PDA

View Full Version : What is worse: Assassin's Creed 3 or Assassin's Creed: Unity?



EmptyCrustacean
05-31-2015, 08:48 PM
*gulp* bit scared about what this thread may bring out but I'll bite.

Vote and state your reasons. Let's try to have a friendly debate :)

DISCLAIMER: This poll is specifically for those that dislike one OR both of these games. I made the poll because these two are the most despised and I wanted to see which one comes out on top with the factor of time.

I actually really, really like AC3 and don't think Unity is anywhere near its level so the choice was easy for me. If you love both, good. This poll is not for you.

VestigialLlama4
05-31-2015, 09:23 PM
There is no friendly debate when you put these profane cows in the ring.

Objectively,
-- AC3 is the more innovative game, that can't really be doubted or argued against in any way.
-- UNITY has more stealth options, that also can't be argued against in any way.
-- AC3 is historically accurate to a good extent.
-- UNITY is total BS crap that would shame any fifth grader's report.
-- AC3 has more varied side missions
-- UNITY has at best two kinds of side missions.
-- AC3 has a Better DLC than UNITY
-- AC3 has better Templars than UNITY.
-- AC3 has a gray storyline.
-- UNITY has a black-and-white storyline.

So it boils down to Subjective preferences:
-- Do you like Arno or Connor more?
-- Do you like Colonial America or Ancien Regime France more?
-- Do you like period-and-culture appropriate accents or faux-BBC accents?


On objective grounds, AC3 is better than UNITY but subjectively people can prefer Arno's whiteboy right-wing fantasy over a more conflicted and multi-cultural hero's adventures.

TO_M
05-31-2015, 09:32 PM
AC3 is definitely the worst of the two.

It's the game that almost ruined the franchise imo.

bitebug2003
05-31-2015, 09:38 PM
There is no friendly debate when you put these profane cows in the ring

I suggest you (and others) do their best.

AC: Unity for me

Arno & Elise
French Revolution (I prefer that to Colonial America).
Preferred Arno's Story to Connor's Story

There too many collectibles and side missions]

AC 3 was the worst AC so obviously for me worse than AC Unity

GunnerGalactico
05-31-2015, 09:43 PM
Ooh! This is going to be fun. :rolleyes:

Can't wait to see how this plays out.

https://33.media.tumblr.com/8ae80b85097dd65d00fdba95d5ff5bff/tumblr_inline_nligb36Sui1soq2fo.gif

VoXngola
05-31-2015, 09:49 PM
AC3 ruined the franchise for me so much that I changed my viewpoint on the series. I now don't care about the plot in any way, I just get my historic action-adventure fix every year now. It's why I'm one of the few people who would welcome a complete reboot. Black Flag was a pirate game and was excellent and Syndicate is more like a gang thingy which can be cool.

However Unity somehow managed to be even worse. I had very, very low expectations yet I still got disappointed.

Where AC3 was innovative, Unity just played it safe.
Connor was really hated at first, and I belonged to those who did. But after some time, I realized what kind of character Connor actually was and really grew to like him. It's completely understandable why he was hated, though.

Arno isn't even TALKED about. The guy is literally just "there". He's probably the most forgettable "protagonist" I've ever played as, way too weak to carry a game. He's the main character, yet I always felt that he wasn't fleshed out. This also applies to every other character in Unity. A shame about Bellec and especially De Sade. How many cutscenes do they have? 2?

I enjoyed Connor's story, it's not the best one overall for me but it's still pretty good. Unity's story is just like Arno, forgettable. It's so mind-numbingly boring and badly written and very, very cliché. Don't get me started on the forced death of a certain character in order to trigger emotions. I couldn't connect with ANYONE in this game.

Unity is just plain bad, even hardcore fans miss absolutely nothing by not touching this.

EmptyCrustacean
05-31-2015, 10:08 PM
I suggest you (and others) do their best.

AC: Unity for me.

Arno & Elise
French Revolution (I prefer that to Colonial America).
Preferred Arno's Story to Connor's Story

There too many collectibles and side missions]

Do you mean you prefer AC: Unity? My poll is about which is worse lol

bitebug2003
05-31-2015, 10:16 PM
Do you mean you prefer AC: Unity? My poll is about which is worse lol

Yes I should have added that AC3 was worse than Unity :S

I accidently click on the wrong post (yours) to edit sorry was meant to be mine :S

EmptyCrustacean
05-31-2015, 10:36 PM
There is no friendly debate when you put these profane cows in the ring.

Objectively,
-- AC3 is the more innovative game, that can't really be doubted or argued against in any way.
-- UNITY has more stealth options, that also can't be argued against in any way.
-- AC3 is historically accurate to a good extent.
-- UNITY is total BS crap that would shame any fifth grader's report.
-- AC3 has more varied side missions
-- UNITY has at best two kinds of side missions.
-- AC3 has a Better DLC than UNITY
-- AC3 has better Templars than UNITY.
-- AC3 has a gray storyline.
-- UNITY has a black-and-white storyline.

So it boils down to Subjective preferences:
-- Do you like Arno or Connor more?
-- Do you like Colonial America or Ancien Regime France more?
-- Do you like period-and-culture appropriate accents or faux-BBC accents?


On objective grounds, AC3 is better than UNITY but subjectively people can prefer Arno's whiteboy right-wing fantasy over a more conflicted and multi-cultural hero's adventures.

There is only one thing that AC3 is objectively better at and that's the technical side. Everything else is down to subjective opinion.
And I say that as someone who prefers AC3 and actually don't think it's bad at all.


AC3 ruined the franchise for me so much that I changed my viewpoint on the series. I now don't care about the plot in any way, I just get my historic action-adventure fix every year now. It's why I'm one of the few people who would welcome a complete reboot. Black Flag was a pirate game and was excellent and Syndicate is more like a gang thingy which can be cool.

However Unity somehow managed to be even worse. I had very, very low expectations yet I still got disappointed.

Where AC3 was innovative, Unity just played it safe.
Connor was really hated at first, and I belonged to those who did. But after some time, I realized what kind of character Connor actually was and really grew to like him. It's completely understandable why he was hated, though.

Arno isn't even TALKED about. The guy is literally just "there". He's probably the most forgettable "protagonist" I've ever played as, way too weak to carry a game. He's the main character, yet I always felt that he wasn't fleshed out. This also applies to every other character in Unity. A shame about Bellec and especially De Sade. How many cutscenes do they have? 2?

I enjoyed Connor's story, it's not the best one overall for me but it's still pretty good. Unity's story is just like Arno, forgettable. It's so mind-numbingly boring and badly written and very, very cliché. Don't get me started on the forced death of a certain character in order to trigger emotions. I couldn't connect with ANYONE in this game.

Unity is just plain bad, even hardcore fans miss absolutely nothing by not touching this.

I think Arno isn't remembered because he's too similar to Ezio and his lack of personal identity is not helped by the customisation overhaul which I feel is just one step short of being a RPG.

VoXngola
05-31-2015, 10:57 PM
I think Arno isn't remembered because he's too similar to Ezio and his lack of personal identity is not helped by the customisation overhaul which I feel is just one step short of being a RPG.

I agree with this, someone at some point said that Arno feels more like an avatar because of this.

Megas_Doux
05-31-2015, 11:02 PM
Unity´s story is worse and I do like AC III´s in fact, but since I´m a gameplay guy, I pick AC III here:

I liked neither the setting per se nor its execution. Paris on the other hand, despite its wasted potential, is my favorite location so far. AC III has the worst -in my book- Assassin gameplay to date: Bare to none options regarding missions and "assassinations" in which you kill your target exclusively through QTE´s like 70% of the time. In fact, I´m quite fond of calling that game "warrior´s creed III".

Again, I´m NOT saying UNITY is perfect, but resembles what I would like for this franchise in terms of core gameplay. Oh and Arno is disliked because Unity´s story is really sub par and his lack of an over top french accent.


PD Why would anyone make a relationship between AC III/Unity and politics??? That´s nonsensical....

I-Like-Pie45
05-31-2015, 11:24 PM
you know which game is really worse than both of these

The Witcher 3: Sycophant Hunt

bitebug2003
05-31-2015, 11:26 PM
I-Like-Pie45, behave and don't hijack the thread

Namikaze_17
05-31-2015, 11:59 PM
Well this is redundant.

Kaschra
06-01-2015, 12:24 AM
Well, since Unity is my least fave game in the franchise... easy answer.

I had to force myself to finish Unity. The story bored me to tears.
The characters too. There is not a single one I really like, and Arno is now my least favourite AC protagonist. I simply don't care about him, nor what happens to him.
His relationship with the other characters, besides Elise maybe, is so... weak. Not fleshed out at all. He barely interacted with Bellec before his betrayal, and the same goes for de Sade, Napoleon, Monsieur de la Serre... pretty much everyone.
Don't get me started on the Templars - they are absolutely bland.


I have some problems with AC3, but compared to Unity, I really love that game.

Shahkulu101
06-01-2015, 12:24 AM
AC3 because the bulk of the game - the main campaign - was comprised of some of the most horribly designed, boring missions I've ever had the displeasure of experiencing in any video game.

rprkjj
06-01-2015, 03:19 AM
AC3 is dog**** because Connor isn't fully white. I thought we had accepted this as fact at this point. :rolleyes:

Seriously though, AC3 has a better story. Not one that saves it from cataclysmically dreadful mission design and side activities, but it is better than Unity's, despite Unity been the wholly superior game overall.

sings_in_tune
06-01-2015, 03:33 AM
Well..... Your signature is my absolute favorite.:)

The_Kiwi_
06-01-2015, 05:39 AM
I see no problem with AC3
I don't get how people can hate it so much
It's a great game

Unity is also a great game, it's just a bad AC game
But the story is bad either way

VestigialLlama4
06-01-2015, 07:01 AM
I´m quite fond of calling that game "warrior´s creed III".

Better that than "EzioClone's Creed"..."Nothing is New and Everything is Recycled."


Again, I´m NOT saying UNITY is perfect, but resembles what I would like for this franchise in terms of core gameplay.

Dead easy stealth and repititve combat and 5 different ways to break past a wall?! is your idea of core gameplay...okay:rolleyes:


Oh and Arno is disliked because Unity´s story is really sub par and his lack of an over top french accent.

No Arno is diliked because he's an Ezio Clone and he sucks...if he was a well written character people would forgive the accent just like they did with Ezio.;


PD Why would anyone make a relationship between AC III/Unity and politics??? That´s nonsensical....

They are both games set in the two most important political revolutions ever, its nonsensical to deny any relationship to politics.



AC3 is dog**** because Connor isn't fully white. I thought we had accepted this as fact at this point. :rolleyes:

Seriously though, AC3 has a better story. Not one that saves it from cataclysmically dreadful mission design and side activities, but it is better than Unity's, despite Unity been the wholly superior game overall.

Look I stated up front that OBJECTIVELY, AC3 is better than UNITY. Subjectively people can prefer Unity over AC3, everyone is free to delude themselves after all, but you can't just say "Unity been the wholly superior game overall" without answering the serious issues as to why



-- AC3 is the more innovative game, that can't really be doubted or argued against in any way.
-- UNITY has more stealth options, that also can't be argued against in any way.
-- AC3 is historically accurate to a good extent.
-- UNITY is total BS crap that would shame any fifth grader's report.
-- AC3 has more varied side missions
-- UNITY has at best two kinds of side missions.
-- AC3 has a Better DLC than UNITY
-- AC3 has better Templars than UNITY.
-- AC3 has a gray storyline.
-- UNITY has a black-and-white storyline.


You can say UNITY is stealthier than AC3 but since UNITY's stealth is not really innovative and special to stand against other stealth games its a fairly triffling thing to praise if it doesn't achieve anything else that makes AC distinct.


So it boils down to Subjective preferences:
-- Do you like Arno or Connor more?
-- Do you like Colonial America or Ancien Regime France more?
-- Do you like period-and-culture appropriate accents or faux-BBC accents?



UNITY can only be defended on subjective sentiments. People dislike Colonial Settings, dislike non-white settings and stories, dislike a game that alters the touristy city-based sandbox of earlier titles. Objectively the game is a pathetic heap of garbage and cannot be defended with sincerity.

X_xWolverinEx_X
06-01-2015, 07:47 AM
AC3 is dog**** because Connor isn't fully white. I thought we had accepted this as fact at this point. :rolleyes:

you ****ing racist ***** ****


and neither i like both ac3 and unity

VestigialLlama4
06-01-2015, 07:51 AM
you ****ing racist ***** ****


and neither i like both ac3 and unity

He was being sarcastic...or trying to be at any rate. Calm down. Let's keep the tone to general b-tchiness and mild cattiness and avoid full blown flamewar.

X_xWolverinEx_X
06-01-2015, 07:54 AM
He was being sarcastic...or trying to be at any rate. Calm down. Let's keep the tone to general b-tchiness and mild cattiness and avoid full blown flamewar.

im up for a war mate and he wasn't being sarcastic

VestigialLlama4
06-01-2015, 08:45 AM
im up for a war mate and he wasn't being sarcastic

I did say he was trying to be, just not successful that's all.

Anyway, the fact is objectively AC3 is the better game and so far there has never been a single defense of UNITY on any aesthetic grounds.

It's always "more stealthier than ----" and "less Gumpy than ---" and so on. Its not a game that can stand on its own legs. Its stealth is petty and uncreative and appallingly common. But since its more stealthy than earlier titles, people mistake it for progress.

RinoTheBouncer
06-01-2015, 09:09 AM
I wouldn't say "worse" on ACIII, because ACIII isn't bad to begin with to be worse than something else. I can't call ACU a bad game, either.
Both games tried to be something new and distinguished by introducing new style, new mechanics, new atmosphere and pushing the boundaries beyond what was known to be possible for the franchise at the time.

However, as a fan of 3rd person modern day, First Civilization storyline and significant progress to the overarching story, I believe ACIII is superior. There isn't anything about ACIII that I dislike beside the last 5 minutes, which felt very rushed and didn't do the story and protagonists any justice. Modern day, was good, historical story was good, the protagonists were great, the cutscenes, gameplay, atmosphere, everything was breathtaking and original which made any glitches or flaws with the system so forgivable.

I'd give ACIII 100/10 if it had a different ending, sad or happy, but at least longer, more detailed and directed and executed in a better and more theatrical way.

Regarding AC:Unity, I loved the graphics, the setting, the crowdedness of the city, the love story, the two protagonists and how alive the city was. Moments like those aboard the balloon were absolutely amazing, and I wish the game ended in such a beautiful way.

