PDA

View Full Version : Ubiblog: AC - How it all began



HDinHB
08-26-2015, 08:00 AM
Ubiblog is doing a retrospective of the previous (7? 8? 9?) games leading up to the release of Syndicate in two months.
http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-how-it-all-began/


...other games let me sprint up the sides of skyscrapers or painstakingly climb giant structures, but none possessed the same balance of elegance and believability that made Assassinís Creed so instantly memorable. Before AC, clambering from street to rooftop was either comically effortless or a frustrating test of skill; here, parkour looked difficult despite being easy to pull off, which brought a weird sense of satisfaction. Even its climbing puzzles were deceptively straightforward; getting up to precarious viewpoints looked and felt like a life-or-death struggle....

What a great comment! I do miss that feeling of accomplishment in completing the free-running challenges in the older games.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUFWNsH7s8o

After reading the blog and watching the video, I think I'm more excited for AC1 than Syndicate--it looks like a great game!

VestigialLlama4
08-26-2015, 08:09 AM
Assassin's Creed 1 is still a great game, Patrice Desilets considers it the purest and I agree. AC1 is aesthetically the most satisfying and purposeful of the games.

HDinHB
09-03-2015, 06:05 AM
Ubiblog continues its retrospective of the series leading up to Syndicate...

http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-ii-how-the-series-evolved/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZbDs0crNfg



The first Assassinís Creed was a beautiful, engrossing historical re-creation, but Assassinís Creed II did it one better with the addition of a strong personal angle. Where Altair was silent and aloof, Ezio was a cocky teenager who loved his family.... Ezioís journey became my journey, and through him, I found ways to connect and relate to an era that...seemed like a musty, art-obsessed half-step between the medieval world and the early modern one. Assassinís Creed II brought it to life....

Assassinís Creed II was also a huge expansion of the seriesí modern-day elements, and I donít just mean Desmondís story. The Glyph puzzles built up what was already a heady sense of sci-fi mystery, pulling back the veil to reveal a secret war between Templars and Assassins that had lasted eons, involved countless historical figures and built the Templars into a worldwide shadow government.

And also tombs. And swimming. And...

VestigialLlama4
09-03-2015, 07:39 AM
They are basically saying that they made AC-2 easier than AC-1, which it is. But yeah, AC-2 is where historical tourism became the central part of the games. It was there to a slight extent in AC-1 but not too much because not a lot survives from the Crusades but Renaissance Italy was too well preserved to neglect.

By the way they call Altair penniless, but that's not really accurate. Altair doesn't need money since he's part of the Assassins so all he needs are weapons, upgrades and places to rest and he gets that by working for a publicly known organization with bureaus in multiple cities. Ezio is an underground behind the scenes guy so he has to invest in other businesses.

Overall AC-2 is only slightly innovative compared to AC-1. What it does is make it more open-world by giving you an economy and side missions which is justified because the Assassins are now an underground behind the scenes organization but at its core its just more streamlined gameplay compared to AC-1.

I think the main reason why AC-2 works is simply the setting and the light-hearted adventure novel tone of the story. It had this old-fashioned quality when it came out and that's what people like about it. The huge historical cast and committment added to that. Alongside that you have Jesper Kyd's music. Its a real Hollywood movie in that sense whereas AC-1 was kind of this edgy independent movie.

Thirty bucks says that when they get to AC-3 they will spend four minutes talking about how cool Haytham was and devote ten seconds to Connor.

EmptyCrustacean
09-03-2015, 03:57 PM
Badass:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xkCPNECud8

SixKeys
09-03-2015, 05:37 PM
These videos are making me want to play the early games for the umpteenth time. :D Can't wait till they get to Brotherhood.

Farlander1991
09-03-2015, 05:43 PM
Nice videos. Though, considering that these are the things that the developers themselves try to fix (successfully or unsuccessfully, depends) or balance out in the later titles, it's weird to hear counter-attacks in AC1/AC2 and medicine in AC2 making Assassin nigh impossible to kill being talked about like it's a positive.

BananaBlighter
09-03-2015, 07:12 PM
I like these videos a lot, though I wonder what they're going to say when they get to Syndicate (not that I think it's the least innovative of the games). Probably the usual: Carriages (GTA), new combat (Batman), rope launcher (Batman), Invisibility (Why Ubi? Why?), Trains (Thomas the Tank Engine).

It's funny that instead of saying, "AC2 was easier than AC1," they instead said, "Ezio was more skilled than Altair,". Yes, standing in a crowd of civilians, wearing white hooded robes, officially makes Ezio 'better at stealth'.

VestigialLlama4
09-03-2015, 08:21 PM
I like these videos a lot, though I wonder what they're going to say when they get to Syndicate (not that I think it's the least innovative of the games). Probably the usual: Carriages (GTA), new combat (Batman), rope launcher (Batman), Invisibility (Why Ubi? Why?), Trains (Thomas the Tank Engine).

These are retrospectives after all, its full of spoilers so I don't think you will have nor should they have one for Syndicate. Let the game out, less than two months away.


It's funny that instead of saying, "AC2 was easier than AC1," they instead said, "Ezio was more skilled than Altair,". Yes, standing in a crowd of civilians, wearing white hooded robes, officially makes Ezio 'better at stealth'.

Especially since Ezio needs a moving squadron of prostitutes to "blend in" whereas Altair did the whole heads-low, hands pressed and walk slowly thing to get the hell away.

GunnerGalactico
09-03-2015, 09:43 PM
Watching those videos brought back a lot of nostalgia to me.

EmptyCrustacean
09-03-2015, 10:08 PM
Watching those videos brought back a lot of nostalgia to me.

Sucker. ;)

SixKeys
09-04-2015, 05:50 AM
These are retrospectives after all, its full of spoilers so I don't think you will have nor should they have one for Syndicate. Let the game out, less than two months away.

Holy s***, you're right. The game does come out pretty soon. Makes me realize that for once we actually don't know many details about the story. Usually they give out practically the entire plot with several story trailers, promotional videos and big demo missions ripped straight from the game (like AC4's jungle mission at Blackbeard's party and Sivert assassination in Unity). We know ACS is about two orphaned siblings with different methods and the Macguffin is the Shroud, but other than that most of the story is still a mystery. We don't even know whether the targets are mostly historical or fictional, so we can't piece together the plot by looking up the historical timeline. I think it's great.

VestigialLlama4
09-04-2015, 08:36 AM
Holy s***, you're right. The game does come out pretty soon. Makes me realize that for once we actually don't know many details about the story. Usually they give out practically the entire plot with several story trailers, promotional videos and big demo missions ripped straight from the game (like AC4's jungle mission at Blackbeard's party and Sivert assassination in Unity)

Well I don't think there's a big story in Syndicate. Its set in a year and its very Brotherhood-like, so to me this strikes me as a ACB-ACR game. They are advertising systems and locations more this time.


We know ACS is about two orphaned siblings with different methods and the Macguffin is the Shroud, but other than that most of the story is still a mystery.

Bear that in mind there was a lot we didn't know about Black Flag either, we didn't know about James Kidd/Mary Read, we didn't know about Black Bart or the modern day or the Sages. And all that is what 75% percent of the game. They didn't advertise legendary ships.

UNITY's campaign left no surprises, we knew Ubisoft had some man-crush for Napoleon, we knew that Elise was going to get stuffed in the fridge right from her CGI trailer, we knew about Bellec, also time anomalies, they also blabbed about Jacques de Molay a lot. The only thing left was the benefit of the doubt that the game will have some element of surprise like AC3 (Haytham) or Black Flag. It did not.


We don't even know whether the targets are mostly historical or fictional, so we can't piece together the plot by looking up the historical timeline. I think it's great.

I think there will be more fictional than real targets this time. About the only potential surprise is how Karl Marx might fit in, since the trailers heavily hint that he's in the game.

SixKeys
09-04-2015, 01:45 PM
Bear that in mind there was a lot we didn't know about Black Flag either, we didn't know about James Kidd/Mary Read, we didn't know about Black Bart or the modern day or the Sages. And all that is what 75% percent of the game. They didn't advertise legendary ships.

True, although I would argue that Mary Read was almost a given considering we knew they had Anne Bonny in there. It's almost impossible to mention one but not the other. And anyone who knows even a little bit about pirate history wasn't surprised about the crossdressing "reveal".

I guess I was thinking more about the marketing of ACR, AC3 and Unity. ACR was the worst offender: it spoiled its biggest surprises by releasing early clips that introduced us to Clay, Yusuf, the burning of the harbor, Leandros' assassination and Altair saving Al Mualim.

AC3 had a bazillion trailers but now that I think about it, they were pretty good about keeping secrets. Haytham was kept under wraps, so were Desmond's missions, and the demos they released changed some things so they were not 100% ripped from the game. The Frontier demo with the little settler village was entirely made up (for better or for worse) and the fort takeover was actually a Haytham mission in the game.

Unity spoiled the Rifts in a trailer which would have been mindblowing as a surprise. They also released the entire clip of Arno meeting and training with Bellec, the entire Sivert mission, and practically all of Marquis de Sade's scenes. At least the E3 demo wasn't in the game.

VestigialLlama4
09-04-2015, 03:00 PM
Well what was surprising was how prominent Mary Read was in the game. Her being an assassin. She usually isn't featured a great deal in pirate stories. Anne bonny was always more famous. The trailers heavily featured Anne but in the game Mary is a more important character overall while Anne is kind of a supporting figure rather than a key character.

Ultimately it's about a game having surprises or something it believes people will like finding for themselves. Like the arkham games are geniuses for selling one kind of game and then it turns out to be something quite different featuring stuff nobody expected. I like that feeling where you sense the developers promise a bunch of stuff and then it's like you aint seen nothing yet

kosmoscreed
09-05-2015, 09:24 AM
A shame they didn't say anything about the soundtrack of ACII in the last video.

VestigialLlama4
09-05-2015, 09:44 AM
A shame they didn't say anything about the soundtrack of ACII in the last video.

Well its focused on gameplay rather than story or presentation.

Jessigirl2013
09-05-2015, 11:18 AM
Well its focused on gameplay rather than story or presentation.

Yes it seems more focused on gameplay.

VestigialLlama4
09-09-2015, 09:11 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=231&v=OKNN2FP73H0

Brotherhood Retrospective.

"Multiplayer" is the biggest contribution made by Brotherhood to the series!!! So how come its missing from the last three games (Rogue, Unity, Syndicate)?

I like the part where he talks about the Leonardo naval mission and then goes, "which...technically is the first time we did naval missions?" It sounds really spontaneous.

BananaBlighter
09-09-2015, 09:45 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=231&v=OKNN2FP73H0

Brotherhood Retrospective.

"Multiplayer" is the biggest contribution made by Brotherhood to the series!!! So how come its missing from the last three games (Rogue, Unity, Syndicate)?

I like the part where he talks about the Leonardo naval mission and then goes, "which...technically is the first time we did naval missions?" It sounds really spontaneous.

Lol this time he just says, "Next time we're doin' Rev,". In the other two he says,"Next time we're doin' + 'insert_game_title' + which added loads to the series!"

EmptyCrustacean
09-09-2015, 09:50 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=231&v=OKNN2FP73H0

Brotherhood Retrospective.

"Multiplayer" is the biggest contribution made by Brotherhood to the series!!! So how come its missing from the last three games (Rogue, Unity, Syndicate)?

I like the part where he talks about the Leonardo naval mission and then goes, "which...technically is the first time we did naval missions?" It sounds really spontaneous.

Brotherhood is a truly extraordinary game. It introduced so many features which we now take for granted - mission objectives, map liberation, multiplayer, Leonardo's inventions (done properly), riding horses in the city, Assassin recruits, using objects to take down enemies and one big city as opposed to loads of small cities you have to travel between. It's actually overwhelming watching that video.

I want to see how they spin Revelations - the least innovative game in the franchise, even less so than Unity. That's going to be the biggest cringe. :D

Sushiglutton
09-09-2015, 10:09 PM
Brotherhood Retrospective.

"Multiplayer" is the biggest contribution made by Brotherhood to the series!!! So how come its missing from the last three games (Rogue, Unity, Syndicate)?

I like the part where he talks about the Leonardo naval mission and then goes, "which...technically is the first time we did naval missions?" It sounds really spontaneous.


Yeah perhaps the Borgia Towers were a more important addition as variations of them have been the core sandbox activity since.

SixKeys
09-10-2015, 01:40 AM
"Multiplayer" is the biggest contribution made by Brotherhood to the series!!! So how come its missing from the last three games (Rogue, Unity, Syndicate)?

Unity had co-op, which was an evolution of the multiplayer. And that's kind of a poor way of measuring a game's biggest contributions. AC3's biggest contribution was naval and that's missing from the latest games too.

Goddam n, how I miss ACB multiplayer. :(

Next up: Revelations. With its major innovations of.....err....well..... *crickets*

CrossedEagle
09-10-2015, 04:29 AM
I guess they can say Revelations added multiple types of bombs and it had more than one Altair memory?

Funnily enough, Revelations was my first AC game, so while everyone was complaining that it was unoriginal I was experiencing it for the first time. I loved the story though, I think it's the most mature AC story told so far.

RVSage
09-10-2015, 06:06 AM
Next up: Revelations. With its major innovations of.....err....well..... *crickets*

hahaha.. totally agree. Revolutions was the least innovative gameplay wise, but a great instalment story wise... The scene when altair dies :'( :(

VestigialLlama4
09-10-2015, 06:53 AM
Unity had co-op, which was an evolution of the multiplayer. And that's kind of a poor way of measuring a game's biggest contributions. AC3's biggest contribution was naval and that's missing from the latest games too.

Goddam n, how I miss ACB multiplayer. :(

Next up: Revelations. With its major innovations of.....err....well..... *crickets*

Revelations introduced the Hookblade and Ziplining, greatly sped up the traversal and made it dynamic. Stuff like Eagle Flight and Syndicate's Grappling Hook and lines to and fro from buildings are essentially rip offs or variations from this game. Also Revelations introduced the modular bomb mechanic, stun bombs, blood bombs, phosphorus which seems unimportant yes but it led to stuff like Berserk Darts or as Syndicate so helpfully likes to call it, Hallucinogenic Darts (I always find it cute when later installments rename mechanics to try and pass it as new) or Voltaic Bombs (essentially a more advanced modified bomb from ACR's bag of tricks but since it has electric sparks it looks new).

Likewise, Istanbul is the first big city that AC did, I mean Rome was big but it was largely vast tracts of countryside with the only north-east section being urban centers (Centro and Vaticano). Istanbul though is thoroughly urbanized and dense which you can Parkour in and around, diagonally and laterally across a huge terrain, whereas in Rome, you needed a horse to get things done, even in Centro. Until Paris in Unity, Istanbul was the most dense and urbanized city in the games and it's still a formidable second place.

Senningiri_GR
09-10-2015, 11:35 AM
Great videos, reminding us exactly why Assassin's Creed Franchise has been so successful and popular the last years. Especially for those who where in the game since the very begging.

Senningiri_GR
09-10-2015, 11:39 AM
Likewise, Istanbul is the first big city that AC did, I mean Rome was big but it was largely vast tracts of countryside with the only north-east section being urban centers (Centro and Vaticano). Istanbul though is thoroughly urbanized and dense which you can Parkour in and around, diagonally and laterally across a huge terrain, whereas in Rome, you needed a horse to get things done, even in Centro. Until Paris in Unity, Istanbul was the most dense and urbanized city in the games and it's still a formidable second place.

Firstly, it is not Istanbul, it is Constantinople. Also It is 935.800 m2 all buildings while Rome which is 1.414.300 m2 is less than the half city and the rest is the Campagna di Roma. Actually I think Rome is about 500.000 m2 to 600.000 m2

VestigialLlama4
09-10-2015, 11:46 AM
Firstly, it is not Istanbul, it is Constantinople.

So the main Turkish Assassin character introducing himself as "Yusuf Tazim da Istanbul" doesn't register at all to you. The city has many names after all and Istanbul has fewer letters than the other one.


Also It is 935.800 m2 all buildings while Rome which is 1.414.300 m2 is less than the half city and the rest is the Campagna di Roma. Actually I think Rome is about 500.000 m2 to 600.000 m2

What exactly do those numbers mean? Rome's urban district is bigger/smaller/wider?

Senningiri_GR
09-10-2015, 12:31 PM
So the main Turkish Assassin character introducing himself as "Yusuf Tazim da Istanbul" doesn't register at all to you. The city has many names after all and Istanbul has fewer letters than the other one.
The city had many names... firstly by the Greeks (Hellenes) as Byzantium by the name of it's founder Byzantas, then by Constantine the Great as Second Rome, then by the Greeks again as Constantinople (The city of Constantine). Also the Greeks had many different names for the city, as Επταλοφος (Seven Hills City), Βασιλευουσα (Ruling City), Βασιλισσα Πόλεων (Queen of Cities) and Πολις (The City). After the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, it was intented by Mehmed II to be renamed as Islambul (The city where Islam blooms, i think) but it never happened and by the time of the Assassin's Creed Revelations name was Kostantiniyye‎. The "Yusuf Tazim da Istanbul' is an anachronism as this name was given to the city in early 20th century by the Turks which is still Greek as it comes from the Greek εις την Πολιν that is pronounced as "is tin polin" and means: to the City.


Also It is 935.800 m2 all buildings while Rome which is 1.414.300 m2 is less than the half city and the rest is the Campagna di Roma. Actually I think Rome is about 500.000 m2 to 600.000 m2See the map sizes here:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1248842-Assassin-s-Creed-Map-Comparisons?

Rome's size is 1/3 of the map and the rest is the Campagna di Roma that has the ruins of the city that was there during the ancient times. Rome was destroyed many times during the 5th and 6th centuries, by the Gothics, the Romans-Greeks and in the end by the Lombards.

VestigialLlama4
09-10-2015, 05:12 PM
The city had many names...

And one of those names was the Greek phrase "εις την Πόλιν" [istimbolin] which in common usage became Istanbul and was used by Armenians and Arabians in the very recent history of...10th Century CE. It simply means "to the city". So it wasn't anachronistic at all, it was how the common people called the city all the time, including Greeks, Armenians and Turks.


Rome's size is 1/3 of the map and the rest is the Campagna di Roma that has the ruins of the city that was there during the ancient times. Rome was destroyed many times during the 5th and 6th centuries, by the Gothics, the Romans-Greeks and in the end by the Lombards.

What I was discussing is the size of ACR Istanbul and ACB Rome, not real Rome and real Istanbul. I was saying that the urban area of Istanbul is much bigger and much denser than that of the Centro and Vaticano district in ACB Rome. That seems to me to be true empirically anyway.

Senningiri_GR
09-10-2015, 07:55 PM
And one of those names was the Greek phrase "εις την Πόλιν" [istimbolin] which in common usage became Istanbul and was used by Armenians and Arabians in the very recent history of...10th Century CE. It simply means "to the city". So it wasn't anachronistic at all, it was how the common people called the city all the time, including Greeks, Armenians and Turks

For the Arabs and Turks I am not sure about the 10th century. The Armenians called it "Boulis" from Polis (Πολις)


What I was discussing is the size of ACR Istanbul and ACB Rome, not real Rome and real Istanbul. I was saying that the urban area of Istanbul is much bigger and much denser than that of the Centro and Vaticano district in ACB Rome. That seems to me to be true empirically anyway.


These numbers are not from the real world. They are the game maps measured in m2. Check here (http://i.imgur.com/rQmrsBM.jpg)and here (http://i.imgur.com/ajcF2NN.jpg). I have done this measuring.

Farlander1991
09-10-2015, 08:11 PM
The argument about Constantinople's name seems weird. The city is officially called Kostantinyye in the game, as it was historically (foreigners refer to it as Constantinople in the game). Istanbul is used literally just once in the main story in that first dialogue with Yusuf, and maybe a couple of times by citizen NPCs, as a reference to its future name. I mean, in the game it's justified as being one of local's favourite, and really, is there any evidence that it might not be so? The name must've come from somewhere.

VestigialLlama4
09-10-2015, 09:28 PM
The argument about Constantinople's name seems weird.

For me its mostly the fact that its a big deal to some people I call the city Istanbul which I do mainly because its fewer letters to type. I never made any issue about the city's name it's something others bring up. After all that is the name the city is known today for nearly a century and it was one of the names colloquially used for a thousand years by people who lived there (along with Stamboul and others). I mean if AC made a game set in Roman London would there be people posting it here who call it Londonium and not London, or they start calling Paris Lutetia? Sheesh...

I guess some people are still sore about the fall of Constantinople, that one expansionist empire got replaced by another one mostly because the latter knew how to do their job while the former kept going on stupid expansionist campaigns hung over Roman glory.


The city is officially called Kostantinyye in the game, as it was historically (foreigners refer to it as Constantinople in the game). Istanbul is used literally just once in the main story in that first dialogue with Yusuf, and maybe a couple of times by citizen NPCs, as a reference to its future name. I mean, in the game it's justified as being one of local's favourite, and really, is there any evidence that it might not be so? The name must've come from somewhere.

Well its used in another place. Ezio's song as a minstrel:
Konstantiniyye, I beg you
Let Byzantium endure
Constantine's corpse would turn
Had not Istanbul the cure.


I have no idea what that means.

Senningiri_GR
09-12-2015, 12:56 PM
Konstantiniyye, I beg you
Let Byzantium endure
Constantine's corpse would turn
Had not Istanbul the cure.

I am not sure, but I think it is allegoric as this could mead the sadness of Romans for the Fall of the City

And also:
There once was a man named Duccio
A rat with lecherous taste
Whenever he would show himself
My fist would find his face.

HDinHB
09-12-2015, 06:58 PM
The argument about Constantinople's name seems weird. The city is officially called Kostantinyye in the game, as it was historically (foreigners refer to it as Constantinople in the game). Istanbul is used literally just once in the main story in that first dialogue with Yusuf, and maybe a couple of times by citizen NPCs, as a reference to its future name. I mean, in the game it's justified as being one of local's favourite, and really, is there any evidence that it might not be so? The name must've come from somewhere.



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


Alternatively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul#Toponymy but the reasons in the song are probably right.

The name İstanbul is commonly held to derive from the Medieval Greek phrase "εἰς τὴν Πόλιν" (pronounced is tim ˈbolin), which means "to the city" and is how Constantinople was referred to by the local Greeks. This reflected its status as the only major city in the vicinity. An alternative view is that the name evolved directly from the name Constantinople, with the first and third syllables dropped ['stan'ople or 'stan'ple]. A Turkish folk etymology traces the name to...Islambol ("plenty of Islam") or Islambul ("find Islam") as the capital of the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

BananaBlighter
09-30-2015, 08:20 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYVkyw8YShs

Didn't expect them to say much but oh well.

SixKeys
09-30-2015, 08:33 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYVkyw8YShs

Didn't expect them to say much but oh well.

"Oh well" is a pretty accurate description of the game overall. :p Watching this vid, I was reminded of how beautiful the game was at its best, but also how much I disliked about it.

HDinHB
09-30-2015, 11:00 PM
Didn't expect them to say much but oh well.

Took them long enough...

http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-revelations-an-explosive-evolution/

EmptyCrustacean
09-30-2015, 11:15 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYVkyw8YShs

Didn't expect them to say much but oh well.

Wow, Revelations is so much worse than I remembered!!! :mad: What a truly atrocious game. Evident by the fact Ubisoft had to literally scrape the bottom of the barrel to find anything good to say about it which is why it took them so long to put out the video. The hook blade was crap and hasn't been used since. The bomb crafting was a gimmick and again hasn't been used since. Nothing about this game has any lasting worth. It's filler and should never have been released. Makes Unity look like Red Dead Redemption. Garbage.

I'm looking most forward to AC3 video as that game changed the entire series and shaped what we have now.

Ichrukia56
10-01-2015, 01:46 AM
The comments section of that video with people saying that the series went down hill following Revelations is just sad. its true that some really really die hard Ezio fans do not like change good god

VestigialLlama4
10-01-2015, 03:40 AM
Took them long enough...

http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-revelations-an-explosive-evolution/

Might be because of the information blow-out with Syndicate last week.

