PDA

View Full Version : Open World: does size matter?



Xstantin
07-13-2015, 03:07 PM
After seeing some comments in Syndicate thread I though it was fitting to make a poll about the size and scale of the open world. Syndicate's London is expected to be bigger that ACU's Paris. As the games seem to get more expansive - do you think it's important for the series to keep expanding?

VestigialLlama4
07-13-2015, 03:26 PM
After seeing some comments in Syndicate thread I though it was fitting to make a poll about the size and scale of the open world. Syndicate's London is expected to be bigger that ACU's Paris. As the games seem to get more expansive - do you think it's important for the series to keep expanding?

I generally prefer going deep instead of going wide. If they can go back to the map of say, Jerusalem in AC1 but make it detailed, like say those small houses were 1:1, there were animals and weather, each interior was explorable, and multiple entries to different houses, different houses are made of different material and this has an impact on structure, whether its destructible, if it can allow for grip and footing while crossing roofs, support beams and so on.

Along with that, if they can put across a class structure and accurate social topography that would be great too. You had that in AC1 too with Rich-Middle-and-Poor district with the Assassin somehow getting an all access pass in all three areas. Interesting but fairly crude. In real-life, a rich man will get mugged in a poor area, a poor man will not be allowed in a rich area. In the middle-class era, rich people get preferable treatment while poor people can get jobs for low pay serving rich clients for the middle-classes. A thieves guild like factions used in the games have to facilitate an underground backdoor economy and this economy has always been presented to us as face value rather than as an aspect of gameplay in the open world. So a bigger map but no corresponding change and development in putting across environmental storytelling and depth of detail in the open world...not on board for it at all.

UNITY's Paris was big but at the end of the day its not really Paris. Its just a 3D model of Paris with some famous monuments for you to Parkour, whereas in earlier games, AC2's Venice for instance felt like Venice, you felt that this was a real place in a real time and AC3, lacking the monuments and trendy historical tourism of European games nonetheless had a genuine sense of place and time. That sense of the past as it could have/might have been is the only important thing in AC openworlds really. Without that, well its GTA without cars you know.

Xstantin
07-13-2015, 03:34 PM
After the Witcher 3 I'm kinda getting over the whole "huge open worlds blah blah" deal myself. I just don't think more space for the sake of it works well tbh

dxsxhxcx
07-13-2015, 03:59 PM
bring multiple cities back!

Sushiglutton
07-13-2015, 04:24 PM
It's a very tricky question imo.

Size def does matter to some extent. For example I felt like the cities in AC4 were a bit small to feel like cities (perhaps this was historically intentional or something, I wouldn't know). I also think variety is worth more than the sum of its part. Games that do this well is GTA V and AC4. The transition between the various types of enviroment is really powerful and add a lot to the experience imo. Thnings like weather, seasons, day night cycle are other ways to get a similar effect.

Then we have the question of what content you are actually able to fill the world with. Games like AC1 and Just Cause 2 I feel were way to big in proportion to the content they offer. I feel like Ubi is overcompensating for this in their latest OW games by making sure there's a certain icon-density in the world. I don't think there's anything wrong with having some vast spaces witout much organized content. The feel of discovering something on your own is completely lost in Ubi's games. There must be some middleground between AC1 and FarCry 4.

To sell the feel of a wilderness you also need a certain size and openess. This I thought AC3 did very well. The Frontier was large enough to feel like untamed wilderness imo. AC4's jungles on the other hand did not work for me as they felt like dressed up corridors. At the same time I felt like the world as a whole worked very well in AC4 mostly thanks to the variety in as mentioned above.


TLDR:
So this random ramble boils down to: Yes, size matters. You need a big enough space to sell the illusion of city/wilderness. Once you get there though it's better to aim for variety as that adds way more value than the sum of its parts. A rural area and a city, or multiple cities both work well. There needs to be a combination of areas with more organized, narrative heavy quests and areas which you, the player, can discover for yourself (ofc there should be hidden rewards and systemic gameplay in these areas).




I generally prefer going deep instead of going wide. If they can go back to the map of say, Jerusalem in AC1 but make it detailed, like say those small houses were 1:1, there were animals and weather, each interior was explorable, and multiple entries to different houses, different houses are made of different material and this has an impact on structure, whether its destructible, if it can allow for grip and footing while crossing roofs, support beams and so on.