The story was ok. However, the total absence of Juno, proper modern day and a significant progress to the lore makes me feel that the game is somehow incomplete. The ending also broke my heart. It felt like it wasn't fulfilling nor rewarding regarding progress to the overarching story or even a conclusion to the current mission we're on, and the fate of Elise felt forced and would've been a lot more meaningful had it ended on a happy note, giving hope for some form of unity between Assassins and Templars, one day.

I personally have no AC game that I can call "terrible" or "bad" or that I personally hate. I just have most and least favorites and ACIII is higher on my favorite AC games list.

rprkjj
06-01-2015, 09:11 AM
Holy mother of god. You have to be a special kind of brain dead to mistake my remark as anything other then sarcasm.

@vestigial I think you need to learn what objective means. Saying that AC3 is objectively better than Unity is playing into a false narrative that games can have objective merits and shortcomings. They can't, there is even a crowd for glitchy games. Goat simulator is proof of this. To assume that one game is objectively superior to another is incredibly asinine and vapid thinking. I think I can say now without a doubt you are a troll. You probably actually believe the things you say to some extent, which is probably why you're good at it, but you are a troll nonetheless.

Shahkulu101
06-01-2015, 09:48 AM
I did say he was trying to be, just not successful that's all.

Anyway, the fact is objectively AC3 is the better game and so far there has never been a single defense of UNITY on any aesthetic grounds.

It's always "more stealthier than ----" and "less Gumpy than ---" and so on. Its not a game that can stand on its own legs. Its stealth is petty and uncreative and appallingly common. But since its more stealthy than earlier titles, people mistake it for progress.

Yet AC3's mission design was an absolute master-stroke?

Never once have you address just how terrible the missions are, and you ignore the awful, offensively simplistic side missions like the assassination contracts and delivery requests. You talk about delusion but you are doing some incredible mental gymnastics in ignoring AC3's flaws.

It's incredible that you bemoan Unity's stealth for it's simplicity yet take no issue with AC3's linear prescriptiveness in it's campaign. How is walking from marker to marker to trigger a cutscene or mowing down horde after horde of feckless enemies any more sophisticated than what Unity offers? The stealth is also literally broken, with the telepathic AI rendering all the innovations in the stealth department useless. Unity at least functions (in terms of it's mechanics - not talking bugs) even if it is mediocre but AC3 is an absolute mess where hardly anything works and what works is largely flawed anyway.

VestigialLlama4
06-01-2015, 10:34 AM
Never once have you address just how terrible the missions are,

Well, I have never called AC3 a "masterpiece" or even a "great game", it had the potential for greatness and much of the game is pretty good and the story and plot and characters work (at least in parts) but yes the missions are mostly linear and the main boss-fight is a QTE dud, the games suffer from having too many features and ultimately its even a little timid and isn't fully satisfying because of the wasteful overemphasis on Haytham.

Ultimately AC3 is not a successful game, it is still a good game though by a wide margin (compared to most of the overpraised crap on the market). And ultimately AC3 suffered from over-reaching and trying new ideas and the like, and in a gaming industry and franchise, that is to be respected and admired. As it is flawed, to be redeemed and corrected. If Ubisoft is deciding after AC3 that they'll never do another game with as many big ideas and they'll be more modest and dole out anonymous annual titles without making anything as grand and ambitious again, then I don't see why you have a problem with people being overly sentimental towards AC3.

AC3 is like a David Lean movie (Grand Ambition, Epic Scenery, Occassional Awkwardness), while Black Flag is a fun B-Movie adventure (i.e. like Raoul Walsh or Jacques Tourneur who made B-Movies on the sets of A-movies similar to Black Flag using AC3's assets to tell another story in another era). After that Rogue is Direct-To-Video cheapjack waste and UNITY is hallmark TV Movie. Nobody compares the worst Lean movie to the best Hallmark TV Movie so likewise AC3 is on a different level to UNITY.


and you ignore the awful, offensively simplistic side missions like the assassination contracts and delivery requests.

What about the Homestead, Frontiersman Missions, Naval Missions, Captain Kidd missions, Boston Brawlers, Liberation Missions, The Forts to name a few? All of them different and unique and several of them brand new (i.e. not there in AC1 or AC2, or severely modified from there).

UNITY stole the Murder Mysteries from the Frontiersman Missions (the whole clue and track mechanic, though in AC3 the clues weren't all laid out and it actually had to be found). As for the Assassination Contracts, I actually liked the fact that in AC3 it triggers at once without HUD, without a Pigeon Coop animation and loads directly on the map. I liked the spontaneous trigger...but that's subjective I guess. I mean yeah its not as integrated as Brotherhood I will give you that.


You talk about delusion but you are doing some incredible mental gymnastics in ignoring AC3's flaws.

The only mental gymnastics is the overexaggerated witch-hunt AC3 has recieved. Like Megas_Doux talks about QTEs. In the games itself, you only have it for the hunting mechanic (retained in the beloved Black Flag, except there you can shoot it out without any loss in fur quality) and the Haytham boss-fight, but otherwise its not like its there in every mission. They all like Haytham and complain about linear missions when the most linear missions are the ones that are entirely to do with Haytham as a protagonist or NPC


It's incredible that you bemoan Unity's stealth for it's simplicity yet take no issue with AC3's linear prescriptiveness in it's campaign. How is walking from marker to marker to trigger a cutscene or mowing down horde after horde of feckless enemies any more sophisticated than what Unity offers?

How is crouching like a turtle and moving through interiors, seeing enemies through walls (AC3's Eagle Vision was not so user-friendly) any more satisfying? The stealth in UNITY is hardly on the level of Dishonored or Thief (or AC1) in mission design, entertainment value or immersion. Its just got a lot more than AC3 (though most of its stealth is stolen from Black Flag) than previous titles that's all. The mission design in UNITY is all repittive and ultimately since the Templars have the personalities of a Zombie, it doesn't matter at all. Stealth is about your surroundings, about the person you pursue, without a meaningful connection to the target and a sense of place, they are not of value at all. AC has never been a pure stealth game nor should it ever be and yes, AC3 is more action heavy and more linear in mission design but its stealth missions (william johnson, Pitcairn, as well as the Forts missions and even the Liberation missions, if you play it stealthy) are a lot more satisfying, entertaining and rewarding than Arno the Croucher slipping-and-sliding and looking at documents and sputtering like a moron.

VestigialLlama4
06-01-2015, 11:07 AM
@vestigial I think you need to learn what objective means. Saying that AC3 is objectively better than Unity is playing into a false narrative that games can have objective merits and shortcomings. They can't, there is even a crowd for glitchy games. Goat simulator is proof of this. To assume that one game is objectively superior to another is incredibly asinine and vapid thinking. I think I can say now without a doubt you are a troll. You probably actually believe the things you say to some extent, which is probably why you're good at it, but you are a troll nonetheless.

Look ultimately deciding how you feel about some games depends a lot on subjective tastes. But your subjective taste does not preclude you from being objective about the game's virtues, strong points, weak points, innovations and limitations.

Subjectively I like AC3 a lot, but that doesn't mean I can't be objective about its flaws: too many features, pointlessly adding a second protagonist without any unique gameplay or replay value, linear missions, incoherent third act that makes zero sense, poor handling of historical characters (its the only time when no major historical figure is an Assassin) and yes, overly linear story missions. These are real flaws, alongside that are real virtues -- wonderful natural environment for sandbox, incredible visual realization of landscape in different weather conditions and seasonal changes, music, a totally unique approach to Parkour, Blending in Public anywhere, variety of unique side missions, nice cast, unique protagonist and using the sandbox to tell a more personal and mature story.

Subjectively I dislike UNITY but yes there are some virtues, its overpraised stealth is nonetheless satisfying, you have interiors and places that are 1:1 and while only the genuinely good Notre Dame level has you moving across the map on different levels of access and topography, the realization is good. The first half of the game until Arno-Bellec and Arno meeting Napoleon is also quite decent. The real flaws are the missions get repittive, the historical realization (which is 70% of what makes an AC game special) is pathetic beyond words and the story and plot is unsatisfying, sexist and boring on the whole. The side-missions are errand mechanics with no variety, the hero is EzioClone and the cast is pretty bad except for Elise, Bellec and Napoleon.

So the question is ultimately Unity's Virtues and its Flaws versus AC3's Virtues and its Flaws. That is the only subjective criteria. Stealth mavens who worship the God Garret the Thief might praise UNITY because its closer to their headcanon for AC-Hard Mode. AC fans who like a more complete experience will favour AC3 reasoning that AC is not a pure stealth game and it was always a hybrid historical action-adventure game which was as much about being in the past, soaking in a sense of a long-gone culture in the way only a game could do. Objectively AC3 has fewer failings than UNITY does.

Shahkulu101
06-01-2015, 12:54 PM
Well, I have never called AC3 a "masterpiece" or even a "great game", it had the potential for greatness and much of the game is pretty good and the story and plot and characters work (at least in parts) but yes the missions are mostly linear and the main boss-fight is a QTE dud, the games suffer from having too many features and ultimately its even a little timid and isn't fully satisfying because of the wasteful overemphasis on Haytham.

Ultimately AC3 is not a successful game, it is still a good game though by a wide margin (compared to most of the overpraised crap on the market). And ultimately AC3 suffered from over-reaching and trying new ideas and the like, and in a gaming industry and franchise, that is to be respected and admired. As it is flawed, to be redeemed and corrected. If Ubisoft is deciding after AC3 that they'll never do another game with as many big ideas and they'll be more modest and dole out anonymous annual titles without making anything as grand and ambitious again, then I don't see why you have a problem with people being overly sentimental towards AC3.

AC3 is like a David Lean movie (Grand Ambition, Epic Scenery, Occassional Awkwardness), while Black Flag is a fun B-Movie adventure (i.e. like Raoul Walsh or Jacques Tourneur who made B-Movies on the sets of A-movies similar to Black Flag using AC3's assets to tell another story in another era). After that Rogue is Direct-To-Video cheapjack waste and UNITY is hallmark TV Movie. Nobody compares the worst Lean movie to the best Hallmark TV Movie so likewise AC3 is on a different level to UNITY.



What about the Homestead, Frontiersman Missions, Naval Missions, Captain Kidd missions, Boston Brawlers, Liberation Missions, The Forts to name a few? All of them different and unique and several of them brand new (i.e. not there in AC1 or AC2, or severely modified from there).

UNITY stole the Murder Mysteries from the Frontiersman Missions (the whole clue and track mechanic, though in AC3 the clues weren't all laid out and it actually had to be found). As for the Assassination Contracts, I actually liked the fact that in AC3 it triggers at once without HUD, without a Pigeon Coop animation and loads directly on the map. I liked the spontaneous trigger...but that's subjective I guess. I mean yeah its not as integrated as Brotherhood I will give you that.



The only mental gymnastics is the overexaggerated witch-hunt AC3 has recieved. Like Megas_Doux talks about QTEs. In the games itself, you only have it for the hunting mechanic (retained in the beloved Black Flag, except there you can shoot it out without any loss in fur quality) and the Haytham boss-fight, but otherwise its not like its there in every mission. They all like Haytham and complain about linear missions when the most linear missions are the ones that are entirely to do with Haytham as a protagonist or NPC



How is crouching like a turtle and moving through interiors, seeing enemies through walls (AC3's Eagle Vision was not so user-friendly) any more satisfying? The stealth in UNITY is hardly on the level of Dishonored or Thief (or AC1) in mission design, entertainment value or immersion. Its just got a lot more than AC3 (though most of its stealth is stolen from Black Flag) than previous titles that's all. The mission design in UNITY is all repittive and ultimately since the Templars have the personalities of a Zombie, it doesn't matter at all. Stealth is about your surroundings, about the person you pursue, without a meaningful connection to the target and a sense of place, they are not of value at all. AC has never been a pure stealth game nor should it ever be and yes, AC3 is more action heavy and more linear in mission design but its stealth missions (william johnson, Pitcairn, as well as the Forts missions and even the Liberation missions, if you play it stealthy) are a lot more satisfying, entertaining and rewarding than Arno the Croucher slipping-and-sliding and looking at documents and sputtering like a moron.

The Naval and Captain Kidd missions were excellent but the only genuinely good side missions. The Homestead missions are dull and boring, most of which are menial tasks that are without gameplay substance. I did enjoy the story and progression of the Homestead but doing the missions was a real drag. The Frontiersman quests were even worse, the clues were either laid out for you or incredibly obvious and all they amounted to was walking into green circles and interacting with objects for five long minutes with unsatisfying pay-off. Murder Mysteries were not much better, but at least you had to piece together evidence in the harder ones. Boston Brawlers is a good idea but redundant when the combat system is brain-dead easy plus they make no sense from a story standpoint - what business does the humble Connor have punching random strangers? And the assassination contracts amount to nothing more than an unguarded target spawning in a set location. There are no guards near him and you just walk up to him a press a button. They are essentially the same as the letter delivery missions but with different animations, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're misremembering and not defending the indefensible.

Unity is more satisfying because you have to be aware of your surroundings and plan your moves, it's more satisfying because there is a genuine fear of getting caught due to challenging combat, it's more satisfying because the missions are open and you aren't prescribed what to do by the game designer. It's not Dishonored level but I'd rather that than pre-packaged linear action that fails to even excite. I mean I actually love linear action set-pieces, Uncharted is one of my favourites, but that game makes it exciting and not the vapid, draining experience that is AC3's campaign. The open ended assassination missions in AC3, a grand total of two - aren't very open at all. With Pitcairn the only way to do it undetected was by following the laid out path and onto to the top of the flag post for an easy air assassination, and with Johnson you've got no choice but to follow the cliff-face and obvious tree-running route if you want to do it clean. The forts are well-intentioned and would be awesome were it not for the terrible detection system.

You're aversion to crouching I don't understand. Yes we should always have social stealth as the number one approach, but at some point, particularly in latter time periods, were going to have to explore more interiors where there are no crowds and thus have to use traditional environmental stealth. Unity used too much of that in expense of social stealth but the inclusion of the crouch button alone wasn't a bad thing. Mocking the crouching aesthetic just seems weird to me, if Arno looks ridiculous so too does Sam Fisher and the like. It only looks ridiculous in crowds, and when you crouch amongst crowds in Unity you get promptly detected.

