC1.
AC Unity not so much.

rprkjj
05-09-2015, 11:12 PM
1) AC1 is awesome and has aged extremely well receiving nowhere near the mass panning Unity received.
2) It was innovative with its parkour mechanics and unique story telling.
3) It was technically far more complete than Unity. In fact, Jade Raymond is on record as saying that they spent so much time getting technical aspects of it right that it left very little room for them to create a more dynamic campaign. You could argue that the game is unfinished from a creative standpoint but that's all relevative as art is enever truly finished only abandoned.

Technical issues - that is ensuring the game actually WORKS - is not subjective. Its absolute completion should be a requirement for EVERY game. That is why Ubi deserved another shot after AC1.
AC Unity not so much.

Unity wasn't universally panned. It got some terrible reviews and some great reviews, but mostly just okay ones. It also sold extremely well. Most of the critics I find are in the comments sections on YouTube as well as a hefty share here. Mostly criticizing the poor launch.

crusader_prophet
05-09-2015, 11:31 PM
Unity wasn't universally panned. It got some terrible reviews and some great reviews, but mostly just okay ones. It also sold extremely well. Most of the critics I find are in the comments sections on YouTube as well as a hefty share here. Mostly criticizing the poor launch.

AC's deliverance on story line and interesting and lovable characters declined after AC:B. Revelations was still good because Ezio and Altair was in there and the modern story line was given a revelation.

EmptyCrustacean
05-09-2015, 11:43 PM
Unity wasn't universally panned. It got some terrible reviews and some great reviews, but mostly just okay ones. It also sold extremely well. Most of the critics I find are in the comments sections on YouTube as well as a hefty share here. Mostly criticizing the poor launch.

Its technical failures made the BBC NEWS. The. BBC. News. All the most prominent gaming reviewers panned it and it only sold well because Ubi didn't lift the embargo until very late and plus people loved Black Flag so it was coming off that popularity. Don't be surprised if Victory or whatever the hell this new instalment is called doesn't sell as well.

rprkjj
05-09-2015, 11:50 PM
Its technical failures made the BBC NEWS. The. BBC. News. All the most prominent gaming reviewers panned it and it only sold well because Ubi didn't lift the embargo until very late and plus people loved Black Flag so it was coming off that popularity. Don't be surprised if Victory or whatever the hell this new instalment is called doesn't sell as well.

False.

A game being so broken at launch that it appears on the news isn't and shouldn't be the litmus test for a game's success. We know the launch sucked, that's a prominent point of criticism. Yes, sales peak around prosperous times for the series and are lower after less well received entries. That doesn't change the fact that Unity made bank by any AAA game's standards other then COD. So I don't know how the game was given "mass panning." It's got like a 75 on metacritic. That's above average.

Namikaze_17
05-10-2015, 02:16 AM
AC's deliverance on story line and interesting and lovable characters declined after AC:B.

You forgot to insert 'In my Opinion'.

HiddenKiller612
05-10-2015, 02:23 AM
I look forward to your hate thread when Victory/Syndicate is released.

ze_topazio
05-10-2015, 02:23 AM
Really audacious of them to release another game this year like they have been doing since 2009.

Xstantin
05-10-2015, 03:00 AM
Just disgusting
#imaoffended

ze_topazio
05-10-2015, 03:09 AM
Ubi be change!

I-Like-Pie45
05-10-2015, 03:09 AM
Just disgusting
#imaoffended

Meow am wonder will you be protested to the ubi?

kosmoscreed
05-10-2015, 04:38 AM
Audacity will be to push the game one year to make it extra awesome, this is nothing but Ubi wanting the money because they are a big company and they need to pay the "rent" and have huge earning every year for investors and such.

deskpe
05-10-2015, 04:54 AM
Since last years game was somwhat poorly receieved and broken, just means its more important to give us a good game this year.

Releasing a "bad" game and letting it linger for 2 years doesen't make sense.



So far each AC game's quality has been seperated from the preformance of the previous game.

VestigialLlama4
05-10-2015, 05:29 AM
False.

A game being so broken at launch that it appears on the news isn't and shouldn't be the litmus test for a game's success.

Well how about the game was so broken at launch that their cash-grab empty DLC had to be made free as a form of public penance, that they removed the Season's Pass completely and had to give Pass holders a free game in addition to the Chronicles Games they already paid for. That's content that's essentially become a loss-making venture.


We know the launch sucked, that's a prominent point of criticism.

It's the most visible part. But you shouldn't look hard to find people calling it shoddy, bad story, boring character, weak game mechanics.


Yes, sales peak around prosperous times for the series and are lower after less well received entries. That doesn't change the fact that Unity made bank by any AAA game's standards other then COD. So I don't know how the game was given "mass panning." It's got like a 75 on metacritic. That's above average.

Well Ac3 made it to the 80s and that was the most divisive game before UNITY and most of the hate towards AC3 came from racists who love their white picket fence.

Look there are good reasons for people to defend UNITY, its attempt to go back to the core, and introducing (albeit unsuccessfully) more open-ended missions but don't pretend that people who hate the game are "haters". I like AC3 but I never denied its flaws and bugs, I defend the game for its ambition and its sense of grandeur which was something that fell away in the later games. UNITY has severe flaws even outside the bad launch, that it made good money is nice (nobody wants Ubisoft to lose money or go bankrupt after all, we merely want them to make good products) but to say that the game didn't become a barometer for "franchise overextending and eating itself" is to deny reality.

crusader_prophet
05-10-2015, 07:49 AM
You forgot to insert 'In my Opinion'.

No I didn't forget because it is obvious when I am the one posting it.

SixKeys
05-10-2015, 01:01 PM
Well Ac3 made it to the 80s and that was the most divisive game before UNITY and most of the hate towards AC3 came from racists who love their white picket fence.


You keep saying most of the hate directed towards AC3 was due to racism, but never cite any sources. Why do you assume everyone who hates Connor must be a racist?

D.I.D.
05-10-2015, 01:21 PM
Well Ac3 made it to the 80s and that was the most divisive game before UNITY and most of the hate towards AC3 came from racists who love their white picket fence.



Who do you have in mind here? I didn't like AC3, and I didn't like Connor. According to you, there's a good chance I'm a racist. Looking forward to my white picket fence, that sounds lovely.

VestigialLlama4
05-10-2015, 01:46 PM
You keep saying most of the hate directed towards AC3 was due to racism, but never cite any sources. Why do you assume everyone who hates Connor must be a racist?

Well for one thing Ubisoft have themselves acknowledged that racism is a factor. In Black Flag the market analysis video of Connor has Roger Craig Smith say: "Mohawk culture lacks the balance to tell the true story of America. Moreover, we feel that the Mohawk language will be an issue for most of our audience. We therefore feel that although RatonhnhakÚ:ton's early life is of some interest to our more educated viewers its unlikely his story will appeal on a more broader scale being too foreign, as it were for normal audiences."

Then, take this article for instance: http://kotaku.com/assassins-creeds-connor-who-was-the-worst-is-done-f-1459894621 The article is essentially has no real criticism and its written by that one writer who on launch wrote five or six articles about AC3 (following Stephen Totilo's very positive launch review) being a disappointment, which strikes me as very excessive. I mean saying it once should be enough right. But to repeatedly get on a bandwagon and essentially contribute nothing to the debate except flame people is fairly suspicious. Almost any criticism of Connor is always the same "Has no personality", "Grumpy", "Naive" and so on, using the same weasel words (which contradict each other, how can Connor have no personality but still be called "grumpy and naive"?) and making fun of people who follow him for being on Tumblr whatever the hell that means (I don't always get online references so I check the Urban Dictionary whenever I can).

This is the 21st Century and the age of political correctness which means that people can't be taken seriously if they are openly racist or bigoted so they have to hide it behind some cover. You see this in Gamer Gate where "journalism ethics" becomes a banner to attack perfectly sensible critiques by Anita Sarkeesian, you see this in the so-called "sad puppys" at the Hugo Awards and other places. With AC3, much of it is directed towards Connor's personality or lacking Ezio's charm and the like, so that's why I say the shoe fits.


Who do you have in mind here? I didn't like AC3, and I didn't like Connor. According to you, there's a good chance I'm a racist. Looking forward to my white picket fence, that sounds lovely.

You know that attitude is what stinks...why do you need that validation? Why do you need somebody else to say, "It's okay if you didn't like Connor, you are not a racist!" I said that most of the criticism comes from racism and gaming culture (and nerd culture for that matter) is fairly racist and bigoted.

Fact is we are all pretty racist at some point in our lives, and most of it comes from ignorance and to a certain extent its pardonable, so long as you are willing to consider other people's views and accept that you are flawed. When I say gamers are racist I don't necessarily mean they are Right Wing or KKK people, I am saying that its problematic the way movies in the 40s and 50s can be problematic or how a lot of vintage advertising is pretty disgusting and gross.

Locopells
05-10-2015, 01:50 PM
Let's not sidetrack the issue here...

Sushiglutton
05-10-2015, 01:52 PM
Well for one thing Ubisoft have themselves acknowledged that racism is a factor. In Black Flag the market analysis video of Connor has Roger Craig Smith say: "Mohawk culture lacks the balance to tell the true story of America. Moreover, we feel that the Mohawk language will be an issue for most of our audience. We therefore feel that although RatonhnhakÚ:ton's early life is of some interest to our more educated viewers its unlikely his story will appeal on a more broader scale being too foreign, as it were for normal audiences."

Then, take this article for instance: http://kotaku.com/assassins-creeds-connor-who-was-the-worst-is-done-f-1459894621 The article is essentially has no real criticism and its written by that one writer who on launch wrote five or six articles about AC3 (following Stephen Totilo's very positive launch review) being a disappointment, which strikes me as very excessive. I mean saying it once should be enough right. But to repeatedly get on a bandwagon and essentially contribute nothing to the debate except flame people is fairly suspicious. Almost any criticism of Connor is always the same "Has no personality", "Grumpy", "Naive" and so on, using the same weasel words (which contradict each other, how can Connor have no personality but still be called "grumpy and naive"?) and making fun of people who follow him for being on Tumblr whatever the hell that means (I don't always get online references so I check the Urban Dictionary whenever I can).

This is the 21st Century and the age of political correctness which means that people can't be taken seriously if they are openly racist or bigoted so they have to hide it behind some cover. You see this in Gamer Gate where "journalism ethics" becomes a banner to attack perfectly sensible critiques by Anita Sarkeesian, you see this in the so-called "sad puppys" at the Hugo Awards and other places. With AC3, much of it is directed towards Connor's personality or lacking Ezio's charm and the like, so that's why I say the shoe fits.