I must say, they didn't really do justice to Revelations. I mean Istanbul was the most dense city in the games until Paris. Unlike Rome which had Centro-Vaticano and smal towns separated by countryside, this was a really big urbanized city. The Bomb Crafting System also allowed for greater manipulation of crowds than before. It was also a city that allowed for amazing traversal. I mean they talked about the Hookblade but they didn't mention the Parachute. The Parachute was made for Rome but you didn't have many chances to use it in that game. In Revelations, the city topography, the skyline creates perfect chances to travel the entire city that way.

I am glad that the game admitted that the Rope Launcher was inspired by Hookblade and Ziplines. Also Revelations introduced the modular bomb mechanic, stun bombs, blood bombs, phosphorus which seems unimportant yes but it led to stuff like Berserk Darts or as Syndicate so helpfully likes to call it, Hallucinogenic Darts (I always find it cute when later installments rename mechanics to try and pass it as new) or Voltaic Bombs (essentially a more advanced modified bomb from ACR's bag of tricks but since it has electric sparks it looks new).

Revelations for me is the perfect example of a minor game. It perfectly matches its limited ambitions. This is a touristy game about Istanbul, with a touristy plot, a light story and it resolves the stories of Altair and Ezio. It also fleshes out characters well. It does its job better than Rogue does. I wish the Altair sections were better but I like Desmond's Journey, and for me Subject 16's Database entries were a lot better than Shaun. He managed to be informative and personal without making snarky Cockney jokes all the time.

For AC3, they are going to talk a lot about Haytham and Connor being dual protagonists and how that led to Syndicate. How it was the Templar game and the naval.

EmptyCrustacean
10-01-2015, 09:01 AM
7
Might be because of the information blow-out with Syndicate last week.

I must say, they didn't really do justice to Revelations. I mean Istanbul was the most dense city in the games until Paris. Unlike Rome which had Centro-Vaticano and smal towns separated by countryside, this was a really big urbanized city. The Bomb Crafting System also allowed for greater manipulation of crowds than before. It was also a city that allowed for amazing traversal. I mean they talked about the Hookblade but they didn't mention the Parachute. The Parachute was made for Rome but you didn't have many chances to use it in that game. In Revelations, the city topography, the skyline creates perfect chances to travel the entire city that way.

I am glad that the game admitted that the Rope Launcher was inspired by Hookblade and Ziplines. Also Revelations introduced the modular bomb mechanic, stun bombs, blood bombs, phosphorus which seems unimportant yes but it led to stuff like Berserk Darts or as Syndicate so helpfully likes to call it, Hallucinogenic Darts (I always find it cute when later installments rename mechanics to try and pass it as new) or Voltaic Bombs (essentially a more advanced modified bomb from ACR's bag of tricks but since it has electric sparks it looks new).

Revelations for me is the perfect example of a minor game. It perfectly matches its limited ambitions. This is a touristy game about Istanbul, with a touristy plot, a light story and it resolves the stories of Altair and Ezio. It also fleshes out characters well. It does its job better than Rogue does. I wish the Altair sections were better but I like Desmond's Journey, and for me Subject 16's Database entries were a lot better than Shaun. He managed to be informative and personal without making snarky Cockney jokes all the time.

For AC3, they are going to talk a lot about Haytham and Connor being dual protagonists and how that led to Syndicate. How it was the Templar game and the naval.

The rope launcher was not inspired by the hook blade but I knew they were going to say it was just to just make it look like Revelations innovated anything. The rope launcher was inspired by the Arkham games.

And Shaun isn't cockney. :rolleyes:

VestigialLlama4
10-01-2015, 09:58 AM
The rope launcher was not inspired by the hook blade but I knew they were going to say it was just to just make it look like Revelations innovated anything. The rope launcher was inspired by the Arkham games.

And Shay isn't cockney. :rolleyes:

I meant Shaun. Yeah he isn't cockney, it's just that I didn't want to say L-mey.

The rope launcher and zipline is definitely inspired by the Hookblade, and also by Eagle Flight from AC3's Tyranny of King Washington (the project Syndicate's Devs worked on). Eagle Flight allowed you to instantly fly and move in air from different points, facilitating fast and intense traversal. Zipline and hookblade was a precursor to that as well.

The Rope Launcher is essentially an evolution based on that, and yes it resembles the Arkham games (where the Grapnel and the Line Launcher are two different gadgets) but that's more because of genre familiarity than anything else. The Grapnel gun is different in the Arkham games because there gliding is the main means of traversal rather than Parkour.

EmptyCrustacean
10-01-2015, 11:20 AM
I meant Shaun. Yeah he isn't cockney, it's just that I didn't want to say L-mey

So did I! :D Shaun isn't cockney. That is not a cockney accent.



The rope launcher and zipline is definitely inspired by the Hookblade, and also by Eagle Flight from AC3's Tyranny of King Washington (the project Syndicate's Devs worked on). Eagle Flight allowed you to instantly fly and move in air from different points, facilitating fast and intense traversal. Zipline and hookblade was a precursor to that as well.

No, I'm sorry but that's just reaching. Zipline a precursor to Eagle power? Lol ok


The Rope Launcher is essentially an evolution based on that, and yes it resembles the Arkham games (where the Grapnel and the Line Launcher are two different gadgets) but that's more because of genre familiarity than anything else. The Grapnel gun is different in the Arkham games because there gliding is the main means of traversal rather than Parkour.

Same difference. The fact is Batman and the twins both have something that can launch them from building to building without climbing. Only difference is Batman uses this in conjunction with gliding and the twins in conjunction with parkour.

pacmanate
10-01-2015, 01:44 PM
The Rope Launcher is just stupid. Even by todays standards,something that mounts on your wrist that can do that is very futuristic.


Hidden Blade = Can be justified, its just a mechanism
Hidden Gun = Also can be justified, was shown to Altair by the first civ, and its really just gunpowder and a little pellet.
Connors Swivel Blade = Nothing crazy there.
Phantom Blade = Just a spring mechanism, not too radical

Rope Launcher = Tiny wrist mounted device than can propel people up the sides of buildings without snapping, somehow retract, and somehow make a zipline then disappear.

kosmoscreed
10-01-2015, 03:46 PM
I enjoyed Revelations but not as much as I wanted, Amancio overhyped some of the new gameplay additions and when I played the game, almost all of them were meh, that ruinned the game for me and for some reason the story didn't grab me as I expected too. The city was great, all the location in the game in fact.

RVSage
10-01-2015, 04:02 PM
So did I! :D Shaun isn't cockney. That is not a cockney accent.



No, I'm sorry but that's just reaching. Zipline a precursor to Eagle power? Lol ok



Same difference. The fact is Batman and the twins both have something that can launch them from building to building without climbing. Only difference is Batman uses this in conjunction with gliding and the twins in conjunction with parkour.


The Rope Launcher is just stupid. Even by todays standards,something that mounts on your wrist that can do that is very futuristic.


Hidden Blade = Can be justified, its just a mechanism
Hidden Gun = Also can be justified, was shown to Altair by the first civ, and its really just gunpowder and a little pellet.
Connors Swivel Blade = Nothing crazy there.
Phantom Blade = Just a spring mechanism, not too radical

Rope Launcher = Tiny wrist mounted device than can propel people up the sides of buildings without snapping, somehow retract, and somehow make a zipline then disappear.

Oh yea jumping to haystack from a tall tower is realistic , ya Bat Mobile shooting tanks/mercenaries was so realistic. If you are not okay, as I said earlier do not play. And I can say the very concept of detective vision is based on eagle vision. As long as they learn and borrow the good stuff why not???.

Aphex_Tim
10-01-2015, 04:50 PM
For me Revelations is like Unity, in that I don't particularly enjoy the gameplay, except for the free-running, but the beautiful city keeps dragging me back in.

Took 'em long enough with this video by the way. Looking forward to AC3's video.
Not looking forward to that one's comment section though......

VestigialLlama4
10-01-2015, 05:24 PM
Bat Mobile shooting tanks/mercenaries was so realistic.

Batman is a comic book character while AC is broadly historical fiction. Not really comparable. Batman moves around pretending that he doesn't kill people despite beating the flesh off their bones, while Assassins are under no illusions.


And I can say the very concept of detective vision is based on eagle vision. As long as they learn and borrow the good stuff why not???.

Nope. Assassin's Creed 1 came out in 2007, during which time Arkham Asylum was already deep in development before releasing in 2009. And Assassin Creed 1's Eagle Vision was very crude, it just made targets glow in daylight and it can be activated by standing still, it didn't do what it did in later games by becoming X-Ray vision or night-vision. Nor is it as extensive as Detective Vision.

AC2 of course came out in 2009 and it had an evolved Eagle vision as well but still not nearly as extensive as the one in Arkham. Arkham Asylum's Detective Vision influenced other games and it influenced AC starting from Revelations and then in Black Flag and Unity where its X-Ray day-glo that pollutes the Art direction. Arkham Asylum doesn't do that.

RVSage
10-01-2015, 05:33 PM
Batman is a comic book character while AC is broadly historical fiction. Not really comparable. Batman moves around pretending that he doesn't kill people despite beating the flesh off their bones, while Assassins are under no illusions.



Nope. Assassin's Creed 1 came out in 2007, during which time Arkham Asylum was already deep in development before releasing in 2009. And Assassin Creed 1's Eagle Vision was very crude, it just made targets glow in daylight and it can be activated by standing still, it didn't do what it did in later games by becoming X-Ray vision or night-vision. Nor is it as extensive as Detective Vision.

AC2 of course came out in 2009 and it had an evolved Eagle vision as well but still not nearly as extensive as the one in Arkham. Arkham Asylum's Detective Vision influenced other games and it influenced AC starting from Revelations and then in Black Flag and Unity where its X-Ray day-glo that pollutes the Art direction. Arkham Asylum doesn't do that.

Yes 2007, was when AC1 released. Do you really think two years was not a good time to make changes? The base engine would just need some modification. Anyway, my counter point was that Syndicate zipline after all may not be a Arkham thing at all, it could be more an enhancement of TOKW and revelations. But you will never know.

And Bat mobile has been in comics for long. yes. But traditionally it does not have a huge cannon and riffle to shoot people with non lethal rounds. Even though batman is a comic book character. he is the most close to real character, in the entire super hero line up.

Farlander1991
10-01-2015, 05:40 PM
Nope. Assassin's Creed 1 came out in 2007, during which time Arkham Asylum was already deep in development before releasing in 2009.

That's factually not true. Pre-production of Arkham Asylum started in May 2007, production started in September 2007. That's not 'deep in development'.

But, anyway, games, as any other media, always influence each other, and designers always get inspiration from other games. And in terms of mechanics, it's very iterative. Going into 'who did it first' is quite frankly pointless, and sometimes even tricky. Most people will tell you that Gears of War was the first cover-based third person shooter. But the cover mechanic was actually based on the much older kill.switch. And who knows, maybe there was another cover-based shooting game before kill.switch? Not sure.

Sometimes ideas appear at the same time as well. Back in summer 2011 when I was at VFS game design program, I wrote a concept of a pirate game (based on Captain Blood's novels), the main gameplay and technical feature of which was that it was fully seamless - we're always in control of the character (rather than switching modes like in most other pirate games), and we can go from land to ship, from ship to another ship, from that ship to sea, to land, etc. etc. And as I learned later, that was the exact main gameplay and technical feature of Black Flag which got concepted at pretty much exactly the same time.

So, yeah. The point is, it doesn't really matter where the idea came from or who borrowed from whom, game development is not about ideas, everybody has them, - it's about implementation, that's the tricky part.

VestigialLlama4
10-01-2015, 05:44 PM
And Bat mobile has been in comics for long. yes. But traditionally it does not have a huge cannon and riffle to shoot people with non lethal rounds. Even though batman is a comic book character.

Presumably this isn't a comic book
http://i2.wp.com/www.retroist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07_DOUG_TDKR_PIC.jpg?resize=620%2C815


The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller, by general consent the greatest Batman story. This batmobile inspired the one in the Nolan movies and that Arkham Knight games. Published in the mid-80s.


he is the most close to real character, in the entire super hero line up.

Batman is about as real as Harry Potter. At least with Superman and Spiderman you have honest fantasies, with Batman you have this false idea that you can be a billionaire and fight crime with fists and to paraphrase a rather famous individual, it is easier to pass a camel through a needle's eye than believe that.

EmptyCrustacean
10-01-2015, 07:14 PM
Oh yea jumping to haystack from a tall tower is realistic , ya Bat Mobile shooting tanks/mercenaries was so realistic. If you are not okay, as I said earlier do not play. And I can say the very concept of detective vision is based on eagle vision. As long as they learn and borrow the good stuff why not???.

You completely missed my point! I wasn't complaining about realism..I actually am excited to use the rope launcher. I was just saying that to attribute the creation of the rope launcher to Revelations is laughable.

I-Like-Pie45
10-01-2015, 07:16 PM
i don't think you have read many comics if you think batman is one of the most realistic characters ever

HDinHB
10-01-2015, 08:07 PM
i don't think you have read many comics if you think batman is one of the most realistic characters ever

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/19/98/e9/1998e90b6aeb342966efaadc79dc31ed.jpg

RVSage
10-02-2015, 02:45 AM
Presumably this isn't a comic book
http://i2.wp.com/www.retroist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07_DOUG_TDKR_PIC.jpg?resize=620%2C815


The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller, by general consent the greatest Batman story. This batmobile inspired the one in the Nolan movies and that Arkham Knight games. Published in the mid-80s.



Batman is about as real as Harry Potter. At least with Superman and Spiderman you have honest fantasies, with Batman you have this false idea that you can be a billionaire and fight crime with fists and to paraphrase a rather famous individual, it is easier to pass a camel through a needle's eye than believe that.

I did say 'traditionally', I never said 'never', I am indeed aware of Nolan's inspiration. And regarding realism, it is not about his money, It was about his use of intellect and martial art skills rather than some super power

VestigialLlama4
10-02-2015, 04:49 AM
I did say 'traditionally', I never said 'never', I am indeed aware of Nolan's inspiration. And regarding realism, it is not about his money, It was about his use of intellect and martial art skills rather than some super power

Even in terms of intellect and martial arts skills it's fantastic. There's no way someone like Batman can have all these multiple disciplines of martial arts at such a young age and a short glance at the lives of professional athletes will also tell you that Batman to push himself the way he does, logically, must be A) Abusing Steroids and/or B) Addicted to prescription pills.

So Batman's super-discipline is a superpower, just like AC where the Assassin's Super-Parkour and Climbing is left-unexplained or they mention First-Civilization something-something...

It would be more realistic for Batman to have superpowers and have those abilities.


That's factually not true. Pre-production of Arkham Asylum started in May 2007, production started in September 2007. That's not 'deep in development'.

My mistake.


Sometimes ideas appear at the same time as well. Back in summer 2011 when I was at VFS game design program, I wrote a concept of a pirate game (based on Captain Blood's novels), the main gameplay and technical feature of which was that it was fully seamless - we're always in control of the character (rather than switching modes like in most other pirate games), and we can go from land to ship, from ship to another ship, from that ship to sea, to land, etc. etc. And as I learned later, that was the exact main gameplay and technical feature of Black Flag which got concepted at pretty much exactly the same time.

Well I wish that game came out, the world could use more pirate games and I think it would have been interesting.

In any case you can say that the sailing mechanic of Black Flag comes from Zelda Wind Waker (an acknowledged inspiration), which also had real-time sailing and some of the lands could be traversed seamlessly island/sea (at least the smaller islands but then Black Flag is the same, the larger islands are discrete areas of the maps while smaller areas are part of the larger map).

Black Flag did strike me as a game everyone wanted for a long time but didn't really recognize until they had seen it. Since the beginning of video games we've had games with pirates and cowboys but it's not until the most recent console releases, that it became possible to build and render the most important feature of these fantasies...the landscape. Red Dead Redemption was the cowboy game we have all been waiting for with this Western landscape from endless movies and cartoons and Black Flag is the pirate game we all wanted with the sea and the islands. I always did like pirates more than cowboys, so I prefer Black Flag, it was also more interesting than RDR on the whole.


So, yeah. The point is, it doesn't really matter where the idea came from or who borrowed from whom, game development is not about ideas, everybody has them, - it's about implementation, that's the tricky part.

True. In any case I don't think Detective Mode and Eagle Vision have too many similarities, especially not AC1 Eagle Vision and Arkham's Detective Mode. I never felt that the games were too similar, I mean yeah they are both stealth/combat, but it's not quite the same thing.

EmptyCrustacean
10-02-2015, 07:49 AM
Black Flag better than Red Dead? Lol Blag Flag is an enjoyable game but RDR is on another level!

VestigialLlama4
10-02-2015, 08:07 AM
Black Flag better than Read Dead? Lol Blag Flag is an enjoyable game but RDR is on another level!

Aside from the ranch sequences at the start and the end (Bonnie MacFarlane and Marston) most of the game is your basic GTA style mission-network structure. The most original parts of the game, which have to do with the pleasures of open world exploration (taming the horse, tending the farm, and basically looking out for one another) get subsumed by the cliches of the story. It tries to be every kind of Western game at once, so you have a Mexican section based more on repeated viewings of Wild Bunch than anything else (only more racist), you also have the cliche Rockstar side characters who are punchlines, you know characters like that Irish sterotype, that racist scholar stereotype and so on. As an open-world game, it's quite a nice sandbox with stuff to do. I like the whole autosave of starting a campfire and saving the game (anticipating Dark Souls). But it's mostly a conventional Grand Theft Horse game. I liked the interactions between Marston and Bonnie MacFarlane (probably the best female character in any Rockstar game), that friendship and that unrequited love was done very well. And of course Marston and his family. It's a pity that having created this interesting cast, the games spend most of it having Marston hang out with a bunch of stupid one-note villains.

Black Flag is more thoroughly successful and cohesive by comparison. It's also got a totally different perspective on the pirate genre, looking at them historically and in terms of politics. No pirate story ever addresses the fact that it was illegal at a time when slavery was legal and more profitable. So it brought out the hidden appeal of pirates, you know they represented freedom from society, from morality and from conventions.

Journey93
10-02-2015, 02:20 PM
Aside from the ranch sequences at the start and the end (Bonnie MacFarlane and Marston) most of the game is your basic GTA style mission-network structure. The most original parts of the game, which have to do with the pleasures of open world exploration (taming the horse, tending the farm, and basically looking out for one another) get subsumed by the cliches of the story. It tries to be every kind of Western game at once, so you have a Mexican section based more on repeated viewings of Wild Bunch than anything else (only more racist), you also have the cliche Rockstar side characters who are punchlines, you know characters like that Irish sterotype, that racist scholar stereotype and so on. As an open-world game, it's quite a nice sandbox with stuff to do. I like the whole autosave of starting a campfire and saving the game (anticipating Dark Souls). But it's mostly a conventional Grand Theft Horse game. I liked the interactions between Marston and Bonnie MacFarlane (probably the best female character in any Rockstar game), that friendship and that unrequited love was done very well. And of course Marston and his family. It's a pity that having created this interesting cast, the games spend most of it having Marston hang out with a bunch of stupid one-note villains.

Black Flag is more thoroughly successful and cohesive by comparison. It's also got a totally different perspective on the pirate genre, looking at them historically and in terms of politics. No pirate story ever addresses the fact that it was illegal at a time when slavery was legal and more profitable. So it brought out the hidden appeal of pirates, you know they represented freedom from society, from morality and from conventions.

And Black Flag wasn't full of stereotypical and cliche pirates? C'mon man, I sense some bias here

I think RDR is better than Black Flag in every way (story, gameplay etc.). The latter could have been much better if it wasn't an AC game (which held the game back a lot).
At times they didn't know what kind of story they wanted to tell so they tried to force AC-specific stuff in the game even though it didn't fit. Assassins don't fit in every time period.

And you are seriously downplaying the characters in RDR. They were a lot more nuanced and had depth, they may have started as stereotypes but I think they improved during the missions. The story and characters was very well written. Much more mature and realistic too.

Especially John Marston who is one of the greatest Video game protags ever.

I also liked Edward but his story was more rushed (especially his character development which came way too late and sudden).
They expected that one would care when Mary died etc. but I didn't since she got never enough screentime or any development.

VestigialLlama4
10-02-2015, 08:21 PM
And Black Flag wasn't full of stereotypical and cliche pirates? C'mon man, I sense some bias here

Actually no. Black Flag does not have stereotypical pirates at all. There are no parrots, wooden legs, or eyepatches. The game also portrays Blackbeard for more accurately than any other version. The real Blackbeard never killed anybody so this lighter more heroic Blackbeard that you see, while smoothening some of his rough edges, is closer than any other version. He was a mythologized figure. All the pirates are also shown as poor sailors who basically tried to create something for themselves revolting against the corrupt navies. The game also shows that Pirates democratically elect captains and it also says that Mutiny isn't some great crime but simply the crew deciding if the captain is getting them killed or not. As for Adewale being first mate, a slight exaggeration but it's true 25% of all pirate crews were escaped slaves, which you know no pirate story has ever tackled before.


And you are seriously downplaying the characters in RDR. They were a lot more nuanced and had depth, they may have started as stereotypes but I think they improved during the missions. The story and characters was very well written. Much more mature and realistic too.

What's mature and realistic about John Marston walking into Mexico and being the White Savior of their Revolution only to cry tears at how stupid the Mexicans are about their hack revolutionary leader? That's the opposite of maturity and realism.

Aside from Bonnie MacFarlane and John, and Marston's family, most of the game's characters are your usual Rockstar easy-target-satire guys. Compare that to Black Flag which had a better overall cast. You know the Pirates are awesome, the Templars are interesting, Edward and Adewale are cool, as is Mary Read and Black Bart is an awesome villain.


Especially John Marston who is one of the greatest Video game protags ever.

He's a great character yes, but the game overall didn't do him full justice.

Red Dead Redemption is obviously a classic in terms of open world design and technical breakthrough, and my opinion is a minority but I think that in terms of putting across and recreating this particular mythology, Black Flag went further and deeper with Pirates than Red Dead did with Cowboys.

pacmanate
10-02-2015, 08:27 PM
Oh yea jumping to haystack from a tall tower is realistic , ya Bat Mobile shooting tanks/mercenaries was so realistic. If you are not okay, as I said earlier do not play. And I can say the very concept of detective vision is based on eagle vision. As long as they learn and borrow the good stuff why not???.

Never said it had to be so grounded. You defend AC every time someone critises it that I find it hard to respond.

SixKeys
10-02-2015, 09:16 PM
What's mature and realistic about John Marston walking into Mexico and being the White Savior of their Revolution only to cry tears at how stupid the Mexicans are about their hack revolutionary leader? That's the opposite of maturity and realism.

Almost everything you did in RDR had this bedrock of cynicism at its core. Every stranger mission ended with Marston discovering something gruesome or depressing about human nature. The Feds were all corrupt. The Mexican revolution just replaced one bad leader with another. Marston himself never had a chance at a happy ending. There was no reconciliation to be had with his old gang. His son grew up into a criminal just like his father.
The Mexican revolution wasn't about a white savior coming in to solve everyone's problems, it was just another bleak chapter to show Marston's cynicism and frustration at the world around him. He was constantly getting dragged into stuff he wanted nothing to do with and had zero personal interest in. And things never turned out better for the people he helped, not really. Nothing ever changes, least of all human nature.

VestigialLlama4
10-02-2015, 09:46 PM
Almost everything you did in RDR had this bedrock of cynicism at its core.

Well not everything. The Bonnie MacFarlane chapter at the start was very idealistic. She was this genuinely nice person, as was the sheriff of that town. And John Marston and his family are good people. Well John if you play on Good Karma which in terms of plot and overall characterization is what he undoubtedly does.


The Mexican revolution wasn't about a white savior coming in to solve everyone's problems, it was just another bleak chapter to show Marston's cynicism and frustration at the world around him.