AC has never been a true stealth game - and that includes Unity. It just leaned a bit towards the stealth approach because that's how Assassin's operate. I would have like more action-focused palette cleansers like the balloon mission but the bulk of the missions offering open-ended stealth approaches is how AC should be IMO.

dimbismp
06-01-2015, 01:25 PM
There is no friendly debate when you put these profane cows in the ring.

Objectively,
-- AC3 is the more innovative game, that can't really be doubted or argued against in any way.
-- UNITY has more stealth options, that also can't be argued against in any way.
-- AC3 is historically accurate to a good extent.
-- UNITY is total BS crap that would shame any fifth grader's report.
-- AC3 has more varied side missions
-- UNITY has at best two kinds of side missions.
-- AC3 has a Better DLC than UNITY
-- AC3 has better Templars than UNITY.
-- AC3 has a gray storyline.
-- UNITY has a black-and-white storyline.

So it boils down to Subjective preferences:
-- Do you like Arno or Connor more?
-- Do you like Colonial America or Ancien Regime France more?
-- Do you like period-and-culture appropriate accents or faux-BBC accents?


On objective grounds, AC3 is better than UNITY but subjectively people can prefer Arno's whiteboy right-wing fantasy over a more conflicted and multi-cultural hero's adventures.
Yeah,Connor being behind every important moment of the revolution is really historically accurate

VestigialLlama4
06-01-2015, 02:26 PM
Yeah,Connor being behind every important moment of the revolution is really historically accurate

Again, why do people have a problem with language especially when they quote me directly:AC3 is historically accurate to a good extent.

This isn't all-or-nothing people, we don't have to take a Borderline approach of total-accuracy to total-fakery. "good extent" means obviously that its not fully accurate but reasonably so.

Namikaze_17
06-01-2015, 02:42 PM
Yeah,Connor being behind every important moment of the revolution is really historically accurate

Connor isn't real so...

dimbismp
06-01-2015, 02:56 PM
Again, why do people have a problem with language especially when they quote me directly:AC3 is historically accurate to a good extent.

This isn't all-or-nothing people, we don't have to take a Borderline approach of total-accuracy to total-fakery. "good extent" means obviously that its not fully accurate but reasonably so.
I disagree,it is not historically accurate to a good extent.
Connor was heavily involved in each and every important event during the revolution,to a point that if he weren't alive,history would definitely not be the same:
-History tought us that the Boston massacre occured because the opressed americans decided to rise,so the british killed some of them.According to AC,none of this would have happened if Haytham and Lee weren't there.
-What about the Boston tea party?It turns out that it wasn't the people's idea to destory the British tea,but Connor's,so that he could stop Johnson.Great
-Also,remember that Paul Revere's midnight ride would not be possible without Connor
-Connor was the main reason of the vicory in the battle of Bunker hill(because he killed Pitcairn.So,Putnam's speech didn't actually change anything),and the other 2 battles.Hell even the game itself admits that Connor wins the battles,not the soldiers.
-The reason behind the siege of NY was not a strategical one..No no,it was Connor who wanted to find Lee!
-Connor saved Washington.That surely changed the course of history.

What about ACU?Well,it is implied that Templars ignited the revolution,but certainly they didn't shape every event like connor.The people stormed Bastille themselves iirc.Also,the main politician of the time,Robespierre,may have been a templar,but all the others were just normal citizens,like Danton,Marat etc.Arno never ignited major events,unlike Connor:for example him being at the tulleries during the siege had nothing to do with the revolution.If connor had participated in the french revolution,he would have taken himself the king to the guillotine!

I am not saying that AC should get everything right according to history.But,i find it really strange when people say that AC3 was more historically accurate than ACU.And to answer to the OP,i believe that ACU is better than AC3.AC3 had better story,but ACU had far better and more assassin-y gameplay.

dimbismp
06-01-2015, 02:58 PM
Connor isn't real so...
Well,that's the point.Because AC characters are not real,while historynis real,they shouldn't participate and be heavily responsible for every event of the time period.

VestigialLlama4
06-01-2015, 03:07 PM
And the assassination contracts amount to nothing more than an unguarded target spawning in a set location. There are no guards near him and you just walk up to him a press a button. They are essentially the same as the letter delivery missions but with different animations, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're misremembering and not defending the indefensible.

Not really. Some of the targets walk with escorts and in the New York Missions, they even stand in corner and you have to sneak in and stab them. It's not super-diverse yes but it's hardly as anonymous as you make it. In any case, the Assassination Missions are deliberately dialled down because they serve the minor purpose of quick source of petty cash (to soup up the Aquila...).


Unity is more satisfying because you have to be aware of your surroundings and plan your moves, it's more satisfying because there is a genuine fear of getting caught due to challenging combat, it's more satisfying because the missions are open and you aren't prescribed what to do by the game designer.

Well, I don't know, most of the times the targets are interiors, there is one side entry and interior gameplay sucks for the most part. The mission design has the appearance of open-ness yes. But ultimately it doesn't matter because all the alternate routes and ways are telegraphed and there's never really that sense of you making your own path and that's there in DISHONORED (you can play that game four times and each time will be different, even if you go by Low Chaos, and then you play it the fifth time and you find another alternate route).


It's not Dishonored level but I'd rather that than pre-packaged linear action that fails to even excite.

I actually liked some of the battle scenes, especially Battle of the Chesapeake (well that is naval yes) but also Lexington and Concord and the Monmouth retreat.


...and with Johnson you've got no choice but to follow the cliff-face and obvious tree-running route if you want to do it clean.

Not really, there are two other routes, have you tried going the far left around the hillside and climbing up from the rear of where you start? That one isn't tree-running at all. You can also bank right I think.


The forts are well-intentioned and would be awesome were it not for the terrible detection system.

Well I didn't have too much hassle when I replayed it. Again it depends on how you use the Terrain, my favorite is the one in the Frontier at the Bottom corner, you can approach by sea, or go by the side and climb up a cave side. There are many alternate paths to get there. The sad part is that they can't really be replayed.


You're aversion to crouching I don't understand.

Crouching makes sense for black-ops dudes who can't climb up roofs, whose fingers aren't nimble enough to grab nooks and edges on architecture and can't Parkour up and down ramparts and ceiling supports. It makes no sense for Assassins masters of agility and dexterity to restrict the speed of their movements and that's what crouching does. Like in Black Flag, you had the Fort in Havana which had some interior sections and you had to sneak up to the top to get Stede Bonnet's stuff. That was true Assassin stealth, no crouching. Just strategic deployments of speed from cover to cover, taking people out before they see what hit them. Putting a crouch button is throwing in the towel and giving up that level of intensity.

The same with Castel Sant'Angelo, another vast structure with interior and exterior movement (and again even UNITY can't claim originality in this) where Ezio doesn't crouch, doesn't even have the lean on corner options that Ezio and Connor do but he still knows how to do his stuff. Or take Fort Wolcott in AC3's Captain Kidd missions, okay that's a Tomb level and highly scripted but its essentially a stealth mission and that had you sneaking above the beam support over a officer's mess below and the final part is a nice puzzle where you have to stealth kill three guards to get to the map.

I suppose I am nitpicking about the crouch button but I see it as a problem with UNITY's being praise for not doing anything new: "Yay...we put a crouch button without changing, redesigning and reworking gameplay and overal aesthetics, now when do we pat our backs". I mean in UNITY you have many missions in interiors but in DISHONORED you had Lady boyle's party, where so long as you stay on floor level(and don't draw weapons) you blend in, but if you sneak your way past the red line or go in a restricted area and then get detected you have to be full-stealth. We don't see that shift in terms of level design in UNITY, what we see is a failure of imagination.


AC has never been a true stealth game - and that includes Unity. It just leaned a bit towards the stealth approach because that's how Assassin's operate. I would have like more action-focused palette cleansers like the balloon mission but the bulk of the missions offering open-ended stealth approaches is how AC should be IMO.

Well I like the idea of multiple approaches and ways to do any missions myself and when I replay old games I actually try to do them in the non-scripted way (to often surprising results, Hagia Sophia Tomb Level has a beautiful way to get down if you skip the Leap of Faith...). But that in and of itself is not praiseworthy, i mean just because UNITY's Assassination missions are more open than before does not mean they are well designed missions (and they aren't). Most of the time the level design is banal, like the Cour des Miracles, Germain's Mistress Levesque I think, then Le Peletier. Lafreniere's mission is kind of interesting, that graveyard where you sneak past headstones but the location and set-up is silly and childish, and then Latouche is Majd Addin come again, as is Rouille (singing Marseillaise like Alex De Large).

The movements are essentially linear which just minor quirks. if you have key go through Door C and then you skip one path and get there but its essentially the classic 2D game shortcut. In Dishonored any alternate pathway changed the entire level completely. Then you have buildings where you get from the top-down to the bottom-up, or in the case of Freniere and La Touche, geometrically you orbit around a circle and get to the centre where the target is waiting and in the case of La Touche the Assassination mission is fairly scripted as well. Ultimately it fails not because the gameplay is bad but because the writing is terrible. There's no personal connection between person and place that was there in all earlier targets, no sense of broad feeling for the environment, society and culture. Compare Ezio at Carnevale or Altair at Majd Addin's execution.

Namikaze_17
06-01-2015, 03:14 PM
Well,that's the point.Because AC characters are not real,while historynis real,they shouldn't participate and be heavily responsible for every event of the time period.

Well I guess that's just the problem in general.

AC literally tells us via glyphs that most to every event in human history were side effects of the AVT war. Thus, undermining humanity as nothing but mere scrubs who can't do anything and/or are gullible to believe anything as said many times in the series. Hell, most historical figures are really either on "this side or that side", which makes "accuracy" seem meaningless really.

So Connor 'being in every event' doesn't bother me much with that in mind, at least he was there in his revolution.

EmptyCrustacean
06-01-2015, 03:56 PM
Look ultimately deciding how you feel about some games depends a lot on subjective tastes. But your subjective taste does not preclude you from being objective about the game's virtues, strong points, weak points, innovations and limitations.

Subjectively I like AC3 a lot, but that doesn't mean I can't be objective about its flaws: too many features, pointlessly adding a second protagonist without any unique gameplay or replay value, linear missions, incoherent third act that makes zero sense, poor handling of historical characters (its the only time when no major historical figure is an Assassin) and yes, overly linear story missions. These are real flaws, alongside that are real virtues -- wonderful natural environment for sandbox, incredible visual realization of landscape in different weather conditions and seasonal changes, music, a totally unique approach to Parkour, Blending in Public anywhere, variety of unique side missions, nice cast, unique protagonist and using the sandbox to tell a more personal and mature story.

Subjectively I dislike UNITY but yes there are some virtues, its overpraised stealth is nonetheless satisfying, you have interiors and places that are 1:1 and while only the genuinely good Notre Dame level has you moving across the map on different levels of access and topography, the realization is good. The first half of the game until Arno-Bellec and Arno meeting Napoleon is also quite decent. The real flaws are the missions get repittive, the historical realization (which is 70% of what makes an AC game special) is pathetic beyond words and the story and plot is unsatisfying, sexist and boring on the whole. The side-missions are errand mechanics with no variety, the hero is EzioClone and the cast is pretty bad except for Elise, Bellec and Napoleon.

So the question is ultimately Unity's Virtues and its Flaws versus AC3's Virtues and its Flaws. That is the only subjective criteria. Stealth mavens who worship the God Garret the Thief might praise UNITY because its closer to their headcanon for AC-Hard Mode. AC fans who like a more complete experience will favour AC3 reasoning that AC is not a pure stealth game and it was always a hybrid historical action-adventure game which was as much about being in the past, soaking in a sense of a long-gone culture in the way only a game could do. Objectively AC3 has fewer failings than UNITY does.


I think you're confusing being personally objective about something and then the different between fact and opinion. We should all strive to judge games objectively - as in admit the flaws in things we love overall and admit the good points in things we don't like but that's not the same as something being "objectively bad" or "objectivaly good" as you said in your original post.

It is a fact that Unity has technical hiccups causing the game not to run as intended by the developers but it is an opinion whether or not the bugs are good or bad (some enjoy them for humour) or whether or not they ruin the game.

strigoi1958
06-01-2015, 04:21 PM
The real answer to the OP question is neither... because some will like one over the other and that is their opinion and others like me really like them both for being incredible games.... plus this is a very limited poll :D

As for the "history" debate... this is a game not real life and just like films it has no bearing it is just the setting and nothing more... everything else is open for interpretation ... I don't remember hitler being assassinated like in sniper elite... or any mention of zombies by historians so maybe wolfenstein has history wrong as well..

Besides... History as taught to us is not always correct... we just assume it is.

History is written by winners who can put their own twist on it and some greek history was written by people who were born years after the event that they described... and some people just lied.

all these threads turn into a history complaint and it's just a game.

Mr_Shade
06-01-2015, 04:30 PM
Do you mean you prefer AC: Unity? My poll is about which is worse lol

Bit of a loaded poll though.. since some may like both - which may come as a shock to you.

EmptyCrustacean
06-01-2015, 05:17 PM
Bit of a loaded poll though.. since some may like both - which may come as a shock to you.

Um, this poll is specifically for those that don't like one or both the games. I actually really, really like AC3 and don't think Unity is anywhere near its level so the choice was easy for me.
So don't make assumptions.

I made the poll because these two are the most despised and I wanted to see which one comes out on top with the factor of time.
The poll looks very different to when I first did it a few months back with ACIII still the most hated. But club competitions and 1 pointless DLC later and it appears the scales have tipped...

Mr_Shade
06-01-2015, 05:22 PM
:rolleyes:

well hopefully the same people vote this time, so you have some context to the poll, otherwise, it doesn't really show anything - apart from some people may prefer one game over the other, and they can't choose to say why..


But have fun.

EmptyCrustacean
06-01-2015, 05:24 PM
:rolleyes:

Woah, Mr Shade throwing some shade. What have I done to upset you? Is this about the 'unacceptable' thread? Because I was only stating what everyone was thinking and, also, I have defended the mods on more than one occasion in the past...

Mr_Shade
06-01-2015, 05:31 PM
Woah, Mr Shade throwing some shade. What have I done to upset you? Is this about the 'unacceptable' thread? Because I was only stating what everyone was thinking and, also, I have defended the mods on more than one occasion in the past...

Nothing to upset me, just never understand negative polls to reinforce something like this - there is no 'good' option - so of course it's going to reflect badly on both games.. And even if those people who enjoyed the games, don't vote - that's not reflected, so appears to show no one liked any game.