Think this Kotaku article describes much better why many of us had an issue with AC3: http://kotaku.com/5958941/how-has-assassins-creed-iii-disappointed-me-let-me-count-the-ways

VestigialLlama4
05-10-2015, 02:05 PM
Let's not sidetrack the issue here...

I was asked a direct question and my post only put that as a casual aside. So it wasn't me who sidetracked the issue either.

Anyway as far as Ubisoft's audacity goes in releasing a game after UNITY's launch. I personally think that with the medium and metaphor they have, there's always the possibility for change. Okay Paris was a bummer in UNITY, let's go to the next game and try another roll of the dice.

They shouldn't make games in settings and period that doesn't interest them or they don't feel passionate about. Their initial idea for UNITY was Paris in multiple eras and they backed away from that at an early stage and the Revolution setting was a last resort as is visible in the thoroughly shoddy research and recreation. As much as I like AC3 and think it was a game that in its existence alone set standards to reach for (even if it didn't entirely achieve it), I can tell it wasn't a setting that they felt a great deal of interest in either.

The flaw in AC3 in that the historical section is kind of dry and too textbook, but that is still better than what they do in UNITY, where its not even a textbook (i.e. provide information about events with basic accuracy). I think ideally they should have focused solely on Connor, removed the Haytham prologue and have him be this peripheral figure to the Revolution, and reduce Washington and the Patriots to a key cameo a la Richard Lionheart in AC1. But I have a feeling they backed away from that because, "Mohawk culture lacks the balance to tell the true story of America. Moreover, we feel that the Mohawk language will be an issue for most of our audience." I mean AC3 is hardly an example of perfect representation of minorities, if it was a movie it would be pretty bad, but since gaming has zero standards, AC3 kind of feels like a revolution.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 02:58 PM
Well how about the game was so broken at launch that their cash-grab empty DLC had to be made free as a form of public penance, that they removed the Season's Pass completely and had to give Pass holders a free game in addition to the Chronicles Games they already paid for. That's content that's essentially become a loss-making venture.

Um, okay? So even if it sold well and got decent reviews it's a failure? Lolno.


It's the most visible part. But you shouldn't look hard to find people calling it shoddy, bad story, boring character, weak game mechanics.

I've heard those criticisms and agree with them to an extent, but the poor launch is the only objective and most prominent criticism levied against the game.


Well Ac3 made it to the 80s and that was the most divisive game before UNITY and most of the hate towards AC3 came from racists who love their white picket fence.

1. AC2 still has the best metacritic of the series, that doesn't mean AC3 sucked.
2. I lol'd.


Look there are good reasons for people to defend UNITY, its attempt to go back to the core, and introducing (albeit unsuccessfully) more open-ended missions but don't pretend that people who hate the game are "haters". I like AC3 but I never denied its flaws and bugs, I defend the game for its ambition and its sense of grandeur which was something that fell away in the later games. UNITY has severe flaws even outside the bad launch, that it made good money is nice (nobody wants Ubisoft to lose money or go bankrupt after all, we merely want them to make good products) but to say that the game didn't become a barometer for "franchise overextending and eating itself" is to deny reality.

Never said they were just haters. You're the one saying common criticisms make the game a failure, I say selling poorly and/or having a negative critical response is failure. That's the reality.

D.I.D.
05-10-2015, 03:20 PM
You know that attitude is what stinks...why do you need that validation? Why do you need somebody else to say, "It's okay if you didn't like Connor, you are not a racist!" I said that most of the criticism comes from racism and gaming culture (and nerd culture for that matter) is fairly racist and bigoted.

Fact is we are all pretty racist at some point in our lives, and most of it comes from ignorance and to a certain extent its pardonable, so long as you are willing to consider other people's views and accept that you are flawed. When I say gamers are racist I don't necessarily mean they are Right Wing or KKK people, I am saying that its problematic the way movies in the 40s and 50s can be problematic or how a lot of vintage advertising is pretty disgusting and gross.

This would be a more valid position if the game was not so severely flawed, but it is. The list of issues will every part of AC3 from gameplay to mission design, to story, to writing, to characters... and your take-away is that people must have been racist against Connor in ways you can't even identify? There were people on these forums saying that they found it impossible to relate to AdÚwalÚ because they didn't like playing as a black man, and there are people who hate the idea of playing as a female or gay character and aren't afraid to say so, but you think you've picked up subliminal racism against Connor on your text radar in the things nobody's said? Come on.

My problem with AC3 as regards culture is that the team had to call in aboriginal American advisors because they didn't have anybody on staff to tell them that, for instance, a planned scalping mechanism was completely inappropriate for Connor's people, and grossly offensive. I think that's why Connor is such a dull character. I don't think the team was able to make this character coalesce because the creative team was unable to put itself in his shoes. That's your race-related problem, right there. The creators were a bigger problem than the audience, as far as we can tell from the things people have actually said.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 03:44 PM
Well for one thing Ubisoft have themselves acknowledged that racism is a factor. In Black Flag the market analysis video of Connor has Roger Craig Smith say: "Mohawk culture lacks the balance to tell the true story of America. Moreover, we feel that the Mohawk language will be an issue for most of our audience. We therefore feel that although RatonhnhakÚ:ton's early life is of some interest to our more educated viewers its unlikely his story will appeal on a more broader scale being too foreign, as it were for normal audiences."

Then, take this article for instance: http://kotaku.com/assassins-creeds-connor-who-was-the-worst-is-done-f-1459894621 The article is essentially has no real criticism and its written by that one writer who on launch wrote five or six articles about AC3 (following Stephen Totilo's very positive launch review) being a disappointment, which strikes me as very excessive. I mean saying it once should be enough right. But to repeatedly get on a bandwagon and essentially contribute nothing to the debate except flame people is fairly suspicious. Almost any criticism of Connor is always the same "Has no personality", "Grumpy", "Naive" and so on, using the same weasel words (which contradict each other, how can Connor have no personality but still be called "grumpy and naive"?) and making fun of people who follow him for being on Tumblr whatever the hell that means (I don't always get online references so I check the Urban Dictionary whenever I can).

This is the 21st Century and the age of political correctness which means that people can't be taken seriously if they are openly racist or bigoted so they have to hide it behind some cover. You see this in Gamer Gate where "journalism ethics" becomes a banner to attack perfectly sensible critiques by Anita Sarkeesian, you see this in the so-called "sad puppys" at the Hugo Awards and other places. With AC3, much of it is directed towards Connor's personality or lacking Ezio's charm and the like, so that's why I say the shoe fits.



You know that attitude is what stinks...why do you need that validation? Why do you need somebody else to say, "It's okay if you didn't like Connor, you are not a racist!" I said that most of the criticism comes from racism and gaming culture (and nerd culture for that matter) is fairly racist and bigoted.

Fact is we are all pretty racist at some point in our lives, and most of it comes from ignorance and to a certain extent its pardonable, so long as you are willing to consider other people's views and accept that you are flawed. When I say gamers are racist I don't necessarily mean they are Right Wing or KKK people, I am saying that its problematic the way movies in the 40s and 50s can be problematic or how a lot of vintage advertising is pretty disgusting and gross.

I love how you tried to make it sound like Ubisoft actually released a video talking about Connor from a market perspective. Roger Craig Smith instead of random Abstergo market analyst, the person he was playing in that fictional video, recorded by a fictional company. Now that's grasping at straws.

Oh, but someone wrote a bunch of articles on release panning the game. That proves it.

Oh, and people are making critiques of a minority character or person you disagree with, proof of stealth racism.

Oh, and whenever you're accused of being a racist it's unreasonable to take offense and defend yourself.

You're adorable.

EmptyCrustacean
05-10-2015, 03:45 PM
Well for one thing Ubisoft have themselves acknowledged that racism is a factor. In Black Flag the market analysis video of Connor has Roger Craig Smith say: "Mohawk culture lacks the balance to tell the true story of America. Moreover, we feel that the Mohawk language will be an issue for most of our audience. We therefore feel that although RatonhnhakÚ:ton's early life is of some interest to our more educated viewers its unlikely his story will appeal on a more broader scale being too foreign, as it were for normal audiences."

Then, take this article for instance: http://kotaku.com/assassins-creeds-connor-who-was-the-worst-is-done-f-1459894621 The article is essentially has no real criticism and its written by that one writer who on launch wrote five or six articles about AC3 (following Stephen Totilo's very positive launch review) being a disappointment, which strikes me as very excessive. I mean saying it once should be enough right. But to repeatedly get on a bandwagon and essentially contribute nothing to the debate except flame people is fairly suspicious. Almost any criticism of Connor is always the same "Has no personality", "Grumpy", "Naive" and so on, using the same weasel words (which contradict each other, how can Connor have no personality but still be called "grumpy and naive"?) and making fun of people who follow him for being on Tumblr whatever the hell that means (I don't always get online references so I check the Urban Dictionary whenever I can).

This is the 21st Century and the age of political correctness which means that people can't be taken seriously if they are openly racist or bigoted so they have to hide it behind some cover. You see this in Gamer Gate where "journalism ethics" becomes a banner to attack perfectly sensible critiques by Anita Sarkeesian, you see this in the so-called "sad puppys" at the Hugo Awards and other places. With AC3, much of it is directed towards Connor's personality or lacking Ezio's charm and the like, so that's why I say the shoe fits.



You know that attitude is what stinks...why do you need that validation? Why do you need somebody else to say, "It's okay if you didn't like Connor, you are not a racist!" I said that most of the criticism comes from racism and gaming culture (and nerd culture for that matter) is fairly racist and bigoted.

Fact is we are all pretty racist at some point in our lives, and most of it comes from ignorance and to a certain extent its pardonable, so long as you are willing to consider other people's views and accept that you are flawed. When I say gamers are racist I don't necessarily mean they are Right Wing or KKK people, I am saying that its problematic the way movies in the 40s and 50s can be problematic or how a lot of vintage advertising is pretty disgusting and gross.

I do agree that a lot of the hatred for Connor is subconcious racism at play as he possesses many traits that white male protagonists get away with all the time - particuarly the vengeful, brooding aspect of his character. This is proven to me by those who prefer Haytham even though he's cold and ruthless but they like him because they see him as a James Bond figure (another popular white male power fantasy). The "he has no personality" makes no sense seeing as if he had no personality he wouldn't generate such hatred from the fans to begin with. I think Americans in particular don't like him as he's a strong minded Native American that ultimately embodied the true spirit of 'merica because it was his people that created that spirit. They were there first. His presence is a reminder of that. I have been on other forums where people have referred to Connor and his people as 'uncivilised'. Those people exist unfortunately.