Along with that, if they can put across a class structure and accurate social topography that would be great too. You had that in AC1 too with Rich-Middle-and-Poor district with the Assassin somehow getting an all access pass in all three areas. Interesting but fairly crude. In real-life, a rich man will get mugged in a poor area, a poor man will not be allowed in a rich area. In the middle-class era, rich people get preferable treatment while poor people can get jobs for low pay serving rich clients for the middle-classes. A thieves guild like factions used in the games have to facilitate an underground backdoor economy and this economy has always been presented to us as face value rather than as an aspect of gameplay in the open world. So a bigger map but no corresponding change and development in putting across environmental storytelling and depth of detail in the open world...not on board for it at all.

UNITY's Paris was big but at the end of the day its not really Paris. Its just a 3D model of Paris with some famous monuments for you to Parkour, whereas in earlier games, AC2's Venice for instance felt like Venice, you felt that this was a real place in a real time and AC3, lacking the monuments and trendy historical tourism of European games nonetheless had a genuine sense of place and time. That sense of the past as it could have/might have been is the only important thing in AC openworlds really. Without that, well its GTA without cars you know.

So basically you are saying you want them to use a more artistic touch to get the feel (like class differences for example) of the city rather than an engineering approach of doing things as accurately as possible?

VestigialLlama4
07-13-2015, 04:50 PM
So basically you are saying you want them to use a more artistic touch to get the feel (like class differences for example) of the city rather than an engineering approach of doing things as accurately as possible?

Precisely.

The point of historical tourism in AC games is that you are interacting with these virtual monuments in a way you can never do so with actual historical monuments today. You cannot climb the Colosseum today but you can in Rome, you can leap column to column, you can grip on the most fragile parts of the Roman Forum (a highly endangered monument complex). And of course by visiting the past you see things and places that don't exist, like the Paris of the Revolution is not the Paris today it has many buildings that disappeared later.

Its not just about openworld in period.

D.I.D.
07-13-2015, 05:45 PM
Torn on this. It can be smaller and be better, if it's a smaller setting. I do think it can be bigger too.

It's technically impossible at this point to represent latter-half 19th century London in a game. However, if data was no issue -- if Ubisoft was willing to make that city? I'd want every last brick. I'd want to be able to wander into every street in which I can walk in London today, and into the streets and spaces that no longer exist or are no longer open to me. I'm sure Syndicate will still be a nice environment in which to wander, but those invisible walls are really going to feel like a cage this time.

There's always something to be said for small environments, particularly when the game's protagonist is in their home environment. A small town/city can be quickly learned, and your familiarity plays into how well you lock with that character: he/she is 'home', and you are too. I never enjoy GTA/Watch Dogs/Sleeping Dogs-esque games as much the first time as I do in subsequent playthroughs for that reason; you lose a little bit of novelty in exchange for a much greater connection to your environment. All these games feature greatly condensed versions of their real-life counterparts, and you generally become completely enmeshed with them in the final quarter of your first playthrough.

However, in a city like London, which at this time is reaching those proportions at which a place becomes almost unknowable, that's not so much of an issue and the greater scale can be a huge asset. If missions send me to a place in which I'm completely fresh, I can share in the character's unease at being away from their home district. The scale can encourage wandering purely as a pursuit of curiosity, and still leave parts of the map barely explored or completely unexplored by the game's end. I'd love a map that's bigger than its game, so that DLC can take us to those unused districts which never saw action in the main part. It would be even better if these massive cities hosted a game and its expansion follow-up in the same environment, so that we can play a sequel in almost the same place next year (aside from architectural modifications for changes in the years of the historical period) and the pair of games can enjoy an extra year of improvements and corrections that result in a product that's truly as good as it can be.

It's a pipe dream, given the problems of storage space on discs and the time and resources involved, but if they can go big then I'd be in favour of it.

BananaBlighter
07-13-2015, 05:54 PM
I'd say keep it the same size and develop the variety and atmosphere, though with something like Syndicate with so much transport and very wide streets, it's important for the map to be large. I really don't like being familiar with the streets. It's cool when you're exploring unfamiliar streets and then out of nowhere you come across a familiar landmark.

Shahkulu101
07-13-2015, 06:20 PM
I prefer modest maps that are dense and detailed rather than big just for the sake of scale or realism. Smaller cites allow for multiple locations too, something I'd love to be brought back because it's nice to have some variety in a single open world game, with each location providing a distinct atmosphere and opening up new possibilities for the player.