That in essence is white privilege, "The world exists for me to brood and look good while brooding". For me the gameplay and the context of the missions matter, and the gameplay is essentially you rescuing the Mexicans from a corrupt ruler and putting someone else in power entirely for your selfish needs. And that Mexican section is an entire side quest. You go there for one particular member of van der Linde's gang, and it opens up the biggest section of the map and a huge part of missions just for that excursion, the finale takes place in the Northern part of the map, a much smaller area. So structurally the Mexican section is a rather huge diversion. That's why it should be singled out. I preferred Undead Nightmare, because there, especially the big monastery, you work alongside the Mexicans to fight off the zombies. There it's a common unified threat that you are fleeing as much as everyone else is.

Ideally RDR should have taken place entirely in the American part of the map, and each section had one member of Van der Linde's map, it could have worked with a more Ubisoft approach in that instance. Small but dense in detail. The game tries to be every kind of Western movie at once and it is entirely dependent on movies for its ideas. The Mexican section is Wild Bunch by Sam Peckinpah (the train sequence is based on that). The one the game starts out with is your classic Clint Eastwood style western outlaw on a mission, also Shane and High Noon. Then the northern part in the snows is McCabe and Mrs Miller or The Far Country, the "winter westerns" (cowboy stories set in snow rather than desert landscapes). Also parts of Sergio Leone's films.

Black Flag isn't based on movies or other pirate stories. It does take some ideas and classic concepts of course but mostly its a brand new approach to pirates, not one based on earlier fantasies and misconceptions but on history. Red Dead Redemption is a very cliche look at the Western and cowboys, aside from being the first to put all that together in an open world game, it doesn't go far. Maybe a sequel will pick up the slack.

RVSage
10-02-2015, 10:39 PM
Never said it had to be so grounded. You defend AC every time someone critises it that I find it hard to respond.

I never said you should not criticize AC, I just don't like people coming in here and comparing with other games, IMHO every game is unique. But most people here are like 'Batman' did this, 'MGSV' did that, and Ubi can't even do this and on and on. If you want to criticize AC stick to it and be fair (I am making it clear, not pointing at you).

I for one criticized Unity's lack of good story and Modern day, and the bad launch.

But there is a marked difference between criticism and rant. For instance, you posted links which said 'That the performance was bad in Syndicate' , But you did not even speak about other articles stating 'the performance was stable', You were like right away concluding that "Ubi did not learn". That my friend to be honest is not criticism,it is a rant

pacmanate
10-02-2015, 11:29 PM
Because people that notice unstable things are better to talk about. The whole reason of me making critisims is that I focus on things that are bad. It doesnt matter if people say its stable, they probably don't notice framerate drops (like shahk, soz m8).

strigoi1958
10-02-2015, 11:36 PM
@pacmanate

To be honest, I also defend AC every time I feel it is unfairly criticized...

Considering this is an AC forum ... a lot of people seem to constantly pick away at the thing for which they profess their love... I can forgive that because it often comes from frustration because they think AC would be better if it was how they want it to be....

But, why shouldn't there be parity.... are you saying only negative things should be allowed to be stated ? if anyone dares to actually voice an opinion that is not trying to rally scorn or derision at AC for not being anything other than AC should we be stopped from having our say ?

Detention sir,

50 lines for you....

I love AC because......

and I want 50 different reasons :D

HDinHB
10-02-2015, 11:46 PM
It's the best cowboy/Western game I've played, bu there is one thing about playing Red Dead Redemption I never could stomach...all the damn cannibals.

And also the ending.

But mostly the cannibals.

SixKeys
10-03-2015, 05:06 AM
Well not everything. The Bonnie MacFarlane chapter at the start was very idealistic. She was this genuinely nice person, as was the sheriff of that town. And John Marston and his family are good people. Well John if you play on Good Karma which in terms of plot and overall characterization is what he undoubtedly does.

I would argue that Bonnie and her ranch were mostly there to provide you a glimpse of the dream that Marston wanted, and that the player assumed he could have. A safe haven with nice people, a great place to raise a family. Having that contrast between the dream and the harsh reality creates the game's melancholy undertone. AC3 is similar in that way, RDR just went further with its cynicism.

John being a good person is debatable, even if you play him with good karma. At the very least he remains a crude guy who'd rather speak his mind than make friends and shoot people with little provocation. I'd say he's just a guy who wants his family back, no matter the cost, and hopes he can live out the rest of his days in peace but deep down knows it's probably impossible.


That in essence is white privilege, "The world exists for me to brood and look good while brooding".

Okay, so it's white privilege. Doesn't change anything I said. The story is still about John Marston and his outlook on the world. It's about a cynical guy in a cynical world doing cynical things while spouting cynical dialogue. It would be racist if Marston was really the kind of guy who makes a big show of shedding a tear for the white man's burden as you claim, but he's not. He doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself and his family (and Bonnie, who saved him). The people he meets are just as corrupt and stupid in America as they are in Mexico.


For me the gameplay and the context of the missions matter, and the gameplay is essentially you rescuing the Mexicans from a corrupt ruler and putting someone else in power entirely for your selfish needs.

Exactly! That's why John Marston is not a good guy! He is entirely selfish, the entire game is just about him trying to get his family back and being frustrated at having to help people to reach that goal. Playing as an anti-hero isn't a point against the story itself as long as the game acknowledges the hero's (lack of) morals, which RDR does. It doesn't pretend to have the answers to political questions of the time period, it doesn't try to turn Marston into a hero like AC4 does towards the end. It's just the story of one man trying - and failing - to reach his own personal happy ending.

VestigialLlama4
10-03-2015, 06:15 AM
I would argue that Bonnie and her ranch were mostly there to provide you a glimpse of the dream that Marston wanted, and that the player assumed he could have. A safe haven with nice people, a great place to raise a family.

Except the MacFarlanes are hardly living the dream life. They have their own problems. Their farm is struggling against encroaching modernity and Bonnie, well she's deeply in love with John, and obviously nothing can happen between them.


AC3 is similar in that way, RDR just went further with its cynicism.

I don't know there's a host of difference between the two situations. Connor's fight was lost before he was even born there was never any place for him and even if he wasn't naive, he would never have had any chance. Whereas John was responsible for his life as a criminal and spends most of the game feeling he's the victim. He blames Dutch van der Linde for making him a criminal and then he blames the government for making him betray his friends.


It's about a cynical guy in a cynical world doing cynical things while spouting cynical dialogue.

I'd say it's a cynical game but I don't think Marston is cynical. A cynical guy wouldn't care about starting a family and teaching his son and raise him different from who he is.


It would be racist if Marston was really the kind of guy who makes a big show of shedding a tear for the white man's burden as you claim, but he's not.

That Mexican teacher Luisa and how the game treats her reflects that. She's basically this over-the-top idealistic fool and she gets killed stupidly and its done in a way that makes us laugh at her. So obviously the perspective there is that "These people sure are stupid and isn't it great we're the white guy and can walk away and not put up with this". That's how the entire context and take is.


Exactly! That's why John Marston is not a good guy! He is entirely selfish, the entire game is just about him trying to get his family back and being frustrated at having to help people to reach that goal.

I'd say it's more about being exploited by the government but it's not true that he is frustrated by everyone he has to help. He likes clearly the Sheriff at the start of the game, he likes the MacFarlanes, in Mexico, he kind of likes Luisa, the Mexican teacher and also Landon Ricketts. Everyone else (Nigel West, Ross and his cronies, the Mexican authorities, that Seth Graverobber guy) he hates. So it's not that he hates everyone equally kind of cynicism at all.


Playing as an anti-hero isn't a point against the story itself as long as the game acknowledges the hero's (lack of) morals, which RDR does. It doesn't pretend to have the answers to political questions of the time period, it doesn't try to turn Marston into a hero like AC4 does towards the end. It's just the story of one man trying - and failing - to reach his own personal happy ending.

Red Dead Redemption is all about John Marston feeling bad that he's exploited and screwed over by the government but there's no sense that John feels remorse for his victims when he was a bad man in the past. It's most manifested by these awkward philosophical spouting here and there, but there's never a sense that John feels that he's ultimately responsible. In RDR, John Marston is the big loser, since his wife and son live, the MacFarlanes live so he succeeds as the hero in protecting people he cares about. In Black Flag, Edward is the winner, but people around him lose. Mary Read, then Caroline dies. So there's a greater sense of failing people close to you there.

RVSage
10-03-2015, 05:49 PM
Because people that notice unstable things are better to talk about. The whole reason of me making critisims is that I focus on things that are bad. It doesnt matter if people say its stable, they probably don't notice framerate drops (like shahk, soz m8).

Again assuming the "bad" news will be correct. Eurogamer(digital foundry) have the best tool to notice frame drops. They said it was stable. I am not going to say they are certainly correct. But I am saying rather than the assuming , why not see for yourself on October 23.

SixKeys
10-03-2015, 10:17 PM
Except the MacFarlanes are hardly living the dream life. They have their own problems. Their farm is struggling against encroaching modernity and Bonnie, well she's deeply in love with John, and obviously nothing can happen between them.

I didn't say Bonnie has a dream life, I'm saying that to Marston it appeared as something akin to that. All he ever wanted was a farm where he and his family could live in peace. He sees the potential for such a dream at the ranch. He becomes the peacekeeper at Bonnie's partly because he owes her but also because he wants to make the place better. The general mood at the farm is that of safety and friendliness, which is usually the case for a player's first home base. (Masyaf wasn't exactly about living the dream either but it's the safest and most home-like city in all of AC1.) It only gets broken occasionally by passing bandits and some chicken-stealing foxes. Compare that to the other cities that are rife with murder, crime, violence and kidnappings on the streets and in saloons.


I'd say it's a cynical game but I don't think Marston is cynical. A cynical guy wouldn't care about starting a family and teaching his son and raise him different from who he is.

Not necessarily. I think Marston is a few steps removed from total cynicism which is why he still hopes to get a chance at a happy ending, but I think it's more of a vain hope that he just won't admit to himself. This interpretation makes sense if you consider the ominous stranger dressed in black (obviously death) who keeps appearing to Marston randomly. It's like a foreshadowing of what he knows is going to happen eventually but he refuses to give in to despair. The difference between having a cynical outlook of the world and still trying to make the best of it.


That Mexican teacher Luisa and how the game treats her reflects that. She's basically this over-the-top idealistic fool and she gets killed stupidly and its done in a way that makes us laugh at her. So obviously the perspective there is that "These people sure are stupid and isn't it great we're the white guy and can walk away and not put up with this". That's how the entire context and take is.

I can't remember who Luisa was, so no comment.


I'd say it's more about being exploited by the government but it's not true that he is frustrated by everyone he has to help. He likes clearly the Sheriff at the start of the game, he likes the MacFarlanes, in Mexico, he kind of likes Luisa, the Mexican teacher and also Landon Ricketts. Everyone else (Nigel West, Ross and his cronies, the Mexican authorities, that Seth Graverobber guy) he hates. So it's not that he hates everyone equally kind of cynicism at all.

Perhaps I should have specified that he's frustrated at the people who make him jump through hoops to reach their own selfish goals. I think Marston has an appreciation for honest, hardworking people because that's what he hopes to become, and he sees an uncomfortable reflection of himself in the selfish people. He seems to be okay with helping people if it's for a good cause, but a lot of the people he meets are selfish and backstabbing (especially in side missions).


Red Dead Redemption is all about John Marston feeling bad that he's exploited and screwed over by the government but there's no sense that John feels remorse for his victims when he was a bad man in the past. It's most manifested by these awkward philosophical spouting here and there, but there's never a sense that John feels that he's ultimately responsible. In RDR, John Marston is the big loser, since his wife and son live, the MacFarlanes live so he succeeds as the hero in protecting people he cares about. In Black Flag, Edward is the winner, but people around him lose. Mary Read, then Caroline dies. So there's a greater sense of failing people close to you there.

Why should there necessarily be remorse? I think your assessment of him is correct, but he doesn't really care about making up for past mistakes, he just wants to be left alone with his family. Edward is a guy who basically cares about people underneath all the bravado. He's not naÔve, but he's less cynical than Marston, as evidenced by his faith in the pirate republic. He considers himself a good guy at heart who's only doing this pirate stuff until he has enough to give himself and his wife a comfortable life. Marston has no illusions about being a good guy. He does his best to stay on the straight and narrow because it's the only way he'll see his family again, but I don't think he has remorse for his old victims. Edward tries to become a better man because he grows attached to the people he helps and they inspire him to do better. Marston only wants to be a better man so the government will leave him alone.

pacmanate
10-04-2015, 12:32 AM
But, why shouldn't there be parity.... are you saying only negative things should be allowed to be stated ? if anyone dares to actually voice an opinion that is not trying to rally scorn or derision at AC for not being anything other than AC should we be stopped from having our say ?

Detention sir,

50 lines for you....

I love AC because......

and I want 50 different reasons :D

Im not saying that praise shouldnt be given where praise is due. But if people are noticing framerate drops that means they ARE there.

I dont have 50 reasons why I love AC but I will list what I can.

1. Parkour
2. Game world
3. Story (AC1-AC4,.. maybe minus AC3)
4. Modern day story (AC1-AC3)
5. Glyphs (Again, something in the past, unfortunately)
6. First Civ (AC2-AC3, oh look.. past)

Well, there's 6 for you. It's a shame now, for me the only thing I like about AC is the Parkour and the worlds the teams create.

AC needs a break. It needs to focus on story again, it needs a proper modern day to make me think what I'm searching for is worth it using the animus and it NEEDS that mystery back, doesn't have to be glyphs, just something.

RVSage
10-04-2015, 03:33 AM
AC needs a break. It needs to focus on story again, it needs a proper modern day to make me think what I'm searching for is worth it using the animus and it NEEDS that mystery back, doesn't have to be glyphs, just something.

I must agree. the connect to the AC universe , has always been the modern day story, the animus always was supposed to be used for a reason. I hope Syndicate really brings the story cohesiveness back

strigoi1958
10-04-2015, 04:17 AM
rather than decide that 5 million plus buyers need a break because a few want a break ... why not the few take a break for a year or 2 and see if the things you want... return ?

As for frame rate drops.... if it were in my power to lock every single game in the world forever at set rates so people wouldn't obsess I wouldn't because everyones entitled to what they like.... 1 guy said FC4 had frame rate drops so I posted a video on youtube... in 3 minutes the fps dropped once from a constant 59 to 54 for less than a second... he said "see I told you the game was xxxx" so I asked if it was locked permanently at 40 would he have any problems and he said no because there would be no spikes or dips... so 40 is ok but 54 to 59 is not ... :confused:

I'm perfectly happy at console settings on a PC so if I get a little more I won't complain. If it was a flying game or a racing car sim that would be different.

ooh parkour yes that reminds me to add that to my ac admiration week list.. I love unity parkour.

Wolfmeister1010
10-04-2015, 04:50 AM
rather than decide that 5 million plus buyers need a break because a few want a break ... why not the few take a break for a year or 2 and see if the things you want... return ?


It isn't about his own feelings towards the game.


It is pretty much a straight-forward non negotiable fact that if they took a year or two more to develop their next game, it would be much more stable, polished, and likely all around better than these recent ones.

Jessigirl2013
10-04-2015, 10:38 AM
I stumbled across this yesterday, Must of missed this on the forums.;)

I love how they are showing there love for past games. :rolleyes:

Now all we need is substantial MD in Syndicate IMO.;)


I must agree. the connect to the AC universe , has always been the modern day story, the animus always was supposed to be used for a reason. I hope Syndicate really brings the story cohesiveness back

YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


... Though hasn't it been told already that the MD is like Unitys.....

Ichrukia56
10-07-2015, 11:29 PM
As no one has post this here yet here is the Assassin's Creed III video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dCPO_N6mf4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dCPO_N6mf4)

I know there are alot of pepole you don't like AC 3 but i still enjoyed :D

VestigialLlama4
10-08-2015, 07:50 AM
As no one has post this here yet here is the Assassin's Creed III video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dCPO_N6mf4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dCPO_N6mf4)

I know there are alot of pepole you don't like AC 3 but i still enjoyed :D

Yeah, I am glad they fessed up that Eagle Flight and Rope Launcher are the same and quite baldly too. The cutscenes and character models, and the frontier of AC3 is still incredibly beautiful to see. Even the animals, they all look amazing, unlike Black Flag's plasticine. Especially the bears, who are pretty scary.

AC3 is still the last true Grand AC game. All the others are still in its shadow, resting on its assets and have so far contributed not even half of what it brought to the franchise.

I-Like-Pie45
10-08-2015, 08:00 AM
As someone who works with bears, I should let you people know that the bears in AC3 aren't realistic because black bears are wimps who let ***** cats care them off

Even when you begin to harass their cubs black bears are more likely to encourage retreat than attack and although they are as capable as brown or polar or panda bears of killing people black bears generally will only make mock attacks if feeling threatened. Although there may be greater amounts of black bear attacks and encounters per year compared to other bear species, this is only because black bears are more widely spread throughout the North American continent, whereas its larger and more aggressive distant relative the brown bear (more commonly known as the grizzly or in some cases Kodiak bear in the US) has nearly vanished from the entirety of the United States - for example, the brown bear's the state animal of California despite being extinct there for over a century. Generally, black bears that do attack people are those who have become accustomed to human presences and have lost any fear or surprise of people, usually brought on about by feeding. As this game happens in the time before the National Park system of the US that has accounted for such behavioral conditionings, it's very unrealistic that these black bears would be attacking Connor every time he ran into them.

At least Red Dead Redemption had the proper bear species they used for their over aggressive animals, which is less immersion breaking than if they were black bears. But to Ubisofts credit at least they remembered that brown bears do not live on the East coast, only black bears do even if their behavior is not realistic.

In addition, Ubisoft should've included the black bear's favorite activity: tree climbing. Just as grizzly bears like to hang out by the river and catch salmon, black bears will climb up anything they can get their paws on. This lets them get a better view of places to break in where they can steal food. Some black bears love trees so much, it is a little known fact among ursinelogists that some black bears legally marry trees. This would've added a new dimension to gameplay in which black bears would give players heart attacks and set the world record for most people hospitalized by a game since Electric Soldier Porygon by climbing up trees to say hello to Connor.

EmptyCrustacean
10-08-2015, 09:01 AM
Wow, a lot of negativity in that video.
Seems like they threw AC III under the bus and downplayed its innovation just so they could big up Black Flag later on. Very disappointing. It will be interesting to see what they say about Unity lol

VestigialLlama4
10-08-2015, 09:08 AM
Wow, a lot of negativity in that video.

There was no negativity at all. I am a bit critic of Ubisoft's handling of Connor but there they were totally fair and objective. And they should be.

It's a game worth being proud of and that is what they are showing in that video. All the systems and environments they innovated and introducing double protagonists, MD and they keep pointing out how a lot of things in the game are actively used in later systems. Likewise, Syndicate's team made the Tyranny DLC which they mentioned at the end.


It will be interesting to see what they say about Unity lol

If you expect them to say, "Yeah this game sucked" then think again. That's not what these videos are about. For UNITY they can talk about the huge map size, vast crowds, black box missions, co-op, customization, 1:1 exteriors and interiors, as well as the dedicated stealth mode. That it didn't lead to a good or entertaining game is of course besides the point.

SixKeys
10-08-2015, 02:09 PM
I didn't detect any negativity in the video either. :confused: And downplayed its innovations? Every second sentence they were talking about all the new systems and tweaks.

It's so frustrating to watch the footage and recognize all the changes AC3 introduced - and it did introduce a lot - and think to yourself "yeah, it would have been great if that feature actually worked like it should". Even the video admitted the crafting system was complex (of course without pointing out how it was utterly useless and needlessly confusing) and that unlocking fast travel stations required endless hours of slowly trudging through cellars. The animations are still amazing at least, probably the best the series has ever had.

Journey93
10-08-2015, 02:22 PM
Wow, a lot of negativity in that video.
Seems like they threw AC III under the bus and downplayed its innovation just so they could big up Black Flag later on. Very disappointing. It will be interesting to see what they say about Unity lol

lol what? If anything the video tried to make everything look great and that AC3 brought "revolutionary" changes (even if it wasn't, like Desmonds part, crafting, the tunnels etc.)

Mr.Black24
10-08-2015, 05:47 PM
I just wished the Desmond missions were something more than we just got. I mean it was cool that he got his fat *** out the Animus, fortifying himself to act on his heritage like his Assassin ancestors did, but the whole level system felt very rushed. Not to mention I am very bitter at the fact that they cut off Desmond/Daniel's own white room speech. Like Daniel has so much character built and it just culminated to him being stabbed and exit stage right. A white room was possible, just simply without the Animus background, it could have just been a blurred background of the environment instead, and the echos of their voices can just simply imply the focus on just these two.

Plus, how complicated was the crafting system? I just make something with one to three people with either one to three ingredients, then send them off. If I need more, I just buy it from whomever Homesteader that sells it. Its not that complicated at all. Maybe we are just used to very simple stuff that we are just spoiled or something? It was complex sure, but not that complex either.

But yes the game was fantastic, surpassed ACII in my book.

cawatrooper9
10-08-2015, 07:54 PM
not that complex[/I] either.


I HATED the crafting in that game (and the trading, especially). There was actually a recent Cracked article that talked about that aspect in ACIII, basically saying that (and I'm paraphrasing) "clicking through multiple menus to accomplish something that could be done in one click is no substitution for gameplay."

Assassin_M
10-08-2015, 08:24 PM
Wow, a lot of negativity in that video.
Seems like they threw AC III under the bus and downplayed its innovation just so they could big up Black Flag later on. Very disappointing. It will be interesting to see what they say about Unity lol
Lol negativity? There's mostly love in the video, even in the comment section, which was really surprising. Guess AC III aged quite well.

VestigialLlama4
10-08-2015, 08:32 PM
Lol negativity? There's mostly love in the video, even in the comment section, which was really surprising. Guess AC III aged quite well.

It's a game that is still talked about and remembered certainly. And it definitely holds up on replays. I played it three or four times and to me, the music, the mood and the beauty of the forest, the sense of the hills, the valley and the hills this amazing sense of topopgraphy that is a map layered and arranged over various low and high level areas is amazing.

I keep going back to the game all the time.

Journey93
10-08-2015, 09:20 PM
It's a game that is still talked about and remembered certainly. And it definitely holds up on replays. I played it three or four times and to me, the music, the mood and the beauty of the forest, the sense of the hills, the valley and the hills this amazing sense of topopgraphy that is a map layered and arranged over various low and high level areas is amazing.

I keep going back to the game all the time.

Its certainly a very polarizing and divisive game. Many hate it but there are also many who love it a lot.

I'm not the biggest fan but I applaud it for doing something different and exploring new territories
And it shows, Unity just went by the book (boring Ezio clone of a protag, cliche underdeveloped love story etc.) and was very medicore in every way for most

There aren't many Unity or Arno defenders/fans like with Connor and AC3, most are just very "meh" about them

BananaBlighter
10-08-2015, 09:54 PM
There aren't many Unity or Arno defenders/fans like with Connor and AC3, most are just very "meh" about them

That's actually so true.

AC3 tried loads of new things in practically every aspect of the game, while Unity tried to improve on the 'roots' of the franchise, and while many would say it succeeded in some areas, it also could have been a lot better in others.

VestigialLlama4
10-08-2015, 10:08 PM
]And it shows, Unity just went by the book (boring Ezio clone of a protag, cliche underdeveloped love story etc.) and was very medicore in every way for most

There aren't many Unity or Arno defenders/fans like with Connor and AC3, most are just very "meh" about them

UNITY came out less than a year ago I mean I hate the game but I wouldn't make any blanket statement about it not having any fans or following. AC3 came out in 2012 so it's turning three years old this year so that's why it seems like AC3 is getting more love these days. It's very likely that people who come into AC with UNITY, for whom this is their first game, that they will like it a lot and it's a game that if I hadn't played the earlier titles would have impressed me a great deal if I started in now. The fact that it's Next-Gen means that a good portion of the people who bought it will have never played nor will they ever play the earlier games i.e. AC1, Ezio games, AC3.