VestigialLlama4
06-01-2015, 05:36 PM
I disagree,it is not historically accurate to a good extent.
Connor was heavily involved...

Do words like nuance, subtletly, metaphor and other words pertaining to creative storytelling mean anything to you? If they do then I honestly cannot understand how you could respond in such a banal fashion.

Anyway, ubisoft responds better than me. When AC3 came out, an editorial for a canadian newspaper made a bone-headed criticism of AC3, and the developers responded with this link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/ubisoft-responds-to-the-globes-editorial-on-assassins-creed-iii/article5839655/
First and foremost, ACIII is a work of fiction. However, the motto of the Assassin’s Creed brand is History is our playground, thus meaning that while we develop fictional characters, they evolve in a historical context that is as close as possible to reality, and that is supported by serious research, as shown below.
MARIE CLAUDE BERNARD - UBISOFT EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS

They even put a bibliography at the end for fact-checking. When UNITY came out, they hide under bed covers like little girls. So tell me why UNITY deserves even a shred of respect?


What about ACU?Well,it is implied that Templars ignited the revolution,but certainly they didn't shape every event like connor.

Now I think you have not played UNITY or seen any of the cutscenes. The Templars entirely shaped the Revolution. And the background is totally false and garbage (whereas the one in earlier games had a decent amount of verisimilitude).


Arno never ignited major events,unlike Connor:for example him being at the tulleries during the siege had nothing to do with the revolution.If connor had participated in the french revolution,he would have taken himself the king to the guillotine!

Well that's because Connor is a man of conviction, principle and courage whereas Arno has neither of those qualities.


I am not saying that AC should get everything right according to history.But,i find it really strange when people say that AC3 was more historically accurate than ACU.

If you feel the need, check this post:http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/954025-ACU-History-A-list-of-demonstrable-lies-and-inaccuracies-**SPOILERS**

Or don't take my word for it, consult this Tvtropes page:http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/AssassinsCreedUnity
or consult this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r47yZIYBUzc (a review of the game by one of the key historians of the event).

Saying AC has no relation to history is an insult to the hard work of all pre-ROGUEUNITY developers. An insult to Darby McDevitt's great research, Patrice Desilets love for the Renaissance and his interest in getting the Asasiyun right. Anyone who says these games don't have any commitment to historical fidelity are insulting the love and commitment of the true developers of the franchise and forgiving UNITY on the same grounds is entirely dishonorable in my view.

When UNITY recieved criticism, the developers didn't respond even once, didn't give a single interview or letter to editorial because they were ashamed and they had no defense.

Thirsty_panda
06-01-2015, 06:09 PM
Do words like nuance, subtletly, metaphor and other words pertaining to creative storytelling mean anything to you? If they do then I honestly cannot understand how you could respond in such a banal fashion.

Anyway, ubisoft responds better than me. When AC3 came out, an editorial for a canadian newspaper made a bone-headed criticism of AC3, and the developers responded with this link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/ubisoft-responds-to-the-globes-editorial-on-assassins-creed-iii/article5839655/
First and foremost, ACIII is a work of fiction. However, the motto of the Assassin’s Creed brand is History is our playground, thus meaning that while we develop fictional characters, they evolve in a historical context that is as close as possible to reality, and that is supported by serious research, as shown below.
MARIE CLAUDE BERNARD - UBISOFT EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS

They even put a bibliography at the end for fact-checking. When UNITY came out, they hide under bed covers like little girls. So tell me why UNITY deserves even a shred of respect?


Because hurrah for poetic justice story lines? To this day I can't believe that no one likes that angle. Anyway AC2 is what began the complete bastardization of history because it broke down all of history's notable figures by how well they used a magical trinket of sorts and thus discredited their own leadership abilities, innovative edge and exc.

VestigialLlama4
06-01-2015, 06:49 PM
Because hurrah for poetic justice story lines? To this day I can't believe that no one likes that angle.

Don't know what you mean by "poetic justice" storylines, do elaborate? Its something I have not heard before.


Anyway AC2 is what began the complete bastardization of history because it broke down all of history's notable figures by how well they used a magical trinket of sorts and thus discredited their own leadership abilities, innovative edge and exc.

Strictly speaking, even AC1 bastardized history with the inclusion of modern day. A truly historical AC game would be set in the 1100s-1291 set across multiple cities of the Middle East and have Asasiyun as protagonists, but not Templars as consistent bad guys. There would be no PoE and no MD whatsoever. Maybe we can allow Eagle Vision and Parkour but still stretching it. I think it might be worth it to do a totally minimalist "gritty reboot" of AC and go pre-Altair and set it entirely in the Middle East during the Crusades, it would be an amazing series I think.

The minute AC steps out of the Crusades, all the games are not really "Assassin's Creed" games except in title.

-- Ezio's games are "Renaissance Patron of Arts' Creed" -- "Nothing is Cheap and Everything is Free".
-- Connor's game is "Mohawk's Creed" -- "Nothing is Safe and Everything is Gone."
-- Edward's game is "Pirate's Creed" -- "Nothing is Protected and Everything is Mine,"

The only real Assassin is Altair, all the others are just dudes in outfits.

Ultimately what matters is that AC is not really about the conspiracy stuff or the First-Civ stuff. All that mumbo-jumbo was secondary to the historical realization. The games don't really believe that there are real conspiracies, the point is to use that elaborate post-modern myth as a vehicle for franchise. The minute that conspiracy stops being a tool and starts being the end, like in ROGUE-UNITY, the games fall apart.

Rodrigo Borgia might be a Templar but he's still a Corrupt Pope in Renaissance Italy, Black Bart might be a Sage but he's also Black Bart, most successful pirate of his age. The characters have a historical dimension suited to time and place, and without that, the story loses any meaning and purpose. Hence UNITY, where you have Germain who's a historical Silversmith (a totally obscure and respected jeweller whose reputation Ubisoft have besmirched) and it just doesn't work at all.

THE_JOKE_KING33
06-01-2015, 09:33 PM
Unity by far.

I'll say this, Unity made me appreciate AC3. I may have not liked AC3's story but at least the gameplay wasn't absolute ****.

strigoi1958
06-01-2015, 10:42 PM
21 votes.. AC3 sold over 5 million on the xbox platform alone so I'm not sure what these 21 votes represent :confused: anyway it certainly started a debate and on a forum... that is great.

AC 3 is the game by which I judge all other games... not just AC games, Ubi Games but ALL games.... it had everything I wanted in a game as a campaign player, missions, side missions, crafting, trading, sailing, the homestead, collectibles and a plot twist....I'm not interested in the history, I'm a game player and it could be set on a made up planet as far as I'm concerned but the settings, the era the costumes are all great and add to the games.

Too many games nowadays ( like C.O.D.) have an afternoon worth of campaign with emphasis placed on multiplayer maps and offer no value....

Unity was a jump forward and not only great to look at... it took me (ME) into co-op for 500 hours and I hate online games.... the initial game was a mixture of great and a few things not as good... I didn't like the rifts but I would like a game where we can use the animus to jump through time into different characters... almost like a rift.
The ability to enter buildings through multiple entrances without a loading screen or animation was great.

Some people dislike AC3 because they had grown to like Ezio and could not enjoy it with Connor. Unity is a great basis for future games, like Watch Dogs has created the potential for WD2 just like the original AC was the basis for for what followed... the potential was met.

For me, AC 2 was a great game ....but I really dislike it because of the timed levers in some tombs. it is not "worse" than other AC games it is just not to my liking.

Thirsty_panda
06-01-2015, 11:17 PM
Don't know what you mean by "poetic justice" storylines, do elaborate? Its something I have not heard before.

Oh, well I mean they took the real world execution of Molay and used it with the sage element introduced in AC4 to create a situation in which the real world execution of King Louis was an act of poetic justice, because Germain himself is deemed to be a reincarnation of Molay. Which I just thought was pretty cool, because let's be honest. The whole idea of Abstergo in and of itself is already pretty preposterous right? But were at this point, where if we are still playing these games, that we should have been able to suspend our disbelief.And if we can suspend it with the idea of Abstergo then why can't we suspend it with the conspiracy to extract poetic justice on King Louis? That is more or less my point here, because if we can do that the piece of fiction they gave us is kind of cool, or at least in my opinion.

Pegasus177
06-01-2015, 11:50 PM
I dont know how you can compare these two.

I actually enjoyed AC3 ( aside from Conors slightly dull persona) It was quite a good game. It was a different environment to what we had seen in previous AC titles and had many new features. Most importantly IT HAD COMPETITIVE MULTIPLAYER.
Dont get me wrong. I know it has it s faults but it was still a good game in my personal opinion.

honestly.... Unity has not got a entirely bad story line. It is ok. A strong female character with plenty of presence which is good. Nice dynamics such as the window entries and more fluid climbing. It had good pace.
my faults with Unity were:

- It had broken stealth mechanics which wouldn't be such an issue except that they were essential in the final fight. I was to use the various pillars, walls and tombs in a fairly confined room to hide from the antagonist. However 9 times out of 10 i was spamming buttons to either get out of cover or get into cover and more often than not it would take cover in the wrong wall leaving me exposed.
The final boss of a game should be challenging but the challenge should be a trial to over come with a sense of accomplishment at the end... not a game of chance where i am wondering will my character take cover behind the wall im aiming towards. or do a weird confused shimmy before just going to the nearest wall.

-The ending was just terrible. I spent a few hours building up a repertoire with the female character Elise. More so than any other AC game previous. Arno's whole focus in the game was towards her. He was trying to avenge De la Saire because he felt he had failed HER. He went through all of it for her. Only to have her die right at the end? Not only that but after the end credits finish i didn't even get to use the almighty piece of Eden (Sword of Eden) not once. The first AC game where you don't get to use the piece of Eden. When you go into your inventory and read it says its broken.
Way to strip out the silver lining too UbiSoft.

It had no competitive multiplayer. This is the biggest let down in my book.
I have been with AC from the start. I have played every game ( including mobile ). I loved the series. There was always a rich story line to follow and when i had completed it there was still life in the game through the medium of its multiplayer.
When they stripped that from the game i immediately thought
"why the hell would i pay $60 odd bucks for a game that i will have completed in 3 to 5 days and then have it gather dust?"
For that very reason i didn't buy it. My first AC game that i didn't buy.
The only reason i have it is because it came free with a Graphics card that i had sent on RMA. Only for that reason i would not have got the game. The second i heard the multiplayer was stripped out i had given up on the series.

Honestly the series as a whole has diminished. The last two games protagonists were not driven by the Assassins motives. Kenway wasn't really driven by the Assassins cause like his predecessors. I excused this however as it would explain how Haytham Kenway had drifted over to the Templars without his father in-sighting the Assassins motives within him.
Arno had no real interest in the Assassins motives either it was just beneficial to him because it fell in line with his own motives. Nor he or anyone else ever spoke anything of his predecessors. Nobody explained his lineage and it didn't seem like he cared either. He just had eagle vision and the other gifts from the blood line without anyone stating his descendant. Not a single mention of the first civilization in Unity. That's a first too, i mean as mild as it was they had some minor cut scenes on Black Flag.
He had no curiosity of the pieces of Eden or where the "mysterious weapon" came from..

It just felt like bad filler. Pointless and annoying more than anything.

Sorry but It s AC3
It absolutely trumps Unity..

Nerdman3000
06-02-2015, 12:54 AM
Honestly, I like AC3 and AC Unity. To me the low point in the franchise was AC Revelations. I know AC Revelations isn't an option, but truth be told it really should be. That one had a good story, but the game itself just put me off, especially after the high point that was AC Brotherhood. I still have a hard time replaying that game. AC Unity I feel is going to be similar to how AC3 is viewed by some people today, who seem to like it much more now than they did a few years ago when it came out.

TO_M
06-02-2015, 01:01 AM
Unity by far.

I'll say this, Unity made me appreciate AC3. I may have not liked AC3's story but at least the gameplay wasn't absolute ****.

AC Unity's gameplay was fine/pretty good, it's one of its redeeming aspects compared to its lackluster story and glitches/technical errors.

It's especially good if you compare it to AC3's gameplay, which was terrible and uninspiring imo.

The_Kiwi_
06-02-2015, 01:54 AM
Kenway wasn't really driven by the Assassins cause like his predecessors. I excused this however as it would explain how Haytham Kenway had drifted over to the Templars without his father in-sighting the Assassins motives within him.

I think you mean inciting

Anyway, if you read the novel Forsaken, you see that you are wrong about Edward
Edward did become an assassin, and he raised Haytham to be an assassin (not telling him about assassins though, he just taught him how to think like one, so the whole creed thing would make sense once told about it
Only after the events of the beginning of the novel do you realise why Haytham became a Templar, essentially a brain washing by Birch
And it's kinda shown that Haytham was never a true Templar, he was more or less in Limbo

THE_JOKE_KING33
06-02-2015, 02:19 AM
AC Unity's gameplay was fine/pretty good, it's one of its redeeming aspects compared to its lackluster story and glitches/technical errors.

It's especially good if you compare it to AC3's gameplay, which was terrible and uninspiring imo.

Far enough, I personally just couldn't stand any of it.

Namikaze_17
06-02-2015, 05:34 AM
Honestly the series as a whole has diminished.

Different doesn't equal diminished.

But to each their own.



The last two games protagonists were not driven by the Assassins motives.


Neither were Ezio, Connor, or even Altaïr at first.

What makes it different now?


Kenway wasn't really driven by the Assassins cause like his predecessors.

He was more driven than Ezio in AC2/ACB, and Connor ( Pre-ending).

At least he actually spoke of the Assassin's Creed in his game.


I excused this however as it would explain how Haytham Kenway had drifted over to the Templars without his father in-sighting the Assassins motives within him.

He didn't tell Haytham of the Assassins yet; but he taught him to think like one nonetheless in Forsaken.


Arno had no real interest in the Assassins motives either it was just beneficial to him because it fell in line with his own motives.

Like Ezio or Connor; You know, the predecessors you speak of.


Nor he or anyone else ever spoke anything of his predecessors.

Why should he? Three are long gone, and the last is on the other side of the world doing his own thing.

Oh, and Pierre mentions Altaïr. He even references Altaïr, Ezio, and Connor before fighting Arno.


Nobody explained his lineage and it didn't seem like he cared either.

His father was an Assassin. That's it.


He just had eagle vision and the other gifts from the blood line without anyone stating his descendant.

It's all in the genes. Nothing more, nothing less.


Not a single mention of the first civilization in Unity.