The fact that so many place Edward (amoral) and Arno (no conviction) above him speaks volumes.

I admit I like Connor as a character but think he's an awful Assassin but then so is Arno. And as a woman, he's also the sexiest protagonist to my eyes.

VestigialLlama4
05-10-2015, 03:51 PM
This would be a more valid position if the game was not so severely flawed, but it is. The list of issues will every part of AC3 from gameplay to mission design, to story, to writing, to characters... and your take-away is that people must have been racist against Connor in ways you can't even identify?

I did restrict myself to links I could find online, you know. I know from a lot of personal interactions that racism was a big part people didn't like the game. But that kind of argument wouldn't count here, so I pointed out that a lot of backlash on AC3 was weird and at least in the case of some of Kotaku writers, disproportionate.


I think that's why Connor is such a dull character.

Dull in comparison to what? A lot of complaints have to do with the voice actor who has Connor speaking like a Textbook without contractions which is a nice touch and instantly recognizable to people who learn English as a second language and as such its not dull at all. The animation quality was also superb in the game and much of Connor's personality comes in his nonverbal interactions but that requires people to engage with the game instead of complaining about glitches, their copy still conks out four years later and so on.


The creators were a bigger problem than the audience, as far as we can tell from the things people have actually said.

Well obviously they would have found it easier to make the character white but they chose a difficult path and that's definitely to be respected. The reasons for the hesitancy is that the marketing were confused about how to make the largely white male Teen demographic root for him, since before Connor the only AAA game with a non-white character is Carl Johnson in San Andreas, and CJ by the way attracted racist comments as well at the time.

I mean yeah Altair counts technically as a non-white hero, but the game kind of disguises the issue. We never see him hoodless in the game (actually never until his final cutscene in REVELATIONS) so there's no model or image of Altair as being visibly Arab in terms of face and gestures, compared to say Malick or the other Rafiq. He also doesn't have an Arab accent unlike Malick or Al Mualim. It's the Disney Aladdin rule book, the Arab-But-Not-Too-Arab Game where Altair is more Arab than Desmond (or say, the Prince of Persia) but less Arab than his fellow Assassins and Saracen targets. When they shifted to Ezio, they glorified in the fact that he's white, young and European and so every time he talks to his friends, he has his hood down. With Connor/Ratohnhhake;ton is the first time they fully practised that equality, Connor speaks English in a manner totally different from the rest of the cast and also from the way most gamers speak or recognize it. It's more of a challenge.

The fact is most games are overpraised. Like Bioshock Infinite has some fascinating physics gimmicks but at the end of the day its simply the Knight and Damsel story with some post-modernist a--covering shades of Trendy White Guilt added to it, however way you spin or cover the drapes. Those fancy physics stuff are mostly cutscenes and the gameplay is your basic dumb roller-coaster shooter which only Half-Life 2 made interesting to the non-meathead crowd. The standards for what people think are a good game is abysmally low and most of it unconsciously swallows and regurgitates the racism and sexism with good deal of two-faced political correctness.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 03:53 PM
I do agree that a lot of the hatred for Connor is subconcious racism at play as he possesses many traits that white male protagonists get away with all the time - particuarly the vengeful, brooding aspect of his character. This is proven to me by those who prefer Haytham even though he's cold and ruthless but they like him because they see him as a James Bond figure (another popular white male power fantasy). The "he has no personality" makes no sense seeing as if he had no personality he wouldn't generate such hatred from the fans to begin with. I think Americans in particular don't like him as he's a strong minded Native American that ultimately embodied the true spirit of 'merica because it was his people that created that spirit. They were there first. His presence is a reminder of that. I have been on other forums where people have referred to Connor and his people as 'uncivilised'. Those people exist unfortunately.

The fact that so many place Edward (amoral) and Arno (no conviction) above him speaks volumes.

I admit I like Connor as a character but think he's an awful Assassin but then so is Arno. And as a woman, he's also the sexiest protagonist to my eyes.

Brooding and vengeful stereotypes are commonly criticised in all protagonists. There's no denying that. And here we go again, people don't like this minority character that I like? AND they like white characters over him? SUBCONCSIOUS RACISM.

And I'm not even going to address the incredibly bigoted comments made about Americans.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 03:59 PM
I did restrict myself to links I could find online, you know. I know from a lot of personal interactions that racism was a big part people didn't like the game. But that kind of argument wouldn't count here, so I pointed out that a lot of backlash on AC3 was weird and at least in the case of some of Kotaku writers, disproportionate.



Dull in comparison to what? A lot of complaints have to do with the voice actor who has Connor speaking like a Textbook without contractions which is a nice touch and instantly recognizable to people who learn English as a second language and as such its not dull at all. The animation quality was also superb in the game and much of Connor's personality comes in his nonverbal interactions but that requires people to engage with the game instead of complaining about glitches, their copy still conks out four years later and so on.



Well obviously they would have found it easier to make the character white but they chose a difficult path and that's definitely to be respected. The reasons for the hesitancy is that the marketing were confused about how to make the largely white male Teen demographic root for him, since before Connor the only AAA game with a non-white character is Carl Johnson in San Andreas, and CJ by the way attracted racist comments as well at the time.

I mean yeah Altair counts technically as a non-white hero, but the game kind of disguises the issue. We never see him hoodless in the game (actually never until his final cutscene in REVELATIONS) so there's no model or image of Altair as being visibly Arab in terms of face and gestures, compared to say Malick or the other Rafiq. He also doesn't have an Arab accent unlike Malick or Al Mualim. It's the Disney Aladdin rule book, the Arab-But-Not-Too-Arab Game where Altair is more Arab than Desmond (or say, the Prince of Persia) but less Arab than his fellow Assassins and Saracen targets. When they shifted to Ezio, they glorified in the fact that he's white, young and European and so every time he talks to his friends, he has his hood down. With Connor/Ratohnhhake;ton is the first time they fully practised that equality, Connor speaks English in a manner totally different from the rest of the cast and also from the way most gamers speak or recognize it. It's more of a challenge.

The fact is most games are overpraised. Like Bioshock Infinite has some fascinating physics gimmicks but at the end of the day its simply the Knight and Damsel story with some post-modernist a--covering shades of Trendy White Guilt added to it, however way you spin or cover the drapes. Those fancy physics stuff are mostly cutscenes and the gameplay is your basic dumb roller-coaster shooter which only Half-Life 2 made interesting to the non-meathead crowd. The standards for what people think are a good game is abysmally low and most of it unconsciously swallows and regurgitates the racism and sexism with good deal of two-faced political correctness.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/000/839/165/229.jpg

Holy sophistry and rhetoric batman.

VestigialLlama4
05-10-2015, 04:09 PM
Brooding and vengeful stereotypes are commonly criticised in all protagonists. There's no denying that. And here we go again, people don't like this minority character that I like? AND they like white characters over him? SUBCONCSIOUS RACISM.

The fact is its true. Connor not being universally popular means that he's banished in the AC Universe. They give backstory to Altair, Ezio, Edward Kenway, Adewale, Achilles, Connor's Boat Aquila but not Connor himself, they kind of dismiss and insult the people who bought the game and like it by saying make it up on Tumblr and that they aren't giving a token Initiates Entry about his later life and only put snarky teases that his later life is a huge downer to piss-off people.

If you are a non-white character or a female character and you aren't an instant success, then developers will stick to the same tried and true formula saying that consumers want safe products but no such barrier exists for white male figures. And even if the games are successful as San Andreas or Ac3 are successful they will say it was successful because of the marketing, because of the hype and so on.


And I'm not even going to address the incredibly bigoted comments made about Americans.

This is awkward I know but white people have lost all right to complain about racism for a good two hundred years, at minimum. It's not even fifty years since the Civil Rights Act passed.


Holy sophistry and rhetoric batman.

What's the point of a forum if you are not a fan and don't care about games and can't write about it seriously?

EmptyCrustacean
05-10-2015, 04:15 PM
Brooding and vengeful stereotypes are commonly criticised in all protagonists. There's no denying that. And here we go again, people don't like this minority character that I like? AND they like white characters over him? SUBCONCSIOUS RACISM.

And I'm not even going to address the incredibly bigoted comments made about Americans.

Oh yeah, because people just hated the lead in Shadow of Mordor.
Because people just hated Niko Bellic.
Because people just hated the lead in Bioshock Infinite.
Because people just hated Joel in Last of Us.

All pretty much a cookie cut-out types and yet gamers soaked them up. But heaven forbid a flawed Native American guy and suddenly people are putting his poster on their walls and throwing darts.

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 04:16 PM
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/000/839/165/229.jpg

Holy sophistry and rhetoric batman.

His assessment is flawed by the fact that Connor is half-white, not full-blooded American Indian. The white teen audience is aware of this and both empathize with and scorn the character of Connor. The truth is, video games can never have a pure minority main character, and thus the dislike of Connor must also be spawned as a reaction to his abysmal personality --at least to whites.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 04:19 PM
The fact is its true. Connor not being universally popular means that he's banished in the AC Universe. They give backstory to Altair, Ezio, Edward Kenway, Adewale, Achilles, Connor's Boat Aquila but not Connor himself, they kind of dismiss and insult the people who bought the game and like it by saying make it up on Tumblr and that they aren't giving a token Initiates Entry about his later life and only put snarky teases that his later life is a huge downer to piss-off people.

If you are a non-white character or a female character and you aren't an instant success, then developers will stick to the same tried and true formula saying that consumers want safe products but no such barrier exists for white male figures. And even if the games are successful as San Andreas or Ac3 are successful they will say it was successful because of the marketing, because of the hype and so on.



This is awkward I know but white people have lost all right to complain about racism for a good two hundred years, at minimum. It's not even fifty years since the Civil Rights Act passed.



What's the point of a forum if you are not a fan and don't care about games and can't write about it seriously?

Racism is injustice, its not something certain people are allowed. Jews aren't allowed to commit genocide on the Germans for revenge and black people aren't allowed to enslave white people. Why? Oh, maybe racism isn't a race exclusive thing. It's something everyone is capable of for pretty much any reason. To give an allowance for it is ****ing disgusting.