The truth is that AC are a big pick-and-mix multi-genre games so it has an audience of different size and shapes, which means that when they make a game that prioritizes some aspects more than others, it will still have a lot of fans, but paradoxically it means that technically each game will be polarizing and divide fans of one aspect against fans of another aspect. AC3 is loved a lot by people who care about this big detailed open-world with a huge range of activities, this greater immersion in the period and historical background and for people who primarily feel that games should be more diverse and have different kinds of stories. But it wasn't liked, generally, by people who felt that the games should be primarily a stealth assassin game, basically medieval splinter-cell/hitman/mgs and have a crouch button or other stuff, and the people who like that tend to be more forgiving of Unity even if essentially threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Of course a good portion of both groups liked Naval unambiguously so BLACK FLAG really brings the room together as they say. It's like AC2 in that it's the complete game - historical immersion/open world/interesting story/improved stealth. Of course some people see it as a pirate game and not an Assassin game, because they want a proper tinfoil experience. For me, I think AC is versatile and that it's main ability is that it can be any kind of game, so even if Black Flag is mainly a pirate game, for me that doesn't make it less Assassin-y and in a way Black Flag would not have worked as a pure pirate game, because as Darby McDevitt said most pirate games essentially deck everything with skull and crossbones with no sense of historical context. In an AC world that stuff does matter, so Black Flag became a game about piracy rather than a pirate game, you saw piracy in a way that had never been done before.

Black Flag's other great advantage was clarity. Connor was basically a multi-cultural diverse character who didn't fit one label. Black Flag had piracy as a single motif and that allowed it to be the pivot for the whole game. So it could streamline and focus everything around piracy and naval, which created something systemic and likewise allowed them time to improve the missions, especially in stealth. In fact the stealth of UNITY essentialy plagiarizes its structure from Black Flag, snipers and alarm bells, X-Ray Vision/Heist missions with bonus for undetected. This same structure was retained for Syndicate.

SixKeys
10-08-2015, 10:46 PM
Plus, how complicated was the crafting system? I just make something with one to three people with either one to three ingredients, then send them off. If I need more, I just buy it from whomever Homesteader that sells it. Its not that complicated at all. Maybe we are just used to very simple stuff that we are just spoiled or something? It was complex sure, but not that complex either.

Perhaps 'complicated' isn't the right word, but it required too many steps than should have been necessary. If I wanted to create 10 barrels, I would have to do them one by one, you can't just enter any amount you want. So it goes (from what I remember) open up the menu > scroll down to choose what you want to create > choose your crafting materials > scroll down to the right type of metal, click and choose > you're thrown back to the menu > scroll down to the right type of wood, you're thrown back to the main menu > congrats, you now have one barrel. Rinse and repeat 10 times. And it wasn't worth the effort, since nothing ever got you as much money as selling some bear furs across the sea. So why would you bother with so many steps to create 10 barrels that will net you maybe £500 total, versus selling 10 bear furs, no crafting necessary, and they'll get you something like £5,000 ?

VestigialLlama4
10-08-2015, 10:50 PM
I think in essence AC is essentially plagued by the one protagonist open world problem. How do you resolve what you as a player can do while at the same time creatinga ctivities that logically fit the character's background and experience.

AC1 - Altair was a career Assassin in a setting where the Assassins were a reality, so there the integration of character/gameplay/setting and how Atlair interacts with it makes sense. There's no economy and open-world with wide variety of activities because Altair doesn't need it, the Assassins are a full organization with their own mountain village covering all their expenses. Altair likewise is not Top Dog in the organization nor does he rise above during the freeroam of the game, so it's perfect.

AC2 - This is essentially the first game where you had a civilian Assassin. From this point on Assassins are metaphors, they don't actually exist in the period after it so it has to serve under fronts and equivalent functions. On one hand this introduced stuff like economy, upgrades and other open-world but on the other hand, from now on Assassins are superheroes with civilian identities and a double life. In the case of Ezio they were lucky to have a civilian identity that culturally made sense and cohered with being an Assassin. Ezio is your Renaissance Arts patron, the son of a banker so that allowed him to pal with Da Vinci, Machiavelli, it allowed the whole interest in archeology, greater focus on architecture, develop the economy by investing and since feuding families and violence was a real part of this time, it made him fit with the Assassins as well. So Ezio is in many ways the jackpot. It hit it a second time with BLACK FLAG, you had Edward=Pirate + Assassin so it worked perfectly given the setting and context.

AC3 - It acknowledged this problem with Haytham's sequences where we get to meet Franklin which we can't do with Connor. Essentially, the main character in a detailed historical open world game can't be the guy who does everything and yet the nature of the game requires them to do everything. Ideally Connor should be Native American and Assassin, now those two identities are big enough and detailed to outfit a full 15 sequence game on its own but that would mean only the Frontier: no homestead, no cities and no naval, more Mohawk characters and very little interactions with American revolutionaries. The nature of the open world requires Connor to be, in addition to what has been said above, Achilles' property manager, Privateer, Soldier and Revolutionary, local do-gooder and errand boy. This creates problems because you have missions and side missions catering to different identities and ultimately there's a sense that Connor is doing stuff that should ideally be shared by two additional protagonists.

UNITY - Well this one failed big time, because the period was complex and intricate but they stuck to one character story and yet they didn't want to make it like AC3. So the developers decided to ignore the problem, go back to AC1 and pretend that all the games between did not happen, that the question of a civilian identity in an open world is not important. Since Arno didn't have one, he was a full time Assassin in a time where that didn't make any sense, so that meant that the plot and setting had to be tailored to his limited open world agency. Ezio is Assassin and Banker's Son, Connor is Assassin/Native/Revolutionary etc,, Edward is Pirate and Assassin, Arno is...well its fuzzy at the end of the game that he's still an Assassin. Mostly he's a puppet for other people's stories.

I think basically if you have a complex setting you need to have multiple protagonists like GTA-V. With AC3, if you had three Assassins, say Connor, and then a White Assassin Revolutionary and maybe a third, perhaps an African-American or a Woman, you can essentially divide the story and side missions between those three. The White Assassin would primarily be our eyes and ears with the founders and attend and command the major battles, the African-American/Woman can provide a civilian perspective in the colonial cities and do the liberation missions. Connor is King of the Frontier. Of course there would be missions which all three work together and overlap, and the homestead would be their joint collaboration. UNITY would have been a much better game if you had Arno, Elise and Pierre Bellec as three protagonists, with their own stories and the fact that at various times you will be fighting each other.

SYNDICATE is going in this direction, where you have Jacob being the Gangland Guy and Evie being the AC lore girl, but that's still primitive. Basically to tackle big settings and complex open worlds, Ubisoft would have to change its approach. Alternatively if they want something simpler, then they need a smaller context and setting. And it's a tough balance.

Mr.Black24
10-09-2015, 02:50 AM
Perhaps 'complicated' isn't the right word, but it required too many steps than should have been necessary. If I wanted to create 10 barrels, I would have to do them one by one, you can't just enter any amount you want. So it goes (from what I remember) open up the menu > scroll down to choose what you want to create > choose your crafting materials > scroll down to the right type of metal, click and choose > you're thrown back to the menu > scroll down to the right type of wood, you're thrown back to the main menu > congrats, you now have one barrel. Rinse and repeat 10 times. And it wasn't worth the effort, since nothing ever got you as much money as selling some bear furs across the sea. So why would you bother with so many steps to create 10 barrels that will net you maybe £500 total, versus selling 10 bear furs, no crafting necessary, and they'll get you something like £5,000 ?
Thats weird. If I were to do a barrel, I just check to see if I have the materials, which is like one oak lumber>then go to the items>head to the Barrels choice>click "enter" multiple times until I get as much as I need, choose where I want to send them to and that's it. Oh and I think 10 bear furs are double that, animal skins are really easy money to make when you send off oversees, takes a while, but great reward. In the meantime, I just sell more skins at stores.

Perhaps everyone overthought it? Or am I a quick learner or just lucky? I really dont know. True enough though, Black Flag made it smooth as hell though.

EmptyCrustacean
10-09-2015, 07:27 AM
There was no negativity at all. I am a bit critic of Ubisoft's handling of Connor but there they were totally fair and objective. And they should be.

I've watched it a second time and even though it's not as negative as I intially thought they didn't quite hype it up like the Ezio videos and the VO sounded less than enthusiastic.


If you expect them to say, "Yeah this game sucked" then think again. That's not what these videos are about. For UNITY they can talk about the huge map size, vast crowds, black box missions, co-op, customization, 1:1 exteriors and interiors, as well as the dedicated stealth mode. That it didn't lead to a good or entertaining game is of course besides the point.

That's not what I said. I just think it will be interesting to see how they play up what little good features it has.

VestigialLlama4
10-09-2015, 07:53 AM
I've watched it a second time and even though it's not as negative as I intially thought they didn't quite hype it up like the Ezio videos and the VO sounded less than enthusiastic.

Actually there was more negativity in the Ezio videos. They said that they made combat easier in AC2 compared to AC1. They pointed out how the counter button is easier in that game compared to AC1, it was actually kind of awkward. With Revelations they kept saying stuff, this game brought bombs and this souped up Eagle Vision which later games didn't use...I mean they didn't actually discuss many of the elements that make Revelations interesting.

The most positive is AC1, Brotherhood and AC3 actually.


That's not what I said. I just think it will be interesting to see how they play up what little good features it has.

From a purely gameplay perspective there are a lot of things it can discuss in Unity. The leap to HD (1:1 interiors, greater crowd sizes, interiors/exteriors, dedicated stealth button, black box, customization, co-op, time anomalies). Expect them to say that maybe it was a little too ambitious, an excuse that they didn't make for AC3, by the way.

The real clunker I think will be Rogue because it brought nothing new anywhere, it's entirely recycled assets but they will talk about the playable Templar thing.

SixKeys
10-09-2015, 03:26 PM
The real clunker I think will be Rogue because it brought nothing new anywhere, it's entirely recycled assets but they will talk about the playable Templar thing.

I have a feeling Rogue will be included in the AC4 feature like Liberation was included in AC3's. They're basically the same game and Rogue had a limited release, so no point making it an entry unto itself.

VestigialLlama4
10-09-2015, 04:00 PM
I have a feeling Rogue will be included in the AC4 feature like Liberation was included in AC3's. They're basically the same game and Rogue had a limited release, so no point making it an entry unto itself.

True and likewise, SYNDICATE will be out in two weeks. So next week is Black Flag-Rogue, the week after that (Oct 22) is UNITY. So it fits.

Assassin_M
10-09-2015, 04:13 PM
AC3 - It acknowledged this problem with Haytham's sequences where we get to meet Franklin which we can't do with Connor. Essentially, the main character in a detailed historical open world game can't be the guy who does everything and yet the nature of the game requires them to do everything. Ideally Connor should be Native American and Assassin, now those two identities are big enough and detailed to outfit a full 15 sequence game on its own but that would mean only the Frontier: no homestead, no cities and no naval, more Mohawk characters and very little interactions with American revolutionaries. The nature of the open world requires Connor to be, in addition to what has been said above, Achilles' property manager, Privateer, Soldier and Revolutionary, local do-gooder and errand boy. This creates problems because you have missions and side missions catering to different identities and ultimately there's a sense that Connor is doing stuff that should ideally be shared by two additional protagonists.
Native American is not a profession, though. I know you don't mean it, but it just sounds like this is what the privileged white man wanted as a fantasy for Native Americans and that AC III was unsuccessful because it didn't cater to that fantasy.

AC III does have stuff related to Connor's ancestry like the Frontiersman missions, the Hunting missions. Yeah, there could have been more, but it is what it is. I figured what this game was trying to say is that as a Native American, Connor DID have a place in this new world the Europeans were shaping. They could have scrapped the Naval Battles, the Homestead, the recruits...etc and replaced them with some Native American themed missions, maybe Canoe battles, rebuilding the village...etc but then it would just reinforce the white man fantasy of a Native American, whilst I think AC III wanted to tell another story. That Connor, a Native American, was a Hunter, tracker and warrior, but he was also a businessman and negotiator who established a lot of trade in the Frontier region. He was also an experienced privateer and captain who explored various ancient ruins and hunted treasure.

VestigialLlama4
10-09-2015, 04:36 PM
Native American is not a profession, though. I know you don't mean it, but it just sounds like this is what the privileged white man wanted as a fantasy for Native Americans and that AC III was unsuccessful because it didn't cater to that fantasy.

Gah...you are right. I didn't mean that so I'm sorry if it came out that way.


AC III does have stuff related to Connor's ancestry like the Frontiersman missions, the Hunting missions.

Well that's not specifically mohawk related but I see your point. Frontiersman are essentially New England Side Stories.


Yeah, there could have been more, but it is what it is.

I was thinking more in terms of Connor not meeting and interacting with Native tribes that there are no side missions with his fellow Kanienka;haka, that we don't get the fallout of his killing with Kanento;kon. I also think there should have been a mission where Connor helps them migrate to Canada after that. And there should have been Native American supporting characters we cared about. Like that mission with William Johnson you have all these Iroquois leaders there, there should have been characters we knew in that council, like say one of the people who gets shot is Connor's grandfather or uncle or elder cousin (i.e. on his mother's side). We don't really have Connor interacting with the Mohawk or the other Iroquois outside of these optional conversations with the village priestess. Like Ezio in Florence had a supporting cast different from when he came to Venice, so Connor should have had supporting characters from that village or say special missions with them.


I figured what this game was trying to say is that as a Native American, Connor DID have a place in this new world the Europeans were shaping. They could have scrapped the Naval Battles, the Homestead, the recruits...etc and replaced them with some Native American themed missions, maybe Canoe battles, rebuilding the village...etc but then it would just reinforce the white man fantasy of a Native American, whilst I think AC III wanted to tell another story. That Connor, a Native American, was a Hunter, tracker and warrior, but he was also a businessman and negotiator who established a lot of trade in the Frontier region. He was also an experienced privateer and captain who explored various ancient ruins and hunted treasure.

That is a beautiful point. I think that's true. Connor in AC3 is meant to represent this contemporary figure, he's the modern multi-cultural American of that time and his homestead and the whole story is this sense of what America should have been at the start, embodying principles that they would later become America's ideals. The Homestead is the American Dream of coursel.

I was mainly arguing in terms of devil's advocate as to why people find AC3's mission structure unconvincing. I mean it is true that Connor commanding batallions in the American army is a stretch and they never did establish what Achilles meant by saying Connor could pass as Spanish or Mediterranean. How Connor commands a regiment at Lexington and later at Monmouth is not explained very well. Bunker Hill makes somewhat more sense because there he's this running boy going behind enemy lines and Israel Putnam doesn't think he'll live.

Assassin_M
10-09-2015, 05:05 PM
Gah...you are right. I didn't mean that so I'm sorry if it came out that way.
Totally fine, I was certain it was unintentional.




Well that's not specifically mohawk related but I see your point. Frontiersman are essentially New England Side Stories.
I honestly loved some of the Frontiersman side missions that were set in the countryside. They were immersive missions that allowed for a lot of exploration. I wish there were more of them.




I was thinking more in terms of Connor not meeting and interacting with Native tribes that there are no side missions with his fellow Kanienka;haka, that we don't get the fallout of his killing with Kanento;kon. I also think there should have been a mission where Connor helps them migrate to Canada after that. And there should have been Native American supporting characters we cared about. Like that mission with William Johnson you have all these Iroquois leaders there, there should have been characters we knew in that council, like say one of the people who gets shot is Connor's grandfather or uncle or elder cousin (i.e. on his mother's side). We don't really have Connor interacting with the Mohawk or the other Iroquois outside of these optional conversations with the village priestess. Like Ezio in Florence had a supporting cast different from when he came to Venice, so Connor should have had supporting characters from that village or say special missions with them.
That I agree with. I always thought the fact that the clan mother was Connor's grandmother such a downplayed aspect of the story line. The Mohawk take center in the first couple of sequences and then they disappear just as quickly. The optional conversations, at least the ones with Kanentokon, could have been hunting missions. Oh, the hunting missions could have been the perfect side mission for the Mohawk, they could have been given by Kanentokon.


I was mainly arguing in terms of devil's advocate as to why people find AC3's mission structure unconvincing. I mean it is true that Connor commanding batallions in the American army is a stretch and they never did establish what Achilles meant by saying Connor could pass as Spanish or Mediterranean. How Connor commands a regiment at Lexington and later at Monmouth is not explained very well. Bunker Hill makes somewhat more sense because there he's this running boy going behind enemy lines and Israel Putnam doesn't think he'll live.
I honestly hated the earlier types of missions were Connor takes charge (Monmouth, Lexington) and prefer the more guerrilla approach (Bunker Hill and Chesapeake). The whole appeal of the premise of the first E3 trailer was this fact. Connor never took charge, he never screamed "FIRE", he just surveyed the scene, came through the trees and did what he had to do and then quickly disappeared. That's how it should have been in my opinion, that's how every battle should have been set up as. This design was WAY more intuitive and WAY more engaging, I have no idea why they decided that a broken mechanic (the horse) and lack of action would make for a fun mission.

VestigialLlama4
10-09-2015, 05:33 PM
I honestly loved some of the Frontiersman side missions that were set in the countryside. They were immersive missions that allowed for a lot of exploration. I wish there were more of them.

I liked the Hunting Club missions more, especially where you find these clubs in the area west of the the village (I think its Diamond Basin). Like the mission where you had to track and hunt these animals. The Frontiersman missions I liked was Boy who crief wolf and the one with Bigfoot, where you had to enter the cave behind the waterfall. But I like the way its introduced as this campfire tale. And in the cities, you find out by visiting a bar and talking to people.


I honestly hated the earlier types of missions were Connor takes charge (Monmouth, Lexington) and prefer the more guerrilla approach (Bunker Hill and Chesapeake). The whole appeal of the premise of the first E3 trailer was this fact. Connor never took charge, he never screamed "FIRE", he just surveyed the scene, came through the trees and did what he had to do and then quickly disappeared. That's how it should have been in my opinion, that's how every battle should have been set up as. This design was WAY more intuitive and WAY more engaging, I have no idea why they decided that a broken mechanic (the horse) and lack of action would make for a fun mission.

The Boston Tea Party I was okay with it because, to use Ubispeak, its "iconic". Paul Revere's Midnight Ride is silly however though I kind of find it endearing on repeated missions. I like the opening part of Lexington and Concord and the retreat but the battle part I found unlikely. I would have traded these two battle missions for the Great Fire of New York, that would have been cool to see and that kind of urban/civilian unrest is a better fit for AvT schenanigans than commanding artillery and canon. Bunker Hill and Chesapeake is awesome, though.

I think another problem with the setting is that none of the American Revolutionaries or other key historical figures, are Assassins. In all the other games, we've had key historical figures within that setting be among the Assassins. In AC2, Machiavelli is an Assassin, in Black Flag, Mary Read is an Assassin, in Revelations, Piri Reis is an Assassin, in Unity, Mirabeau is an Assassin. Now of course I understand that Ubisoft were concerned about some people reacting to the Founding Fathers being part of a quasi-Islamic secret society, and lore-wise it makes no sense that a bunch of white slaveowners would be Assassins anyway. From the point of the story, Connor is rebuilding the Order so theoretically he should be the guy recruiting the historical figures into the brotherhood and that might have been hard to put across as well. There were certain historical figures who could have fit in. Aaron Burr, who was a soldier, abolitionist and feminist would have been useful I think, but he's not in the game.

And the historical characters are done like textbooks for the most part, they don't become characters we like or relate to, the way Machiavelli, Da Vinci, Caterina Sforza, Prince Suleiman, Mary Read, Blackbeard or even Richard Lionheart, become characters we like and relate to. George Washington becomes a character in the DLC but not in the main game.

Journey93
10-09-2015, 07:06 PM
I liked the Hunting Club missions more, especially where you find these clubs in the area west of the the village (I think its Diamond Basin). Like the mission where you had to track and hunt these animals. The Frontiersman missions I liked was Boy who crief wolf and the one with Bigfoot, where you had to enter the cave behind the waterfall. But I like the way its introduced as this campfire tale. And in the cities, you find out by visiting a bar and talking to people.



The Boston Tea Party I was okay with it because, to use Ubispeak, its "iconic". Paul Revere's Midnight Ride is silly however though I kind of find it endearing on repeated missions. I like the opening part of Lexington and Concord and the retreat but the battle part I found unlikely. I would have traded these two battle missions for the Great Fire of New York, that would have been cool to see and that kind of urban/civilian unrest is a better fit for AvT schenanigans than commanding artillery and canon. Bunker Hill and Chesapeake is awesome, though.

I think another problem with the setting is that none of the American Revolutionaries or other key historical figures, are Assassins. In all the other games, we've had key historical figures within that setting be among the Assassins. In AC2, Machiavelli is an Assassin, in Black Flag, Mary Read is an Assassin, in Revelations, Piri Reis is an Assassin, in Unity, Mirabeau is an Assassin. Now of course I understand that Ubisoft were concerned about some people reacting to the Founding Fathers being part of a quasi-Islamic secret society, and lore-wise it makes no sense that a bunch of white slaveowners would be Assassins anyway. From the point of the story, Connor is rebuilding the Order so theoretically he should be the guy recruiting the historical figures into the brotherhood and that might have been hard to put across as well. There were certain historical figures who could have fit in. Aaron Burr, who was a soldier, abolitionist and feminist would have been useful I think, but he's not in the game.

And the historical characters are done like textbooks for the most part, they don't become characters we like or relate to, the way Machiavelli, Da Vinci, Caterina Sforza, Prince Suleiman, Mary Read, Blackbeard or even Richard Lionheart, become characters we like and relate to. George Washington becomes a character in the DLC but not in the main game.

Yeah that was one of my problems with AC3's story. They shoehorned Connor way too much into big historical events of the Revolution + the side cast on that side was very boring.

Connor had no interesting relationship with Sam Adams & Co. and felt more like just their errand boy for most of the story. Not to mention how out of place he felt there.

With Edward and Ezio this was much better done (like Edward being friends with Blackbeard and Mary Read + her being an Assassin)

cawatrooper9
10-09-2015, 07:23 PM
Yeah that was one of my problems with AC3's story. They shoehorned Connor way too much into big historical events of the Revolution + the side cast on that side was very boring.

Connor had no interesting relationship with Sam Adams & Co. and felt more like just their errand boy for most of the story. Not to mention how out of place he felt there.

With Edward and Ezio this was much better done (like Edward being friends with Blackbeard and Mary Read + her being an Assassin)
I also don't like that Connor's more satisfying ending (at least, in my opinion) was relegated to the end of the Homestead missions, which not only took place outside of the main storyline, but actually could not be completed in the same chronological timeline as the game (some homsetead missions related to the war were only unlocked after the memories of the war had been completed). I wish they'd at least done a better job merging these. I can't think of a single other example from the series in which a memory could not be completed until after finishing the main storyline.

Farlander1991
10-09-2015, 07:26 PM
I also don't like that Connor's more satisfying ending (at least, in my opinion) was relegated to the end of the Homestead missions, which not only took place outside of the main storyline, but actually could not be completed in the same chronological timeline as the game (some homsetead missions related to the war were only unlocked after the memories of the war had been completed). I wish they'd at least done a better job merging these. I can't think of a single other example from the series in which a memory could not be completed until after finishing the main storyline.

Which memories are you talking about? The final memory of the Homestead can be completed before completing the game. After Battle of Chesapeake you get to help injured sailors and then the next one is where Achilles dies. And you can do that before going to New York and that's when it happened in chronology.

Proof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0YBrlVGgw8

Connor still has hair which he shaves after the Fort George mission ;)

Assassin_M
10-09-2015, 07:36 PM
Yeah that was one of my problems with AC3's story. They shoehorned Connor way too much into big historical events of the Revolution
There's really nothing inherently wrong with that, this has always been the case with every AC game. The difference is that with AC III, we had way more documents and details about the history so a lot more events were known. The problem with this is how events were tied into the storyline and how the missions revolving around them were designed. The Boston tea party is a great mission, for example. It ties well into the main narrative and the mission itself incorporates the gameplay loop well. The midnight ride's narrative wasnt too bad: The patriots are willing to help, but they need a favor from you, makes sense. The mission design is what really blows. A while back, I made a post about how I think that mission should'v been done, incorporating all the 3 pillars of the gameplay loop to make it more fun and less passive.