Yes, because showing/talking about out-of-place ancient beings who don't do crap is so important. :rolleyes:


It just felt like bad filler. Pointless

I call it Naruto-esque filler.

Mr.Black24
06-02-2015, 05:59 AM
Different doesn't equal diminished.

But to each their own.
You consider the MD story, and Arno's story ok in Unity? Well, playing the game now, it is okish. Just a lot of leads that lead to nowhere.



Neither were Ezio, Connor, or even Altaïr at first.

What makes it different now? True, as Altair was going at it for the glory at first.





Why should he? Three are long gone, and the last is on the other side of the world doing his own thing.

Oh, and Pierre mentions Altaïr. He even references Altaïr, Ezio, and Connor because fighting Arno. As I see the years, from 1789 to 1794 pass by, the only thing comes to me:

WHAT IS CONNOR DOING NOW??!!! I NEED TO SEE IT!!!!

To be honest, that tease that Lafayette was going to invite Connor to France in AC3 was just a huge letdown. One Co-Op mission between these two, and Connor giving some advice was all anyone asked for if we couldn't get much on his later life in the game.


His father was an Assassin. That's it. They never once mentioned on why he died....not even Pierre, who was Charles best friend from the looks of it. Like what is the point of having the ending in Rogue, and not following up on it, ya know, false promises I say!
That was the sad part.
Although a great way to pave a sequel if the Grand Counsel decided to give Arno his father's letters that details the information on the very thing he died for, The Box. I can see him, in his father's honor, set out to find out who did this, why, and what The Box is all about, just like he did for de la Serre. Ain't vengeance in his mind, closure really, which is fitting since the game itself is a closure on his book too!

Especially that how Arno writes to his father as a coping mechanism to deal with his absence, show as how his VA spoke a passage from the Abstergo Handbook detailing this, I can see him promising to fulfill his father's last mission out of love and honor.




It's all in the genes. Nothing more, nothing less.
I found it neat that for two times, both Ezio and Edward reflected on their Eagle Sense, as everyone else just ignored this ability. It shows how aware these characters are in their own world, and not just dumb NPCS that justs stumbles around not knowing what is going on. Its like how can they walk in life without discussing it even once ya know. "Hey ya know, I got this thing that I can see through walls and tag my targets that are yellow, and everything is blue. You have that too...or is it just me?"





I call it Naruto-esque filler. Yahs but AC is supposed to be better than that!:p

I

Namikaze_17
06-02-2015, 06:40 AM
You consider the MD story, and Arno's story ok in Unity? Well, playing the game now, it is okish. Just a lot of leads that lead to nowhere.

Oh, is that what he/she meant?

I thought it was the same ol' "newer assassins aren't assassin-y like the old ones" thing.

That said, I'm indifferent to a lot of things in Unity; don't really have a love or hate for the game if that answers your question.

But I will agree that it does lead to nowhere unfortunately.



True, as Altair was going at it for the glory at first.


Indeed he was.

It also makes these complaints for an an "Assassin-motivated protagonist" seem pointless as no Assassin has really been driven from the start.

And judging from the Syndicate cutscene, Jacob doesn't seem entirely motivated either. Nothing new.



As I see the years, from 1789 to 1794 pass by, the only thing comes to me:

WHAT IS CONNOR DOING NOW??!!! I NEED TO SEE IT!!!!



I feel ya. But it's best to assume he's probably recruiting people, strengthening the brotherhood, etc.


To be honest, that tease that Lafayette was going to invite Connor to France in AC3 was just a huge letdown. One Co-Op mission between these two, and Connor giving some advice was all anyone asked for if we couldn't get much on his later life in the game.

Yeah, it was a letdown but not the first time it's happened.

But a cameo of some sort could've fitted I guess.


They never once mentioned on why he died....not even Pierre, who was Charles best friend from the looks of it. Like what is the point of having the ending in Rogue, and not following up on it, ya know, false promises I say!
That was the sad part.
Although a great way to pave a sequel if the Grand Counsel decided to give Arno his father's letters that details the information on the very thing he died for, The Box. I can see him, in his father's honor, set out to find out who did this, why, and what The Box is all about, just like he did for de la Serre. Ain't vengeance in his mind, closure really, which is fitting since the game itself is a closure on his book too!

Especially that how Arno writes to his father as a coping mechanism to deal with his absence, show as how his VA spoke a passage from the Abstergo Handbook detailing this, I can see him promising to fulfill his father's last mission out of love and honor.


Well that was the problem with the writing in Unity - too many cooks in the kitchen.

There were too many sub-plots within the main one that they all eventually got lost in the shuffle.

Though I see where you're coming from, it just wasn't the focal point to Arno's story.



I found it neat that for two times, both Ezio and Edward reflected on their Eagle Sense, as everyone else just ignored this ability. It shows how aware these characters are in their own world, and not just dumb NPCS that justs stumbles around not knowing what is going on. Its like how can they walk in life without discussing it even once ya know. "Hey ya know, I got this thing that I can see through walls and tag my targets that are yellow, and everything is blue. You have that too...or is it just me?"



Fair point.


Yahs but AC is supposed to be better than that!:p

Everyone wants AC to be better; But too many opinions on how it's "supposed" to go will only make things more complicated and ultimately worse down the road.

avk111
06-02-2015, 10:16 AM
As long as Ubisoft keeps dragging on the story with no lore , or core Assassin's Creed concept (Like the good old time with Desmond , Abstergo , saving the world) its just fillers.

Arno was a filler , Connor was a crucial character. how is Arno in anyway connected to the Assassin's Creed universe which we all came to know and love ? nope just another protagonist.

Well guess what Ubi , I dont mind paying for what I buy , however im not too eager about buying another Assassin character with no crucial point to play for the universe we came to love and adore.

Thats my 2 cent.

D.I.D.
06-02-2015, 10:18 AM
If you think ACIII is better than Unity, I don't know what to say. It's not even as if I can say, "Oh, okay, so you prefer the story elements to gameplay" because ACIII has neither thing. Aside from the naval combat, I struggle to think of a single moment where you could honestly be saying to yourself, "I am having fun right now".

I can understand why players in the USA might have a soft spot for it - perhaps the same bias will overcome me when I'm playing Syndicate. It certainly did when I played GTA IV and V, based as they are on two US cities to which I have particular connections, but neither are objectively great games.

Unity has the best land-based gameplay of the whole series. Is it perfect? Not by a long chalk, but it's still streets ahead of the others. AC always traded on its visual appeal, and Unity has it in spades (and if you're playing at 1440p or above on high settings with high frame rates on a decent PC then it's truly beautiful).

EmptyCrustacean
06-02-2015, 10:50 AM
Honestly the series as a whole has diminished. The last two games protagonists were not driven by the Assassins motives. Kenway wasn't really driven by the Assassins cause like his predecessors. I excused this however as it would explain how Haytham Kenway had drifted over to the Templars without his father in-sighting the Assassins motives within him.
Arno had no real interest in the Assassins motives either it was just beneficial to him because it fell in line with his own motives. Nor he or anyone else ever spoke anything of his predecessors. Nobody explained his lineage and it didn't seem like he cared either. He just had eagle vision and the other gifts from the blood line without anyone stating his descendant. Not a single mention of the first civilization in Unity. That's a first too, i mean as mild as it was they had some minor cut scenes on Black Flag.
He had no curiosity of the pieces of Eden or where the "mysterious weapon" came from..

It just felt like bad filler. Pointless and annoying more than anything.

Sorry but It s AC3
It absolutely trumps Unity..

This. All of this.

EmptyCrustacean
06-02-2015, 10:58 AM
Nothing to upset me, just never understand negative polls to reinforce something like this - there is no 'good' option - so of course it's going to reflect badly on both games.. And even if those people who enjoyed the games, don't vote - that's not reflected, so appears to show no one liked any game.

The point isn't about 'making it' reflect badly on games. It's about acknowledging that these two are ALREADY the most hated on these boards and seeing who comes out on top. The comment section is where people explain why they chose so it's their opportunity to say if they actually liked one of these games which we have done. Let's put our cards on the table: you just don't like a negative thread about games you like. But that's your problem. In life, not everyone will like everything you like and you don't need your opinions to be validated by its popularity. And I think rolling your eyes at me (intially with no commentary underneath before you edited your post) was unprofessional from a moderator of these boards.


Honestly, I like AC3 and AC Unity. To me the low point in the franchise was AC Revelations. I know AC Revelations isn't an option, but truth be told it really should be. That one had a good story, but the game itself just put me off, especially after the high point that was AC Brotherhood. I still have a hard time replaying that game. AC Unity I feel is going to be similar to how AC3 is viewed by some people today, who seem to like it much more now than they did a few years ago when it came out.

I DETEST Revelations. It's the worst game of the series (if you exclude Liberation) but I acknowledge i am in the minority of people who think it sucks. A lot of people around here love it, particuarly that incarnation of Ezio.

GunnerGalactico
06-02-2015, 11:03 AM
WHAT IS CONNOR DOING NOW??!!! I NEED TO SEE IT!!!!

To be honest, that tease that Lafayette was going to invite Connor to France in AC3 was just a huge letdown. One Co-Op mission between these two, and Connor giving some advice was all anyone asked for if we couldn't get much on his later life in the game.

You know, it's almost 3 years since the release of AC3. I also wanted to have one more adventure on a main game with Connor, but that has long since passed. Back then, when the spotlight was on Ezio, for some reason Altair became even more and more appealing to me because of the air of mystery that surrounded him after the events of AC1... but that changed after Revelations. After Connor, we started getting one game and DLC per character. To be honest, I kinda like the idea of Connor being a mysterious and enigmatic figure... he's like the new Altair to me :). After the events of TOKW, where he dropped the Apple in the ocean- it goes without say that he started building up the Brotherhood and became a mentor, etc. Even though we've had 4 new characters (5 if you count Adewale) since AC3, Connor is still my top favourite and I have accepted the possibility that we might not get another game with him.

GunnerGalactico
06-02-2015, 11:30 AM
There's no denying that Unity looks eye-catchingly stunning, has great gameplay and made some notable innovations to existing features. Even though Arno was an okay protagonist, he wasn't very interesting at all. Connor was at least interesting and the plot in AC3 had me engrossed. It was difficult to get invested in Unity and I didn't feel anything for Elise when she got killed. Dead Kings was at least enjoyable for me. When I compare both AC3 and Unity, I find myself leaning towards which game I would replay in a heartbeat and I went with AC3.

avk111
06-02-2015, 03:54 PM
:rolleyes:

well hopefully the same people vote this time, so you have some context to the poll, otherwise, it doesn't really show anything - apart from some people may prefer one game over the other, and they can't choose to say why..


But have fun.

Since your an official rep from Ubisoft, are they aware of how cynical the consumers ae becoming towards the franchise ? Is Ubisoft aware that the magic that was there during the AC1 and AC2 titles is no longer existant ? are they doing any steps to counter their apparent negligence towards the franchise ?

strigoi1958
06-02-2015, 04:12 PM
Since you're an official rep from Ubisoft, are they aware of how cynical the consumers are becoming towards the franchise ? Is Ubisoft aware that the magic that was there during the AC1 and AC2 titles is no longer existent ? are they doing any steps to counter their apparent negligence towards the franchise ?

you should say "some" of the consumers not all... just a percentage (and that percentage may be less than 0.00001) who would prefer each new game to fit in with their own idea of what would make it perfect. AC2 was a great game... personally I hated it... if ACB ACR or AC3 had followed that path I'd have just walked away from the series (Franchise to you) I certainly wouldn't keep buying the games and complain... lifes too short and there are many more games.

Do not think these forums show a true reflection of fans..... most polls get less than 100 votes and games are sold in millions. You are better off by saying "I am" or "some of us" or "a percentage" are cynical.... I know it carries less weight to the point you are trying to put across but....

the other way to look at it is... who should decide how the series grows ? if it were you, your game design might upset millions more... the same as if it were my design or anyone of a million other fans ideas...

(Did you ever see Homers car in the Simpsons)

Best to let manufacturers make things and consumers just buy the ones they like or don't buy the ones they don't like.

I doubt anyone here will be snatched from obscurity and flown to Ubisofts headquarters and begged to take a $200k job to get the series that is making millions "back on track"

Mr_Shade
06-02-2015, 04:28 PM
The point isn't about 'making it' reflect badly on games. It's about acknowledging that these two are ALREADY the most hated on these boards and seeing who comes out on top. The comment section is where people explain why they chose so it's their opportunity to say if they actually liked one of these games which we have done. Let's put our cards on the table: you just don't like a negative thread about games you like. But that's your problem. In life, not everyone will like everything you like and you don't need your opinions to be validated by its popularity. And I think rolling your eyes at me (intially with no commentary underneath before you edited your post) was unprofessional from a moderator of these boards.
.

OK..

Just to be clear..

I have no personal opinion concerning the subject, other than it being a loaded poll..

And, FYI - if I edited the post, as you are saying, it would have an edit marker and a time stamp - much like yours:

'Last edited by EmptyCrustacean; Today at 11:24 AM. Reason: Another post I wanted to address'

This happens if you leave a post for more than a minute or so - your post is well after that.


So please don't make out I somehow disrespected you and start making personal comments about my job role - which in case you need reminding is not as Moderator, I'm one of the Community Manager for the game.

So, please don't make my comments anything other than what they are - a call for a fair poll - which I can see I'm not alone in requesting..

And this: 'But that's your problem. In life, not everyone will like everything you like and you don't need your opinions to be validated by its popularity.'

Goes both ways - so try and remember, not everyone hates the same things you do ;)

Thanks ;)




Since your an official rep from Ubisoft, are they aware of how cynical the consumers ae becoming towards the franchise ? Is Ubisoft aware that the magic that was there during the AC1 and AC2 titles is no longer existant ? are they doing any steps to counter their apparent negligence towards the franchise ?


They are - and this is why they are making AC:Syndicate - the best possible single player experience.

The months ahead should be interesting for everyone ;)

The_Kiwi_
06-02-2015, 04:55 PM
They are - and this is why they are making AC:Syndicate - the best possible single player experience.

The months ahead should be interesting for everyone ;)

According to the fanbase, AC went downhill after AC2
It's taken a while for Ubisoft to make a game to address this issue, if what you say is true :rolleyes:

"AND adding other post- oh look - edit stamp!"
10/10 reductio ad absurdum

EmptyCrustacean
06-02-2015, 05:12 PM
And, FYI - if I edited the post, as you are saying, it would have an edit marker and a time stamp - much like yours:

'Last edited by EmptyCrustacean; Today at 11:24 AM. Reason: Another post I wanted to address'

This happens if you leave a post for more than a minute or so - your post is well after that.