Oh, and you want to write about a game series seriously? Have legitimate points that aren't laughable after having been given an ounce of thought.

VestigialLlama4
05-10-2015, 04:22 PM
His assessment is flawed by the fact that Connor is half-white, not full-blooded American Indian.

Distinctions such as "Full-blooded American Indian" only matter to white people. Most native-American tribes never made that distinction. Connor's mother herself said that their people accepted Connor as one of their own, so among the Kanienahaka and Mohawk, Connor is one of their own and that's what counts.


The white teen audience is aware of this and both empathize with and scorn the character of Connor. The truth is, video games can never have a pure minority main character, and thus the dislike of Connor must also be spawned as a reaction to his abysmal personality --at least to whites.

"At least to whites"...when a large portion of gamers are African American and according to a recent poll women.

"Pure minority" is a touchy phrase in my view. I don't think there's such a thing and it opens a huge can of worms and can often be a new form of stupidity to replace the old.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 04:24 PM
Oh yeah, because people just hated the lead in Shadow of Mordor.
Because people just hated Niko Bellic.
Because people just hated the lead in Bioshock Infinite.
Because people just hated Joel in Last of Us.

All pretty much a cookie cut-out types and yet gamers soaked them up. But heaven forbid a flawed Native American guy and suddenly people are putting his poster on their walls and throwing darts.

I'm sure people do hate those characters. I really wouldn't know because I don't follow them or their fanbase, but I do know they're not winning any rewards for writing any time soon. Joel is the exception, he's the piece of a puzzle containing Ellie, its not either of them individually that make the story good, it's the dynamic of their interactions. But a remarkable difference between them and Connor is that Connor has a markedly rabid and loyal fanbase. Can't say that for really any of the characters you listed.

HiddenKiller612
05-10-2015, 04:27 PM
We're 4 games out on AC3 and people are still sucking on sour grapes over Connor. The Devs shouldn't be strong armed into making a sequel to a game if they feel it is a story they themselves don't want to tell. I didn't hate AC3, and liked Connor as a character, but I'm not singing his praises, nor pissing on him as a character. His time has come and passed. Best to accept this, than to cry racism and beat down Ubi's door each and everytime he's brought up.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 04:28 PM
Distinctions such as "Full-blooded American Indian" only matter to white people. Most native-American tribes never made that distinction. Connor's mother herself said that their people accepted Connor as one of their own, so among the Kanienahaka and Mohawk, Connor is one of their own and that's what counts.



"At least to whites"...when a large portion of gamers are African American and according to a recent poll women.

"Pure minority" is a touchy phrase in my view. I don't think there's such a thing and it opens a huge can of worms and can often be a new form of stupidity to replace the old.

And to anyone who knows what happens when people of different races have a child. Also, Connor's mother mentions the fact that the other tribe members looked at him differently at first. So no, native Americans aren't blind to race or mixed people.

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 04:35 PM
Distinctions such as "Full-blooded American Indian" only matter to white people. Most native-American tribes never made that distinction. Connor's mother herself said that their people accepted Connor as one of their own, so among the Kanienahaka and Mohawk, Connor is one of their own and that's what counts.

That's what counts IN-GAME. The fact is, in the Westernized world that every human being lives in where light equals right, any display of elements counter to the traditional white, patriarchal view is instantly put on a pedestal, not to be admired but instead lambasted for opposing norms. Connor being half-white accentuates the fact that no one will ever be comfortable playing as a minority unless they have some trace of good 'whitness' in them.




"At least to whites"...when a large portion of gamers are African American and according to a recent poll women.

"Pure minority" is a touchy phrase in my view. I don't think there's such a thing and it opens a huge can of worms and can often be a new form of stupidity to replace the old.

Fair point, but we must acknowledge that your consideration of the non-purity of minorities is in itself politically incorrect by being politically correct. You imply that while white purity is good, minority purity is innately 'bad' and is thus another avenue to ignorance.

EmptyCrustacean
05-10-2015, 04:36 PM
His assessment is flawed by the fact that Connor is half-white, not full-blooded American Indian. The white teen audience is aware of this and both empathize with and scorn the character of Connor. The truth is, video games can never have a pure minority main character, and thus the dislike of Connor must also be spawned as a reaction to his abysmal personality --at least to whites.

Connor's Native American ancestory was more promoted in-game and that is the side we as gamers have come to identify him with. He was also raised by his Native American side of the family so, culturally, he is much more accustomed to their ways. If the fact he was half white counted for anything then Haytham wouldn't have had to come up with that elaborate plan to get him past the guards and you wouldn't have racist NPCs attacking you left, right and centre. I very much consider Connor half white and half Indian but many subscribe to the one drop rule.

VestigialLlama4
05-10-2015, 04:38 PM
We're 4 games out on AC3 and people are still sucking on sour grapes over Connor. The Devs shouldn't be strong armed into making a sequel to a game if they feel it is a story they themselves don't want to tell. I didn't hate AC3, and liked Connor as a character, but I'm not singing his praises, nor pissing on him as a character. His time has come and passed. Best to accept this, than to cry racism and beat down Ubi's door each and everytime he's brought up.

Can I ask a question, why is it such a big deal to discuss racism online? Why use phrases like "cry racism" which suggests people are crying wolf. The gaming industry is entirely a white male picket fence, its far less diverse than movies and TV, leave alone Literature, to say nothing of real life.

The gaming industry is largely uncouth and neanderthal and the online culture is even less so, and you can visibly see this in people's reactions.

I certainly don't see the need for a Connor sequel, but closure is certainly fair game since even Altair got that. A simple database entry is more than enough and the main thing is to treat Connor with the same equality as other characters. Ezio and Altair don't get taunting messages to the fans of the character and they don't get to the extent where you have backstory for Aquila, Connor's Ship but not Connor. We know the fates of all the other player characters (Altair, Ezio, Haytham, Edward, Adewale). And iF you can't see that there's something not right in that kind of behaviour or why that sends a wrong message then you sir are wilfully naive, to say the least.


Also, Connor's mother mentions the fact that the other tribe members looked at him differently at first.

Again not true.

Here's the transcript of her line, "He had his father's features, but enough of me that he did not appear a stranger. In the end it mattered little. My people loved him as their own."
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Hide_and_Seek

The Assassin's Creed Wikia has transcripts of all in-game dialogue in all memories or missions, for future reference double-check there before you make flawed assessments:
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Memories_by_ancestor

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 04:45 PM
Connor's Native American ancestory was more promoted in-game and that is the side we as gamers have come to identify him with. He was also raised by his Native American side of the family so, culturally, he is much more accustomed to their ways. If the fact he was half white counted for anything then Haytham wouldn't have had to come up with that elaborate plan to get him past the guards and you wouldn't have racist NPCs attacking you left, right and centre. I very much consider Connor half white and half Indian but many subscribe to the one drop rule.

Thinking about it, you have a point. Connor's rejection of his father's companionship and his subsequent slaying of him underline that he truly viewed himself as pure Mohawk.

Also, why did we have to play as a white man for a significantly large portion of the game before slipping into the boots of his biracial son? Couple this with the fact that many preferred Haytham over Connor and we see once again white shunning of anything that isnĺt familiar.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 04:49 PM
Can I ask a question, why is it such a big deal to discuss racism online? Why use phrases like "cry racism" which suggests people are crying wolf. The gaming industry is entirely a white male picket fence, its far less diverse than movies and TV, leave alone Literature, to say nothing of real life.

The gaming industry is largely uncouth and neanderthal and the online culture is even less so, and you can visibly see this in people's reactions.

I certainly don't see the need for a Connor sequel, but closure is certainly fair game since even Altair got that. A simple database entry is more than enough and the main thing is to treat Connor with the same equality as other characters. Ezio and Altair don't get taunting messages to the fans of the character and they don't get to the extent where you have backstory for Aquila, Connor's Ship but not Connor. We know the fates of all the other player characters (Altair, Ezio, Haytham, Edward, Adewale). And iF you can't see that there's something not right in that kind of behaviour or why that sends a wrong message then you sir are wilfully naive, to say the least.



Again not true.

Here's the transcript of her line, "He had his father's features, but enough of me that he did not appear a stranger. In the end it mattered little. My people loved him as their own."
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Hide_and_Seek

The Assassin's Creed Wikia has transcripts of all in-game dialogue in all memories or missions, for future reference double-check there before you make flawed assessments:
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Memories_by_ancestor

I stand corrected, but that's only the first time you've corrected me, so saying again is just sophistry. I also find that remark about flawed assessments to be the epitome of irony. To address the point, natives aren't blind to race, no one who grasps the concept is. This is a fact, theres no walking around it.

ze_topazio
05-10-2015, 04:50 PM
We had a Native American member here once that said someone of mixed heritage like Connor would not be well accepted among the Natives back in those days, so no, the Native Americans were not the epitome of acceptance.

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 04:52 PM
We had a Native American member here once that said someone of mixed heritage like Connor would not be well accepted among the Natives back in those days, so no, the Native Americans were not the epitome of acceptance.

And I am sure that adventurewoman was alive in the eighteenth century.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 04:52 PM
Thinking about it, you have a point. Connor's rejection of his father's companionship and his subsequent slaying of him underline that he truly viewed himself as pure Mohawk.

Also, why did we have to play as a white man for a significantly large portion of the game before slipping into the boots of his biracial son? Couple this with the fact that many preferred Haytham over Connor and we see once again white shunning of anything that isn’t familiar.

More sophistry. This time topped with unsubstantiated claims that everyone who disliked Connor was white. This is some 911 conspiracy level ********.

VestigialLlama4
05-10-2015, 04:54 PM
Also, why did we have to play as a white man for a significantly large portion of the game before slipping into the boots of his biracial son? Couple this with the fact that many preferred Haytham over Connor and we see once again white shunning of anything that isn’t familiar.

You know the hilarious thing about AC3 is that everyone says that its too linear but the fact is that the most linear sections of the game have to do with the fan-favorite Haytham. His opening prologue is overly wrong and only sets up a key plot twist, we don't really learn anything special about the characters in that scene. We find out more when Connor interacts with them, just like in AC1. The Haytham missions in AC1 are tutorials and all of them are linear missions. Then Connor meets Haytham, and all the Connor and Haytham missions are linear...right from Thomas Hickey to Benjamin Church till the end of the game. The most open-sections of the game, Connor-William Johnson, Connor-Jonathan Pitcairn are totally Haytham-free. Haytham also can't pilot a boat (since his Pirate Pop raised his son as a gentleman and gentlmen leave filthy commoners to do work) and can't climb trees and rocks.