SixKeys
07-13-2015, 06:31 PM
Voted multiple cities and cutting back on scale. AC2-style cities would be perfect IMO. Each location had its own distinct atmosphere and color scheme, same with AC1. AC4's cities were all right, but a bit samey with the scenery. I think the size would have been fine had the cities had more individual flavour, and maybe more land-based gameplay. Havana was beautiful but there wasn't a lot to do there. 1:1 is nice, but I wouldn't mind going back to smaller scale if it meant having more varied locations in the game, and maybe more emphasis on other aspects of gameplay. The ambitiousness of the city of Paris was the #1 reason for Unity's framerate problems. Now they're going even bigger with Syndicate. It doesn't seem logical.

SpiritOfNevaeh
07-13-2015, 11:16 PM
Voted multiple cities and cutting back on scale. AC2-style cities would be perfect IMO. Each location had its own distinct atmosphere and color scheme, same with AC1. AC4's cities were all right, but a bit samey with the scenery. I think the size would have been fine had the cities had more individual flavour, and maybe more land-based gameplay. Havana was beautiful but there wasn't a lot to do there. 1:1 is nice, but I wouldn't mind going back to smaller scale if it meant having more varied locations in the game, and maybe more emphasis on other aspects of gameplay. The ambitiousness of the city of Paris was the #1 reason for Unity's framerate problems. Now they're going even bigger with Syndicate. It doesn't seem logical.

Took the words out of my mouth.

And they can lighten up on the collectibles a bit too DX

Xstantin
07-13-2015, 11:28 PM
And they can lighten up on the collectibles a bit too DX

I don't even go for "open every chests" trophies anymore :nonchalance:

pacmanate
07-14-2015, 01:17 PM
Multiple Cities.


The larger the cities get, the worse they perform, at least I can say that about Unity and Syndicate. You also don't explore as much of it either except if you go chasing all the collectibles.
You can even tell in Syndicate that the graphics have been toned back, I have seen so many previewers saying that the textures are worse to make the framerate better. Why make such a huge city if it doesn't look beautiful? Cut it down by a third and you will still have a huge city and it will look great.

Then again, multiple cities also mean that you really do get a different "flavour" depending on each one you visit. They tried it with Unity but I only really noticed 3 districts being different and frankly it was boring to me.

D.I.D.
07-14-2015, 02:31 PM
Multiple Cities.


The larger the cities get, the worse they perform, at least I can say that about Unity and Syndicate. You also don't explore as much of it either except if you go chasing all the collectibles.
You can even tell in Syndicate that the graphics have been toned back, I have seen so many previewers saying that the textures are worse to make the framerate better. Why make such a huge city if it doesn't look beautiful? Cut it down by a third and you will still have a huge city and it will look great.

Not necessarily. The game world is only that bubble around you. Making the map smaller does not necessarily alter performance.

LoyalACFan
07-16-2015, 06:54 AM
*insert obligatory "size doesn't matter" joke here because deep down I'm twelve years old*

Really though, multiple cities are nice, but I think the real goal should just be diversity in general, not necessarily spread across different maps. I think it was Sushi who mentioned Grand Theft Auto V, which is perfectly on point. The map is huge, but but none of it feels samey. You have three basic types of locales (city, towns, rural) and then several subdivisions within each class (e.g. the city is divided into a downtown area, ritzy gated communities, ghettos, business districts, and tourist traps; the rural area is split into deserts, mountains, swamps, forests, and so on) so that everywhere you go in the game feels unique and worth exploring. This was one of Black Flag's greatest strengths too. Tired of the open sea? Check out a port city, or a fishing village, or a jungle island, or an underwater cave.

To this end, I really think they should abandon the whole "historically accurate cities" nonsense. AC1 and and the Ezio trilogy fudged the hell out of their respective cities, and they're still by and large the most fondly remembered. The priorities of making an interesting game space should come way before any concern for historical accuracy. Paris was beautiful, but I have to admit that after a while the different districts started to blend together.

So I guess my point is that large is good, provided that you have enough diversity to spice it up. And of course enough engaging activities to fill the map space, not zillions of collectibles.

