PDA

View Full Version : Do you trust the Syndicate writing team?



dimbismp
06-05-2015, 01:38 PM
AC Syndicate will be the first singleplayer only AC in a long time.This means that everyone hopes for a much more story focused experience like the old games.So,to make it short,is Jeffrey Yohalem and his writing team able to deliver?What do you think?

NondairyGold
06-05-2015, 01:48 PM
If you look at the games he's been involved with then I've high hopes. It's good it's gone back to it's roots, at it's core Assassin's Creed is a story driven franchise and hopefully it can bring back some of the mystique and intrigue that it has seemed to have lost lately.

strigoi1958
06-05-2015, 01:49 PM
He worked on Rainbow 6 vegas 2 (loved that game) and I think he wrote ACB and FarCry3 (my all time favourite game) so if he makes it only half as good as FC3 it will be a great game to me.

Mr_Shade
06-05-2015, 02:36 PM
it will be a great game to me.

Indeed ;)

SixKeys
06-05-2015, 02:39 PM
For now, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Matknapers18
06-05-2015, 02:41 PM
Im not too sure. Pretty sceptical at the moment. Brotherhood, written by Jeffrey, was very bland for me, I found it to be pretty mediocre. But on the other hand, Dead Kings provided Arno with more character development and likability than the whole story of Unity. Despite only being like 3-4 hours long, I finally found myself connecting to Arno and there was a satisfying portion of mystery in Dead Kings, a feature that has been missing from the latest instalments. Although the actually story wasn't 'ground breaking', it was a massive step up from Unity.

And of course there is Far Cry 3 a as well, which generally got pretty poor reception for the story. I personally liked it. I think Jeffrey was really ambitious with the story and it was intended to be very cryptic and ambiguous, hence the Alice in Wonderland quotes and themes of Insanity and Manipulation. There are many ways to interpret it. I enjoyed how the story was told through Jason's western perspective, and although technically, it wasn't the best, it was easy to get immersed in. And then there's also Child of Light, which I haven't played.

Im excited to see what he can do! Although, he is already faced with the burden of no modern-day storyline, so fans are inevitably going to label the story as crap regardless of Jacob's storyline. Which sucks really. Its like he hasn't been given an equal opportunity as the writers before him.

Sushiglutton
06-05-2015, 02:44 PM
Absolutely!

But only so much is up to the writers. There are tons of restrictions/parameters:

1) Need to kill off X important templars (usually a way too high number for a good story).
2) Modern day connection. Often results in artifact hunting.
3) How systemic is the game? What freedom is there in terms of introducing more exotic gameplay?
4) Can you play alongside another character (like in Naughty Dog games)?
5) How many missions do you get?
6) Will any missions get cut due to technical problems?


etc etc

Sorrosyss
06-05-2015, 03:11 PM
Well, as it has the same writer as ACB I am quietly optimistic that things will bounce back, story wise. ACB had a healthier mix of historical, modern, and First Civ story threads, something that so many have felt missing for the past few entries.

The ending to Dead Kings offered a hint to where we might be going (Eve), and again that was by the same writer - so I'm hopeful it was a set up for what is to come.

I-Like-Pie45
06-05-2015, 03:28 PM
No

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-05-2015, 03:38 PM
For now, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Same :)

Hans684
06-05-2015, 07:15 PM
No.

1. His influence on Unity(main game)
2. No MD(making the game filler by default)
3. Black and white story.

It's gonna be worse than Brotherhood or AC2 but unlike those black and white stories it's gonna be a filler and that makes it as bad as Unity.

strigoi1958
06-05-2015, 07:54 PM
Im not too sure. Pretty sceptical at the moment. Brotherhood, written by Jeffrey, was very bland for me, I found it to be pretty mediocre. But on the other hand, Dead Kings provided Arno with more character development and likability than the whole story of Unity. Despite only being like 3-4 hours long, I finally found myself connecting to Arno and there was a satisfying portion of mystery in Dead Kings, a feature that has been missing from the latest instalments. Although the actually story wasn't 'ground breaking', it was a massive step up from Unity.