Wow. I would have taken a screenshot if I'd known you'd be less than truthful about this. Quite shocking. And FYI the edit disclaimers only appear if it's a long time after so you obviously added it almost immediately after the eye roll. Almost. Unfortunately, I had already replied to your original eye roll, wordless post before you could.


So please don't make out I somehow disrespected you and start making personal comments about my job role - which in case you need reminding is not as Moderator, I'm one of the Community Manager for the game.

I found your conduct to be unprofessional for reasons I have stated below:


So, please don't make my comments anything other than what they are - a call for a fair poll - which I can see I'm not alone in requesting..

It is the way you did it in comparison to others which I found to be unprofessional. That's my opinion. It is a fair poll. That's like you starting a "which one is best: AC2 or AC Brotherhood?" and then me coming in and saying this poll is biased because, hey, what if I dislike both? So this talk about "reflecting badly on both games" holds no water. A loaded/biased question would be "why do you think AC3 and AC: Unity suck so bad?" This makes the assumption that the people voting think both these games are terrible. My poll is addressed to those who think at least one of these games are bad so they may very well like the other one and from the comments and poll results that seems to be the case. So your comment about " some may like both - which may come as a shock to you" is presumptuous (I like AC3) and unnecessarily snarky.


And this: 'But that's your problem. In life, not everyone will like everything you like and you don't need your opinions to be validated by its popularity.' Goes both ways - so try and remember, not everyone hates the same things you do ;)

Yes, but the difference is I don't go into poll threads and start dictating to them how they should do a poll to suit my personal needs, almost derailing/hijacking the thread topic. If a thread isn't for me I simply move on. Again, I feel like this is about you being offended by anything bad said against the games you like for which I can't help you, sorry.

Ask yourself this, as someone who likes ACIII wouldn't I be doing myself a disservice? Or is it that I recognise that the entire point of the comment section is to go into detail about my choice? Exactly.

Mr_Shade
06-02-2015, 05:32 PM
Guess we will agree to disagree.

Defalt221
06-02-2015, 06:24 PM
There's no denying that Unity looks eye-catchingly stunning, has great gameplay and made some notable innovations to existing features. Even though Arno was an okay protagonist, he wasn't very interesting at all. Connor was at least interesting and the plot in AC3 had me engrossed. It was difficult to get invested in Unity and I didn't feel anything for Elise when she got killed. Dead Kings was at least enjoyable for me. When I compare both AC3 and Unity, I find myself leaning towards which game I would replay in a heartbeat and I went with AC3.

AC Unity fixes ALL of AC3 's issues.
But then Unity MISSES all of AC3's great points and turns them upside down.
AC3 = (-Unity)

ACZanius
06-02-2015, 07:33 PM
Originally Posted by avk111 View Post

"Since your an official rep from Ubisoft, are they aware of how cynical the consumers ae becoming towards the franchise ? Is Ubisoft aware that the magic that was there during the AC1 and AC2 titles is no longer existant ? are they doing any steps to counter their apparent negligence towards the franchise?"

Mr.Shade "They are - and this is why they are making AC:Syndicate - the best possible single player experience.

The months ahead should be interesting for everyone"

Something is telling me that this will be the redeeming AC game, i am on AC "break" atm got tired of the story directions etc, but Jeffrey Yohalem is main writer, yeah something tells me this game could be making amends.

On topic: I think ACU's historical tourism was fantastic but story, Arno or his view on the Creed were not good in my experience, it broke my heart even more what they did with Modern Day.
AC3 over ACU any day for me, way way more epic modern day, i liked Connor way more than Arno and story was also better than ACUs, however same as Unity AC3 was worse at ending, the game quite literally almost killed the franchise for good because of the epic fail, very poor execution of a ending, poor Desmond got such a ****ty ending. Way to end the grand plot. No game is perfect and these projects are huge. If they stopped the annualization they could take more time and build even bigger worlds, back to having multiple cities and more longer stories. I am at the point where there are no "wonderings" or "this could be it" i'm pretty much so tired of everything that AC:Syndicate is gonna make or break AC for me, if it's another Unity/Rogue/Black Flag filler type (Black Flag was ****ing fantastic no hate they were not bad games not even horrible but filler problem) i will drop franchise for good, however i will still be in love with the lore and whole saga and amazing stories that can be told. I'll guess i'll like check every year to see what AC was announced haha but other than that yeah. We shall see.

strigoi1958
06-02-2015, 08:44 PM
According to the fanbase, AC went downhill after AC2
It's taken a while for Ubisoft to make a game to address this issue, if what you say is true :rolleyes:

"AND adding other post- oh look - edit stamp!"
10/10 reductio ad absurdum

Out of curiosity.. where is this fanbase ? I'd like to read their views ;) everyone wanting to make a point nowadays seems to mention a non specific group or says we... I keep thinking why do people keep trying to say "I'm a fan of AC but we do not like AC" .

I have never played co-op before Unity... because of the immature posts I read I foolishly took most gamers to be 14 and resentful of everything.... however, I found I played co-op with over 80 people from all over the world and I chatted to most of them.

What I found was there are lots who "spoiler alert" actually like playing AC games.
There are people so determined to play they have the game running on lower spec systems at lower resolution at 25 FPS but enjoying every moment.
And much to my embarrassment :o there are an awful lot of people (men and women) who are highly intelligent in universities or good jobs... not resentful adolescents.

The one thing we had in common was we liked playing AC... the one thing they all had in common is they're all better than me when it comes to being an assassin. But I learned a lot... not just about playing the game, but about the AC fans themselves.

Those people represent a fanbase to me.

Shahkulu101
06-02-2015, 10:06 PM
If you think ACIII is better than Unity, I don't know what to say. It's not even as if I can say, "Oh, okay, so you prefer the story elements to gameplay" because ACIII has neither thing. Aside from the naval combat, I struggle to think of a single moment where you could honestly be saying to yourself, "I am having fun right now".

I can understand why players in the USA might have a soft spot for it - perhaps the same bias will overcome me when I'm playing Syndicate. It certainly did when I played GTA IV and V, based as they are on two US cities to which I have particular connections, but neither are objectively great games.

Unity has the best land-based gameplay of the whole series. Is it perfect? Not by a long chalk, but it's still streets ahead of the others. AC always traded on its visual appeal, and Unity has it in spades (and if you're playing at 1440p or above on high settings with high frame rates on a decent PC then it's truly beautiful).

All of this, except I feel the story was good in parts - just distorted by the messiness.

The_Kiwi_
06-02-2015, 11:44 PM
Out of curiosity.. where is this fanbase ? I'd like to read their views ;) everyone wanting to make a point nowadays seems to mention a non specific group or says we... I keep thinking why do people keep trying to say "I'm a fan of AC but we do not like AC" .

I have never played co-op before Unity... because of the immature posts I read I foolishly took most gamers to be 14 and resentful of everything.... however, I found I played co-op with over 80 people from all over the world and I chatted to most of them.

What I found was there are lots who "spoiler alert" actually like playing AC games.
There are people so determined to play they have the game running on lower spec systems at lower resolution at 25 FPS but enjoying every moment.
And much to my embarrassment :o there are an awful lot of people (men and women) who are highly intelligent in universities or good jobs... not resentful adolescents.

The one thing we had in common was we liked playing AC... the one thing they all had in common is they're all better than me when it comes to being an assassin. But I learned a lot... not just about playing the game, but about the AC fans themselves.

Those people represent a fanbase to me.

AC2 is treated as a God amongst games
It "sets the bar for what AC should be"
People here are a lot more discerning so you don't here a lot of it, but trust me, most AC fans will say that AC2 was the best
There's a reason people here call Ezio "Godzio", it's to mock those who follow the sheep and praise AC2

Reviewers are quite guilty of it
Most I've seen compare new releases to AC2

strigoi1958
06-03-2015, 12:45 AM
AC2 is without a doubt a great game... the timed lever tombs were almost impossible for me and frustration nearly made me smash my monitor to pieces..... but my dislike of those sections and the hours of frustration that they caused me... doesn't make the game any less great... it is just those bits are not to my liking.

Personally I like them all... and compared to other games and series that I have played... (lots and lots since the 80's on an Amiga :eek:) I would put them all in my top 15 all time greatest games with only the original AC not with the rest (it's in the list but slightly lower only because all the latter games that it gave birth to, have grown and succeeded it) ..... it was a great game and it offered the potential which Ubi fulfilled in fact more than fulfilled with AC2.

I saw that potential in Watch Dogs but didn't really care for Watch Dogs and again the potential exists in Unity... TBH I still stand in Unity and look at the broken streets, the weathered wood, peeling paint, the dog eared notices and the stained walls in the poor sections of town or listen to the changing sound my footsteps take as I run across different surfaces and admire the details that can be easily overlooked because a bug may be annoying to some... but if Unity is the basis for future AC games I am very happy.

I liked Ezio, Altair Arno, Edward (AND Haytham) and Connor... maybe after an Ezio time people felt Connor was not good enough and ignored all the good things about the game, a bit like having your favourite James Bond actor replaced you usually reluctantly watch the film.... AC3 was great but then to me they all are ;)

Without those timed levers AC2 may have been higher up in my own favourites but nobody can deny it is great... even me.

The_Kiwi_
06-03-2015, 01:01 AM
AC2 is without a doubt a great game... the timed lever tombs were almost impossible for me and frustration nearly made me smash my monitor to pieces..... but my dislike of those sections and the hours of frustration that they caused me... doesn't make the game any less great... it is just those bits are not to my liking.

Personally I like them all... and compared to other games and series that I have played... (lots and lots since the 80's on an Amiga :eek:) I would put them all in my top 15 all time greatest games with only the original AC not with the rest (it's in the list but slightly lower only because all the latter games that it gave birth to, have grown and succeeded it) ..... it was a great game and it offered the potential which Ubi fulfilled in fact more than fulfilled with AC2.

I saw that potential in Watch Dogs but didn't really care for Watch Dogs and again the potential exists in Unity... TBH I still stand in Unity and look at the broken streets, the weathered wood, peeling paint, the dog eared notices and the stained walls in the poor sections of town or listen to the changing sound my footsteps take as I run across different surfaces and admire the details that can be easily overlooked because a bug may be annoying to some... but if Unity is the basis for future AC games I am very happy.

I liked Ezio, Altair Arno, Edward (AND Haytham) and Connor... maybe after an Ezio time people felt Connor was not good enough and ignored all the good things about the game, a bit like having your favourite James Bond actor replaced you usually reluctantly watch the film.... AC3 was great but then to me they all are ;)

Without those timed levers AC2 may have been higher up in my own favourites but nobody can deny it is great... even me.

AC2 is only great because it is an improvement on the predecessor in most respects
But if you actually examine AC2, it's quite a childish game
The character has barely any development and the characters are cartoony and corny
But it improved gameplay a lot
I think this is why AC2 gets all the praise, because it is an improvement

I also think this is why Unity gets quite a bit of hate
Unity is a good game, it has great gameplay and graphics, even though the characters are annoying and childish and the story is bad
But since it came after AC4, which is a game that excels in most areas, Unity seemed like a downgrade

If each game was examined individually, with no relation to any previous/future game, the overall opinions would be quite different
But that won't happen

Examined as individually as possible, I'd say Unity is better than AC3, due to visual aesthetic and gameplay and a story that is a good story (but a bad AC story)
But in terms of judging them as AC games, AC3 wins outright, due to the fact that it wasn't a giant waste of time for the lore and overarching narrative

strigoi1958
06-03-2015, 02:03 AM
I also think this is why Unity gets quite a bit of hate
Unity is a good game, it has great gameplay and graphics, even though the characters are annoying and childish and the story is bad
But since it came after AC4, which is a game that excels in most areas, Unity seemed like a downgrade

If each game was examined individually, with no relation to any previous/future game, the overall opinions would be quite different
But that won't happen

Examined as individually as possible, I'd say Unity is better than AC3, due to visual aesthetic and gameplay and a story that is a good story (but a bad AC story)
But in terms of judging them as AC games, AC3 wins outright, due to the fact that it wasn't a giant waste of time for the lore and overarching narrative

Some excellent points...

I think maybe because I do judge all games on their own merit I can appreciate each one... that is why comparison or polls are not the best way to judge as it makes us compare like for like... when really they are not.

Also.. (and it is just my humble opinion) I think Unity may have been edited down to meet the release date for the PS4 and XB1 christmas bundles. which may have affected the storyline and made it not 100% ready but it didn't take away any of it's great bits.

SixKeys
06-03-2015, 06:10 AM
AC3 is worse, no contest. Despite all its flaws, Unity has fun gameplay, challenging combat, tons of interesting side content, great customization, decent parkour, cool setting and open mission design. The gameplay makes sense most of the time, unlike AC3's where the telepathic AI leaves you feeling cheated more often than not. Unity's glitches - falling through the ground, framerate issues, NPCs morphing before your eyes - weren't gamebreaking for me, unlike AC3's where enemies would randomly spawn behind you when you were trying to stealth your way into a fort, or when missions would glitch out making them impossible to complete without restarting. Many of the design choices are so amateurish, it's absolutely mind-boggling to think they had eight or nine studios working on this, or even the prestige of having the AC brand to work off of. It was a formula that may have been getting tired, but you would have to really TRY to make that formula so non-fun and unplayable.

VestigialLlama4
06-03-2015, 06:41 AM
If you think ACIII is better than Unity, I don't know what to say.

Well clearly you don't know what to say since you don' actually respond to the legitimate comparisons between systems, objective criticisms of style and story of the respective games and argue from mere sentiment alone.


I can understand why players in the USA might have a soft spot for it - perhaps the same bias will overcome me when I'm playing Syndicate. It certainly did when I played GTA IV and V, based as they are on two US cities to which I have particular connections, but neither are objectively great games.

Look if people are prejudiced against the setting then that's not a good argument at all. If you dislike the setting than say that and move on, but don't pretend that is any valid argument.


Unity has the best land-based gameplay of the whole series.

How? The traversal is overlong and clunky, movement through street and 1st Floor windows are not smooth at all. The architecture is rendered without any character and depth of feeling. Most of the street NPCs are just there and actually force you to be off-street to get real fast. In what fantasy-land is this the "Best land-based gameplay"?