VestigialLlama4
07-16-2015, 07:12 AM
To this end, I really think they should abandon the whole "historically accurate cities" nonsense. AC1 and and the Ezio trilogy fudged the hell out of their respective cities,

Not really. In the case of AC1, you didn't have a great deal of information on those cities in that time and place to start with (same with AC3), but they did try to be as accurate as they could. Renaissance Italy was far more accurate and hence the databases, Patrice Desilets was really passionate about that.


The priorities of making an interesting game space should come way before any concern for historical accuracy.

Its been demonstrated that Unity was in fact not in the slightest historically accurate at all. So, if lack of concern for historical accuracy led to UNITY then I think being historically accurate or rather, interested in historical period, is in fact the answer.


Paris was beautiful, but I have to admit that after a while the different districts started to blend together.

Paris is missing several aspects that defined the Revolutionary era. For one thing, the city is a lot bigger than real-life Paris at the time. The real-life Paris of the 1790s had fewer public spaces and neighbourhoods clustered on each other, think poor-district Acre or Middle District Damascus. The people were also a lot more vigilant and suspicious so, Arno should have had a harder time blending in. The game also puts in anachronistic 19th Century storefront signage when they had medieval signs that hung out flat to people walking on footpaths. Most important thing they left out is the carriages. Paris had crazy carriage traffic at the time, with traffic jams with various carriages and fights breaking out with taxi drivers (they introduced this in Syndicate because of the lazy association with London and period-movie tropes when Paris had actually introduced all that way before). Then of course, Paris was the first city in Europe to have street-lighting at night (they introduced that during the Reign of Terror) and while you do have night scenes in the game its not really "night" of course and they missed the occassion to have light and shadow in the game also the city was divided into several sections (wards) which tended to fight each other and form distinct communities. UNITY's Paris is just a CGI presentation of old Paris, its not an actual openworld AC city.

Sorrosyss
07-17-2015, 12:45 PM
Yep, multiple cities voter here too.

Even if you look back at AC1, the cities were not massive, but having a few of them, and the zone connecting them, genuinely gave a sense of a larger game world than it was.

Paris is massive. And it does have some unique architecture, but after many hours, some of the streets do start to look the same. I have found this recently in Witcher 3, where some of the zones are ginormous. But then you go from one village to the next, past the same trees, and the same fields, to see the same village house models.

I feel there is an argument to be had for more variety in these worlds. From a developers standpoint it is easier for them to copy and paste in bulk, and I totally understand that. But as many have said, size is not necessarily better than having some different sights to see. Frankly it rewards exploration to see something new. For this reason, I'd be happy to go smaller scale, but more variety in locations. And not hidden behind water like AC4. Once you have seen the sea, you've seen it literally everywhere. In short, something akin to the AC1 model would be a preference for me.

steveeire
07-17-2015, 01:29 PM
Is "Just add more chests and animus fragments!" a Joke?

VestigialLlama4
07-17-2015, 02:28 PM
Is "Just add more chests and animus fragments!" a Joke?

You asking that question is a funnier joke.

Mataresian
07-18-2015, 09:34 AM
I've been most enjoying the games with multiple cities, connected through a countryside/forest,etc. Trapped in one big city, albeit very beautiful, feels very limited. With false hope I,ve tried exiting Paris through Saint-Lambert, only to be about to be desynchronized :(

SofaJockey
07-18-2015, 10:52 AM
Is "Just add more chests and animus fragments!" a Joke?

I enjoy opening chest and collecting animus fragments.
There should be double the number,
all chests should be locked with the hardest lock mechanism
and all the animus fragments should be off the branches of trees where the jump to them is really hard to do.

Actually,... no, let's not do that...

steveeire
07-18-2015, 02:11 PM
They should have chest and stuff just not so many, and for the love of god allow us to smash the locks open like in black flag, speed is the key, you should be able to everything lightning fast.

pacmanate
07-18-2015, 04:16 PM
Not necessarily. The game world is only that bubble around you. Making the map smaller does not necessarily alter performance.

However it depends what its filled with. Like Unity's crowds that allowed us Console owners to get a low 20fps on street level.

SixKeys
07-18-2015, 10:02 PM
However it depends what its filled with. Like Unity's crowds that allowed us Console owners to get a low 20fps on street level.

The crowds weren't really the problem, the detailed, seamless interiors were. I recall someone doing some testing in crowded areas without a lot of buildings and they said the crowds barely affected the framerate at all, but as soon as they went near a palace or church, the framerate took a nosedive.