The battle of Monmouth and The battle of Concord, though are examples of terrible missions both narrative wise and gameplay wise. Both missions involve very passive design philosophies. Instead of having us in the field, we get relegated to cannon shooting and running around on a horse. The cannon mission worked in Brotherhood because of how this particular event was set. This was a siege, with the scenario of chaos going all around you, so the cannon makes sense and it's a lot of fun because of the aesthetic. In Monmouth, though, we're just in the field. We're not shooting cannons or siege machines, we're shooting regular soldiers. It's not as grandiose, the aesthetic is just not there.


Connor had no interesting relationship with Sam Adams & Co. and felt more like just their errand boy for most of the story. Not to mention how out of place he felt there.
This whole errand boy complaint is just arbitrary, as we were a lot of historical characters' errand boys for most of the games in the series. The thing about Connor's relationship with the patriots is that it's not supposed to be a warm one. On the contrary, it's supposed to be very confrontational. I thought the most interesting dynamic that Connor had was with Sam Adams, Putnam (As he was very much a caricature) and GW. I didnt feel like I needed a warm relationship akin to Ezio's and Leo's, the very rocky exchanges between Connor and every patriot paint what the story wants to tell. That Connor is not a patriot, he's only helping them as an exchange of favors at first, but that then turns into Connor's inner compass of right and wrong taking charge and willfully helping the colonists win their independence from the British. That, of course accumulates into the final betrayal by the people he put into power. It's a very complicated dynamic that couldn't have been crafted the same way something like AC IV or AC II's dynamics were. I agree, though, that some characters didn't have enough screen time and this isn't anything new to the series, it's been this way since AC II.

VestigialLlama4
10-09-2015, 07:40 PM
I also don't like that Connor's more satisfying ending (at least, in my opinion) was relegated to the end of the Homestead missions, which not only took place outside of the main storyline, but actually could not be completed in the same chronological timeline as the game (some homsetead missions related to the war were only unlocked after the memories of the war had been completed). I wish they'd at least done a better job merging these. I can't think of a single other example from the series in which a memory could not be completed until after finishing the main storyline.

I don't know if that's true, the homestead missions unlock and open as you progress per sequence. So at the start of each sequence, you have homestead missions available for you. I think the final Homestead sequence (Achilles' death) unlocks at the start of the last sequence (before you confront Charles Lee). It makes sense as well, since the previous sequence starts with Achilles bedridden in the story cutscene. So his death has to be unlocked after that, that comes at the start of sequence 12.

But yeah, in terms of character, the Homestead provides a greater and more meaningful emotional payoff than even the main game. I mean got shivers walking to the room and seeing Achilles on the chair slumped over. The whole funeral was really nice, with Connor digging the grave as Achilles' letter reads out.

The other problem of course is that the cut-audio of Connor's final monologue which Darby McDevitt said was a mistake to remove from the game.

I-Like-Pie45
10-09-2015, 07:51 PM
press x to dig

cawatrooper9
10-09-2015, 08:47 PM
I don't know if that's true, the homestead missions unlock and open as you progress per sequence. So at the start of each sequence, you have homestead missions available for you. I think the final Homestead sequence (Achilles' death) unlocks at the start of the last sequence (before you confront Charles Lee). It makes sense as well, since the previous sequence starts with Achilles bedridden in the story cutscene. So his death has to be unlocked after that, that comes at the start of sequence 12.

But yeah, in terms of character, the Homestead provides a greater and more meaningful emotional payoff than even the main game. I mean got shivers walking to the room and seeing Achilles on the chair slumped over. The whole funeral was really nice, with Connor digging the grave as Achilles' letter reads out.


The other problem of course is that the cut-audio of Connor's final monologue which Darby McDevitt said was a mistake to remove from the game.
I don't know, maybe I messed up on my playthrough. I only really did the Homsestead stuff on one playthrough (which is a shame, I know) but I tried to be careful to do everything in order to make a cohesive story. Perhaps I accidentally did something out of order, but I just remember finally unlocking the mission where there are the dying soldiers on the beach after the war was already over.

Though, I suppose in reality the Treaty of Paris wasn't an "end-all, be-all" ceasefire, as mass communication was far from a reality.

VestigialLlama4
10-09-2015, 09:14 PM
I don't know, maybe I messed up on my playthrough. I only really did the Homsestead stuff on one playthrough (which is a shame, I know) but I tried to be careful to do everything in order to make a cohesive story. Perhaps I accidentally did something out of order, but I just remember finally unlocking the mission where there are the dying soldiers on the beach after the war was already over.

Though, I suppose in reality the Treaty of Paris wasn't an "end-all, be-all" ceasefire, as mass communication was far from a reality.

Well there was two more homestead missions after the Chesapeake Sick Soldiers missions. And that could be unlocked shortly after. Historically the Battle of Chesapeake Bay (1781) and the Treaty was 1783, that naval battle prevented the British from resupplying and it made the war too expensive and demoralizing to continue, so they decided to give up. So there was an in-between period between where there was no more battles but peace had not been secure. The real Charles Lee died in 1782 (he was stricken with fever and died in a tavern on the way to philadelphia), so the dates and ending and everything aligns perfectly.

The period after the treaty of Paris is the post-game epilogue missions where you see Evacuation Day (the British leaving America). It ends with Connor looking to the slave auction block after the British sail. Then you have the Tyranny DLC which is set maybe two or three years later around the time Washigton had retired to Mount Vernon but before the Articles of Confederation meeting where he really began his political career. The plot of Tyranny is based on an incident, probably apocryphal that some american soldiers or others approached Washington with an offer to make him King, and Washington refused. So the DLC uses that as a kernel for its what-if story.

Journey93
10-09-2015, 10:47 PM
I really need to do the Homestead missions in my next playthrough, heard Connor shows a different side of himself there.

He got annoying in the main storyline


There's really nothing inherently wrong with that, this has always been the case with every AC game. The difference is that with AC III, we had way more documents and details about the history so a lot more events were known. The problem with this is how events were tied into the storyline and how the missions revolving around them were designed. The Boston tea party is a great mission, for example. It ties well into the main narrative and the mission itself incorporates the gameplay loop well. The midnight ride's narrative wasnt too bad: The patriots are willing to help, but they need a favor from you, makes sense. The mission design is what really blows. A while back, I made a post about how I think that mission should'v been done, incorporating all the 3 pillars of the gameplay loop to make it more fun and less passive.

The battle of Monmouth and The battle of Concord, though are examples of terrible missions both narrative wise and gameplay wise. Both missions involve very passive design philosophies. Instead of having us in the field, we get relegated to cannon shooting and running around on a horse. The cannon mission worked in Brotherhood because of how this particular event was set. This was a siege, with the scenario of chaos going all around you, so the cannon makes sense and it's a lot of fun because of the aesthetic. In Monmouth, though, we're just in the field. We're not shooting cannons or siege machines, we're shooting regular soldiers. It's not as grandiose, the aesthetic is just not there.


This whole errand boy complaint is just arbitrary, as we were a lot of historical characters' errand boys for most of the games in the series. The thing about Connor's relationship with the patriots is that it's not supposed to be a warm one. On the contrary, it's supposed to be very confrontational. I thought the most interesting dynamic that Connor had was with Sam Adams, Putnam (As he was very much a caricature) and GW. I didnt feel like I needed a warm relationship akin to Ezio's and Leo's, the very rocky exchanges between Connor and every patriot paint what the story wants to tell. That Connor is not a patriot, he's only helping them as an exchange of favors at first, but that then turns into Connor's inner compass of right and wrong taking charge and willfully helping the colonists win their independence from the British. That, of course accumulates into the final betrayal by the people he put into power. It's a very complicated dynamic that couldn't have been crafted the same way something like AC IV or AC II's dynamics were. I agree, though, that some characters didn't have enough screen time and this isn't anything new to the series, it's been this way since AC II.

Never felt that way in the other AC games, or at least not this bad.

Connor is just too much of a Forrest Gump and Errand boy in the story, him fighting for the Patriots all the time got tiresome and they dragged it out. I would have liked to see him rebuild the Assassin Brotherhood throughout the story with Achilles help (he could advise him etc.). More focus on the Creed would have been good.

The Templars in this game are the series best but on the Assassin side its very lacking. Connor is basically off just doing his thing and obsessing over LEE.
He never seemed to give a **** about the creed.

Assassin_M
10-10-2015, 12:00 AM
Never felt that way in the other AC games, or at least not this bad.
I explained why it doesn't feel that way in other ACs. It's because the dynamic of AC III is different and you can't apply the same dynamic from AC IV or AC II to the one in AC III.


Connor is just too much of a Forrest Gump and Errand boy in the story
No, he's really not. Not to the extent of Ezio in AC II and ACR anyways. Connor pushed the patriots around, called them out on their BS and even threatened some of them. Again, him being an errand boy is no more than Ezio was Lorenzo's or Suleiman's errand boy.


Him fighting for the Patriots all the time got tiresome and they dragged it out.
He wasn't fighting FOR them, but it was an exchange of favors at first. Concord was an exchange of favors, Monmouth was a snap decision due to the involvement of Lee and He didn't directly aid the patriots on Bunker Hill. I agree that him taking charge of patriot armies was nonsensical, though.


I would have liked to see him rebuild the Assassin Brotherhood throughout the story with Achilles help (he could advise him etc.).
Which he does. All you have to do is play the side missions beside the main story. Side missions like the Homestead, the privateer contracts, the Liberation and the Captain Kidd treasure hunt.


More focus on the Creed would have been good.
They don't HAVE to say it for it to be there. The whole premise of the story and Connor as a character embody the Creed and its tenants. The hope in humanity, no matter how bad the situation may seem, holding their freedom on a pedestal no matter the cost, that's the ideal Assassin principle. It doesnt have to be spelled out by saying "Hurr durr, nothing is true everything is permitted". It's implied now. Would you honestly say there was focus on the Creed if it was mentioned?


obsessing over LEE.
A very exaggerated trope.


He never seemed to give a **** about the creed.
I guess that's why he went out of his way to rebuild the Homestead by giving people with miserable lives a home? People displaced by the war? I guess that must be why he recruited various individuals around the eastern seaboard to liberate cities from Templar control? Even sending his various recruits around the thirteen colonies to stop the Templars? Oh, this is just the side missions? Okay, how about where he put his personal feelings aside and continued with his mission to hunt Lee even though he was not the one the who killed his mother? Why would he assassinate his own father if he didn't care about the Creed? Why would he want to liberate the colonists? They're of no concern to him. You know why? Because he's an Assassin. And Assassins ensure the Templars do not meddle in the fate of humanity, fighting to keep humans liberated to carve their own destinies.

Journey93
10-10-2015, 01:04 AM
I explained why it doesn't feel that way in other ACs. It's because the dynamic of AC III is different and you can't apply the same dynamic from AC IV or AC II to the one in AC III.


No, he's really not. Not to the extent of Ezio in AC II and ACR anyways. Connor pushed the patriots around, called them out on their BS and even threatened some of them. Again, him being an errand boy is no more than Ezio was Lorenzo's or Suleiman's errand boy.


He wasn't fighting FOR them, but it was an exchange of favors at first. Concord was an exchange of favors, Monmouth was a snap decision due to the involvement of Lee and He didn't directly aid the patriots on Bunker Hill. I agree that him taking charge of patriot armies was nonsensical, though.


Which he does. All you have to do is play the side missions beside the main story. Side missions like the Homestead, the privateer contracts, the Liberation and the Captain Kidd treasure hunt.


They don't HAVE to say it for it to be there. The whole premise of the story and Connor as a character embody the Creed and its tenants. The hope in humanity, no matter how bad the situation may seem, holding their freedom on a pedestal no matter the cost, that's the ideal Assassin principle. It doesnt have to be spelled out by saying "Hurr durr, nothing is true everything is permitted". It's implied now. Would you honestly say there was focus on the Creed if it was mentioned?


A very exaggerated trope.


I guess that's why he went out of his way to rebuild the Homestead by giving people with miserable lives a home? People displaced by the war? I guess that must be why he recruited various individuals around the eastern seaboard to liberate cities from Templar control? Even sending his various recruits around the thirteen colonies to stop the Templars? Oh, this is just the side missions? Okay, how about where he put his personal feelings aside and continued with his mission to hunt Lee even though he was not the one the who killed his mother? Why would he assassinate his own father if he didn't care about the Creed? Why would he want to liberate the colonists? They're of no concern to him. You know why? Because he's an Assassin. And Assassins ensure the Templars do not meddle in the fate of humanity, fighting to keep humans liberated to carve their own destinies.

I never got this picture of Connor while playing AC3 (its been a while though).
Who says he did all that because of the creed? He seemed to me like an angry dude who only cared about his tribe and was pissed that Lee burned his village.
So he searched for him like a lunatic and killed Templars on the way but not because of the creed. Then after the big twist he continued pursuing Lee and supporting Washington.

Again not NOT because he was an Assassin but because he was a naive and idealistic and wanted a good future for his people and actually believed in Washington as a leader.

He never seemed to think about the creed (less so than Edward even who wasn't even an Assassin for most of BF)

They shouldn't have reduced all the recruiting to side missions and put a stronger emphasis on rebuilding the Brotherhood in the main story. All the side stuff doesn't even matter, I don't recall Connor mentioning it to Achilles that he was recruiting. Very half assed.

It never seemed like those so called Recruits were Assassins either but more as if they were just people who liked Connor and
would do him favour and help him. No real believe or anything. I did like that they were their own characters though.

And yes they have to "say" it and include it in a meaningful way (not forced of course). Thats what makes AC, without all those unique parts we would just have a story about random Freedom fighters. Connor seemed more like the latter and not part of the Brotherhood.

Now as we know he did actually rebuild the Brotherhood but since we won't be getting another game with him, we won't SEE it.

Assassin_M
10-10-2015, 01:19 AM
Who says he did all that because of the creed?
Oh, yes, allll of that, rebuilding the brotherhood by bolstering its ranks and its base and its navy must have had nothing to do with the Creed, lol. I mean, obviously. There's no other reason to do any of those things. Just because it's not spelled out, doesnt mean it's not there.


He seemed to me like an angry dude who only cared about his tribe and was pissed that Lee burned his village.
Exaggerated trope. He was only angry a couple of times. And no, he didnt only care about his tribe. For cripes sake, he still goes on to fight the Templars even AFTER his tribe decides to leave,


So he searched for him like a lunatic and killed Templars on the way but not because of the creed. Then after the big twist he continued pursuing Lee and supporting Washington.
I'm sure he just did it for the ****s and giggles.



Again not NOT because he was an Assassin but because he was a naive and idealistic and wanted a good future for his people.
How is rebuilding the Homestead good for his people? How is bolstering the brotherhood good for his people? How is liberating Boston and NY good for his people? How is destroying the Templars, EVEN AFTER HIS PEOPLE LEAVE, good for his people? His naivete and idealism are the epitome of the Creed's philosophy. The naivete is the continued hope in humanity's growth and realization.


He never seemed to think about the creed (less so than Edward even who wasn't even an Assassin for most of BF)
But he talks about it a dozen times, just because he doesn't OUT RIGHTLY SAY IT doesn't mean he never thought or talked about it. Did you not pay attention to his conversations with the Templars? With Adams about slavery? His talks of freedom to the Templars, his speech about hope and fighting to make a difference to Washington and his recruits? Those are ALL Assassins Creed. If you look at Ezio's explanation of the Creed, you'll see that it fits Connor to a tee.


They shouldn't have reduced all the recruiting to side missions and put a stronger emphasis on rebuilding the Brotherhood in the main story.
it's there. Arguing semantics is arbitrary. It's not like you have to pay extra to play these missions. They're part of the game.


All the side stuff doesn't even matter
Lol, what?


I don't recall Connor mentioning it to Achilles that he was recruiting. Very half assed.
So just because there's no cutscene where Connor goes to Achilles and says "Hey, Achilles, baby, i'v been going 'round the block, recruitin' some homeboys, you feel me? Peace", it's half assed? Achilles and Connor discuss the state of the brotherhood various times throughout the main story and some of the homestead missions. The state of the brotherhood's rebirth is cemented when Achilles goes to Connor's execution and tells him "You're not alone". Not anymore. Before this, he was all alone, the last Assassin. Even Achilles tells him this. It goes from "There are no more Assassins, boy" to "Just give a cry when you need us". And this is all main story, by the way because apparently, side missions "don't matter"


It never seemed like those so called Recruits were Assassins but more as if they were just people who liked Connor and
would do him favour and help him. No real believe or anything
So....those didn't feel like Assassins...but the faceless, copy-pasted recruits from Brotherhood felt like ones, I bet. I bet it's because "Oh, they had uniforms and we saw them during initiations". So only aesthetics matter to you? Somehow, those robot recruits from brotherhood are better because they're wearing Hoods. Okay.


And yes they have to "say" it and include it in a meaningful way (not forced of course). Thats what makes AC, without all those unique parts we would just have a story about Freedom fighters.
BUT THIS IS THE STORY OF THE ASSASSINS. It's all about Freedom. And no, they don't have to say it. Like I said, the elements are all there and it's definitely integrated in a meaningful way as I explained. Saying "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" once or twice doesn't make a better story, sorry. This is a game called Assassins Creed, where Templars and Assassins are mentioned frequently and ideals of control and freedom are argued for and against at length and it's the 5th installment. I think by then, everybody should have gotten the context. It's better to look at the concept in depth than just say it and do nothing else with it.

Mr.Black24
10-10-2015, 01:28 AM
I never got this picture of Connor while playing AC3 (its been a while though).
Who says he did all that because of the creed? He seemed to me like an angry dude who only cared about his tribe and was pissed that Lee burned his village.
And again, what is so bad about caring about his tribe. "Oh sorry that my remaining people, family, and way of life is threatened and want to see them safely!" I honestly never got that reason as a negative, if anything its a valid cause, and saying it otherwise is slightly racist too. I mean really, now? It was the beginning of a forced bloody removal of the native population and washing away of their culture, but you and others respond with "So what?"




They shouldn't have reduced all the recruiting to side missions and put a stronger emphasis on rebuilding the Brotherhood in the main story. All the side stuff doesn't even matter, I don't
recall Connor mentioning it to Achilles that he was recruiting. Very half assed. It never seemed like those so called Recruits were Assassins but more as if they were just people who liked Connor and
would do him favour and help him. No real believe or anything

The side missions matter as they are canon to the lore. They are things that Connor had accomplished and are followed, whenever you like it or not.


And yes they have to "say" it and include it in a meaningful way (not forced of course). Thats what makes AC, without all those unique parts we would just have a story about Freedom fighters. Connor seemed more like the latter and not part of the Brotherhood.


You don't need the Creed to be spelled out in front of you. They've been doing that for all this time before AC3, the devs assume that we grasped the concept enough that we can see it be brought into action through Connor. Remember Ezio's explanation of the Creed? "To say Nothing is True, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that Everything is Permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic."

The reasoning with you saying that it shouldn't be forced, is already at failure, because it is going to be forced. I mean the entire reason was explained in the last game, bring it up again why? I mean Connor had said it perfectly summed up when he recruited Clipper "The Assassins seek Peace through Freedom." as the Creed is a guide towards. Why say it again? We aren't babies who need to relearn this, we already know, and I'm glad we weren't spoon fed again.

You scoffed at me saying that "lol its too deep for me" but from what I'm seeing it truly is, especially if you want everything to be spelled out to you as you said. Then the game wouldn't be fun at all, I mean its about philosophy, making people think critically right? So why not?

Journey93
10-10-2015, 03:03 AM
And again, what is so bad about caring about his tribe. "Oh sorry that my remaining people, family, and way of life is threatened and want to see them safely!" I honestly never got that reason as a negative, if anything its a valid cause, and saying it otherwise is slightly racist too. I mean really, now? It was the beginning of a forced bloody removal of the native population and washing away of their culture, but you and others respond with "So what?"





The side missions matter as they are canon to the lore. They are things that Connor had accomplished and are followed, whenever you like it or not.



You don't need the Creed to be spelled out in front of you. They've been doing that for all this time before AC3, the devs assume that we grasped the concept enough that we can see it be brought into action through Connor. Remember Ezio's explanation of the Creed? "To say Nothing is True, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that Everything is Permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic."

The reasoning with you saying that it shouldn't be forced, is already at failure, because it is going to be forced. I mean the entire reason was explained in the last game, bring it up again why? I mean Connor had said it perfectly summed up when he recruited Clipper "The Assassins seek Peace through Freedom." as the Creed is a guide towards. Why say it again? We aren't babies who need to relearn this, we already know, and I'm glad we weren't spoon fed again.

You scoffed at me saying that "lol its too deep for me" but from what I'm seeing it truly is, especially if you want everything to be spelled out to you as you said. Then the game wouldn't be fun at all, I mean its about philosophy, making people think critically right? So why not?


Nothing is bad about that, when did I imply that? He just did it for his tribe and not for the creed. I would have preferred more focus on the latter.

Of course the side missions are canon, again when did I say otherwise? Don't put words into my mouth. They are still just side missions, you can't honestly tell me that they have the same merit and importance as the main storyline, there is a reason they are called SIDE missions. I wanted it to matter in the main storyline more.

I'm not saying they should spell out the Creed all the time. But still I want them to talk about it, I want Connor to care about that and rebuilding the Brotherhood. And of that we had nothing in the main story it was all just his tribe and CHARLES LEE. And of course treating poor Achilles like ****

Thats my problem. And hell I understand why they did that too, they were probably planning for Connor sequels, where they would have shown a more mature and experienced Connor who would have mainly focused on the Brotherhood (since he basically lost everything else)

They even said before release that if the demand was there they would make more games with him but since he got backlashed those plans were clearly dropped.


Oh, yes, allll of that, rebuilding the brotherhood by bolstering its ranks and its base and its navy must have had nothing to do with the Creed, lol. I mean, obviously. There's no other reason to do any of those things. Just because it's not spelled out, doesnt mean it's not there.


Exaggerated trope. He was only angry a couple of times. And no, he didnt only care about his tribe. For cripes sake, he still goes on to fight the Templars even AFTER his tribe decides to leave,


I'm sure he just did it for the ****s and giggles.



How is rebuilding the Homestead good for his people? How is bolstering the brotherhood good for his people? How is liberating Boston and NY good for his people? How is destroying the Templars, EVEN AFTER HIS PEOPLE LEAVE, good for his people? His naivete and idealism are the epitome of the Creed's philosophy. The naivete is the continued hope in humanity's growth and realization.


But he talks about it a dozen times, just because he doesn't OUT RIGHTLY SAY IT doesn't mean he never thought or talked about it. Did you not pay attention to his conversations with the Templars? With Adams about slavery? His talks of freedom to the Templars, his speech about hope and fighting to make a difference to Washington and his recruits? Those are ALL Assassins Creed. If you look at Ezio's explanation of the Creed, you'll see that it fits Connor to a tee.


it's there. Arguing semantics is arbitrary. It's not like you have to pay extra to play these missions. They're part of the game.


Lol, what?


So just because there's no cutscene where Connor goes to Achilles and says "Hey, Achilles, baby, i'v been going 'round the block, recruitin' some homeboys, you feel me? Peace", it's half assed? Achilles and Connor discuss the state of the brotherhood various times throughout the main story and some of the homestead missions. The state of the brotherhood's rebirth is cemented when Achilles goes to Connor's execution and tells him "You're not alone". Not anymore. Before this, he was all alone, the last Assassin. Even Achilles tells him this. It goes from "There are no more Assassins, boy" to "Just give a cry when you need us". And this is all main story, by the way because apparently, side missions "don't matter"


So....those didn't feel like Assassins...but the faceless, copy-pasted recruits from Brotherhood felt like ones, I bet. I bet it's because "Oh, they had uniforms and we saw them during initiations". So only aesthetics matter to you? Somehow, those robot recruits from brotherhood are better because they're wearing Hoods. Okay.