Despite all its flaws, Unity has fun gameplay, challenging combat, tons of interesting side content, great customization, decent parkour, cool setting and open mission design.

Again you are making a fantasy version of the game. What tons of interesting side content are you referring to when most of the missions are repititive and simple puzzles, how can the setting be good if its based on garbage history? Say you like UNITY's Paris but don't try and make it better than it is. Say you like banal wallpaper settings, repititive puzzles and dumb parkour without context and story. I can respect that.

SixKeys
06-03-2015, 06:53 AM
Again you are making a fantasy version of the game. What tons of interesting side content are you referring to when most of the missions are repititive and simple puzzles, how can the setting be good if its based on garbage history? Say you like UNITY's Paris but don't try and make it better than it is. Say you like banal wallpaper settings, repititive puzzles and dumb parkour without context and story. I can respect that.

I like Paris stories, murder mysteries and co-op. If that's wallpaper to you, well then, suit yourself. I certainly like them better than Frontiersmen missions and the "assassination contracts" and delivery quests in AC3. "Walk here, person says "thank you", mission completed". That's AC3's side missions.

The setting is good because Unity's buildings are more interesting and more fun for parkour. That's all that matters to me at the end of the day.

Thirsty_panda
06-03-2015, 07:00 AM
So I debated getting seriously involved in this thread, but, what the hell.

AC 3 is what set us on this whole path of things not mattering so much. You see, after AC 3 ended the overarching plot lines of Eye Abstergo and the doomsday the series more or less degraded to something along the lines of Fallout or maybe the Star Wars universe pre disney, for that matter, in that the world itself is expansive and rich in its history, but that not one event is really all too significant. I mean think about it for a minute. If I were to vaguely mention the context the assassin genocide, which one am I talking about? I am talking about Daniel Cross, am I talking about Shay, am I talking about the Chinese or the Byzantine genocides for that matter? You don't really know at this point. So in all fairness, what could had possibly happened in Unity to have made the game mean something? If they had usable Sage remains either the assassins would have disposed of the body, aka the same result as the ending we got, or they would have synchronized the memories and we would only have 8 more sages to go or something.

But this gets me back on AC 3, because AC 3 is what let it get to this point in the first place. They had been building up both Eye Abstergo and the soomsday angle since the fing beginning right? Truth be told Assassin's Creed as a whole hasn't been able to prove that anything has mattered ever, only that it is good at building up angles but to never deliver in the end. Because AC 3 failed it sort of undermines everything up until AC 3, because sure everyone's favorite AC 2 has it's own merit and we were certainly able to enjoy the ride, but to a certain extent still has to be viewed as part of a larger story that didn't amount to much, which inherently drags it down.

So once Eye Abstergo and the doomsday arc end, the Juno arc starts. If nothing else AC 3 reestablishes a sense of urgency once it almost but surely abandons it only for AC 4 to ruin that by making Juno stuck in purgatory. And did AC 4 matter either while we're at it? No. It may have given you the illusion that it did by introducing the sage stuff, but Abstergo doesn't exactly have much of a master plan anymore and that's made apparent.

So when I look at Unity, I see only a game that could have done good, not bad because all expectations were essentially killed at this point. It's a standalone story that just happens to fall within the same universe as the other games, nothing more and both AC 3 and 4 laid the groundwork for this.

Now I hope that was all coherent because I didn't bother proofreading.

The_Kiwi_
06-03-2015, 07:10 AM
I wonder if Ubisoft has a clear story path they want to take, e.g. they know the beginning middle and end of the arc, and fit their games into the story the want to tell
Or if Ubisoft is just making it up as they go along

AC3 gave me the feeling that the first one is true, but Unity gave me the feeling of the second

AC3 is still better than Unity, and probably always will be
No angle or opinion could change my mind


Now I hope that was all coherent because I didn't bother proofreading.

It wasn't, but you still get your point across

Namikaze_17
06-03-2015, 07:21 AM
So I debated getting seriously involved in this thread, but, what the hell.

AC 3 is what set us on this whole path of things not mattering so much. You see, after AC 3 ended the overarching plot lines of Eye Abstergo and the doomsday the series more or less degraded to something along the lines of Fallout or maybe the Star Wars universe pre disney, for that matter, in that the world itself is expansive and rich in its history, but that not one event is really all too significant. I mean think about it for a minute. If I were to vaguely mention the context the assassin genocide, which one am I talking about? I am talking about Daniel Cross, am I talking about Shay, am I talking about the Chinese or the Byzantine genocides for that matter? You don't really know at this point. So in all fairness, what could had possibly happened in Unity to have made the game mean something? If they had usable Sage remains either the assassins would have disposed of the body, aka the same result as the ending we got, or they would have synchronized the memories and we would only have 8 more sages to go or something.

But this gets me back on AC 3, because AC 3 is what let it get to this point in the first place. They had been building up both Eye Abstergo and the soomsday angle since the fing beginning right? Truth be told Assassin's Creed as a whole hasn't been able to prove that anything has mattered ever, only that it is good at building up angles but to never deliver in the end. Because AC 3 failed it sort of undermines everything up until AC 3, because sure everyone's favorite AC 2 has it's own merit and we were certainly able to enjoy the ride, but to a certain extent still has to be viewed as part of a larger story that didn't amount to much, which inherently drags it down.

So once Eye Abstergo and the doomsday arc end, the Juno arc starts. If nothing else AC 3 reestablishes a sense of urgency once it almost but surely abandons it only for AC 4 to ruin that by making Juno stuck in purgatory. And did AC 4 matter either while we're at it? No. It may have given you the illusion that it did by introducing the sage stuff, but Abstergo doesn't exactly have much of a master plan anymore and that's made apparent.

So when I look at Unity, I see only a game that could have done good, not bad because all expectations were essentially killed at this point. It's a standalone story that just happens to fall within the same universe as the other games, nothing more and both AC 3 and 4 laid the groundwork for this.

Now I hope that was all coherent because I didn't bother proofreading.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.roosterteeth.com/images/DemonicDerek44aa3d48d9817.jpg

:rolleyes:

VestigialLlama4
06-03-2015, 07:21 AM
I like Paris stories, murder mysteries and co-op. If that's wallpaper to you, well then, suit yourself. I certainly like them better than Frontiersmen missions and the "assassination contracts" and delivery quests in AC3. "Walk here, person says "thank you", mission completed". That's AC3's side missions.

No AC3's Side Missions are "Naval Contracts, Homestead, Captain Kidd Missions, Underground, Crafting" and many others (along with "Assassination cotnracts, Frontiersman stories, delivery requests"). You don't get to pick and choose. You have to take it as a whole. Say that Naval Contracts and Kidd Missions or whatever are worse than UNITY's Paris Stories and Murder Mysteries...you can't tailor points to suit your argument.

As a whole UNITY offers no value with all of it coming from earlier games, the Murder Mysteries and Paris stories are borrowed from Frontiersman missions after all. The stealth system coming from Black Flag (X-Ray Eyes, Sniper, Alarm Bells). So why play UNITY when you can merely play Black Flag, AC3 and AC1?

Why is UNITY any more worthwhile than a PC mod of earlier games in HD and Paris background? Because that is what UNITY amounts to, just a stupid PC mod, only without the heart and passion in the modding community.

SixKeys
06-03-2015, 07:40 AM
No AC3's Side Missions are "Naval Contracts, Homestead, Captain Kidd Missions, Underground, Crafting" and many others (along with "Assassination cotnracts, Frontiersman stories, delivery requests"). You don't get to pick and choose. You have to take it as a whole. Say that Naval Contracts and Kidd Missions or whatever are worse than UNITY's Paris Stories and Murder Mysteries...you can't tailor points to suit your argument.

Of the ones you mentioned, only Naval - which I consider part of the main campaign, not a side activity - and some (not all) of the Captain Kidd missions are worthwhile. Just like some of Unity's co-op missions and Paris stories are better than others.


As a whole UNITY offers no value with all of it coming from earlier games, the Murder Mysteries and Paris stories are borrowed from Frontiersman missions after all. The stealth system coming from Black Flag (X-Ray Eyes, Sniper, Alarm Bells). So why play UNITY when you can merely play Black Flag, AC3 and AC1?

Because I prefer playing Unity? (Apart from AC1.)


Why is UNITY any more worthwhile than a PC mod of earlier games in HD and Paris background? Because that is what UNITY amounts to, just a stupid PC mod, only without the heart and passion in the modding community.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to convince me. You're the one who said video games are childish and immature things and that no self-respecting adult should care about childish things. I like Unity, I guess that makes me a child. I don't need or care about your approval.

Thirsty_panda
06-03-2015, 07:44 AM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.roosterteeth.com/images/DemonicDerek44aa3d48d9817.jpg

:rolleyes:

I appreciate the laugh.

I was afraid I wouldn't be clear enough. To simplify big plot lines like the satellite launch and the 2012 countdown were being built up to be concluded in AC 3. AC 3 ended it all sort of anticlimactically, but not before building up Juno's escape. AC 4 then in part ruined that by having Juno incapable of doing ****. Therefore there was no sense of urgency going into Unity because unless if Unity started something completely new the existing plot lines are pretty much dead in the water and the point I'm trying to make out of this is that AC is only good at building things up. We have never had anything payoff in the long run and because of that the games that built plot lines like 2012 and Eye Abstergo up such as AC 1, 2, and Brotherhood are sort of cheapened because it was all wasted potential, even though individually they were all good. In contrast Unity is strictly a stand alone story that doesn't rely on it's predecessors. It's just a moment in time.

And the other point I was trying to make was that we have so many games now that the storylines just sort of all mesh together now. The Assassin's and the Templars have both been wiped out so many times over that not much can happen in the game that can make us say "oh well that served a greater purpose". My point here is that we can reference the American genocide of the assassins led by Shay but that nothing about is very important because it's irrelevant. Like in the new Star Wars movie the Jedi are going to be resurrected making Vader's role irrelevant. It's the same premise. No matter what story AC gives us from this point forward it most likely will only be relevant within itself.

It all started with AC 3 because before AC 3 it was leading to something with the Modern Day, but now its all leading to essentially nothing.

Does that make more sense I hope?

VestigialLlama4
06-03-2015, 07:56 AM
Of the ones you mentioned, only Naval - which I consider part of the main campaign, not a side activity

In the game, naval is very much a side activity. This isn't Black Flag with open-world sailing after all. My point was you say Unity's side missions were better, but you can only use that by putting that against AC3's complete range of side-missions, you can't randomly and selectively pair things against it for your argument.


I'm not sure why you keep trying to convince me.

I am asking for a strong argument on UNITY based on reason and not on sentiment.

I have yet to see a single defense of UNITY on aesthetic grounds. All I read are mere excuses. Its not like AC3, not like AC2, not as this and not as that. All I here are stuff it avoids doing rather than anything new it does. That to me all by itself proves that UNITY is an indefensible garbage game, because there is no defense for it on its own strength. AC3 can be defended on grounds of reason as can the pre-UnityRogue games.


You're the one who said video games are childish and immature things and that no self-respecting adult should care about childish things.

No what I said is that UNITY lacking a story, and proper historical background has only childish appeal. It's a hide-and-seek simulator and an expensive one. I don't think a AAA title has any right to be so lacking in ambition especially for its price tag.

SixKeys
06-03-2015, 09:01 AM
I am asking for a strong argument on UNITY based on reason and not on sentiment.

My reasons for liking or disliking each game are all based mostly on sentiment. It is my feeling that AC3 has worse cities because I don't care about colonial America. I'm not claiming it as objective truth. It is my feeling that Connor is a boring protagonsit because he bores me. It is my feeling that Unity is a better game because I can actually see myself completing it a second time, whereas the only thing stopping me from uninstalling AC3 is the multiplayer.


No what I said is that UNITY lacking a story, and proper historical background has only childish appeal. It's a hide-and-seek simulator and an expensive one. I don't think a AAA title has any right to be so lacking in ambition especially for its price tag.

Okay, then I guess I like expensive hide-and-seek simulators. :)

avk111
06-03-2015, 09:18 AM
They are - and this is why they are making AC:Syndicate - the best possible single player experience.

The months ahead should be interesting for everyone ;)


With all due respect, the sentence above is the same sentence that has been advertised for the past couple of games for the franchise, everytime a new title is launched we have a development director coming up on an interview and putting key sales words like, new creative concepts, mechanics , then adding adjectives like, astounding, amazing, excellent to describe the experience the player might be having with the coming soon title.

However I remember the only franchise which did put out "Objective" sales points during the development director interview was during the launch of AC2 , the director spoke objectively and technically how AC2 (which one prelaunch at the time) was surpassing its old predecessor AC1.

Its as if every director is constrained about being able to criticize the title that came before , unless they are not really upgrading their work. Point is, sit with the people , criticize , adapt, and then improve, this is the cycle that should be promoted during the marketing campaign not just bogus fancy sales words.

The rest of the directors just use sales words to promote the item and not to technically explain to buyers what difference and upgrading there has been from one title to the next.

Thats one.


Secondly, the false advertising is huge, Biggest one I can think of from the top of my head is the Connor going through the battle field to terminate the templar , it viewed a whole different character from the one in the game, but why would you false advertise this sort of premonition (as the players thought thats the experience they would experiencing were they to buy the product) for the people who are going to experience something totally different ?

My subjectivity would say thats a total rip-off. you may explain it as symantics , but logically speaking what I saw and bought are two different art ideas and concepts.

I dont know if the trailer with Edward Kenway sleeping with the two ladies was in the same category of false advertising , but overall when it happens repetitively your not gaining any trust Ubisoft, Not to mention the whole fiasco with the Watch Dogs title at the time and the way the consumers were ripped off their money, but thats a whole different matter, however it all builds a perception that Ubisoft are money hungry oppurtunist company , which cares more about siding with the monetary side of the equation with bias to the artisitic side.

With all my steam being blow off now, I will personally see how Ubisoft adapts to the changes coming ahead. the article I just wrote may have been through a subjective experience, however reading the forums, social media,and other resources equated to the concepts being criticized above.

My only personal concern is the franchise and the experience that it gave maybe gone to ruins because Ubisoft and development team are not giving themselves time to look at things from wider perspective.

ACZanius
06-03-2015, 11:27 AM
With all due respect, the sentence above is the same sentence that has been advertised for the past couple of games for the franchise, everytime a new title is launched we have a development director coming up on an interview and putting key sales words like, new creative concepts, mechanics , then adding adjectives like, astounding, amazing, excellent to describe the experience the player might be having with the coming soon title.