And of course there is Far Cry 3 a as well, which generally got pretty poor reception for the story. I personally liked it. I think Jeffrey was really ambitious with the story and it was intended to be very cryptic and ambiguous, hence the Alice in Wonderland quotes and themes of Insanity and Manipulation. There are many ways to interpret it. I enjoyed how the story was told through Jason's western perspective, and although technically, it wasn't the best, it was easy to get immersed in. And then there's also Child of Light, which I haven't played.

Im excited to see what he can do! Although, he is already faced with the burden of no modern-day storyline, so fans are inevitably going to label the story as crap regardless of Jacob's storyline. Which sucks really. Its like he hasn't been given an equal opportunity as the writers before him.

Anyone who made Vaas, Buck, Hurk, Willis, Dennis, Citra and Sam such interesting, believable and quotable characters knows how to draw my attention... When people have Vaas tattooed on their bodies and people are asking "did I ever tell you the definition of insanity ?" it definitely got a good reception from most of us.

The story was great... would anyone in that situation do what needed to be done to save family and friends... it did make me think.

From what little I have seen I am already intrigued by Henry Green and Evie... but as you say... will people be open minded enough to judge it on its own merit without trying to judge for what they think is missing ...

VoXngola
06-05-2015, 07:59 PM
No.

1. His influence on Unity(main game)
2. No MD(making the game filler by default)
3. Black and white story.

It's gonna be worse than Brotherhood or AC2 but unlike those black and white stories it's gonna be a filler and that makes it as bad as Unity.

What?

First of all, he didn't have a lot of influence on Unity. He came up with the core concept (being a love story between an assassin and a templar) and then left for Child of Light. What we ended up getting is Amancio's fault who doesn't work at Ubisoft anymore.

Regarding the MD, what we got in Unity was because of time constraints. They only said that Syndicate's MD will continue from Unity's MD onwards. This can mean a lot of things. We just don't have enough information to deem it filler so early on.

Furthermore, a Black and White story doesn't have to be bad. Not all Templars want to help mankind as proven by the Borgia family. The AC2 story was Black and White too but still very enjoyable. Of course that's subjective.

I'd actually welcome a Black and White story, we've had enough grey stories (AC1, AC3, AC4, AC Rogue). Again, subjective. My point is just that it's ok to not have grey stories all the time and a black and white story doesn't inherently mean that it's a bad one.

To answer OP's question, I too am cautiously optimistic.

Namikaze_17
06-05-2015, 10:00 PM
I'm kinda mixed on Yohalem.

On one hand, I really disliked Brotherhood's story because it seemed equivalent to a bedtime story your mother tells you before bed.

"And there were these bad people who wanted to take over everything in the land, but a hero in white fights them and saves the day."

On the other, I rather enjoyed Dead Kings as it actually brought Arno's character to life with a story that was pretty decent.

So it's hit or miss for me; but going by the brief Syndicate cutscene, it gives me some optimism toward the team so far.

Hans684
06-05-2015, 10:03 PM
What?

...does the fox say?


First of all, he didn't have a lot of influence on Unity.

Watch his second Assassin's Den podcast.


He came up with the core concept (being a love story between an assassin and a templar) and then left for Child of Light. What we ended up getting is Amancio's fault who doesn't work at Ubisoft anymore.

He, Amancio and Travis.


Regarding the MD, what we got in Unity was because of time constraints.

Source?


They only said that Syndicate's MD will continue from Unity's MD onwards. This can mean a lot of things. We just don't have enough information to deem it filler so early on.

It could but if it's a possibility that's likely, not much.


Furthermore, a Black and White story doesn't have to be bad.

True but the only reason I have to support black and white stories is if we get it from both perspectives(in turn making it gray). It's why I'm willing to accept Rogues story(and Rogue unlike a Unity isn't a filler, that's the most dominating thing). A can accept a black and white story if it isn't filler(AC2 and ACB) but I will criticize.


Not all Templars want to help mankind as proven by the Borgia family.

Same regarding the Assassins.


The AC2 story was Black and White too but still very enjoyable. Of course that's subjective.

It's subjective but the only thing saving AC2 from a reign of terror is that it isn't a filler unlike Unity.


I'd actually welcome a Black and White story, we've had enough grey stories (AC1, AC3, AC4, AC Rogue).

I'd welcome it on one condition, that it's from both perspectives.