Megas_Doux
07-18-2015, 10:06 PM
Gotta say I kinda missed correcting you :p So here we go:


but they did try to be as accurate as they could.



I won´t deny that, however Acre is the most inaccurate city so far! Something I´m truly glad for. If there´s something I love about AC I and AC II is how different its locations feel.




Paris is missing several aspects that defined the Revolutionary era. For one thing, the city is a lot bigger than real-life Paris at the time.



You´re wrong:

ACU paris,1789: http://transparent-aluminium.net/Gallery/assassins-creed-unity-guillotine-edition/Assassins-Creed-Unity-Guillotine-Edition-Map-2.jpg I don´t have the game on me right now, but it was like 2000 m x 2000 m of size.

Real Paris,1797: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/1797_Jean_Map_of_Paris_and_the_Faubourgs,_France_-_Geographicus_-_Paris-jean-1797.jpg


Île de la Cité alone is roughly 1 km long, so you can clearly see that Real life Paris is bigger than ACU Paris......


I do agree with you on the carriages thing, though.



It's a very tricky question imo.

Size def does matter to some extent. For example I felt like the cities in AC4 were a bit small to feel like cities (perhaps this was historically intentional or something, I wouldn't know). .



Havana was severely scaled down despite the addition of the then non existent cathedral, for that one was finished in 1777. Havana had a population that excelled both NY and Boston at the time of AC III, in fact only Mexico City and either Cusco or Lima were bigger in terms of size and crowd. Yet and despite the fact I do like it, the city feels rather small even compared to Boston and NY, heck even several of is fortifications are either missing or poorly represented. However, I do understand the developers wanted to emphasize the Caribbean and its many islands, which leads me to the following:

After having played both GTA V and The Witcher 3 at 60 fps with little to no problems I can say that Bigger, better and more diverse is theoretically possible! The problem relies that such level of achievement requires A LOT OF TIME, element that under the current annualization model, well.......

It seems both the developers and us the fans have to choose and can´t have them all. Based of that scenario, I prefer multiple and diverse decent size maps over one that´s really big alone.

Xstantin
07-18-2015, 10:23 PM
After having played both GTA V and The Witcher 3 at 60 fps with little to no problems I can say that Bigger, better and more diverse is theoretically possible!


Maybe I'm just not too pleased with the game but the Witcher gets really boring with "?" and smuggler caches after the first three, just like AC and chests. Imo that game just got too much space, pretty as it is.

Megas_Doux
07-18-2015, 10:28 PM
Maybe I'm just not too pleased with the game but the Witcher gets really boring with "?" and smuggler caches after the first three, just like AC and chests. Imo that game just got too much space, pretty as it is.

You have a point!!! Thing is I was and still am so in love with that game I even denied its graphical downgrade at one point....:p

VestigialLlama4
07-19-2015, 06:21 AM
Gotta say I kinda missed correcting you :p So here we go:

I on the other hand genuinely missed you.


I won´t deny that, however Acre is the most inaccurate city so far! Something I´m truly glad for. If there´s something I love about AC I and AC II is how different its locations feel.

Its hard to say which is the most "inaccurate" city:

-- Acre is only inaccurate architecturally, and even then you can't call it inaccurate since you don't have anything to compare it too, I mean yes, a Gothic Cathedral in Acre is fantastic but there's no evidence to say that it didn't exist:o. All kidding aside, it does get other details its accurate for instance, like the fact that its a Crusader city and a big port in the Mediterranean. Everything else they had to redo and work out of scratch.

-- In ROGUE, they introduced "Gangs" a full century before they appeared to prominence in the 1800s. One thing they do miss out is the number of prostitutes that should have been in New York. New York's waterfront was famous in accounts at that time for being a semi-slum district with lots of prostitutes on the streets and several brothels. So much so that, George Washington, being prim and repressed, hated to step into the city.

-- BROTHERHOOD. Rome cheats by introducing Baroque architecture to the Renaissance (where Patrice Desilets refused to put Michelangelo's ceiling on the Sistine Chapel in AC2). It does not include the Jewish Quarter of Rome, undoubtedly because it makes Rodrigo Borgia look good and the Assassins look really bad. Even Venice is missing the Jewish presence in the city at the end of the 1400s (they would form the first "ghetto" which is a Venetian slang word for garbage heap since that's where they were forced to live). I must say its a bit of a double standard on the part of the developers to say that racism and bigotry is an exclusively New World phenomenon (since it only appears in AC3 and Black Flag) and not tackle the bigotry of Old Europe. The fact that it makes the French Revolution, the world's first anti-racist movement, into a bad thing, is kind of telling.