Initially, Connor was going to be a full Mohawk but they wanted Connor to interact with the Patriots. Its not implausible since mixed-race kids did exist in the Colonial Era and were fairly common and so they made him half-white, and they also wanted a way to introduce the Assassin-Templar conflict since Native Americans being non-Christian doesn't really have that connection to the Crusades and the mythology of the time. The game is obviously not perfect, it only deserves credit in comparison to other games, almost none of which go the extra distance to be that sensitive

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 04:55 PM
And I am sure that adventurewoman was alive in the eighteenth century.

I would repeat the "bruh" meme again but I think people can understand why I view this post as epic irony. And fallacious at that.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 04:59 PM
You know the hilarious thing about AC3 is that everyone says that its too linear but the fact is that the most linear sections of the game have to do with the fan-favorite Haytham. His opening prologue is overly wrong and only sets up a key plot twist, we don't really learn anything special about the characters in that scene. We find out more when Connor interacts with them, just like in AC1. The Haytham missions in AC1 are tutorials and all of them are linear missions. Then Connor meets Haytham, and all the Connor and Haytham missions are linear...right from Thomas Hickey to Benjamin Church till the end of the game. The most open-sections of the game, Connor-William Johnson, Connor-Jonathan Pitcairn are totally Haytham-free. Haytham also can't pilot a boat (since his Pirate Pop raised his son as a gentleman and gentlmen leave filthy commoners to do work) and can't climb trees and rocks.

Initially, Connor was going to be a full Mohawk but they wanted Connor to interact with the Patriots. Its not implausible since mixed-race kids did exist in the Colonial Era and were fairly common and so they made him half-white, and they also wanted a way to introduce the Assassin-Templar conflict since Native Americans being non-Christian doesn't really have that connection to the Crusades and the mythology of the time. The game is obviously not perfect, it only deserves credit in comparison to other games, almost none of which go the extra distance to be that sensitive

I'm sorry but is there a point you're trying to make? What does the fair criticism that the game is overtly linear have to do with this "people who prefer Haytham over Connor are racist" narrative you're trying to spin?

VestigialLlama4
05-10-2015, 05:01 PM
We had a Native American member here once that said someone of mixed heritage like Connor would not be well accepted among the Natives back in those days, so no, the Native Americans were not the epitome of acceptance.

This isn't about the "epitome of acceptance". Native Americans were far more accepting of outsiders than white people, that is not a very high standard all said and done, but its a fact. But considering the reality of the time, it does count for a great deal.

In any case, Connor is accepted by one Mohawk tribe. Most native tribes were different from one another and they didn't have any common code, they were heterogenous and its a documented fact that mixed-race children assimilated far easily into Native Tribes then white society (which was generally intolerant).


And I am sure that adventurewoman was alive in the eighteenth century.

Actually it was. Read Howard Zinn's A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF AMERICA, the opening chapters which discusses colonial life. Women had less freedom after the Revolution than before.


I'm sorry but is there a point you're trying to make? What does the fair criticism that the game is overtly linear have to do with this "people who prefer Haytham over Connor are racist" narrative you're trying to spin?

It's not my narrative I'm spinning. It was SixKeys who asked me to clarify that, I only mentioned it as part of a general post.

I am just pointing out how contradictory and nonsensical the criticism of AC3 is.

If people dislike Connor and like Haytham, if they dislike AC3 for being linear and the like, how do you explain that the most linear missions in AC3, almost without exception are Haytham-centric while the only non-linear missions are entirely Connor-centric.

Megas_Doux
05-10-2015, 05:03 PM
It┤s called greed, not audacity....


Oh and in regards of the pretty original and never seen here AC III discussion: Well I dislike that game for I don┤t enjoy the setting and then its awfully, non-epic linear mission design full of QTE┤s mostly. About Connor, well his VA bores me, I didn┤t enjoy Noah┤s work.

PD Racism is a pretty serious matter, so it SHOULDN┤T be taken/used that lightly.......

ze_topazio
05-10-2015, 05:04 PM
And I am sure that adventurewoman was alive in the eighteenth century.

It was not adventurewoman, it was another one, I don't remember his name, by that logic no one can talk anything about history unless they were alive back then and still alive today, perfect.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 05:08 PM
This isn't about the "epitome of acceptance". Native Americans were far more accepting of outsiders than white people, that is not a very high standard all said and done, but its a fact. But considering the reality of the time, it does count for a great deal.

In any case, Connor is accepted by one Mohawk tribe. Most native tribes were different from one another and they didn't have any common code, they were heterogenous and its a documented fact that mixed-race children assimilated far easily into Native Tribes then white society (which was generally intolerant).



Actually it was. Read Howard Zinn's A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF AMERICA, the opening chapters which discusses colonial life. Women had less freedom after the Revolution than before.



It's not my narrative I'm spinning. It was SixKeys who asked me to clarify that, I only mentioned it as part of a general post.

I am just pointing out how contradictory and nonsensical the criticism of AC3 is.

If people dislike Connor and like Haytham, if they dislike AC3 for being linear and the like, how do you explain that the most linear missions in AC3, almost without exception are Haytham-centric while the only non-linear missions are entirely Connor-centric.

It is your narrative. SixKeys pointed it out and asked for clarification, and then you started spinning it again. The criticism would be contradictory if the mission design of the level you play as a certain character in had any bearing on your opinion of that character other then things they were scripted to say or do, things that might actually be enhanced by a more linear format.

crusader_prophet
05-10-2015, 05:09 PM
I guess we aren't talking about ubisoft and the prospect of the upcoming game here anymore...oh well

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 05:13 PM
I guess we aren't talking about ubisoft and the prospect of the upcoming game here anymore...oh well

Sorry, I don't mean to get off topic but I felt the need to say some things.

Locopells
05-10-2015, 05:14 PM
OK enough. This has been fairly well mannered so far, but this is not an ACIII/Connor/Racism thread, and it's gonna end badly sooner or later.

Come to that, there's enough threads floating around, on the OT of annualisation...

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 05:14 PM
I'm sorry but is there a point you're trying to make? What does the fair criticism that the game is overtly linear have to do with this "people who prefer Haytham over Connor are racist" narrative you're trying to spin?

Why are you incessant on subconscious racism not playing a role in Connor's unpopularity? I'm not speaking purely of prejudice, which is in itself a byproduct if racism, but racism in its main form. Racism is a system, friend, and whites are the ones who benefit most from it. I am not trying to guilt white people (I am of Slavic descent), but I merely wish to acknowledge that race and its multifarious consequences are the reasons for such subpar minority representation in entertainment, and when it is represented, it's marred by comfortable cliches.

I am aware that the video game audience is diverse, but diversity does not render racism's existence nugatory. I think we all know how many issues women face in the video game industry, and many young blacks hate their appearance, Mongoloids, heck, even small groups such as Roma also fall into this trap of self-loathing evinced by white, patriarchal Western society that the whole world, in some degree, is trying to mimic.

In short, yes, racism is a major part of why Connor is disliked. Is it the most obvious and even prevalent cause? No, but it's there.

VestigialLlama4
05-10-2015, 05:15 PM
It┤s called greed, not audacity....

The OP meant Audacity in terms of shamelessness. The Latin phrase is "Crime once exposed has no refuge but in audacity". That's kind of how Ubisoft operates, people complain about annualization, microtransactions and the like..."we're going to show the consumers or each other that we are easily intimidated into changing our business practises. No we'll do the same thing, and still make them pre-order and buy the game and parlay it into a blockbuster." And for all we know, Victory might be a great game and the microtransactions and annualizations won't be a problem anymore. The only reason people complained about it with UNITY is because they noticed it, because the story and game wasn't good enough and the cash grab aspects became the main thing.

And YAY...a post relevant to the first post.


Oh and in regards of the pretty original and never seen here AC III discussion: Well I dislike that game III for I don┤t enjoy the setting and its awfully, non-epic linear mission design full of QTE┤s mostly. About Connor, well his VA bores me, I didn┤t enjoy Noah┤s work.

Well you are just prejudiced against America. ;) Just because Colonial America has historical figures that matter to no one but Americans, just because Colonial America lacks trendy Architecture and touristy vistas, just because it had no art and culture in terms of music and painting...okay I can see where you are coming from. That's part of the reason why AC3 was so gutsy. It deliberately cut away from the tourist aspects of the Ezio games.


PD Racism is a pretty serious matter, so it SHOULDN┤T be taken/used that lightly.......

Are you suggesting I am using it lightly? Just so I am asking. It's a fair observation and certainly there's evidence in support of it in AC3. Racism is a cultural construct after all, and games are cultural artifacts that are product of its time.

There's a reason why people cringe at vintage advertisements, old movies and TV after all, its because most of them didn't challenge and critique cultural practises, and other evil at the time. The few exceptions that did are rightly admired for that reason.

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 05:15 PM
Sorry Loco, didn't see until after I posted.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 05:26 PM
Why are you incessant on subconscious racism not playing a role in Connor's unpopularity? I'm not speaking purely of prejudice, which is in itself a byproduct if racism, but racism in its main form. Racism is a system, friend, and whites are the ones who benefit most from it. I am not trying to guilt white people (I am of Slavic descent), but I merely wish to acknowledge that race and its multifarious consequences are the reasons for such subpar minority representation in entertainment, and when it is represented, it's marred by comfortable cliches.

I am aware that the video game audience is diverse, but diversity does not render racism's existence nugatory. I think we all know how many issues women face in the video game industry, and many young blacks hate their appearance, Mongoloids, heck, even small groups such as Roma also fall into this trap of self-loathing evinced by white, patriarchal Western society that the whole world, in some degree, is trying to mimic.

In short, yes, racism is a major part of why Connor is disliked. Is it the most obvious and even prevalent cause? No, but it's there.

Racism is not a system; learn what racism is before talking about racism and trying to "uncover" stealth racism written on the wall. I'm not going to address the rest of your baseless rhetoric for Loco's sake. :p

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 05:35 PM
Racism is not a system; learn what racism is before talking about racism and trying to "uncover" stealth racism written on the wall. I'm not going to address the rest of your baseless rhetoric for Loco's sake. :p

Unfortunately I am compelled by your ignorance to respond, knowing full well that you will not, but I will be granted some satisfaction. Loco, I fully accept the consequences.