Again, subjective. My point is just that it's ok to not have grey stories all the time and a black and white story doesn't inherently mean that it's a bad one.

I'd rather have gray stories that makes you question, isn't predictable(in turn less boring), without a perfect protagonist that's never challenged, always right and 1 dementional Disney villains.

VoXngola
06-05-2015, 10:39 PM
...does the fox say?

:(


Watch his second Assassin's Den podcast.

I did, though it really seemed to me that he wasn't really one of the big bad guys. He's the lead writer now, so I expect something good tbh.


Source?

Darby said it during a stream. Of course he could be lying or whatever, but it's all we've got.


True but the only reason I have to support black and white stories is if we get it from both perspectives(in turn making it gray). It's why I'm willing to accept Rogues story(and Rogue unlike a Unity isn't a filler, that's the most dominating thing). A can accept a black and white story if it isn't filler(AC2 and ACB) but I will criticize.

I concur.


Same regarding the Assassins.

Yup.



I'd welcome it on one condition, that it's from both perspectives.

Well we've got 2 protagonists this time. Maybe this and that happens and we'd not only have 2 perspectives, but both of them are playable too. Honestly the fact that we have 2 protagonists really opens up some new possibilites.


I'd rather have gray stories that makes you question, isn't predictable(in turn less boring), without a perfect protagonist that's never challenged, always right and 1 dementional Disney villains.

I understand. It's not the concept that is wrong, it's just the execution. If Yohalem gives us a well written grey story that actually makes you think, then there's no problem. It's just that recently I haven't really gone "wow!" at an AC story anymore.

Farlander1991
06-05-2015, 10:43 PM
It's subjective but the only thing saving AC2 from a reign of terror is that it isn't a filler unlike Unity.

The only thing that makes AC2 not a how you call it 'filler' is the Solar Flare twist at the end.

But you know what, that actually makes it worse than filler. It doesn't advance the main plotline that was set-up in AC1 (Satellite launch) in absolutely any way, AND also at the very end adds a SECOND main plotline for the future games (well, at the time of AC2 development - 'game' as it was a trilogy) to deal with (which resulted in kinda a mess). Sure, AC2 had quite a lot of lore-building in forms of glyph information, but so did ACU with its e-mails so they're the same on the matter.

What AC2 has done is quite frankly damaging to the structure of the whole story. At least ACU knows that it can't really do anything other than lore-building (due to said time constraints, I don't remember where the source was, but somebody mentioned it somewhere) - so that's what it does. Yeah, nothing really advances, but you know what, nothing really breaks. Ultimately, it's harmless, unlike AC2.

Shahkulu101
06-05-2015, 11:34 PM
I didn't like Brotherhood's story, but I can admit that it was actually solidly written even if the villains were black and white. He had no other choice, he was just carrying the mantel from AC2 villains - and he actually managed to make them amusing and/or interesting unlike AC2 which had BLAND as well as one-sided villains. Let's not forget he did the glyphs, which were fantastic and unique to anything I've ever experienced. And while Far Cry 3 was flawed, I don't think we can deny that Vass is one of the most fascinating, complex villains in video game history. Jeffrey is a competent, established writer capable of strokes of brilliance and so I have confidence in him.

Plus, Corey May is directly working on the game again - which is cause for optimism.

Oh and from the little snippet of character interaction we got in the gameplay trailer, it looks pretty good and has loads of personality.

SixKeys
06-05-2015, 11:35 PM
The concept of filler games at this point in the series is ridiculous anyway. There is no overarching narrative anymore, so no game can be a filler. Each game stands or falls on its own.

EmptyCrustacean
06-05-2015, 11:38 PM
no.

Xstantin
06-05-2015, 11:40 PM
I'm hoping to see more of Vaas less of Cesare if it makes sense

Hans684
06-06-2015, 09:39 AM
:(

Why so serious?


I did, though it really seemed to me that he wasn't really one of the big bad guys. He's the lead writer now, so I expect something good tbh.

Corey being part of it gives done hope.


Darby said it during a stream. Of course he could be lying or whatever, but it's all we've got.

Fair enough.


Well we've got 2 protagonists this time. Maybe this and that happens and we'd not only have 2 perspectives, but both of them are playable too. Honestly the fact that we have 2 protagonists really opens up some new possibilites.