BUT THIS IS THE STORY OF THE ASSASSINS. It's all about Freedom. And no, they don't have to say it. Like I said, the elements are all there and it's definitely integrated in a meaningful way as I explained. Saying "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" once or twice doesn't make a better story, sorry. This is a game called Assassins Creed, where Templars and Assassins are mentioned frequently and ideals of control and freedom are argued for and against at length and it's the 5th installment. I think by then, everybody should have gotten the context. It's better to look at the concept in depth than just say it and do nothing else with it.


Never said that the Recruits didn't have character, never said the Brotherhood one's had. Obviously since AC3 is a sequel I expect improvements and the Recruits having character was one (they already did some in Revelations but here it was expanded on more). Too bad they felt more like people that owed Connor instead of REAL Assassins who believed in the cause.
And yes aesthetics matter too, why even have robes for the protagonists then? I guess all that doesn't matter

And yes its half assed, I wanted the Recruits to matter in the main story at least. But they mostly don't.

How is rebuilding the Homestead good for the Assassins? Could be that I'm not remembering things here but weren't those just random people he picked up?

Assassin_M
10-10-2015, 03:16 AM
Nothing is bad about that, when did I imply that? He just did it for his tribe and not for the creed.
Well, so what? Since AC II, we'v always had a side motivation. Ezio's family always came first above the Creed in numerous cases.


They are still just side missions, you can't honestly tell me that they have the same merit and importance as the main storyline, there is a reason they are called SIDE missions
No one is talking about importance priority, we're talking about the side mission being discarded by you. Everything is supposed to be taken when talking about context of things like rebuilding the brotherhood and Connor's progression.


I'm not saying they should spell out the Creed all the time. But still I want them to talk about it
They did. Man, you keep saying "I don't want it to be spelled out", but everything you say points to the contrary. You want recruits to have hoods, you want the Creed to be said at least once, you want Connor to tell Achilles that he's recruiting. If that's not spelling it out, I don't know what is.


I want Connor to care about that and rebuilding the Brotherhood.
He does, but it's not the MAIN PREMISE of the game. AC:Brotherhood was about building the brotherhood and that took center stage. AC II was about Ezio's revenge, progression and initiation into the Assassin Order so that took center stage. AC I was about Altair's redemption and regaining his rank among the Assassin Order. AC IV was about a pirate who's looking for his place in the world. Each story has a premise, rebuilding the brotherhood is not the main premise of the story. It's an important part, but it's not THE main part. It doesn't HAVE to be in EVERY story. You don't have to see an initiation in EVERY story. You don't HAVE to be an Assassin for the ENTIRETY or most of the story. Those aren't standards to be upheld, those are aesthetic preferences and have no impact on the narrative as a whole, it doesn't dictate what's good and what's bad.

Fact is, rebuilding the brotherhood is there, fully, but it's not the star, it's not the main premise, it doesn't take center stage, but the story is still completely about Assassins and Templars.


And of that we had nothing in the main story it was all just his tribe and CHARLES LEE.
Will you stop? It's not funny anymore and it's an exaggerated trope, it does nothing to advance your position. We did have that in the main story. The tribe is Connor's main motivation and driving force, just like Ezio's revenge, just like Edward's fortune and riches. It's an integral part of the storyline, so it's natural that the protagonist will do things that benefit THIS motivation as it's an important of their progression and arc.


And hell I understand why they did that too, they were probably planning for Connor sequels, where they would have shown a more mature and experienced Connor who would have mainly focused on the Brotherhood (since he basically lost everything else)
There's no basis for that.


They even said before release that if the demand was there they would make more games with him but since he got backlashed those plans were clearly dropped.
He didn't get backlashed, his reception was polarizing. There are people who hate him, but more people like him. They can't base a character's arc on the fact that they MIGHT make another game with him, so that theory is moot.


Never said that the Recruits didn't have character
I never said you said that.


never said the Brotherhood one's had.
Well, okay. Answer this, then: Did you prefer ACB's recruits to AC III's?


Obviously since AC3 is a sequel I expect improvements and the Recruits having character was one (they already did some in Revelations but here it was expanded on more).
Which happened.


Too bad they felt more like people that owed Connor instead of REAL Assassins who believed in the cause.



And yes aesthetics matter too, why even have robes for the protagonists then? I guess all that doesn't matter
Ah, there we go. Unless they're wearing hoods, they're not really Assassins. Forget dialogue between leader and recruits, forget giving them unique names and personalities, forget giving them special abilities. A piece of clothing is what dictates who's an Assassin and who's not. I guess Mario, Machiavelli, Claudia, Paola, Teodora, Bartolomeo and Antonio all just felt like people then, instead of "real" Assassins. Do you not see a problem with this? That a lot of hard work can go into fleshing out characters, but all that can be discarded if they're not wearing hoods?


And yes its half assed, I wanted the Recruits to matter in the main story at least. But they mostly don't.
I wanted, I wanted, I thought we were speaking objectively here? Like I said, the main premise of the story is NOT about rebuilding the brotherhood. It's about Connor's personal journey. Heck, even the game called BROTHERHOOD did not have your recruits feature prominently. Apart from a few mission constraints and two cutscenes where they're explicitly mentioned, there's nothing prominent about them. This is actually the same amount of times the recruits are featured in the main story of AC III. Stephane helps you in the Boston tea party and finding Johnson; Clipper, Duncan and Stephane save Connor from being hanged and finally, all of them help Connor with digging a tunnel to Fort George.


of course treating poor Achilles like ****
He apologizes for what he said. God, are there no new arguments? It's always the same ol' tired shtick.



How is rebuilding the Homestead good for the Assassins? Could be that I'm not remembering things here but weren't those just random people he picked up?
You don't think rebuilding the home base of the Assassins, providing a constant influx of finance through land and sea trade is good for the Assassins? You don't see how that's good? You would do well to refresh your memory.

Journey93
10-10-2015, 03:41 AM
Well, so what? Since AC II, we'v always had a side motivation. Ezio's family always came first above the Creed in numerous cases.


No one is talking about importance priority, we're talking about the side mission being discarded by you. Everything is supposed to be taken when talking about context of things like rebuilding the brotherhood and Connor's progression.


They did. Man, you keep saying "I don't want it to be spelled out", but everything you say points to the contrary. You want recruits to have hoods, you want the Creed to be said at least once, you want Connor to tell Achilles that he's recruiting. If that's not spelling it out, I don't know what is.


He does, but it's not the MAIN PREMISE of the game. AC:Brotherhood was about building the brotherhood and that took center stage. AC II was about Ezio's revenge, progression and initiation into the Assassin Order so that took center stage. AC I was about Altair's redemption and regaining his rank among the Assassin Order. AC IV was about a pirate who's looking for his place in the world. Each story has a premise, rebuilding the brotherhood is not the main premise of the story. It's an important part, but it's not THE main part. It doesn't HAVE to be in EVERY story. You don't have to see an initiation in EVERY story. You don't HAVE to be an Assassin for the ENTIRETY or most of the story. Those aren't standards to be upheld, those are aesthetic preferences and have no impact on the narrative as a whole, it doesn't dictate what's good and what's bad.

Fact is, rebuilding the brotherhood is there, fully, but it's not the star, it's not the main premise, it doesn't take center stage, but the story is still completely about Assassins and Templars.


Will you stop? It's not funny anymore and it's an exaggerated trope, it does nothing to advance your position. We did have that in the main story. The tribe is Connor's main motivation and driving force, just like Ezio's revenge, just like Edward's fortune and riches. It's an integral part of the storyline, so it's natural that the protagonist will do things that benefit THIS motivation as it's an important of their progression and arc.


There's no basis for that.


He didn't get backlashed, his reception was polarizing. There are people who hate him, but more people like him. They can't base a game's arc on the fact that they MIGHT make another game with him, so that theory is moot.


I never said you said that.


Well, okay. Answer this, then: Did you prefer ACB's recruits to AC III's?


Which happened.





Ah, there we go. Unless they're wearing hoods, they're not really Assassins. Forget dialogue between leader and recruits, forget giving them unique names and personalities, forget giving them special abilities. A piece of clothing is what dictates who's an Assassin and who's not. I guess Mario, Machiavelli, Claudia, Paola, Teodora, Bartolomeo and Antonio all just felt like people then, instead of "real" Assassins. Do you not see a problem with this? That a lot of hard work can go into fleshing out characters, but all that can be discarded if they're not wearing hoods.


I wanted, I wanted, I thought we were speaking objectively here? Like I said, the main premise of the story is NOT about rebuilding the brotherhood. It's about Connor's personal journey. Heck, even the game called BROTHERHOOD did not have your recruits feature prominently. Apart from a few mission constraints and two cutscenes where they're explicitly mentioned, there's nothing prominent about them. This is actually the same amount of times the recruits are featured in the main story of AC III. Stephane helps you in the Boston tea party and finding Johnson, Clipper, Duncan and Stephane save Connor from being hanged and finally, all of them help Connor with digging a tunnel to Fort George.


He apologizes for what he said. God, are there no new arguments? It's always the same ol' tired shtick.


You don't think rebuilding the home base of the Assassins, providing a constant influx of finance through land and sea trade is good for the Assassins? You don't see how that's good? You would do well to refresh your memory.

I'm not sure if most like him, its a 50/50 or maybe a 60/40 at best, certainly nothing compared to Ezio or Edward. If most people liked him they probably would have made another game with him.
Read the interviews before release, they obviously wanted to keep using the same protag for multiple games.

But after the backlash(and yes it was a backlash) that the game AND Connor got, those plans were dropped. And of course Connor still got an arc during the game, we would have seen the consequences of his development in the sequel. A more mature and experienced Connor, less naive and childish.

And to your other points I disagree. I don't want a Brotherhood repeat either but the problem was that the main story already had no Assassins except a dying man (Achilles) and a new guy who didn't know much about the Creed (Connor), so I at least hoped the Recruits would matter more.

It would have been very different from Brotherhood, Ezio still had so many allies and friends in Rome, Connor would have to do all on his own.
The Templar part of the main story is well done, on the Assassin side its just Connor basically (he doesn't listen to Achilles anyway). Wasn't a fan of that and it felt unbalanced.
Never said that all my complaints were objective, its all subjective and my opinion.

I would put ACR's Recruits above both ACB and AC3's. The missions that Ezio did with them involved Templars and the Creed. Better than Brotherhoods robots and AC3's random people.

They should have dialed back the boring Patriot Errand boy missions (since most of them were boring anyway and their "relationship" with Connor got tiresome, just felt like they were too crazy about involving Connor everywhere in the war, felt unnatural and awkward) and focused more on rebuilding the brotherhood. It would have fitted too, since the Brotherhood didn't even exist anymore.

Its clear I'm dealing with a Die hard AC3 fan here, so I don't expect you to agree

I wanted more involvement of Assassins and Templars in AC4 too but thats another topic.

Assassin_M
10-10-2015, 03:56 AM
I'm not sure if more like him, its a 50/50 or maybe a 60/40 at best.
You don't win a user voted award beating Max Payne, Agent 47 and Master Chief if it's not AT LEAST 60/40.


If most people liked him they probably would have made another game with him.
No. Most people liked Edward. Where's his second game?


Read the interviews before release, they obviously wanted to keep using the same protag for multiple games.
Transcripts or links to said interviews, please. The only implication of Connor POSSIBLY getting another game was from Hutchinson and it was a MAYBE, if he's popular enough.


But after the backlash(and yes it was a backlash
Lol, no, no it wasn't.


those plans were dropped.
Again, baseless claims with no merit. I replied to this in the previous post, no need to repeat yourself, it wont make it true.


And of course Connor still got a an arc during the game, we would have seen the consequences of his development in the sequel.
More baseless claims.


A more mature and experienced Connor, less naive and childish.
We already see that in the lead up from the final sequence. Particularly after he kills Kanentokon, so sequence 10. By then, he realizes that his people will never truly be safe and that no matter how much he fights, he'll still lose something, but he still needed to fight on because he's responsible for his own actions and he's bearing the consequences. He started helping the colonists and he decides to finish that task, because he's an Assassin. No tribe involved, no revenge. Just an Assassin chasing the final Templar.


but the problem was that the main story already had no Assassins except a dying man (Achilles) and a new guy who didn't know much about the Creed (Connor)
Well so what?? Like I said and explained, THIS is the premise. The dead brotherhood with Achilles and Connor as the remaining ones. It's very much a lone wolf story, but the narrative shows how Connor starts building up the brotherhood. There doesn't HAVE to be hooded figures all lined up around a fire, that little boy scout trope has been done already, this is a different story. These are different Assassins. From an objective point of view, this is nothing but aesthetic preference.


I would put ACR's Recruits above both ACB and AC3's. The missions that Ezio did with them involved Templars and the Creed.
As did AC III's. You ran into the recruits, they tell you about the state of the city, you gather info and find out it's Templars running a muck, you craft a plan, it succeeds and Connor explains the Assassin principle to the potential recruits. They actually have names, unique appearances and back stories. Unlike ACR's.


Better than Brotherhoods robots and AC3's random people.
ACR's is actually the one with random people, but of course, because they're wearing hoods, they're automatically "better".


They should have dialed back the boring Patriot Errand boy missions (since most of them were boring anyway and their "relationship" with Connor got tiresome)
From a gameplay perspective, only the Midnight Ride, Monmouth and Concord would be considered boring, so that's not most missions.

Journey93
10-10-2015, 04:08 AM
You don't win a user voted award beating Max Payne, Agent 47 and Master Chief if it's not AT LEAST 60/40.


No. Most people liked Edward. Where's his second game?


Transcripts or links to said interviews, please. The only implication of Connor POSSIBLY getting another game was from Hutchinson and it was a MAYBE, if he's popular enough.


Lol, no, no it wasn't.


Again, baseless claims with no merit. I replied to this in the previous post, no need to repeat yourself, it wont make it true.


More baseless claims.


We already see that in the lead up from the final sequence. Particularly after he kills Kanentokon, so sequence 10. By then, he realizes that his people will never truly be safe and that no matter how much he fights, he'll still lose something, but he still needed to fight on because he's responsible for his own actions and he's bearing the consequences. He started helping the colonists and he decides to finish that task, because he's an Assassin. No tribe involved, no revenge. Just an Assassin chasing the final Templar.


Well so what?? Like I said and explained, THIS is the premise. The dead brotherhood with Achilles and Connor as the remaining ones. It's very much a lone wolf story, but the narrative shows how Connor starts building up the brotherhood. There doesn't HAVE to be hooded figures all lined up around a fire, that little boy scout trope has been done already, this is a different story. These are different Assassins. From an objective point of view, this is nothing but aesthetic preference.


As did AC III's. You ran into the recruits, they tell you about the state of the city, you gather info and find out it's Templars running a muck, you craft a plan, it succeeds and Connor explains the Assassin principle to the potential recruits. They actually have names, unique appearances and back stories. Unlike ACR's.


ACR's is actually the one with random people, but of course, because they're wearing hoods, they're automatically "better".


From a gameplay perspective, only the Midnight Ride, Monmouth and Concord would be considered boring, so that's not most missions.


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-09-24-assassins-creed-3-sequels-depend-on-player-reaction-to-new-hero-connor
--> Here they are saying that sequels for Connor depend on the player reaction and Ezio is used as an example.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1pz0j2/iama_developer_on_assassins_creed_iv_black_flag/?sort=top
--> Darby confirming that Connor will get no sequel, "not likely". I wonder what happened?

Notice all the France teasers in the game too.

Edward would probably have gotten a second game if it wasn't for Forsaken. I mean we already knew his ending (or at least the one's who read the book). And they also wanted to use Victorian London as a setting (one of the big settings that fans were demanding since the beginning) so using London two times wasn't an option anyway(especially with people whining that we get the same old **** every year)

Same reason why Haytham didn't get a game, he has his book. Or do you want to tell me that Shay was planned from the beginning to be part of the Kenway Saga (even though he isn't even a Kenway and never mentioned in AC3)? A forced and shoehorned character if there ever was one.

Yeah 60/40 would be my estimation too. Not more than that though, can't say I blame people. I mean I don't want Ezio clones (like Arno) either but Connor was at times hard to like

Assassin_M
10-10-2015, 04:21 AM
Its clear I'm dealing with a Die hard AC3 fan here, so I don't expect you to agree

And? Like this is supposed to remove any credibility from anything I say. I could say that you're a die hard AC II fan, so you'll never agree with me.....See? Nothing happened. This is arbitrary. I have voiced many criticisms of AC III throughout the years. Do I like it more than most? I do. Being a fan of something does not diminish any credibility from what I or you or anyone says about what they're a fan of. Drop the unnecessary notions, as I am, and lets only argue objective facts.


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-09-24-assassins-creed-3-sequels-depend-on-player-reaction-to-new-hero-connor
--> Here they are saying that sequels for Connor depend on the player reaction and Ezio is used as an example.
Yes, that's what we talked about.


https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1pz0j2/iama_developer_on_assassins_creed_iv_black_flag/?sort=top
--> Darby confirming that Connor will get no sequel, "not likely". I wonder what happened?
Nothing happened. Is it a stretch to think that there were no plans to begin with, only a possibility, and when Ubisoft found Connor to be not that great of an investment, they just simply closed that door? Heck, to this day, Hutchinson still says Connor will most likely pop up again, so where does this stand in your theory? It's really quite simple. This here points less to what you're saying. They had no guarantee that Connor would be a universally popular hero, especially after Ezio. It's mad to think that they'd put forth plans BEFORE discerning whether or not Connor is a good investment.


Edward would probably have gotten a second game if it wasn't for Forsaken.
They could have made a second if they wanted. London was ripe for another Edward game, but they didn't use it. Novels never stopped Ubisoft from capitalizing on a profitable investment.


I mean we already knew his ending (or at least the one's who read the book).
Doesn't really mean anything. We already knew when Edward died, but we still got Black Flag. You do realize that we'v known when Edward died since BEFORE Black Flag was even announced, right? So that's moot.


And they also wanted to use Victorian London as a setting (one of the big settings that fans were demanding since the beginning) so using London two times wasn't an option anyway(especially with people whining that we get the same old **** every year)
Edward traveled all over the world after Black Flag, it didn't have to be London.


Same reason why Haytham didn't get a game, he has his book.
Or maybe it's the same reason they didn't make one for Edward. Which is that they didn't want nor plan to makes games for them, even though they were popular.


Or do you want to tell me that Shay was planned from the beginning to be part of the Kenway Saga (even though he isn't even a Kenway and never mentioned in AC3)?
Nope. I'm saying that Haytham not getting a game has nothing to do with having a book because Edward was already mentioned in a book AND had his death revealed way before Black Flag was announced.


Yeah 60/40 would be my estimation too. Not more than that though.
Sure. it could be more, you never know, but I agree, it's more like 60/40.

Also, to the whole side mission department. A lot of people say they don't matter and that important plot points should not be "relegated" to side quest strands. Did you know that A LOT of the Witcher III's stories are finished in completely optional side quests? There are some very important plot points that are "relegated" to being side quests, plot points that decide end game scenarios. The smart thing about this is that the main story has a premise to tell. Finding Ciri. That's the narrative of the story, nothing else. Some of the side quests actually feel more important, because, well, you get to decide the fate of an entire war. Yes, the fate of the WHOLE war is relegated to a side mission. That's not to diminish the importance, but to distinctively differentiate between the main premise and anything else along the way.

GunnerGalactico
10-10-2015, 11:29 AM
@ M
Don't waste your time explaining things to people like him. Usually, when people say stuff like: "he's just an errand boy" or "he's obsessed over Charles Lee and wanted to kill him solely for revenge", that's the cue for me to end the conversation. If they just don't get it, then it's not your problem. Simple as that ;)

Oh, and good to have you back btw.

EmptyCrustacean
10-10-2015, 11:56 AM
Actually there was more negativity in the Ezio videos.

Ugh, you're so argumentative it's not even funny.


They said that they made combat easier in AC2 compared to AC1. They pointed out how the counter button is easier in that game compared to AC1, it was actually kind of awkward. With Revelations they kept saying stuff, this game brought bombs and this souped up Eagle Vision which later games didn't use...I mean they didn't actually discuss many of the elements that make Revelations interesting.

What?! lol They never said they made the combat easier, you just interpreted it that way. This is a prime example of you confusing your own opinions with fact. They called ACII the "defining chapter". They called the combat fresh, said Ezio was a more skilled fighter than Altair, could climb faster. Oh and "Unlike Altair, Ezio never had to walk slow not to be noticed". Said ACII set the standard for how future Assassins could espace unnoticed. Called ACII a "revolutionary jump for the franchise" If you honestly think that's negative I don't think it's even worth debating these videos with you going forward.


From a purely gameplay perspective there are a lot of things it can discuss in Unity. The leap to HD (1:1 interiors, greater crowd sizes, interiors/exteriors, dedicated stealth button, black box, customization, co-op, time anomalies). Expect them to say that maybe it was a little too ambitious, an excuse that they didn't make for AC3, by the way.

Because you enjoy arguing so much you try to create points to argue with even if the person you're arguing with didn't actually make them. I didn't say there wouldn't be anything to discuss, I said it would be interesting to see how UBI PLAYS IT UP. That means how they try to spin it positively. Because nothing that you've listed there is worth a damn apart from the black box mission and larger crowds - and even the latter contributed to its technical hiccups.

Jessigirl2013
10-10-2015, 12:29 PM
Wow, a lot of negativity in that video.
Seems like they threw AC III under the bus and downplayed its innovation just so they could big up Black Flag later on. Very disappointing. It will be interesting to see what they say about Unity lol

Haha... When I saw this I didn't expect they would do Unity...:rolleyes:
They only really acknowledged that it was a mess vaguely at E3 ;)

ACIII was one of my favourites IMO :rolleyes:

But THAT ending....:mad:

and then the awful follow up in BF .....:mad:

Journey93
10-10-2015, 02:24 PM
And? Like this is supposed to remove any credibility from anything I say. I could say that you're a die hard AC II fan, so you'll never agree with me.....See? Nothing happened. This is arbitrary. I have voiced many criticisms of AC III throughout the years. Do I like it more than most? I do. Being a fan of something does not diminish any credibility from what I or you or anyone says about what they're a fan of. Drop the unnecessary notions, as I am, and lets only argue objective facts.


Yes, that's what we talked about.


Nothing happened. Is it a stretch to think that there were no plans to begin with, only a possibility, and when Ubisoft found Connor to be not that great of an investment, they just simply closed that door? Heck, to this day, Hutchinson still says Connor will most likely pop up again, so where does this stand in your theory? It's really quite simple. This here points less to what you're saying. They had no guarantee that Connor would be a universally popular hero, especially after Ezio. It's mad to think that they'd put forth plans BEFORE discerning whether or not Connor is a good investment.


They could have made a second if they wanted. London was ripe for another Edward game, but they didn't use it. Novels never stopped Ubisoft from capitalizing on a profitable investment.


Doesn't really mean anything. We already knew when Edward died, but we still got Black Flag. You do realize that we'v known when Edward died since BEFORE Black Flag was even announced, right? So that's moot.


Edward traveled all over the world after Black Flag, it didn't have to be London.


Or maybe it's the same reason they didn't make one for Edward. Which is that they didn't want nor plan to makes games for them, even though they were popular.


Nope. I'm saying that Haytham not getting a game has nothing to do with having a book because Edward was already mentioned in a book AND had his death revealed way before Black Flag was announced.


Sure. it could be more, you never know, but I agree, it's more like 60/40.

Also, to the whole side mission department. A lot of people say they don't matter and that important plot points should not be "relegated" to side quest strands. Did you know that A LOT of the Witcher III's stories are finished in completely optional side quests? There are some very important plot points that are "relegated" to being side quests, plot points that decide end game scenarios. The smart thing about this is that the main story has a premise to tell. Finding Ciri. That's the narrative of the story, nothing else. Some of the side quests actually feel more important, because, well, you get to decide the fate of an entire war. Yes, the fate of the WHOLE war is relegated to a side mission. That's not to diminish the importance, but to distinctively differentiate between the main premise and anything else along the way.