Racism IS a system. Simply because I don't state the textbook definition (the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.), doesn't discredit the existence of it being a system. Plenty of things can be systems, and racism is one of them. You simply don't understand because you are white--I'm presuming, correct me if I'm wrong-- and therefore you've experienced only the positive, almost too positive to warrant the label of constituents of a system, effects. Hell, I don't understand either, as I am white, but I recognize that others that are subjected to the SYSTEMS of racism and patriarchy and they are affected by it, as much as I am positively, negatively.

Sorry for derailing the thread, although I guess I am really not.

Megas_Doux
05-10-2015, 05:37 PM
Vestigia, I answered you in the love/hate AC III thread, so no more offtopic here.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 05:40 PM
Unfortunately I am compelled by your ignorance to respond, knowing full well that you will not, but I will be granted some satisfaction. Loco, I fully accept the consequences.

Racism IS a system. Simply because I don't state the textbook definition (the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.), doesn't discredit the existence of it being a system. Plenty of things can be systems, and racism is one of them. You simply don't understand because you are white--I'm presuming, correct me if I'm wrong-- and therefore you've experienced only the positive, almost too positive to warrant the label of constituents of a system, affects. Hell, I don't understand either, as I am white, but I recognize that others that are subjected to the SYSTEMS of racism and patriarchy and they are affected by it, as much as I am positively, negatively.

Sorry for derailing the thread, although I guess I am really not.

Racism is a system when there is a system that acts against you based on your race. That would be a system of racism, something that doesn't exist besides affirmative action.

And, to quote Llama (and by extension who he was quoting) you don't have to know how to play a violin to know when someone is doing it wrong.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 05:41 PM
Vestigia, I answered you in the love/hate AC III thread, so no more offtopic here.

Agreed, I think this topic should be moved there.

VestigialLlama4
05-10-2015, 05:44 PM
Yes you did, Megas_Doux. Anyway, to revive the paragraph below the one that started this from going off-topic. I am reposting that here:

Look there are good reasons for people to defend UNITY, its attempt to go back to the core, and introducing (albeit unsuccessfully) more open-ended missions but don't pretend that people who hate the game are "haters". I like AC3 but I never denied its flaws and bugs, I defend the game for its ambition and its sense of grandeur which was something that fell away in the later games. UNITY has severe flaws even outside the bad launch, that it made good money is nice (nobody wants Ubisoft to lose money or go bankrupt after all, we merely want them to make good products) but to say that the game didn't become a barometer for "franchise overextending and eating itself" is to deny reality.

In other words, Ubisoft should be ashamed about UNITY. In AC3 they can at least say, "okay we tried too much in too short a time, we were too ambitious and we over-reached". That's respectable. UNITY cannot be respected because it had limited ambitions and totally fails to satisfy even on that score.

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 05:49 PM
Racism is a system when there is a system that acts against you based on your race. That would be a system of racism, something that doesn't exist besides affirmative action.

And, to quote Llama (and by extension who he was quoting) you don't have to know how to play a violin to know when someone is doing it wrong.

So everyone is racist except whites?

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 05:53 PM
So everyone is racist except whites?

No, people who believe somebody is a certain way because of their race or that some race or another is a certain way is racist. By extension, the people who think that law is a good idea are racist.

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 06:11 PM
No, people who believe somebody is a certain way because of their race or that some race or another is a certain way is racist. By extension, the people who think that law is a good idea are racist.

If you mean law in the general sense, as prejudice and law go hand-in-hand, I concur. However, I'm deducing that you're insinuating that reverse racism can exist--it cannot.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 06:13 PM
If you mean law in the general sense, as prejudice and law go hand-in-hand, I concur. However, I'm deducing that you're insinuating that reverse racism can exist--it cannot.

Never said it did... ?

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 06:16 PM
Never said it did... ?

Alright, apologies then. Thought your previous post alluded to something of that effect.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 06:17 PM
If you mean law in the general sense, as prejudice and law go hand-in-hand, I concur. However, I'm deducing that you're insinuating that reverse racism can exist--it cannot.

Also, by "that law" I was referring to affirmative action, not law in general in case you were confused.

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 06:37 PM
Also, by "that law" I was referring to affirmative action, not law in general in case you were confused.

I don't understand why you are averse to programs that are designed to assist those who have been oppressed and disenfranchised by the system of racism. There is a line between welfare and simple recognition of inequality so great that intervention is the only solution. Besides, whites aren't suffering much from Affirmative Action. They are still white in an Eurocentric world.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 06:56 PM
I don't understand why you are averse to programs that are designed to assist those who have been oppressed and disenfranchised by the system of racism. There is a line between welfare and simple recognition of inequality so great that intervention is the only solution. Besides, whites aren't suffering much from Affirmative Action. They are still white in an Eurocentric world.

I'm averse to it because it's racist. It puts race above much more reasonable and logical criteria (also criteria that isn't racist). Affirmative action isn't designed to help the oppressed and disenfranchised, its there to help black people. Black people =/= oppressed and disenfranchised. Assuming all black people are oppressed and disenfranchised so we have to give them reserved seating is racist in of itself. There are better ways to eliminate racist injustice towards black people, like putting the heads of cops and the people who let those cops get away with gunning down black people and people in general on a spike (metaphorically).

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 07:05 PM
I'm averse to it because it's racist. It puts race above much more reasonable and logical criteria (also criteria that isn't racist). Affirmative action isn't designed to help the oppressed and disenfranchised, its there to help black people. Black people =/= oppressed and disenfranchised.

So blacks in the USA (that's where AA happens) haven't been oppressed or disenfranchised? Seriously dude? The entire reason for blacks being brought to the US was for their subservience. They are still living with the aftereffects of this oppression, despite whatever crackpot you believe who says that race isn't a problem anymore. This was what I meant earlier. You are saying that reverse racism exists. AA is around to aid blacks who manage to escape the squalor they live in, because the percentage of blacks living in poverty in the US is at a staggering disproportion when compared with the different populations. This in itself shows that AA barely works anyhow, and you are white, so tell me, how is AA hurting you?

I-Like-Pie45
05-10-2015, 07:13 PM
He am just afraid they will make stealings of his jobs and women

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 07:41 PM
So blacks in the USA (that's where AA happens) haven't been oppressed or disenfranchised? Seriously dude? The entire reason for blacks being brought to the US was for their subservience. They are still living with the aftereffects of this oppression, despite whatever crackpot you believe who says that race isn't a problem anymore. This was what I meant earlier. You are saying that reverse racism exists. AA is around to aid blacks who manage to escape the squalor they live in, because the percentage of blacks living in poverty in the US is at a staggering disproportion when compared with the different populations. This in itself shows that AA barely works anyhow, and you are white, so tell me, how is AA hurting you?

There are ways to aid the disenfranchised that doesn't require discrimination. There are black people who were born better off than me, many in fact. What about them? The only reason a law should give reserved seating for some demographic is because they all need it. Anything less than that deems the law unnecessary. AA hurts me because I have a lower chance of getting into college. That's a fact. This is why welfare exists, to help those that are poor and disenfranchised, not those that are black.

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 07:50 PM
There are ways to aid the disenfranchised that doesn't require discrimination. There are black people who were born better off than me, many in fact. What about them? The only reason a law should give reserved seating for some demographic is because they all need it. Anything less than that deems the law unnecessary. AA hurts me because I have a lower chance of getting into college. That's a fact. This is why welfare exists, to help those that are poor and disenfranchised, not those that are black.

But the discrimination you face is practically nonexistent, heck, forgive me if I sound callous, even insignificant when compared to that of blacks and other minorities. Chances are, you will get into college, AA in effect or not. You are white. I don't think you realize how good you have it in terms of societal standing. Even the poorest of whites will find themselves in positions to reap the advantages that come with the colour of their skin. Oppourtunities come in the multitudes when one is white, and it may seem as if that's a ridiculous statement; but you are white, and you know no other way. No one is saying some blacks aren't better off, but are they comparable in proportional numbers with whites?

Namikaze_17
05-10-2015, 07:53 PM
We're 4 games out on AC3 and people are still sucking on sour grapes over Connor. The Devs shouldn't be strong armed into making a sequel to a game if they feel it is a story they themselves don't want to tell. I didn't hate AC3, and liked Connor as a character, but I'm not singing his praises, nor pissing on him as a character. His time has come and passed. Best to accept this, than to cry racism and beat down Ubi's door each and everytime he's brought up.

This.

rprkjj
05-10-2015, 07:53 PM
But the discrimination you face is practically nonexistent, heck, forgive me if I sound callous, even insignificant when compared to that of blacks and other minorities. Chances are, you will get into college, AA in effect or not. You are white. I don't think you realize how good you have it in terms of societal standing. Even the poorest of whites will find themselves in positions to reap the advantages that come with the colour of their skin. Oppourtunities come in the multitudes when one is white, and it may seem as if that's a ridiculous statement; but you are white, and you know no other way. No one is saying some blacks aren't better off, but are they comparable in proportional numbers with whites?

Yes, I have some advantages based on my demographic that I can't control nor are government mandated. Does that justify affirmative action? No. The opportunities presented to me because of my skin color are presented by racists, who take away the same opportunities they give me from minorities. Odds are, the majority race will have the majority racists, that's not something affirmative action solves. Something like my point about police earlier does solve that.

EmptyCrustacean
05-10-2015, 08:58 PM
It's interesting that a conversation about a fictional character of colour has dissolved into a discussion about affirmative action proving, once again, that behind all the outrage at anyone that tackles racism in gaming and the so-called "I don't care what the race is! As long as it fits in an organic way!" schtick are a segment of people with very unpleasant views in the real world.

Anyway, I'm hauling this back on topic.
I think the problem is Ubisoft have never really addressed the problems with Unity with an apology. And I dont just mean a blog press release talking about patches and free DLCs. I'm talking about an honest, candid heart-to-heart to the fans to say "look, we messed up. We know we messed up. We released a game knowing full well it wasn't finished and we're sorry." Until they do that it's going to be an elephant in the room that's going to remain up until Ubisoft release a good AC game. It's going to make Ubi dread any interactions with the gaming press because you know there's a chance an interviewer will flag up Unity's technical problems. That's why it feels like 'audacity' - Ubisoft has not put the Unity mess behind them because they refuse to address it.

LieutenantRex
05-10-2015, 10:10 PM
Yes, I have some advantages based on my demographic that I can't control nor are government mandated. Does that justify affirmative action? No. The opportunities presented to me because of my skin color are presented by racists, who take away the same opportunities they give me from minorities. Odds are, the majority race will have the majority racists, that's not something affirmative action solves. Something like my point about police earlier does solve that.