True but this time we will have two perspectives on creed.


I understand. It's not the concept that is wrong, it's just the execution. If Yohalem gives us a well written grey story that actually makes you think, then there's no problem. It's just that recently I haven't really gone "wow!" at an AC story anymore.

Indeed.


The only thing that makes AC2 not a how you call it 'filler' is the Solar Flare twist at the end.

True, but that become the main story.


But you know what, that actually makes it worse than filler. It doesn't advance the main plotline that was set-up in AC1 (Satellite launch) in absolutely any way, AND also at the very end adds a SECOND main plotline for the future games (well, at the time of AC2 development - 'game' as it was a trilogy) to deal with (which resulted in kinda a mess).Sure, AC2 had quite a lot of lore-building in forms of glyph information, but so did ACU with its e-mails so they're the same on the matter.

What AC2 has done is quite frankly damaging to the structure of the whole story. At least ACU knows that it can't really do anything other than lore-building (due to said time constraints, I don't remember where the source was, but somebody mentioned it somewhere) - so that's what it does. Yeah, nothing really advances, but you know what, nothing really breaks. Ultimately, it's harmless, unlike AC2.

Fair point.

pirate1802
06-06-2015, 11:26 AM
Furthermore, a Black and White story doesn't have to be bad. Not all Templars want to help mankind as proven by the Borgia family. The AC2 story was Black and White too but still very enjoyable. Of course that's subjective.

Yes, black and white doesn't automatically mean bad things in general but in AC's context it does because moral ambiguity is one of AC storytelling's core pillars and it's been there since the first game. Actually it was one of things that set the game apart from the rest when it arrived in 2007. So yes one of the things that makes AC not being there counts as a bad in my books.. :/

Actually AC2 is a good example of why moral ambiguity is important in AC. When the first game launched people praised the debate-style White Room speeches. Turn to AC2 and you see that as a result of the disappearing moral grayness, white room speeches have been reduced to Ezio telling his victims they suck and they deserved to die. *facepalm*

To the question, I'm not expecting great things. Sure he wrote Farcry 3 but contrary to the majority voice I'd say that it was, while adequate, nothing groundbreaking in terms of storytelling, your average descent into madness-type story. Except Vaas all the other characters were caricatures, Dennis was the Magical Negro, Hoyt the Evil South African Slaver, Citra the Sexy Nature Girl and so on. Willis was just embarrassing, so were most of the late-game characters. Vaas, the most interesting character in the game died too quickly, and him being interesting was more to the actor's credit, as evidenced by the fact that only after seeing Mondo play that role did they decide to have a character named Vaas. Previously Hoyt was supposed to fulfill Vaas's role (which makes me shudder to be honest, found that guy to be as much a mustache-twirler as Cesare.) This is, not to say that Farcry 3's story was bad.. Imo it was just not as good as people think it to be. Add that to the fact that he wrote Brotherhood, the (in my opinion) AC with the worst story, probably with the exception of Unity.. and you'd see why I don't have much hopes.

SixKeys
06-06-2015, 02:15 PM
Actually AC2 is a good example of why moral ambiguity is important in AC. When the first game launched people praised the debate-style White Room speeches. Turn to AC2 and you see that as a result of the disappearing moral grayness, white room speeches have been reduced to Ezio telling his victims they suck and they deserved to die. *facepalm*

Depends who you ask, really. I've read quite a few reviews of AC1 that said the white room speeches were too long and didn't make sense. When AC2 came out with its bite-sized "requiescat in pace" scenes, people said it was a much better, more sensible way to do things. Because **** artistic choices and moral ambiguity, everything in games should be dumbed down for people with nonexistent attention spans. 9_9


To the question, I'm not expecting great things. Sure he wrote Farcry 3 but contrary to the majority voice I'd say that it was, while adequate, nothing groundbreaking in terms of storytelling, your average descent into madness-type story. Except Vaas all the other characters were caricatures, Dennis was the Magical Negro, Hoyt the Evil South African Slaver, Citra the Sexy Nature Girl and so on. Willis was just embarrassing, so were most of the late-game characters. Vaas, the most interesting character in the game died too quickly, and him being interesting was more to the actor's credit, as evidenced by the fact that only after seeing Mondo play that role did they decide to have a character named Vaas. Previously Hoyt was supposed to fulfill Vaas's role (which makes me shudder to be honest, found that guy to be as much a mustache-twirler as Cesare.) This is, not to say that Farcry 3's story was bad.. Imo it was just not as good as people think it to be. Add that to the fact that he wrote Brotherhood, the (in my opinion) AC with the worst story, probably with the exception of Unity.. and you'd see why I don't have much hopes.