And as much as I love TW3 thats one of the flaws it has. They shafted all the political stuff to side quests which was a huge mistake. We needed a more in depth questline regarding Radovid, Roche etc. but they basically got rid of all our previous decisions (TW2 one's) and made a lame side quest where you decide the fate of the war.

Not to mention how nothing changed after the quest. Lazily done, worse than in AC3 even.

Journey93
10-10-2015, 02:26 PM
Ugh, you're so argumentative it's not even funny.



What?! lol They never said they made the combat easier, you just interpreted it that way. This is a prime example of you confusing your own opinions with fact. They called ACII the "defining chapter". They called the combat fresh, said Ezio was a more skilled fighter than Altair, could climb faster. Oh and "Unlike Altair, Ezio never had to walk slow not to be noticed". Said ACII set the standard for how future Assassins could espace unnoticed. Called ACII a "revolutionary jump for the franchise" If you honestly think that's negative I don't think it's even worth debating these videos with you going forward.



Because you enjoy arguing so much you try to create points to argue with even if the person you're arguing with didn't actually make them. I didn't say there wouldn't be anything to discuss, I said it would be interesting to see how UBI PLAYS IT UP. That means how they try to spin it positively. Because nothing that you've listed there is worth a damn apart from the black box mission and larger crowds - and even the latter contributed to its technical hiccups.

Well its not like they are wrong with the things they have said (regarding AC2 and the Ezio Trilogy in general)

I'm actually surprised that they mentioned so much good stuff about AC3 and hyped it this much but then again thats what these videos are supposed to do.

Assassin_M
10-10-2015, 04:56 PM
And as much as I love TW3 thats one of the flaws it has. They shafted all the political stuff to side quests which was a huge mistake. We needed a more in depth questline regarding Radovid, Roche etc. but they basically got rid of all our previous decisions (TW2 one's) and made a lame side quest where you decide the fate of the war.

Not to mention how nothing changed after the quest. Lazily done, worse than in AC3 even.

It's not just the war. The finale of the baron's story, Keira, Dandelion, the love story between Geralt and Yennfer. This is all optional to complete. As I explained, none of this has a place in the main story. It would have created HUGE pacing issues. All of these side quests are very long and in depth, I really don't know what you're talking about.

It's not "lazy", it's a practical solution. You can't just chug in plot lines into the main narrative just because. When you have a clear vision of where you want your story to go, then you better stick to it, which they did. This was about finding Ciri. It wasn't about Geralt's love for Yennefer, nor the war nor Keira nor the Baron. It was all about Ciri. That's why this is a good decision when you think about it in depth instead of just taking it at face value. Another company would have been like "Oooooh war? politics? Just shove it right into the storyline hahahaha funnnn".


Well its not like they are wrong with the things they have said (regarding AC2 and the Ezio Trilogy in general)
If they're wrong and overhyping AC III, then they're wrong and overhyping AC II. If they're right about AC II, then they're right about AC III. Can't have two ways about it.


@ M
Don't waste your time explaining things to people like him. Usually, when people say stuff like: "he's just an errand boy" or "he's obsessed over Charles Lee and wanted to kill him solely for revenge", that's the cue for me to end the conversation. If they just don't get it, then it's not your problem. Simple as that ;)

Oh, and good to have you back btw.
Honestly, he's a pretty good person. He didn't resort to a single ad hominem or strawman and argued very well.

Thanks!

Namikaze_17
10-10-2015, 05:58 PM
M, turn back face.

You've been a heel for too long. :rolleyes: :p

Assassin_M
10-10-2015, 06:00 PM
M, turn back face.

You've been a heel for too long. :rolleyes: :p
I'm a tweener right now, everyone likes tweeners more.

king-hailz
10-10-2015, 06:15 PM
I'm a tweener right now, everyone likes tweeners more.

Wow this argument needs to finish LOL! It's been going on for years, you are both wrong! AC3 has extreme flaws, yet there is something in there you like because that's who you are. AC2 has flaws (nothing is perfect) but the majority of people don't mind those problem's and love it because of their preference.

It always goes down to preference, none of you will ever know factually which is better, you will always choose your game because that's the preference you like. And honestly the arguments against AC3 are so bland that you can't really say it's bad, and the arguments against AC2 are so 'nit picked' that is seems sad that you spent so much brain power to tell someone with a different preference why your game is better.

Please just end this conversation now. You don't need to defend your favorite game to others because you want everyone to like it, or because you think it's technically superior. Just enjoy your game and accept that there are a lot of people out there who don't like it.

Assassin_M
10-10-2015, 06:30 PM
Wow this argument needs to finish LOL! It's been going on for years, you are both wrong!
I can't be wrong because what i'm stating are things factually in the game. I never praised AC III in a single post during this argument. I only stated facts and explained some misconceptions. Saying that criticisms are nitpicked and/or bland is very lazy arguing leaning on ad hominem. It's an attempt to discredit an argument by nothing more than mocking someone's attention span because you didn't notice the problems or were too enamored with the game to notice them. No where did I say he has to like AC III, but he's wrong about some things. He still dislikes AC III, which is really unsurprising, and there's no problem with that.

If I argue something against AC II and it turns out I was wrong, then that's a legitimate counter. I could choose to JUST concede the point or I could just say that my point stands because of preference, which is also fine.

This isn't brought out of nowhere, Ubisoft released a retrospect on AC III. This was the developer POV and now this is the fan POV.

king-hailz
10-10-2015, 06:34 PM
I can't be wrong because what i'm stating are things factually in the game. I never praised AC III in a single post during this argument. I only stated facts and explained some misconceptions. Saying that criticisms are nitpicked and/or bland is very lazy arguing leaning on ad hominem. It's an attempt to discredit an argument by nothing more than mocking someone's attention span because you didn't notice the problems or were too enamored with the game to notice them. No where did I say he has to like AC III, but he's wrong about some things. He still dislikes AC III, which is really unsurprising, and there's no problem with that.

If I argue something against AC II and it turns out I was wrong, then that's a legitimate counter. I could choose to JUST concede the point or I could just say that my point stands because of preference, which is also fine.

This isn't brought out of nowhere, Ubisoft released a retrospect on AC III. This was the developer POV and now this is the fan POV.

Yes there are things factually in the game, but what you think about them aren't facts. I can say that the fact that we don't see Ziio with Connor much in the game is a fact, but me saying that that ruins the impact of her death is my opinion. And honestly if you find a reason for saying why that's a good thing, GREAT!

Also if someone said Ezio is a womaniser, it's a fact and I'm not arguing, because I think it's a good thing, it makes him likeable and that way we seem him grow with more of an impact. However when someone says that 'he's just a womanizer' it's not a fact, it's an opinion. I'm not saying anybody here is saying these things, these are just examples.

And M, I'm not saying you can't have a POV, I'm saying there is no point in making long arguments with people with different opinions because they've been said a million times before. Also honestly you always end up winning these arguments, and not because AC3 is a better game but because you are honestly the smartest person on these forums, you're definitely smarter than me, and if I lose this 'argument' then I really don't care.

Assassin_M
10-10-2015, 06:39 PM
Yes there are things factually in the game, but what you think about them aren't facts!
I never said that anywhere. As an example, the Creed IS mentioned and discussed throughout AC III, that's a fact. That Journey didn't like how it's presented is his opinion, which I'm not interested in arguing and is completely fine as a counter argument.

king-hailz
10-10-2015, 06:41 PM
I never said that anywhere. As an example, the Creed IS mentioned and discussed throughout AC III, that's a fact. That Journey didn't like how it's presented is his opinion, which I'm not interested in arguing and is completely fine as a counter argument.

I edited the post above, just saying in case you didn't see it.

Assassin_M
10-10-2015, 06:45 PM
I edited the post above, just saying in case you didn't see it.
I saw it and shucks, man. Thanks......but I still think AC III is a better game:p

And you're really smart, man. You type a lot of huge posts and they're very articulate. And you don't take breaks like me, lol

king-hailz
10-10-2015, 08:24 PM
I saw it and shucks, man. Thanks......but I still think AC III is a better game:p

And you're really smart, man. You type a lot of huge posts and they're very articulate. And you don't take breaks like me, lol

It's nothing, I didn't say it to get a reaction, I said it honestly, I mean people can tell just by the way you talk. Also I love that you like AC3, I mean I think it's the differences that make us human. Don't you think?

I-Like-Pie45
10-10-2015, 10:03 PM
you are all bigtime jabronis

HDinHB
10-14-2015, 08:51 PM
And now for Black Flag:
http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-iv-black-flag-evolution-on-the-high-seas/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyuyhe9Z9qY


With the possible exception of actual sea voyages, there are few things that can’t be improved by adding pirates, and Assassin’s Creed is no exception. Combining free-running and Templar-stabbing with open-world piracy, Assassin’s Creed IV Black Flag was a huge, aquatic sandbox filled with explosive spectacle and fun things to do.
...
And running around scooping up the collectibles that were revealed with every Viewpoint is always enjoyable, no matter the context.
...
As deeply enjoyable as its side activities were, Assassin’s Creed IV also delivered one of the series’ strongest stories. As Edward Kenway, we saw the Assassin Brotherhood through the eyes not just of an outsider, but of an amoral criminal who rejected the philosophy and embraced the cool costumes and terrifying methods.


Just one more week to squeeze in Unity and Rogue.

EmptyCrustacean
10-14-2015, 10:54 PM
I like Black Flag but I would like it even more if it was just a pirate game and not an AC game.
Ubisoft really wanted to make a pirate game but they wanted to bank on a reliable brand so they forced it. That's why we never get to play as Edward as an Assassin.

Assassin_M
10-14-2015, 10:55 PM
And now for Black Flag:
http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-iv-black-flag-evolution-on-the-high-seas/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyuyhe9Z9qY



Just one more week to squeeze in Unity and Rogue.
Definitely the best Assassins Creed game.

m4r-k7
10-14-2015, 11:05 PM
Assassins Creed 4 was so damn good

booty_fiend
10-14-2015, 11:11 PM
Assassins Creed 4 was so damn good
the best

ze_topazio
10-14-2015, 11:21 PM
AC4 was awesome, but lacked something, I'm not sure what that something is though.



I hope they make another naval game.

Ichrukia56
10-14-2015, 11:30 PM
God love how the guy is lost for words at the start of the video Hahaha ;)

booty_fiend
10-14-2015, 11:34 PM
AC4 was awesome, but lacked something, I'm not sure what that something is though.
an interesting or progressive modern day plot, i'll admit.

Locopells
10-15-2015, 12:24 AM
God love how the guy is lost for words at the start of the video Hahaha ;)

Love that whole first minute!

HDinHB
10-15-2015, 12:55 AM
AC4 was awesome, but lacked something, I'm not sure what that something is though.


I hope they make another naval game.

The assassinations in AC4 seemed backloaded. It felt like the writer's got to the end of the game and said "Oh crap! We still have all these guys left to kill and just a couple sequences to do it!" Most of the games are rhythmic...build up; assassinate target...build up; assassinate target, but Black Flag was more like build up build up build up; assassinate! assassinate! assassinate! They lost some of the impact.


an interesting or progressive modern day plot, i'll admit.

I was disappointed in the modern day in AC4, then I met an AC with no modern day...

http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/songs/lyrics/Then_I_Met_a_Man.html

VestigialLlama4
10-15-2015, 03:41 AM
I don't know what they mean by saying Edward is the most skilled fighter since he can take on multiple enemies by himself, all the other Assassins could do that too, and free aim was there in AC3 as well.

I am amazed they didn't talk about the most innovative ground gameplay feature in Black Flag...the stealth room structure. That is an area has several layers of patrol. Guards on ground, Snipers on Higher levels, Alarm Bells that call for reinforcement and which can be silenced. This was imported without credit or acknowledgement into Unity and Syndicate and that was something which Black Flag introduced. The Jungle infiltration missions, Assassination missions and the Plantation Missions basically became UNITY's mission structure. And most likely they borrowed that from Arkham or Far Cry but whatever.

This video was a disappointment in that sense, since the earlier videos pointed out little known innovations this one was basically caught up in the whole "Pirates bro..." haze and this for a seven minute video? Wow. Likewise, seriously Rogue gets an entire video for itself. I hope it's paired with Unity because that game is fanfiction cannibalized from the assets of earlier, and better, games without any contribution. It's even more worthless than UNITY which at least is a legitimate failure.


The assassinations in AC4 seemed backloaded. It felt like the writer's got to the end of the game and said "Oh crap! We still have all these guys left to kill and just a couple sequences to do it!" Most of the games are rhythmic...build up; assassinate target...build up; assassinate target, but Black Flag was more like build up build up build up; assassinate! assassinate! assassinate! They lost some of the impact.

That's not true at all. You have four major Assassination missions preceding that. Julien du Casse, Laurens Prins, Charles Vane (who is a fake-out but then that has precedent with Michelletto and Rodrigo) and Benjamin Hornigold. Just because Edward is not technically an Assassin when he does those missions (and even then du Casse is a Templar and prins was an Assassin's target) doesn't mean they are not assassination missions.

The final sequences are actually entirely linear missions, and not assassinations at all. Black Bart is a sad disappointment after his awesome build-up, Woodes Rogers was amusing and funny (and a fake-out) and El Tiburon was a boss-fight. Torres was another linear level.

RVSage
10-15-2015, 03:45 AM
As Vestigia said they have ignored the improvements to stealth missions in AC IV, Anyway the video reminded me of some awesome stuff from AC IV gonna replay till syndicate comes on PC

HDinHB
10-15-2015, 03:55 AM
That's not true at all.

Yeah, it is true. I stand by what I said.

VestigialLlama4
10-15-2015, 04:05 AM
I stand by what I said.

Then respond to the full reply. You said the assassinations felt backloaded referring to the final sequence.

I replied by saying: You have four major Assassination missions preceding that. Julien du Casse, Laurens Prins, Charles Vane (who is a fake-out but then that has precedent with Michelletto and Rodrigo) and Benjamin Hornigold. Just because Edward is not technically an Assassin when he does those missions (and even then du Casse is a Templar and Prins was an Assassin's target) doesn't mean they are not assassination missions.

These four missions use the gameplay of Black Flag, are continuous to the structure of other Black Flag missions and general freeroam, so in no way are they backloaded to the end of the final game. Laurens Prins requires you to infiltrate at night through bushes into a plantation, similar to the infiltration into Torres' compound from the second or third sequence. It also anticipates the structure of Unity's missions as well. Du Casse's mission has you infiltrating the jungle through thickets and brambles, similar to the other jungle missions (such as the Observatory). Hornigold's assassination mission takes place on a huge open island similar to the one in Tulum which you infiltrate and defend.

SixKeys
10-15-2015, 04:49 AM
They listed Edward being OP as hell as an improvement. :nonchalance: "You could shoot several times with pistols without reloading or getting close to your targets!" Much assassin. Very stealth. Wow.

AC4 is a good game by all accounts, though.

I-Like-Pie45
10-15-2015, 06:27 AM
given how fast quick fire was in acb it pretty much was no reloading anyhow before ac4s time munch munch

ACZanius
10-15-2015, 06:31 AM
They listed Edward being OP as hell as an improvement. :nonchalance: "You could shoot several times with pistols without reloading or getting close to your targets!" Much assassin. Very stealth. Wow.

AC4 is a good game by all accounts, though.


Would you rather "this" London game be how it is, 19th century, Twins Evie & Jacob, modern etc, same how we are getting?


OR


That this would be sequel to Edward and last game of him, span over 10 years of his story after Black Flag? :cool:

VestigialLlama4
10-15-2015, 06:47 AM
Would you rather "this" London game be how it is, 19th century, Twins Evie & Jacob, modern etc, same how we are getting?

Maybe this is not addressed to me, but anyway I don't give a damn. I would much prefer to explore England in nearly any other period than the Victoria era. I would greatly prefer the Elizabethan Era because I love the Renaissance and that was the era the Renaissance came to London and you have a much more interesting historical setting and cast of characters than the Victorian era, and likewise Elizabeth is a much better, more bad-ss, morally ambiguous and fascinating queen than Vicky

And of course Elizabethan Era means sailing since this was the time that the Queen came up with a Get-Rich-Quick Scheme of legalized privateering against Spanish ships and you can hang out with Sir Francis Drake (voiced by who else...Nolan North) and Walter Raleigh and fight the Spanish Armada.

Of course we will never get that period now that they are doing the Victorian era.


That this would be sequel to Edward and last game of him, span over 10 years of his story after Black Flag? :cool:

Edward in England would be the 1720s and 1730s, the era of the Georgians, so you can have Edward hang out with Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe and Alexander Pope, maybe run into the Charles Johnson who wrote that book on piracy.

Weirdly enough this was the great era of street gangs in London history, you had rich kids and aristocrats walking around London beating up the poor. But they took that into the victorian era and borrowed the Gangs of New York motifs instead.

ACZanius
10-15-2015, 06:54 AM
Maybe this is not addressed to me, but anyway I don't give a damn. I would much prefer to explore England in nearly any other period than the Victoria era. I would greatly prefer the Elizabethan Era because I love the Renaissance and that was the era the Renaissance came to London and you have a much more interesting historical setting and cast of characters than the Victorian era, and likewise Elizabeth is a much better, more bad-ss, morally ambiguous and fascinating queen than Vicky

And of course Elizabethan Era means sailing since this was the time that the Queen came up with a Get-Rich-Quick Scheme of legalized privateering against Spanish ships and you can hang out with Sir Francis Drake (voiced by who else...Nolan North) and Walter Raleigh and fight the Spanish Armada.

Of course we will never get that period now that they are doing the Victorian era.



Edward in England would be the 1720s and 1730s, the era of the Georgians, so you can have Edward hang out with Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe and Alexander Pope, maybe run into the Charles Johnson who wrote that book on piracy.

Weirdly enough this was the great era of street gangs in London history, you had rich kids and aristocrats walking around London beating up the poor. But they took that into the victorian era and borrowed the Gangs of New York motifs instead.


Nah it's sweet man respond awaaaaay Lol

Damn you nailed it, now i wish even more that the last Edward game would happen but i guess what's done is done. It would be so amazing i'm sure **** ton if not pretty much all people would approve, Black Flag was G.O.A.T., honestly i'm really shocked they didn't go with it, i guess we really are stuck with "one protagonist per game" which i don't mind a lot but it's still kind of annoying i would like to see another trilogy or duology of someone idk the Connor thing has died with me few months back, there is no way are getting a full AAA connor game, best chance is we get chronicles game but even that is in dark now.



PS: I think it's time i start playing AC again didn't play any AC game in last 6 months or maybe more, last one was chronicles china, idk which one, definitely not Syndicate since i need a new PC first, i don't own a console lol

Aphex_Tim
10-18-2015, 03:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyuyhe9Z9qY

HDinHB
10-18-2015, 08:34 PM
Where you been man? :p
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1251636-Ubiblog-AC-How-it-all-began?p=11082346&viewfull=1#post11082346

I thought they'd have pushed out the Rogue one by now.

Aphex_Tim
10-19-2015, 06:19 AM
Where you been man? :p


Not been reading.

HDinHB
10-20-2015, 02:48 AM
Haven't had a chance to read the article or even watch the vid yet, but here you go:

http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-rogue-a-darker-shade-of-gray/


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

I-Like-Pie45
10-20-2015, 03:28 AM
gray lolololololololololol

VestigialLlama4
10-20-2015, 03:50 AM
Haven't had a chance to read the article or even watch the vid yet, but here you go:

http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-rogue-a-darker-shade-of-gray/


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

Man they are inordinately proud of that mediocrity. The video is also inconsistent:

1) It says the Templars gave Shay the Rifle and upgrades. But Shay got the rifle when he was still an Assassin, the only thing he didn't get was the grenade launcher and that's because Benjamin Franklin gave it to him under false pretenses.
2) The end of that video touts the fact that Shay killed civilians, saying he "accidentally" killed them, which goes against what the writer Richard Farrese said about that not being canon. So Shay is a sociopath then?

The video makes Rogue look better than it deserved.

SixKeys
10-20-2015, 05:40 AM
Liberation just gets a quick mention in AC3's video but Rogue gets its own entry? Liberation at least introduced a couple of new ideas. Every single feature in Rogue was recycled from other games.

If Rogue does have one thing in its favor, it's that the River Valley and especially the North Atlantic were vibrant, beautiful locations. The soundtrack was nice too.

RVSage
10-20-2015, 05:49 AM
Man they are inordinately proud of that mediocrity. The video is also inconsistent:

1) It says the Templars gave Shay the Rifle and upgrades. But Shay got the rifle when he was still an Assassin, the only thing he didn't get was the grenade launcher and that's because Benjamin Franklin gave it to him under false pretenses.
2) The end of that video touts the fact that Shay killed civilians, saying he "accidentally" killed them, which goes against what the writer Richard Farrese said about that not being canon. So Shay is a sociopath then?

The video makes Rogue look better than it deserved.

True, Rogue did not need a lone video at all

BUT I credit rogue for one thing, the best day 1 PC port in AC history, I guess they finally got some good people at Kiev, hoping for similar standard in Syndicate

SixKeys
10-20-2015, 05:58 AM
True, Rogue did not need a lone video at all

BUT I credit rogue for one thing, the best day 1 PC port in AC history, I guess they finally got some good people at Kiev, hoping for similar standard in Syndicate

I wonder if it's because AC4 and Rogue had such similar code? Unity's PC port was a disaster as usual.

VoXngola
10-20-2015, 06:04 AM
You have to take into account that Rogue's port was from the last-gen version of said engine (the PC version of Black Flag > PC version of Rogue in terms of graphics) and the fact that it was released 3 months after the console versions. Kiev usually doesn't receive that much time.

VestigialLlama4
10-20-2015, 06:04 AM
BUT I credit rogue for one thing, the best day 1 PC port in AC history...

Well I don't have a PC, I quit PC gaming more than a decade ago when I decided I didn't want to constantly degrade myself and upgrade my graphics card that will never be properly optimized and would eat my other systems. Console gaming is a far saner option.

Anyway, Rogue deserves no credit at all because it systematically undermines, in a very unthinking and incompetent fashion, the aesthetic concepts that were built up before. I can summarize it as:
-- Earthquake Machines.
-- "Good" Templars
-- Half-Baked story that is clearly missing its logical conclusion.
-- Fanfiction content based on preceding games and cannibalized assets. No historical immersion and context whatsover.

To properly suspend disbelief for any one of these you would either have to play Rogue before any other game (which is difficult since the connections with Haytham, Achilles and Adewale works only if you knew them from before) or you have to forget what you knew from earlier games and work entirely on what the story tells you. It's essentially a very manipulative game made for the lab rat player who only looks at surface impressions, the minute you think even for 10 seconds, the entire story collapses.

RVSage
10-20-2015, 06:34 AM
You have to take into account that Rogue's port was from the last-gen version of said engine (the PC version of Black Flag > PC version of Rogue in terms of graphics) and the fact that it was released 3 months after the console versions. Kiev usually doesn't receive that much time.


I wonder if it's because AC4 and Rogue had such similar code? Unity's PC port was a disaster as usual.

Agree with both the points, regardless of old code and obvious graphics downgrade from black flag PC version, the port was really cleanly done. And MAC did quote this time the PC version has been given more time than before. Hope they are true to the statement.




Anyway, Rogue deserves no credit at all because it systematically undermines, in a very unthinking and incompetent fashion, the aesthetic concepts that were built up before. I can summarize it as:
-- Earthquake Machines.
-- "Good" Templars
-- Half-Baked story that is clearly missing its logical conclusion.
-- Fanfiction content based on preceding games and cannibalized assets. No historical immersion and context whatsover.

To properly suspend disbelief for any one of these you would either have to play Rogue before any other game (which is difficult since the connections with Haytham, Achilles and Adewale works only if you knew them from before) or you have to forget what you knew from earlier games and work entirely on what the story tells you. It's essentially a very manipulative game made for the lab rat player who only looks at surface impressions, the minute you think even for 10 seconds, the entire story collapses.