And so removing systems set in place to even the playing fields for minorities should be removed so they can properly fill the mudsill roles that they should. This is what your argument seems like to me. Programs that help minorities are making the world tough for the poor white male. Boo hoo.

SixKeys
05-11-2015, 12:50 AM
Well for one thing Ubisoft have themselves acknowledged that racism is a factor. In Black Flag the market analysis video of Connor has Roger Craig Smith say: "Mohawk culture lacks the balance to tell the true story of America. Moreover, we feel that the Mohawk language will be an issue for most of our audience. We therefore feel that although RatonhnhakÚ:ton's early life is of some interest to our more educated viewers its unlikely his story will appeal on a more broader scale being too foreign, as it were for normal audiences."

That bit in the game is written from a Templar perspective and takes place in the fictional AC universe as opposed to our real world (so no, Ubisoft never acknowledged what you're suggesting). That's like saying Ubisoft "acknowledged" that Americans are all tosspots because Shaun Hastings said so.


Then, take this article for instance: http://kotaku.com/assassins-creeds-connor-who-was-the-worst-is-done-f-1459894621

You're citing a single opinion piece in Kotaku (the title is obvious clickbait) as your evidence that all those who criticize Connor are racists? Really? I thought you were making a serious argument here.

AC3 deserves five or six negative articles because it was just. That. Bad. Kotaku wrote plenty of negative articles about Unity too, but I haven't seen you criticize them for that.


You know that attitude is what stinks...why do you need that validation? Why do you need somebody else to say, "It's okay if you didn't like Connor, you are not a racist!" I said that most of the criticism comes from racism and gaming culture (and nerd culture for that matter) is fairly racist and bigoted.

What most? You keep saying "most" people are racist towards Connor, yet you offer no support for this claim. Only one single opinion piece from a single website.

Sometimes accusations of racism in gaming culture are justified, but it's quite rare in the AC community. Adewale, Alta´r, Shao Jun and Aveline are all fairly popular characters and rarely do we get bigots here complaining about how they don't want to play as X race. Before AC3's release, there was a huge amount of hype about Connor. The backlash started after the game's release when people got a proper glimpse of his true character in the game: irrational, illogical and with a voice actor who sounded like he was reading the phonebook. Alta´r got criticized back in the day for having a bad voice actor too. They changed the actor for ACR and suddenly the character was much better received. How does that fit into your "everyone's a racist" theory?

rprkjj
05-11-2015, 12:56 AM
And so removing systems set in place to even the playing fields for minorities should be removed so they can properly fill the mudsill roles that they should. This is what your argument seems like to me. Programs that help minorities are making the world tough for the poor white male. Boo hoo.

As you said before, affirmative action doesn't do much to "even the playing fields," as it shouldn't because it doesn't solve racial injustice towards black people. This injustice springs from individuals with ulterior motives that lessen the opportunities for black people. I feel like I'm repeating myself here; so let me put it in short: affirmative action would be evening the playing fields between a non oppressed and disenfranchised person and an oppressed and disenfranchised person. As it stands, the former does not encompass white people and the latter equally so for black people. To put a law into effect that pretends that it does for the sake of discrimination is racism and inexcusable. Thus, alternatives must be sought to address the very present racial bias towards black pepole possessed by certain people who are being allowed by other certain people. Affirmative action doesn't solve that.

I-Like-Pie45
05-11-2015, 01:01 AM
meow's owner am say that when people am argue it am doing unhealthy thingies to your blood pressure which is bad

Locopells
05-11-2015, 01:14 AM
Dammit guys, really? You're going round in circles here, don't make me close this.,,

I-Like-Pie45
05-11-2015, 01:15 AM
meow am thinking that you am should instead of just warniningly

meows am loving owners who am assertive like that

killzab
05-11-2015, 01:26 AM
I was asked a direct question and my post only put that as a casual aside. So it wasn't me who sidetracked the issue either.

Anyway as far as Ubisoft's audacity goes in releasing a game after UNITY's launch. I personally think that with the medium and metaphor they have, there's always the possibility for change. Okay Paris was a bummer in UNITY, let's go to the next game and try another roll of the dice.

They shouldn't make games in settings and period that doesn't interest them or they don't feel passionate about. Their initial idea for UNITY was Paris in multiple eras and they backed away from that at an early stage and the Revolution setting was a last resort as is visible in the thoroughly shoddy research and recreation. As much as I like AC3 and think it was a game that in its existence alone set standards to reach for (even if it didn't entirely achieve it), I can tell it wasn't a setting that they felt a great deal of interest in either.

The flaw in AC3 in that the historical section is kind of dry and too textbook, but that is still better than what they do in UNITY, where its not even a textbook (i.e. provide information about events with basic accuracy). I think ideally they should have focused solely on Connor, removed the Haytham prologue and have him be this peripheral figure to the Revolution, and reduce Washington and the Patriots to a key cameo a la Richard Lionheart in AC1. But I have a feeling they backed away from that because, "Mohawk culture lacks the balance to tell the true story of America. Moreover, we feel that the Mohawk language will be an issue for most of our audience." I mean AC3 is hardly an example of perfect representation of minorities, if it was a movie it would be pretty bad, but since gaming has zero standards, AC3 kind of feels like a revolution.

How do you know that ? I'm interested in knowing more about that !

Namikaze_17
05-11-2015, 01:32 AM
Dammit guys, really? You're going round in circles here, don't make me close this.,,

You're better off.


I forgot how this began anyway.

SixKeys
05-11-2015, 01:36 AM
How do you know that ? I'm interested in knowing more about that !

Jeffrey Yohalem (who worked on the main story of Unity) implied as much in one of Loomer's podcasts.

killzab
05-11-2015, 01:40 AM
Jeffrey Yohalem (who worked on the main story of Unity) implied as much in one of Loomer's podcasts.

Would have been a much more exciting and innovative game had it been the case ...

VestigialLlama4
05-11-2015, 04:07 AM
That bit in the game ... How does that fit into your "everyone's a racist" theory?

There is a revived "The-Love-Hate-Of-Assassin's-Creed-III'' where the thread is discussed. I answered Megas_Doux there. And I will answer this one there.
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1073175-The-Love-Hate-of-Assassin-s-Creed-III/page5

I certainly don't want to shut this post down or lock it.


Would have been a much more exciting and innovative game had it been the case ...

As per Yohalem in Loomer's podcast:

-- Initially the idea for "the game that became UNITY" was based on this movie The Red Violin, a gimmicky art movie that was about a violin changing hands across history, and each person having a history with it. The concept was using the Pieces of Eden, or one object and seeing how it changed hands across history in different eras of Paris.
-- Jacques de Molay's prologue was the first thing they ever wrote and that survived in the game intact.
-- Arno was going to be one Ancestor and initially he was going to die at the end of his section or vignette.

As for how far or how late this concept was written is impossible to tell because Yohalem insists, with the utmost professionalism, "the game is the game". Obviously, the concept implies Paris in multiple timelines and all of them accessible anytime and fully interactive. That means Paris-Middle Ages you can teleport yourself to anytime, Paris-WW2 you can teleport yourself to, Revolutionary Paris-Teleport yourself to. This is a lot of work to code of course and the idea is fairly experimental, since it goes totally against the fairly linear set-up they have for most games. If they had followed through on the original idea, AC:U would have been the second most radical open-world game after GTAV, what survives from that in the game are these Time-Anomalies and the Jacques de Molay prologue.

From that we can guess what happened. They eventually decided to make UNITY a more modest game, afraid of going too much against the established style or feeling that it would take too much development time and they didn't want to delay for the Next-Gen launch. So they decided to focus on what's achievable. They focused on a simplistic systems-based game for a Next-Gen launch. The funny thing is their safe approach did not work. Despite focusing on modest goals, and the most simplistic story in the franchise , they still failed. So if anything should be learned its that the safe approach is not necessarily superior or more sensible than being experimental.

Megas_Doux
05-11-2015, 04:33 AM
Would have been a much more exciting and innovative game had it been the case ...

Tell me about it....

Instead of Versailles that was a little version Paris and even Saint Denis, I would have included a varied countryside full forests and why not, chateaux..I would have also expanded the rift sections.......

robert_w88
05-12-2015, 08:10 PM
From a technical point of view, how can you possibly make an open world game with the high level of detail Ubisoft try to reach in a year?

They seem to do it because they sacrifice innovation and a wide range of features that other open world games offer because those games like GTA, Witcher, MGS etc have been in development for years, AC games are now annual, each game is a basic open world with nothing innovate to offer, its the reason they are always buggy and require day 1 patches to TRY and fix all the bugs that should be ironed out before the game even goes gold

cawatrooper9
05-12-2015, 08:18 PM
It would be very difficult indeed. That's why they don't do it in a year.

Ubisoft has about a dozen studios that work on AC. They rotate out each year. So, while one team was working on finishing up Assassins Creed: Revelations in 2011, another was just getting started on Unity (not to mention the other teams working on ACIII and Black Flag). I think it's safe to say that Syndicate has been in the works for a good while now.

Sushiglutton
05-12-2015, 08:26 PM
It would be very difficult indeed. That's why they don't do it in a year.

Ubisoft has about a dozen studios that work on AC. They rotate out each year. So, while one team was working on finishing up Assassins Creed: Revelations in 2011, another was just getting started on Unity (not to mention the other teams working on ACIII and Black Flag). I think it's safe to say that Syndicate has been in the works for a good while now.


Only this scheme doesn't work. The content feels massproduced and recycled. Yearly releases need to go away, the gameplay shown today is just the latest proof of this.

robert_w88
05-12-2015, 08:31 PM
It would be very difficult indeed. That's why they don't do it in a year.

Ubisoft has about a dozen studios that work on AC. They rotate out each year. So, while one team was working on finishing up Assassins Creed: Revelations in 2011, another was just getting started on Unity (not to mention the other teams working on ACIII and Black Flag). I think it's safe to say that Syndicate has been in the works for a good while now.

TBH i think that a load of horse ****

the proof is in the pudding, since AC3, the amount of bugs and shoddy gameplay mechanicals shows us that these games are rushed, and the complete lack of innovation in the series displays this too

AC now is a very bland buggy series and it needs to be refreshed or put out to pasture

cawatrooper9
05-12-2015, 08:39 PM
TBH i think that a load of horse ****

the proof is in the pudding, since AC3, the amount of bugs and shoddy gameplay mechanicals shows us that these games are rushed, and the complete lack of innovation in the series displays this too

AC now is a very bland buggy series and it needs to be refreshed or put out to pasture

Well, you're free to think that way.