You´re wrong:

What I said was "Paris is missing several aspects that defined the Revolutionary era. For one thing, the city is a lot bigger than real-life Paris at the time. The real-life Paris of the 1790s had fewer public spaces and neighbourhoods clustered on each other, think poor-district Acre or Middle District Damascus."

I don't mean scale-wise (leaving aside 1:1 buildings). I meant proportionate size. There are too many wide streets in Paris (closer in style to AC3) for instance and not as many narrow claustrophobic spaces like in AC1. Revolutionary Paris was an era of transformation, where a medieval city becomes a proto-modern city. But it was still largely medieval. These wider streets are filled with crowds but not carriages (which would realistically accomodate the wider streets and prevent the traffic jams that came as a result of congestion). So UNITY's Paris is a hodgepodge of bad ideas on the whole.

The_Kiwi_
07-20-2015, 12:36 AM
Size doesn't matter at all
A selling point of Unity was the size of Paris, but when 50% (generalising) isn't even used for anything other than to hide collectibles, it becomes wasted space
The game doesn't need a big city to be a good game, I say that it can even make it worse

Alphacos007
07-20-2015, 01:16 AM
Maybe I'm just not too pleased with the game but the Witcher gets really boring with "?" and smuggler caches after the first three, just like AC and chests. Imo that game just got too much space, pretty as it is.

Agreed, I did everything in the game except go to these random locations. Still, the world is used to a large extent. If you make all sidequests, you'll visit at least 75% of the map.

LieutenantRex
07-20-2015, 02:15 AM
Making AC linear would be perhaps one of the greatest revolutionary modifications that the series could have to date. I believe people are as bored as they are detached with the spammy open world side missions that are the series' staple for 'freeroam content'. There is no real reason why the games should be open world, in all honesty. All of the historical ambience and atmosphere can be employed in a linear game just as well, heck, perhaps even better than, in an open world game. And there is a difference between open world and sandbox, the latter which I believe the new linear Assassin's Creed should and would embrace fully in terms of assassination missions.

Scrap the freeroam open world; put more time into level design, including set stages for sections of city/historical location; leave assassination missions sandbox in construct and allow the player to have fun.

Alphacos007
07-20-2015, 02:18 AM
Making AC linear would be perhaps one of the greatest revolutionary modifications that the series could have to date. I believe people are as bored as they are detached with the spammy open world side missions that are the series' staple for 'freeroam content'. There is no real reason why the games should be open world, in all honesty. All of the historical ambience and atmosphere can be employed in a linear game just as well, heck, perhaps even better than, in an open world game. And there is a difference between open world and sandbox, the latter which I believe the new linear Assassin's Creed should and would embrace fully in terms of assassination missions.

Scrap the freeroam open world; put more time into level design, including set stages of sections of city/historical location; leave assassination missions sandbox in construct and allow the player to have fun.

I'll have to disagree. I like them beeing open world, exploring the city and admiring the views are great.

*Prepares to get punched on the face* I wish the missions were linear though, the most fun missions are the linear/cinematic ones, like the one where Black Beard dies, for example.

SixKeys
07-20-2015, 05:47 AM
*Prepares to get punched on the face* I wish the missions were linear though, the most fun missions are the linear/cinematic ones, like the one where Black Beard dies, for example.

*punches you in the face*

Have we forgotten all about AC3? Almost every single mission was linear and all were terrible.

LieutenantRex
07-20-2015, 05:55 AM
*punches you in the face*

Have we forgotten all about AC3? Almost every single mission was linear and all were terrible.

I beg to differ: remember the mission where you got to chase Charles Lee and assassinate him in gameplay?

Xstantin
07-20-2015, 06:56 AM
I beg to differ: remember the mission where you got to chase Charles Lee and assassinate him in gameplay?

Yeah, he ran like a horse and died in a cutscense.

Alphacos007
07-20-2015, 02:30 PM
*punches you in the face*

Have we forgotten all about AC3? Almost every single mission was linear and all were terrible.