Rogue had a horrible storyline, scrapped gameplay agreed. But it did shed light on osto berg, and some more templar stuff, it's MD lore kinda nullified the lack of MD lore in Unity.

shobhit7777777
10-20-2015, 06:55 AM
Man they are inordinately proud of that mediocrity.

IKR

I enjoyed Rogue...but it was an extremely "meh" title. They cocked up the "You're a Templar now" gameplay and the narrative quickly imploded.

Liberation on the other hand was an interesting title with some cool additions..too bad the PC version kept freezing up on me.

SixKeys
10-20-2015, 07:23 AM
Rogue had a horrible storyline, scrapped gameplay agreed. But it did shed light on osto berg, and some more templar stuff, it's MD lore kinda nullified the lack of MD lore in Unity.

Otso Berg was such a disappointment. He was a complete tool, just bought blindly into Abstergo propaganda even after Vidic personally invaded his home. Would have been much more interesting if the whole "Templar with a conscience" narrative carried over to modern day as well, with Berg being a person who's forced into a difficult position, having to choose between serving Templars and saving his daughter. But alas, in the end he turned out just as black-and-white as the rest of them.

RVSage
10-20-2015, 07:45 AM
Otso Berg was such a disappointment. He was a complete tool, just bought blindly into Abstergo propaganda even after Vidic personally invaded his home. Would have been much more interesting if the whole "Templar with a conscience" narrative carried over to modern day as well, with Berg being a person who's forced into a difficult position, having to choose between serving Templars and saving his daughter. But alas, in the end he turned out just as black-and-white as the rest of them.

Ya he was just another , common villain, expected him to be more tough.

VestigialLlama4
10-20-2015, 07:56 AM
Otso Berg was such a disappointment. He was a complete tool, just bought blindly into Abstergo propaganda even after Vidic personally invaded his home. Would have been much more interesting if the whole "Templar with a conscience" narrative carried over to modern day as well, with Berg being a person who's forced into a difficult position, having to choose between serving Templars and saving his daughter. But alas, in the end he turned out just as black-and-white as the rest of them.

The incompetence and incoherence of Rogue is shocking. Like Otso Berg's grand plan is to send a video to the Assassins and then give them the Bane speech from Dark Knight Rises? And of course the end of Modern Day is join the Templars or take a bullet to the head...wow.

The only reason Rogue is liked is that it came out at the same time as UNITY which was a more visible disaster, that at least stemmed from misguided attempts at rethinking the story elements and doing a historical story in a new way. There you can at least see the intentions were sound and the developers were at least trying to do something, the fact that the results didn't work or that it had a bunch of bad ideas makes it a genuine failure, in that it comes from not really living up to stated goals and objectives. In Rogue, you can't call it a failure since it never really tried anything.

Even as fanfiction it's useless because it doesn't close out the New World story one bit. The obvious end of Rogue, foreshadowed throughout the game is Shay dying at the end, and instead they made him another loose end.

EmptyCrustacean
10-20-2015, 08:19 AM
Man they are inordinately proud of that mediocrity. The video is also inconsistent:

1) It says the Templars gave Shay the Rifle and upgrades. But Shay got the rifle when he was still an Assassin, the only thing he didn't get was the grenade launcher and that's because Benjamin Franklin gave it to him under false pretenses.
2) The end of that video touts the fact that Shay killed civilians, saying he "accidentally" killed them, which goes against what the writer Richard Farrese said about that not being canon. So Shay is a sociopath then?

The video makes Rogue look better than it deserved.


That, and the entire reason he turned against the Assassins is because, apparently, ALL Assassins don't care about slaughtering innocents. :rolleyes:

The video made no sense whatsoever but then the story made no sense so what did anyone expect? Can't wait to see the Unity video lol

VestigialLlama4
10-20-2015, 08:32 AM
That, and the entire reason he turned against the Assassins is because, apparently, ALL Assassins don't care about slaughtering innocents. :rolleyes:

The video made no sense whatsoever but then the story made no sense so what did anyone expect? Can't wait to see the Unity video lol

Well the reason Shay defected was because he was a shouting moron who didn't clearly explain what happened in Lisbon and blamed Achilles for knowingly causing these events when it's obvious Achilles didn't know.

Then Shay decides to steal the manuscript when if he were truly altruistic, he would have burnt it. And then he decides it's best and safest in Templar hands, the guys who call a slaveowner and an ethnic cleanser "good men".

The Unity video will be sober I think because that game made Ubisoft the laughing stock of the gaming community. I mean it became a lightning rod for all kinds of issues that are not necessarily unique to Ubisoft but because of the poor story and unimaginative presentation, that became the main things people took away from it.

Aphex_Tim
10-20-2015, 11:55 AM
Ya he was just another , common villain, expected him to be more tough.

It's kinda become a recurring theme within Assassin's Creed to build something or someone up more and more and then having it turn out to just be kinda mediocre or even dropping it completely. Subject 16 was shrouded in mystery for three games, then in Revelations he was just some bloke.
The Grand Temple holds the means to save the world after countless failed attempts; ...and it turns out to be a glowing orb that kills Desmond and does...... something.....
Desmond was supposed to become this ultimate ultra-Assassin after all the training, then he just dies.
Erudito....
Otso Berg is just another example. Built up throughout Revelations and Initiates to be this mysterious, cool dude who could actually pose a real threat to the Assassins. Then in Rogue, he's just yet another generic villain voiced by Andreas Apergis. Master plan: "Let's show the Assassins a video of some random moron who joined the Templars about 300 years ago. That should totally f*ck up their morale!" Not to mention he believes Shay is "the most important Assassin in history"......


Can't wait to see the Unity video lol

Not looking forward to the YouTube comment section though.... it's gonna be messy.

Hans684
10-20-2015, 06:06 PM
Anyway, Rogue deserves no credit at all because it systematically undermines, in a very unthinking and incompetent fashion, the aesthetic concepts that were built up before.

It deserves far much more, especially in this place. Of course it is like that, if you ingnore most of the earlier games along with a lot of lore.


I can summarize it as:
-- Earthquake Machines.

We don't know their purpose, you know. Why they was build, most likly as weapons either way. That's if you compare it to nukes. Still, AC hasn't been a logical series either if you consider everything in it already, so bringing it up now would be as illogical as before.


-- "Good" Templars

Had it since the original, as for how Templars and their ideology works. Depends on time, place, goals and leaders.


-- Half-Baked story that is clearly missing its logical conclusion.

As backed as AC2 and ACB but continue the hypocritazy and double standard. And what conclusion?



-- Fanfiction content based on preceding games and cannibalized assets. No historical immersion and context whatsover.

Right, because there isn't a single game in the series that does't cannibalize assets and have connections with other games. :p Immersion depends on the player, so opinion here but I guess you already knew that. Context depends on everything from previous games, as a Templar game it's as good as every other black and white gone in the series staring a Mary Sue kissing everyones arces and gets kissed in return without the philosophical edge.


To properly suspend disbelief for any one of these you would either have to play Rogue before any other game (which is difficult since the connections with Haytham, Achilles and Adewale works only if you knew them from before) or you have to forget what you knew from earlier games and work entirely on what the story tells you. It's essentially a very manipulative game made for the lab rat player who only looks at surface impressions, the minute you think even for 10 seconds, the entire story collapses.

By being blinded hatred and ignoring most from the previous games and lore.

VestigialLlama4
10-20-2015, 06:31 PM
It deserves far much more, especially in this place.

Among some people who seem to gravitate to the Templars sure. But for the rest of us who haven't forgotten what Templars do and continue to do in the games, it cannot satisfy. It's one thing for the game to say it's a gray conflict, it's quite another to show it. So far, the Assassins and Templars are almost never truly gray.


We don't know their purpose, you know. Why they was build, most likly as weapons either way. That's if you compare it to nukes. Still, AC hasn't been a logical series either if you consider everything in it already, so bringing it up now would be as illogical as before.

Because that is bad writing. In any serial story or fantastic premise, if you are introducing a new element you must explain and clarify how it fits in with what we know before. In AC1, Al Mualim said that the Apples of Eden do mind control and create illusions. That is an object whose fantastic nature is only shown at the end and we clearly see it. Later games say that the Apples are part of some First Civilization quantum tech, and how that works gets explained and clarified by AC3 and Black Flag with even Subject 16's memories and missions patched together. Then we had pieces of eden like Observatory which are not really powerful but more like dangerous tools that can't be properly controlled. Now suddenly you have Earthquake machines. If the first Civ have devices that can control earthquakes and plate movemements, then why didn't they use power like that to prevent the earth from crumbling in the Toba catastrophe?


Right, because there isn't a single game in the series that does't cannibalize assets and have connections with other games.

Well until Rogue, every other game actually had something new as its main contribution. Revelations brought in Istanbul, a bomb mechanic, a hookblade traversal system that was simply not there in Brotherhood. Brotherhood gave us Rome, the recruitment system, the borgia tower defense and the first total open world in terms of wide variety of activities. Black Flag gave us free roam naval.

Rogue took from Black Flag, took from AC3, borrowed New York from AC3 and put in an ugly colour palette from Havana for no reason, and also from Multiplayer. The Rifle and Shotgun are just combinations of earlier ranged weapons.

SixKeys
10-20-2015, 07:52 PM
It's kinda become a recurring theme within Assassin's Creed to build something or someone up more and more and then having it turn out to just be kinda mediocre or even dropping it completely. Subject 16 was shrouded in mystery for three games, then in Revelations he was just some bloke.
The Grand Temple holds the means to save the world after countless failed attempts; ...and it turns out to be a glowing orb that kills Desmond and does...... something.....
Desmond was supposed to become this ultimate ultra-Assassin after all the training, then he just dies.
Erudito....
Otso Berg is just another example. Built up throughout Revelations and Initiates to be this mysterious, cool dude who could actually pose a real threat to the Assassins. Then in Rogue, he's just yet another generic villain voiced by Andreas Apergis. Master plan: "Let's show the Assassins a video of some random moron who joined the Templars about 300 years ago. That should totally f*ck up their morale!" Not to mention he believes Shay is "the most important Assassin in history"......

Don't forget Daniel Cross.



The Unity video will be sober I think because that game made Ubisoft the laughing stock of the gaming community. I mean it became a lightning rod for all kinds of issues that are not necessarily unique to Ubisoft but because of the poor story and unimaginative presentation, that became the main things people took away from it.

I dunno, I fully expect it'll basically come down to "the game was super ambitious and maybe overreached a bit, sorry we tried too hard to be awesome".

VestigialLlama4
10-20-2015, 09:22 PM
Don't forget Daniel Cross.



I dunno, I fully expect it'll basically come down to "the game was super ambitious and maybe overreached a bit, sorry we tried too hard to be awesome".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0tAgd-aP2U

EmptyCrustacean
10-20-2015, 11:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0tAgd-aP2U

Meh. They phoned that one in. They should stick to movies. The commentary sounded like a compilation of views you'd hear on the internet.

pacmanate
10-21-2015, 12:05 AM
"And the only black guy in Paris"

I broke at that one haha

EmptyCrustacean
10-21-2015, 12:30 AM
"And the only black guy in Paris"

I broke at that one haha

Of course you did. :rolleyes:

I-Like-Pie45
10-21-2015, 12:38 AM
^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k3EOybIJmM
potato potato

CrossedEagle
10-21-2015, 01:34 AM
They missed a pun for Rogue: A Darker Shayde of Gray.

SixKeys
10-21-2015, 04:53 AM
They missed a pun for Rogue: A Darker Shayde of Gray.

A Darker Grade of Shay.

VestigialLlama4
10-21-2015, 06:30 AM
A Darker Grade of Shay.

Shay O'Grady, the Stage-Irish stereotype stripped off charm, humor and style.

Locopells
10-21-2015, 09:56 AM
Yeah, the Honest Trailers are usually pretty good, but since Unity was such an easy target, that one didn't really have the same edge...

Sushiglutton
10-21-2015, 10:04 AM
"Captain Pisspot" :D



Shay O'Grady, the Stage-Irish stereotype stripped off charm, humor and style.

Fifty Shays of Grady, the Stage-Irish stereotype stripped off everything


I'll see myself out....

pacmanate
10-21-2015, 12:28 PM
Of course you did. :rolleyes:

What the hell is your problem?

cawatrooper9
10-21-2015, 07:37 PM
You know, the ironic thing about Rogue is that it's one of the few games that actually showcases what it's like to be on the frontlines as an active member in the brotherhood.

Now, before you pull out your flamethrowers, let me explain:

Altair was obviously part of the Brotherhood in AC1, but with few exceptions he acted as a lone wolf the entire game. In fact, one of the few times we actually see him working in tandem with other Assassins is in the Temple of Solomon, the first action piece of the entire series.

Ezio may have unwittingly worked with other Assassins, but they were under cover, so you really don't get the same effect. Of course, he eventually leads the Brotherhood, and while that is undoubtedly cool, that's also a different perspective (one of my favorite parts of the series is racing across the rooftops of Constantinople with Yusuf and the other Assassins to get to the feast at Topkapi).

The brotherhood was pretty much gone in Connor's time (lone wolfing it again, for the most part) and Edward mostly worked outside the Brotherhood.

Arno worked in it, but ironically also generally as a loner (co-op missions not withstanding).

With Shay, however, we see him working frequently among other Assassins in the beginning of the game as a low level Assassin. I'm certainly not saying this is anything ground breaking, as we have obviously seen the brotherhood in action before, but I do feel that we get a bit of a different perspective here- I don't feel as if Shay, in the beginning of the game at least, is the most important Assassin around (regardless of Otso Berg's weird fetish with him).

VestigialLlama4
10-21-2015, 07:57 PM
With Shay, however, we see him working frequently among other Assassins in the beginning of the game as a low level Assassin. I'm certainly not saying this is anything ground breaking, as we have obviously seen the brotherhood in action before, but I do feel that we get a bit of a different perspective here- I don't feel as if Shay, in the beginning of the game at least, is the most important Assassin around (regardless of Otso Berg's weird fetish with him).

The opening of Rogue was interesting. Shay was more interesting within the Assassins, since he had a group dynamic. Whereas with the Templars there's none of that camaraderie. Like Christopher Gist tells Shay that if he gets out of line, he'll be there to kill him. You also see it with George Munro to some extent. The funny thing is Rogue could have been a better game if you actually built on the prologue. Like the Assassins send Shay to kill the Templars when they are sick, old and dying. Essentially sitting ducks and Shay wonders why this is such a big deal since it's kind of cowardly and useless. Why kill these war criminals and slaveowners when they are dying instead of the slaveowners and war criminals who are alive. Then Shay asks the Assassins why support the French in the Seven Years War when they are fighting the French in Haiti? Now there are legitimate reasons to back the French in the Seven Years War, we don't hear it within the game, so it doesn't mean the Assassins are wrong, but it's actually interesting to explore that political tension within the Brotherhood that never comes through within the games itself.

I would have less problems with Rogue if they didn't use Earthquake machines, like ultimately Shay converts to the Templars because of luck, and contrary to what Mr. Shay Leprechaun O'Grady says, he does not make his own luck. He's a puppet pinballed by plot. He was a street criminal who would have probably gone on to become Thomas Hickey's shoeshine boy if Achilles hadn't brought him in, and then the Lisbon earthquake plot contrivance happens, then Shay falls of the cliff off the homestead and just happens to be rescued by a nearby Templar sailing through. The Templar who picks him happens to be the only decent guy who disobeyed William Johnson's orders to whack Shay and be done with it. From then he's puppeteered and manipulated by the Templars into the fold and essentially their little b-tch.

The only character I cared about in Rogue was Achilles. The agony for him knowing that, despite all his best efforts, and the best of his knowledge he was wrong and all his disciples paid the price for, well what can only be called bad luck. I mean every Assassin mentor before him tinkered with the pieces of Eden despite knowing zilch about how that thing works, and in the case of Altair, using it even if he knows it's voodoo and possesses people. The one time it goes wrong it was on his watch. It would have been more interesting to play Achilles, that would be like a parody of the Ezio Brotherhood story. You build up your organization and have this fantasy of being the great leader and now you get to see what happens when they die because of your orders and commands.

RVSage
10-21-2015, 08:06 PM
Rogue's story had the most unrealistic cast of characters, it was a filler story gone terribly wrong. I wish they had come up with a pure templar, rather than the assassin to templar conversion

cawatrooper9
10-21-2015, 08:25 PM
The opening of Rogue was interesting. Shay was more interesting within the Assassins, since he had a group dynamic. Whereas with the Templars there's none of that camaraderie. Like Christopher Gist tells Shay that if he gets out of line, he'll be there to kill him. You also see it with George Munro to some extent. The funny thing is Rogue could have been a better game if you actually built on the prologue. Like the Assassins send Shay to kill the Templars when they are sick, old and dying. Essentially sitting ducks and Shay wonders why this is such a big deal since it's kind of cowardly and useless. Why kill these war criminals and slaveowners when they are dying instead of the slaveowners and war criminals who are alive. Then Shay asks the Assassins why support the French in the Seven Years War when they are fighting the French in Haiti? Now there are legitimate reasons to back the French in the Seven Years War, we don't hear it within the game, so it doesn't mean the Assassins are wrong, but it's actually interesting to explore that political tension within the Brotherhood that never comes through within the games itself.


Agreed. Rogue featured an America for the Assassins far different than the bleak one we see in ACIII. It's almost a "Golden Age" situation- while the Assassins were practically unheard of in ACIII, it almost seems like they have a nearly Levantine-level of notoriety and respect in colonial America in Rogue. When I first played the game, I wanted to breeze past all of the Assassin stuff so that I could play Shay as a Templar... but looking back, the Assassin missions were ironically some of my favorite parts.

Rogue's story does get a lot of flak, and I do think that is largely in part of how rushed it was. If the game had stretched itself out a little more, they may not have needed to rely on coincidences and deus ex machina as storytelling devices. Given another four or five memory sequences and some better writing, I have no doubt Rogue would be in my top three AC games- and that's quite a claim for a little game like this, overshadowed by its "next gen" sister software.

VestigialLlama4
10-21-2015, 08:56 PM
Agreed. Rogue featured an America for the Assassins far different than the bleak one we see in ACIII. It's almost a "Golden Age" situation- while the Assassins were practically unheard of in ACIII, it almost seems like they have a nearly Levantine-level of notoriety and respect in colonial America in Rogue. When I first played the game, I wanted to breeze past all of the Assassin stuff so that I could play Shay as a Templar... but looking back, the Assassin missions were ironically some of my favorite parts.

Rogue's story does get a lot of flak, and I do think that is largely in part of how rushed it was. If the game had stretched itself out a little more, they may not have needed to rely on coincidences and deus ex machina as storytelling devices. Given another four or five memory sequences and some better writing, I have no doubt Rogue would be in my top three AC games- and that's quite a claim for a little game like this, overshadowed by its "next gen" sister software.

Well I think ROGUE should never have been made but even if you can accept the game as a send-off to the New World saga, it's still unsatisfying because we don't know what happens to Connor. Likewise having decided to do a prequel with Haytham and Achilles, we don't get to play Haytham which is what fans actually wanted. Haytham and Connor were the only characters who people were interested in seeing again but obviously not something Ubisoft felt they could franchise. I mean the joke about ROGUE is that it ties up all the petty stupid details, giving backstory about the Aquila, Connor's ship, but not about Connor. Then when Haytham and Adewale meet, there's no discussion about Edward beyond Adewale saying how he's the family disappointment. I mean Haytham never explains the part which makes no sense, having loved his father and accepted the Templars, why does he stick with the Templars when he knows he was brought into the order on a lie, that he was manipulated by his father's murderer, who also sold his sister to slavery? Like is there a sense that Haytham disagrees with the English Templars or something.

So Rogue is a missed opportunity even as fanfiction. And also the game is missing the proper ending. It's clear that Abstergo didn't get Shay's DNA from a descendant, that Otso Berg found Shay's DNA somewhere else. Throughout the game, Violet and Otso Berg express surprise saying that if Shay is in France in the 1770s, then obviously Shay survived that cliff jump. That means that eventually Shay got killed and that he didn't leave descendants and his DNA is plundered by the DDS. Imagine how cool it would be to see a dying man's thoughts in the Animus. Instead we get another loose end.

HDinHB
10-22-2015, 03:05 AM
http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-the-present-day-story-so-far/

They slipped in this little chapter before the Unity retrospective (tomorrow?)


Every Assassinís Creed game tells two intertwining stories. One is of an Assassin and their adventures in the past, and the other is of a person in the present whoís experiencing that Assassinís ďgenetic memoriesĒ through a device known as the Animus, or more recently as Helix. While the historical Assassins inhabit mostly self-contained stories that link together across centuries, the present-day storyline has continued in a more or less linear fashion since the series began.

Uhm, okay...

http://blog.ubi.com/app/uploads/2015/10/vidic.jpg?9a978b

It's amusing the first several games take paragraphs to describe, while Unity takes three sentences.

VestigialLlama4
10-22-2015, 03:17 AM
http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-the-present-day-story-so-far/

They slipped in this little chapter before the Unity retrospective (tomorrow?)



Uhm, okay...

http://blog.ubi.com/app/uploads/2015/10/vidic.jpg?9a978b

It's amusing the first several games take paragraphs to describe, while Unity takes three sentences.

You can make it easier than that. You are a dude, playing a dude reliving the memories of his ancestor who's a bigger dude than both of you combined.

VestigialLlama4
10-22-2015, 05:03 AM
After Berg orders you to send Shay’s story to the modern Assassins, you’re invited, more or less at gunpoint, to join the Templar Order.
http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-the-present-day-story-so-far/


Not "more or less at gunpoint", at gunpoint, Otso Berg pointed a gun at our face, that's what the word means.

Locopells
10-22-2015, 06:56 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfjrqz9fX34

lothario-da-be
10-22-2015, 07:04 PM
They lost me at the modern day. Unity was alright to me. It was a dissapointing game but the did some things right and actually tried to innovate a lot.

RVSage
10-22-2015, 07:08 PM
Well they stated some good improvements in Unity , which I agree. Co-op was underplayed and they could have mentioned a little about the bad launch. Anyway this was better than the rogue video

Aphex_Tim
10-22-2015, 07:14 PM
2:08 shows one of my biggest gripes with this game: stealth kill = instantly detected. Even within a freakin' dedicated stealth system. It might not be particularly realistic but for a VIDEO GAME, at least give us a lower penalty than being instantly detected and every guard in Paris knowing your exact location.

Also, he mentions free-running felt lighter than previous games? What the hell has he been smoking? Arno had much more weight to him than previous Assassins. Imo that's even a good thing as it simply made the free-running feel better and more realistic.

ModernWaffle
10-22-2015, 07:23 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfjrqz9fX34

No mention of difficult launch which is expected but I thought they would have emphasised the addition of co-op multiplayer - which was one of Unity's stronger aspects. If I'm honest, watching that video really hurt because what the guy said about each entry adding something worthwhile made me think about the AC franchise as a whole; AC1-3 was the given trilogy and each game demonstrated a massive leap from the previous one. Brotherhood and Revelations could be considered unnecessary but it helped to flesh out Ezio and Altair's characters and whilst they weren't massive new entries, were still quite solid as individual games. AC4 deviated from the series quite a bit both with MD and the move to pirates, but it was critically acclaimed and I think it ended up becoming a a staple for the ideal AC game for the past-gen whilst showing that innovation was still very possible.

And here's where we get to Rogue and Unity. I did have a fun time with both, but they left me unsatisfied which hadn't happened before in the previous games. The existence of Rogue had undermined BF's successes, left the American saga unresolved and gave a partial bitter feeling to its lost potential. Interesting narrative, but campaign was too short. Potential tie in to Unity's story, but this was also left unaddressed - how can Arno want to find his step-father's murderer but not his real one?

I commend Unity for changing so much to the series despite given risks and I honestly felt stealth, parkour and combat had all improved. But it was too ambitious and in retrospect, the glitches and dull story were likely given that so much more time had to be given in developing the new assets from the ground up.

So in looking back, it was because of Rogue and Unity that I can't enjoy AC as I used to as they will always be there to remind me of where there was a clear dip in quality for the franchise (which I think in this case is more objective than subjective, especially when looking at reviews).