And I'm free to critically disagree with you on that very point. However, the claim that these games are made in only a year is demonstrably false.

VestigialLlama4
05-12-2015, 08:44 PM
The Important thing people don't get about annualizations is that there are two kinds of AC games. You can call it the A-Movie and the B-movie in the fashion of the classic-Hollywood double bill. Before I continue, when I say A and B movie I only mean in terms of weightage and theme of content, there are many B-movies which are classics and quite a few better than A-movies. So this isn't a judgement on quality at all.

The A-Movie is the bigger movie, the one with a more serious and in-depth vision. The B-movie is more of a quickie, a genre piece, a little simpler and cheaper. This is nothing new in franchises. In games, its usually a matter of platforms, like AC1 is the A-Movie, released on the big consoles. Altair's Chronicles and Bloodines is the B-Movie. AC2 is the A Movie, while Discovery is the B Movie. Brotherhood changed things because it became clear that they wanted more Ezio. The initial concept was an episodic story DLC. But then they expanded it to a full game. So that's where annualization started. Brotherhood is highly systems driven, has one map and essentially reuses the same supporting cast and a narrow list of villains for a conventional sandbox experience. In other words, its a B-Movie but with A-Movie trimmings. Revelations continued in the same vein, a B-Game with A-Movie trimmings. You can also tell by another manner, AC2 had 12 sequences (with 2 extra in the DLC) but Brotherhood-Revelations has 9 sequences. The theory was that until the A-Movie comes, fans can be happy with the annual released B-Movie titles. Now until AC3, this model made sense. The big game is waiting around the corner so lets use these annual games to test stuff like multiplayer, strange mechanics and different kinds of MD mechanics.

AC3 was the last real A-Movie for the franchise. It's a game with a huge sprawling story, incredible leap from AC1 and AC2 in a number of ways in terms of graphics and open-world. But that game didn't catch people's imagination the way AC2 did. So then Black Flag, which is again fairly systemic, cobbled from assets in AC3, highly simplified land gameplay. It's a B-game but with enough improvements to become an A game, and they did that by making it a pirate game.I think Ubisoft's thinking after the more positive release of Black Flag was that it might be better to do B-Movie games from then on. So they awkwardly slapped number IV on Black Flag despite it not being as much a leap over AC3 as that was over AC2, and in fact was a step backward.

In theory, UNITY is the A Movie over Rogue's B-Movie but the fact is both are fairly light and shallow, lacking in resonance and texture. Neither of them as much a leap in innovations over AC3, that AC3 did over AC2. So what happens is now there's no real A-Movie waiting, every game will be a B-Movie. Until UBISOFT actually take AC seriously again and decide to really go for broke and make a grand epic AC game that really makes a leap, I don't think the franchise will ever really get that sense of magic again. It's going to be the same product recycled to some trendy concept and background or another, each shallower than the last, until AC becomes at last a sandbox atlas of different eras, all pretty boring and flat. So at this point, I am kind of giving up on the franchise. I thought that AC games had potential for real historical fiction and using video games in a mature way but that was an illusion, to me AC ended with Black Flag, everything after that doesn't count at all.

cawatrooper9
05-12-2015, 08:50 PM
VestigialLlame, I agree with your A/B analysis of the games- though, I would look to them as more of a dichotomy between introducing assets and reusing those assets.

People get really hyped when a game comes out that looks nothing like what they've seen before (eg. ACIII, Unity...) It's new, it's exciting, it has better graphics than what's come before it... and it's relatively untested. So, when the next year or so the studio is able to reuse those assets and make a much sharper game, people are tired of the assets- and even worse, they may have a bad taste in their mouth from the previous year's failures.

So, I can understand if people don't want a completely new system of assets each year- but recycling what works and building upon it is where this franchise really shines.

robert_w88
05-12-2015, 08:56 PM
Well, you're free to think that way.

And I'm free to critically disagree with you on that very point. However, the claim that these games are made in only a year is demonstrably false.

TBH it would credit ubisoft if they were actually made in a year, if they are as you state developed over a few years then that really is embarrassing, to release half broken games that have been in development for apparently over a year is truly shocking.

Unity was such a shoddy mess on PC and even on consoles too, and previous AC titles too but Unity really does win for the most FUBAR AC game to date

VestigialLlama4
05-12-2015, 09:10 PM
VestigialLlame, I agree with your A/B analysis of the games- though, I would look to them as more of a dichotomy between introducing assets and reusing those assets.

Well B-movies were often made using A-movie sets and extras after all, so renewing assets is part of it. But I was looking more in terms of design philosophy and storytelling. The fact is that A and B movies don't make sense in today's cinema. Superhero movies such as Batman and Superman would be given B-movie budgets in the golden age and dismissed as kids stuff, no major actor would play these roles unlike today where all big actors covet them. The old Hollywood A-movie (and the old Hollywood B-Movie for that matter) has in fact become today's art-house and niche-independent film. That began with Star Wars, a B movie concept with A movie budget and actors and the money that made changed the industry.


People get really hyped when a game comes out that looks nothing like what they've seen before (eg. ACIII, Unity...) It's new, it's exciting, it has better graphics than what's come before it... and it's relatively untested. So, when the next year or so the studio is able to reuse those assets and make a much sharper game, people are tired of the assets- and even worse, they may have a bad taste in their mouth from the previous year's failures.

Well the point is with AC3 you had a clear sense of a game that was breaking new ground and if it fell flat at least it tried something. AC2 introduced historical tourism and hanging out with famous figures. AC3 went further than that by making a more complex look at a historical period, which was hinted at by AC2 but which they followed on with, making it really powerful and resonant.

Unity vastly simplified that to pre-AC1 levels. It's a huge step backward and its essentially a shiny dumb toy. This was a game with longer developtime time than AC3, had even lower ambitions and is a colossal failure as a game and a story and its only value is to provide tools to a new toy collection. ROGUE is even worse, a cannibalized distilled game that has zero innovation and life.


So, I can understand if people don't want a completely new system of assets each year- but recycling what works and building upon it is where this franchise really shines.

It's not about assets but about what its trying to serve. I am fine with annualization when it provides games like Revelations and Black Flag. A place like Turkey would be unlikely to get a full numbered title release, so for them to use that and provide a peek into that era was nice. Black Flag likewise would have been a hard sell as a major annual title, but it worked as a cool game on its own legs. The B-movie philosophy is to do things A movies can't do, for reasons of respectability and expectations. If you are reusing assets to use them in an interesting way its one thing but its another if all you are doing is building a template on which anything can be slapped on.

UNITY is A game story and event (French Revolution) that's getting a sub B-Movie treatment, likewise SYNDICATE is in the same vein. ROGUE is even worse, fanfiction.

TexasCaesar
05-12-2015, 09:17 PM
Wow, I had no idea about the Red Violin idea. That would have been amazing if they could have pulled it off. To be frank, I don't they could have, but it would have been remembered, either way...

Civona
05-12-2015, 09:21 PM
the three years they usually state is probably being a bit generous, a lot of the first year seems to be concepting things out and working with the previous team on future technology. So I'd say it's about two years and a bit of in-earnest development. The struggle is basically between what things to push forward and what things to spend time just polishing. Unity tried to do a bit too much all at once, and that's where it suffered, but I still think it's a worthwhile game to play. Brotherhood was barely any different from AC2, and had less interesting mission design, but it was incredibly polished, and that was enough for it to get a ton of praise.

Syndicate seems like the right balance between adding new stuff and fixing the old stuff, so far. We'll see. It's clear that the series would benefit from alternating years with something else, but they could also do better at this pace if they establish more concrete guidelines for advancement. Number one of those things would be continuing to show gameplay demos that are about typical gameplay sequences, rather than the usual AC approach of dazzling with spectacle.

SixKeys
05-12-2015, 09:38 PM
Wow, I had no idea about the Red Violin idea. That would have been amazing if they could have pulled it off. To be frank, I don't they could have, but it would have been remembered, either way...

Without annualization, they probably could have. But they had a deadline to meet and a next-gen console launch to worry about. Had they spent a lot more time honing the original idea and the mechanics and story involved with it, it could have been absolutely amazing.

Perk89
05-12-2015, 09:39 PM
lol "audacity"


how how dare a corporation continue to provide the public with what they continue buying! I'm so offended! How dare they!

action161
06-14-2015, 01:09 AM
I will forgive everything if they bring back counter kills. I will forgive the dumb story, the crazy AI, and the pay to win function. Bring back counter kills.

Mr.Black24
06-14-2015, 05:14 AM
You guys are done with the Connor and the AC Fanbase debate? I was really interested with the talk, However, I was late to this, and if you like, we can make a separate thread on this, since the other ones are wwwaayyyyyy in the back? After being with you guys for a while, I think we can have a civil debate and discussion here in the Forums.

MasterAssasin84
06-14-2015, 04:23 PM
In all Honesty Unity was Lukewarm in terms of my receptive feedback ! I was awed by the textures and Architecture in Paris but the Gameplay and Story was very mediocre ! Visually the Game was impressive and Long was I waiting for a game to be set in the French Revolution but I felt Unity was wasted potential.

But let's Not forget that Unity was the first game to use this new engine and systematic gameplay so my Synicle mind is edging towards either Lazy development or using the consumer as the games tester at the expense of their wallets..

Either way after seeing Syndicate I'm very excited ! And I happen to live in the East End of London and after listening to the developer videos and hearing the team refer to the locations as Boroughs rather than Districts is a good sign they have done their homework :)

Of subject I'm currently Back on AC3 and suffice to say I'm sucked in !

But I am excited for Syndicate .

RVSage
06-14-2015, 05:44 PM
Audacity is an over statement... They have been developing these games across studios... Syndicate had a target when it was developed .. i.e 2015.. and they are sticking to it...

My point is Unity had a sub-par launch.. but i was a decent game nevertheless...and yes probably the worst "AC" game... Due to bugs and issues and story line...

I liked every game ACIV.... AC III had a great narrative.. of a minority group.. and how they have been treated in history... (yes not 100 % accurate)..

If you are done with the series.. please move on.. The game still has a lot of fans... And we intend to give them a chance to correct mistakes...If you are not happy with yearly cycles.. welcome to skip...

But Ubisoft.. is not audacious.. because there are enough fans backing it...