I actually kinda like the AC3 missions, but yea, they are kind of an exception. I meant the linear missions from the other games, like the tombs in AC2, or that mission where Ezio follows a boat in revelations, or that one where you have to steal the medicine in AC4...I REALLY like those.

SixKeys
07-20-2015, 10:25 PM
I actually kinda like the AC3 missions, but yea, they are kind of an exception. I meant the linear missions from the other games, like the tombs in AC2, or that mission where Ezio follows a boat in revelations, or that one where you have to steal the medicine in AC4...I REALLY like those.

The tombs I like, but those are side missions. I don't like the mission in ACR precisely because it's linear. It plays exactly the same upon each replay. I forget what the AC4 mission is like. But in general I prefer open world because each replay can be different.

The level of linearity I'm okay with is the Viana mission in ACB. The map is large enough that it allows for at least a couple of different ways to approach guards (you can sneak past or rush into battle) but also limited enough that they could afford to make it an epic backdrop. You've got cannon balls flying, fires blazing, people running and fighting soldiers etc., yet you still have enough space to vary your approach.

Alphacos007
07-20-2015, 11:12 PM
Eh, each person has their taste, right? I'm more of a linear approach, I only love the complete open world on the assassination missions.
That Viana mission is still pretty good though.

The_Kiwi_
07-21-2015, 02:19 AM
Eh, each person has their taste, right? I'm more of a linear approach, I only love the complete open world on the assassination missions.
That Viana mission is still pretty good though.

I agree
AC should be linear and I prefer it that way

steveeire
07-21-2015, 11:30 AM
I beg to differ: remember the mission where you got to chase Charles Lee and assassinate him in gameplay?

You mean the worst mission in the game?

LoyalACFan
07-22-2015, 01:20 AM
You mean the worst mission in the game?

Sarcasm mate, you never assassinate Lee in gameplay.

Though really, I'd hardly call that the worst mission in the game...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fox-BuLbxk

TO_M
07-22-2015, 03:01 AM
I hope Ubi will soon decide to go back to multiple smaller cities. AC 2 had the perfect cities imo, 2 relatively large ones and the two smaller ones. I especially loved the smaller one with the long name (that I seem to have forgotten).

And making AC linear would most likely be the worst thing for this series.

LoyalACFan
07-22-2015, 03:47 AM
I hope Ubi will soon decide to go back to multiple smaller cities. AC 2 had the perfect cities imo, 2 relatively large ones and the two smaller ones. I especially loved the smaller one with the long name (that I seem to have forgotten).

And making AC linear would most likely be the worst thing for this series.

San Gimignano? Yeah, it was pretty great. All those gigantic towers packed into such a small space, it was kind of surreal. Like a modern downtown city in the 1400s.

Consus_E
07-22-2015, 10:06 AM
San Gimignano? Yeah, it was pretty great. All those gigantic towers packed into such a small space, it was kind of surreal. Like a modern downtown city in the 1400s.

My dream AC city is something the similar to San Gimignano in terms of versatility with the empty countryside replaced with a vast forest/jungle frontier area.
Sigh a man can dream...

Xstantin
07-22-2015, 06:49 PM
San Gimignano was a cool map

Consus_E
07-22-2015, 07:37 PM
San Gimignano was a cool map

Forli and San Gimignano are the two most underrated maps in AC IMO.

RinoTheBouncer
07-22-2015, 07:40 PM
Make it smaller and richer in story-driven missions and variable types of buildings and environments.
Bring multiple cities back.
Make AC more linear. Let it focus more on the story and story driven missions than on random roaming and collectibles.

steveeire
07-28-2015, 04:55 PM
Sarcasm mate, you never assassinate Lee in gameplay.

Though really, I'd hardly call that the worst mission in the game...


No your right that one was, but the Lee one closely follows it, I hate that mission.

steveeire
07-28-2015, 05:07 PM
I hate if for different reasons.

pacmanate
07-28-2015, 05:22 PM
Make AC more linear. Let it focus more on the story and story driven missions than on random roaming and collectibles.

Making AC more linear wont make it more story focused. Thats down to the people that write the games.

itsamea-mario
07-28-2015, 06:57 PM
http://i.imgur.com/JKxUzUR.jpg

Hans684
07-31-2015, 10:40 PM
uhhhh ?
I don't get this reference :confused:

Internet hasn't ruined you yet.

The_Kiwi_
08-01-2015, 12:43 AM
They're next next gen chickens