According to an interview I once read, the stereotypes were intentional. According to Jeffrey, he wanted the game to satirize the tropes that so many games use to maybe start a conversation about whether those tropes are really what people want and whether we should ask more from our entertainment than the same old stereotypes. Alas, if that was indeed his plan it seems to have backfired spectacularly since most people completely missed the satire and loved the game for all those recycled elements.

Here's the interview, it's quite interesting:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/12/19/far-cry-3s-jeffrey-yohalem-on-racism-torture-and-satire/

"RPS: Would you suggest that one of those destabilisations is what has been perceived as racism?


Jeffrey Yohalem: Yes! It’s NOT! It’s the opposite! The game is the opposite. It’s so funny to me. I’ve seen these arguments on forums, and I think these arguments are fantastic because people are engaging in a discussion about art, which is exactly what I was hoping would happen. But, the game’s argument is that Jason is basically used by everyone on the island – Jason is basically a gun, that is upgraded by the natives on the island. It’s the opposite of Avatar. And it’s fantastic to me, because Citra is standing in front of the home tree when you first meet her, you’re called Snow White, the people are called the Rakyat, which means “the people”. It’s the laziest name for a tribe ever, they’re not real, they’re a metaphor. People need to be looking at the names of these things. There are all kinds of secrets in this game for people to figure out, that tie into the main plot. It’s all part of what the game is trying to say.


I wanted to create this gigantic riddle. I created the glyph puzzles in Assassin’s Creed 2 and Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood, and this is a gigantic glyph puzzle."

Farlander1991
06-06-2015, 02:39 PM
Depends who you ask, really. I've read quite a few reviews of AC1 that said the white room speeches were too long and didn't make sense. When AC2 came out with its bite-sized "requiescat in pace" scenes, people said it was a much better, more sensible way to do things. Because **** artistic choices and moral ambiguity, everything in games should be dumbed down for people with nonexistent attention spans.

To be honest, I too think that AC1 speeches were too long (though, that applies to most dialogues in general in the game) and that it would benefit from becoming more lean (which doesn't mean though that they have to last a second or something, or that AC1 doesn't have great dialogue, because it does). In terms of length, AC2 went really overboard with shortness, that's true, but even then, short does not necessarily mean bad, dumbed down or lack of moral ambiguity. Case in point: Bonfire of the Vanities. That lone sequence of AC2 provides more ambiguity and character with its nameless targets than the rest of the whole game. Despite being short, those speeches have raised some questions to think about (regarding nature of control and willingness to be controlled), showed a wide variety of different personalities, and I felt genuinely sorry that some of them had to die.

SixKeys
06-06-2015, 03:13 PM
To be honest, I too think that AC1 speeches were too long (though, that applies to most dialogues in general in the game) and that it would benefit from becoming more lean (which doesn't mean though that they have to last a second or something, or that AC1 doesn't have great dialogue, because it does). In terms of length, AC2 went really overboard with shortness, that's true, but even then, short does not necessarily mean bad, dumbed down or lack of moral ambiguity. Case in point: Bonfire of the Vanities. That lone sequence of AC2 provides more ambiguity and character with its nameless targets than the rest of the whole game. Despite being short, those speeches have raised some questions to think about (regarding nature of control and willingness to be controlled), showed a wide variety of different personalities, and I felt genuinely sorry that some of them had to die.

I don't remember the speeches from that sequence specifically, but you're right that short doesn't equal bad. I was just frustrated that some reviewers seemed to take the stance that AC1's speeches were bad because they were unrealistic. I've always been able to suspend my disbelief for the white room scenes and AC2's super-short ones seemed to be a knee-jerk reaction (like Vieri's "I'm sorry, were you hoping for a confession?").