However I remember the only franchise which did put out "Objective" sales points during the development director interview was during the launch of AC2 , the director spoke objectively and technically how AC2 (which one prelaunch at the time) was surpassing its old predecessor AC1.

Its as if every director is constrained about being able to criticize the title that came before , unless they are not really upgrading their work. Point is, sit with the people , criticize , adapt, and then improve, this is the cycle that should be promoted during the marketing campaign not just bogus fancy sales words.

The rest of the directors just use sales words to promote the item and not to technically explain to buyers what difference and upgrading there has been from one title to the next.

Thats one.


Secondly, the false advertising is huge, Biggest one I can think of from the top of my head is the Connor going through the battle field to terminate the templar , it viewed a whole different character from the one in the game, but why would you false advertise this sort of premonition (as the players thought thats the experience they would experiencing were they to buy the product) for the people who are going to experience something totally different ?

My subjectivity would say thats a total rip-off. you may explain it as symantics , but logically speaking what I saw and bought are two different art ideas and concepts.

I dont know if the trailer with Edward Kenway sleeping with the two ladies was in the same category of false advertising , but overall when it happens repetitively your not gaining any trust Ubisoft, Not to mention the whole fiasco with the Watch Dogs title at the time and the way the consumers were ripped off their money, but thats a whole different matter, however it all builds a perception that Ubisoft are money hungry oppurtunist company , which cares more about siding with the monetary side of the equation with bias to the artisitic side.

With all my steam being blow off now, I will personally see how Ubisoft adapts to the changes coming ahead. the article I just wrote may have been through a subjective experience, however reading the forums, social media,and other resources equated to the concepts being criticized above.

My only personal concern is the franchise and the experience that it gave maybe gone to ruins because Ubisoft and development team are not giving themselves time to look at things from wider perspective.



Great talk, i agree with you however i'm gonna go with Mr.Shade on that point and gonna believe since Jeffrey Yohalem is main writer, literally the main thing giving me hope that AC will get back on track. Keep in mind this guy is AC veteran he has been around since beginning, one one the main reasons we had modern days like we did in past. So yeah fingers crossed. This is the game, that will make or break AC for me.

avk111
06-03-2015, 02:51 PM
Great talk, i agree with you however i'm gonna go with Mr.Shade on that point and gonna believe since Jeffrey Yohalem is main writer, literally the main thing giving me hope that AC will get back on track. Keep in mind this guy is AC veteran he has been around since beginning, one one the main reasons we had modern days like we did in past. So yeah fingers crossed. This is the game, that will make or break AC for me.


Thanks,

Not to mention few strong points as well.

First there was the whole rumor coming from a guy (who was supposedly working for Ubisoft) who informed the general populace how Assassins Creed 3 whole programing and development dvision was to have better quality (the product is incomplete according to his claim), example is the fight between Connor and Haytham , and he talked about many other things, he also described the working atmosphere for programer working Ubisoft and how the enviroment was hostile and that the managers were pushing and squeezing on the workers , thus as a consumer you are being given an "incomplete product" for the price of a "completed one" not to mention Ubisoft kicked out one of the main developers at the time as they had a dispute, also the ending epilogue for Connor was left out, even the writer Derby (Thats his name sorry for the mistake if there is any) talked about how weird it was for Ubisoft to leave out essential plot information within the product itself.

Common all this information and were supposed to trust Ubisoft ?

Oh and this all happened before the official fraud that Ubisoft pulled on Unity , that was a total mayham.

Look I know that there is always a dark side of things as there is light, however there is no equillebrium coming from Ubisoft , only false promises , and sketchy and suspicious and unsolid sales marketing methods.

As simple as getting my voice through to you Mr.Shade (Finally someone from Ubisoft who is willing to read) its time to see how the big head anchos at Ubisoft are willing to give the fan base a room to trust them again.


Thanks

D.I.D.
06-03-2015, 04:57 PM
Well clearly you don't know what to say since you don' actually respond to the legitimate comparisons between systems, objective criticisms of style and story of the respective games and argue from mere sentiment alone.



Look if people are prejudiced against the setting then that's not a good argument at all. If you dislike the setting than say that and move on, but don't pretend that is any valid argument.



How? The traversal is overlong and clunky, movement through street and 1st Floor windows are not smooth at all. The architecture is rendered without any character and depth of feeling. Most of the street NPCs are just there and actually force you to be off-street to get real fast. In what fantasy-land is this the "Best land-based gameplay"?



Again you are making a fantasy version of the game. What tons of interesting side content are you referring to when most of the missions are repititive and simple puzzles, how can the setting be good if its based on garbage history? Say you like UNITY's Paris but don't try and make it better than it is. Say you like banal wallpaper settings, repititive puzzles and dumb parkour without context and story. I can respect that.

Yeah you're really being unnecessarily aggressive and irritable as usual, and you keep ranting about quality of arguments when I'm not doing that - I'm just adding my opinions to a personal opinions thread, not duelling - but I'll play. If it annoys you that I don't carry on arguments like tennis, it's because I think it's unnecessary and I'm not looking to "beat" people. I'll exchange opinions once or twice, but then I'll often walk away and leave their next response hanging because ultimately none of this matters. Most of the time I don't even read the response so that I won't be tempted to reply.

Mostly you're just making extremely weird arguments that don't really relate to what I said, and it's all a bit "Old Man Shouts At Clouds". "Legitimate comparisons between systems": I did consider that. No, I'm not going to pick the game that flashed up a big picture of the button I needed to hit next, in lieu of actual combat. AC3 is barely interactive fiction, which only becomes remotely interesting on land when you try to stealth the forts. But then when you do stealth the forts, your actions reveal the incredibly flawed AI. I'm not saying Unity's perfect, but it is so obviously better than AC3 that it feels redundant to even try and weigh them up.

"Prejudiced against the setting" - clearly I'm not. I have personal connections to NY. I spent a lot of time travelling around the East Coast, especially New York State and Pennsylvania. I'll be the US for several months later this year, and might be making a permanent move after that. I just found the insipid treatment of the aboriginal American characters to be a huge disappointment. I'm just acknowledging that bias might be a factor in US players' enjoyment of AC3, in the same way that Syndicate might hit me the same way. There's a strong chance that I won't be able to judge it objectively - other people might hate it and be right, whereas I might be shouting, "BEST AC EVER". I will have to acknowledge my bias if that's the way general reactions and my reaction to Syndicate pan out.

Getting through windows is fine for me as long as I ignore the on-screen hint, and I quickly switched those off anyway. I just point the stick and they guy goes through the window after a third-of-a-second pause. Similarly, the back eject instruction is wrong, but once I figured out what it should have said I was set. It's not excusable that the instructions are bad - that's a huge error. It's not worse than AC3 though, because I can do a whole list of things in Unity that simply aren't possible in AC3, and there's more to gameplay than going through windows. Traversal is the smoothest it's ever been, both at street level and above. I love running away from enemies firing at me while I zig-zag around people in the street, and I can do that with a greater feeling of agility now. Every AC ever made has occasional issues with the player jumping in a slightly different direction to the one you expected from time to time, but it needs to be remembered that new ACs have radically complicated the range of potential destinations to which you can run or jump. Looking at it as a player and from a design perspective, Unity is amazing. AC3's movement controls were amazing once as well, but they have been eclipsed. The combat has more challenge, the AI is improved, I like it that men with guns will kill me if I don't do something about it (whereas in AC3, men with guns were my pals, and killed vast numbers of their comrades for me). And AC3 has absolutely nothing that remotely comes near the black-box assassinations in Unity. Most of all, Unity plays differently every time I play it. AC3 would always have been the same, funnelling me through the same tight experience.

Unity, before it got swamped with unlocked crap, was a vast improvement on previous ACs where "side quest" was much more often code for "shameless filler". It's still the case in Unity, but to a much lesser extent. The heists are hit and miss, but some are really good. The co-op is hit and miss, but lots of it was really good, though YMMV. Paris Stories were less often interesting, but at least among those we had a couple of "infiltrate the mansion" missions, which were my favourite part of the main game too. It really does depend on how you played these missions. I'm sure it's possible to play them in a dull way and have a dull time, but I had a lot of fun stealthing these areas.

For someone who constantly moans about the series being too black-and-white and failing to provide enough "grey", you have a weirdly binary reaction to opinions that say, "This isn't perfect, but it's an improvement".

Megas_Doux
06-03-2015, 05:36 PM
Like Megas_Doux talks about QTEs. In the games itself, you only have it for the hunting mechanic (retained in the beloved Black Flag, except there you can shoot it out without any loss in fur quality) and the Haytham boss-fight,

.

I´m speechless, but I´ll try to prove, and I say try based on how stubborn you can get at times.....

Miko´s "assassination": QTE.
Benjamin Church: QTE.
Charles Lee: QTE.
Haytham: QTE
Thomas hickey: Not only a heavily linear assassination itself -although not a proper QTE- but also an ENTIRE linear sequence as well.
Braddock??? Not a QTE, but linear nonetheless

Then there´s the Nicholas Biddle one, which is a fine boss battle for AC standards. That means there´s only two and half open assassinations: Pitcairn, Johnson and Silas being PRETTY generous, that´s an atrocity gameplay wise to me.

In regards of hunting in AC III and AC IV, welI hate it in both games. I mean is that easy to a point in which I feel annoyed by it, but at least AC IV doesn't rely that much on to obtain money. During the first stages of AC III it seems like the only way..

Farlander1991
06-03-2015, 06:05 PM
Charles Lee: QTE.

That was a cutscene, there's not a single button prompt in Lee's death. Though, I don't mind it, that cutscene was ****in awesome (and the only AC3 assassination that I accept to be fine as a cutscene).

Megas_Doux
06-03-2015, 06:17 PM
That was a cutscene, there's not a single button prompt in Lee's death. Though, I don't mind it, that cutscene was ****in awesome (and the only AC3 assassination that I accept to be fine as a cutscene).

It was good indeed and my bad, it wasn´t a QTE. However my point remains, super linear :P

VestigialLlama4
06-03-2015, 07:14 PM
It was good indeed and my bad, it wasn´t a QTE. However my point remains, super linear :P

Well since I specified QTEs, and admitted that the missions are linear, it doesn't stand. The only QTEs are Miko, Haytham and Church. (okay I missed Church because I always saw his assassination as a cutscene too).

And you know almost all those linear assassinations are from the Haytham section of the game. The ones with him as a player and as an NPC.

dimbismp
06-03-2015, 11:11 PM
The story is debatable,but ACU is so much better regarding gameplay.

Even if someone claims that AC3 had better parkour mechanics,it doesn't really matter because AC3 simply doesn't give you many parkour choices.The streets are really wide,making Boston and NY the less parkour-able cities in AC history.But even if you make it to the rooftops,the annoying detection system will make all the guards go after you.On the other hand,Paris is one of the best cities to navigate through.

Also,being a history guy,i really loved Paris with the its dozens of huge landmarks.On the other hand,AC3 had 0 landmarks,though the Frontier was cool.

Regarding combat,AC3 may have had the most fluid combat to date,but it is so easy!No wonder why people call AC3 the warrior's creed.You can kill literally thousands of enemies.On the contrary,ACU's combat may have its flaws,but it is the most difficult in the franchise.And because we are playing as a stealthy assassin,combat should be difficult,so that's why ACU wins.

Finally,as i said we are playing as a stealthy assassin.So,all about stealth games are the mechanics and the mission design.AC3's stealth mechanics are broken and its mission design is non-existent.This game is maybe the most linear game i have ever played,and this a disgrace for a (partially) stealth game.As others posted above,the game has the grand number of 3(!!!) open ended assassinations,whose quality is really debatable.In this game,you spend more times during cutscenes rather than on actual gameplay.On the other hand,ACU has a far better mission design,actually the best in the series.We have like 7 open ended assassinations,which are miles ahead of AC3's in quality,plus another dozen heists and brotherhood missions,which are absolutely awesome and hard if done stealthily.

As for side missions,both games had interesting and boring side missions:
AC3
Good:Homestead,Peg leg,Naval
Bad:Frontier,Deliveries,Hunting,"assassination contracts",liberation missions

ACU
Good:The whole coop,Some paris stories,murder mysteries,Nostradamus
Bad:The majority of the paris stories

Journey93
06-04-2015, 04:26 PM
Unity no doubt (from a story perspective)

ACIII at least had an interesting protagonist and not an Ezio rip off like Arno
It had Haytham so thats a big plus too

The story was a lot better too and not so lame like in Unity

strigoi1958
06-04-2015, 06:16 PM
Yes Haytham :D I'd like a game where we play him in his early years

BananaBlighter
06-04-2015, 06:43 PM
The story is debatable,but ACU is so much better regarding gameplay.

Even if someone claims that AC3 had better parkour mechanics,it doesn't really matter because AC3 simply doesn't give you many parkour choices.The streets are really wide,making Boston and NY the less parkour-able cities in AC history.But even if you make it to the rooftops,the annoying detection system will make all the guards go after you.On the other hand,Paris is one of the best cities to navigate through.

Also,being a history guy,i really loved Paris with the its dozens of huge landmarks.On the other hand,AC3 had 0 landmarks,though the Frontier was cool.

Regarding combat,AC3 may have had the most fluid combat to date,but it is so easy!No wonder why people call AC3 the warrior's creed.You can kill literally thousands of enemies.On the contrary,ACU's combat may have its flaws,but it is the most difficult in the franchise.And because we are playing as a stealthy assassin,combat should be difficult,so that's why ACU wins.

Finally,as i said we are playing as a stealthy assassin.So,all about stealth games are the mechanics and the mission design.AC3's stealth mechanics are broken and its mission design is non-existent.This game is maybe the most linear game i have ever played,and this a disgrace for a (partially) stealth game.As others posted above,the game has the grand number of 3(!!!) open ended assassinations,whose quality is really debatable.In this game,you spend more times during cutscenes rather than on actual gameplay.On the other hand,ACU has a far better mission design,actually the best in the series.We have like 7 open ended assassinations,which are miles ahead of AC3's in quality,plus another dozen heists and brotherhood missions,which are absolutely awesome and hard if done stealthily.

As for side missions,both games had interesting and boring side missions:
AC3
Good:Homestead,Peg leg,Naval
Bad:Frontier,Deliveries,Hunting,"assassination contracts",liberation missions

ACU
Good:The whole coop,Some paris stories,murder mysteries,Nostradamus
Bad:The majority of the paris stories

This.