PDA

View Full Version : Anybody else get this feeling with AC3?



king-hailz
09-14-2015, 04:18 PM
Even though I think AC3 is one of the weakest additions to the franchise I always get this feeling to play it, it usually happens every year and I look back and have this weird feeling that makes me want to play it even though I know I wont like it and will just have bad things to say afterwards. I sometimes think it's the hype I had for it that makes me want to play it. I think back to when I was looking through every single bit of info for it and watching the walk through on FusionCaps channel five days early and have this almost nostalgic feeling to play it. It just goes to show how amazing the marketing for that games was, I spent months after playing that game bad mouthing it but the marketing that ubisoft did was so good that it makes someone who doesn't like the game much want to play it.

This time I started to play it and didn't even get to Connor getting his outfit before quitting. However I bet in a year or so I will have the feeling to play it again.

VestigialLlama4
09-14-2015, 04:42 PM
...I sometimes think it's the hype I had for it that makes me want to play it. I think back to when I was looking through every single bit of info for it and watching the walk through on FusionCaps channel five days early and have this almost nostalgic feeling to play it. It just goes to show how amazing the marketing for that games was, I spent months after playing that game bad mouthing it but the marketing that ubisoft did was so good that it makes someone who doesn't like the game much want to play it.

Not sure if that has anything to do with marketing at all.

There have been cases where I have finished a game and I said, I am not playing this, its too addictive and time consuming and I've done everything and then a chance memory and emotion comes to me and I feel like replaying it anew. Its the same with watching a movie or a book. It isn't the famous moments that does it necessarily just say a random feeling and it often happens because someone describes something and you feel like going back.

LieutenantRex
09-14-2015, 09:00 PM
I always get too invested into AC3 when I play it, so I try to avoid playing it altogether. I remember vague disappointment and oscillating positive and negative reactions with each of my ten playthroughs, but I believe you may be the only one experiencing what you're experiencing, since you are a unique individual, etc.

Matknapers18
09-14-2015, 09:46 PM
Completely agree dude, Im exactly the same. I will remember how excited I was for AC3 back in 2012, and get a sudden crave to experience that excitement again. I then boot the game up again and get bored super quick. I agree with you, in that the marketing has had a permanent influence upon me.

I remember watching FusionCaps gameplay like a week before release as well, got me so pumped lol

andreycvetov
09-14-2015, 10:50 PM
Yep , the same . The way I enterpreted it , is that I was so dissapointed at AC3 overall that every year when I see little of it I just want to fulfill the desire from E3 2012 . Usually I stop playing when really early on because the game lacks flow . It's so choppy and we get so little of Connor that I just can't play it . And again next year .

TrustyBadger
09-14-2015, 11:04 PM
Could it be that it's the soundtrack that subconsciously draws you back? I feel like the music masks a lot of AC3's sins, I remember only the 'good bits' when I listen to the soundtrack :)

SixKeys
09-15-2015, 04:03 AM
I get what you mean. I sometimes think of the people saying positive things about the game and I keep thinking maybe I'm missing something. I've thought maybe it was my own clumsiness that made me think stealth was broken, and that maybe there weren't really as many glitches as I remember.

Then I play one or two missions and remember why I feel the way I do about the game. :p In fairness though, some of the Peg Leg missions are fun to replay and treerunning is nice when you find a good path. The forts can go die in a fire.

Mr.Black24
09-15-2015, 05:57 AM
Then I play one or two missions and remember why I feel the way I do about the game. :p In fairness though, some of the Peg Leg missions are fun to replay and treerunning is nice when you find a good path. The forts can go die in a fire. Those fort missions were truly nothing! All I did was just run into the forts and slaughtered everyone there! It just got more funner when I had my Assassin posse with me killin it. Its fun to kill all these guys, however when the intention was to sneak in do the objectives with stealth, it was down right disappointing, almost insulting really. AC Unity did a better job with this kind of stuff.

Speaking of ACIII, when yall got the update for the game, did the update "New colours for the Aquila" pop up for any of you, and if so, what does it do? I was trying to figure out mine, but I couldn't see or get anything to work.

VestigialLlama4
09-15-2015, 07:00 AM
I get what you mean. I sometimes think of the people saying positive things about the game and I keep thinking maybe I'm missing something. I've thought maybe it was my own clumsiness that made me think stealth was broken, and that maybe there weren't really as many glitches as I remember.

I think the main reason for this fascination for AC3 among its "haters" is not how it was marketed so much as what was promised. AC3 was the last big ambition game, a game unlike no other, a radical break from the style of the Ezio and Altair games, completely new kinds of landscapes and how to interact with them, Naval, Hunting, and going deeper into history than before and also a really a tragic, epic story. All of us knew from the minute we saw Connor and the era that there was no way this would have a happy ending. Nobody really predicted that AC3 would go to America either, so this was also a period which the developers decided (Patrice Desilets did say that his idea of AC3 would be set in America though not necessarily the way this game came out), or felt interested in rather than what fans asked for. We were getting forests, mountains and seas.

Regardless of how you feel the game turned out, the fact is none of the games that came after that have that sense of newness. When Black Flag's trailers came out, and it had Connor's grandpa, everyone was like "White Dude takes over Native guy" or the game becoming Pirate's Creed. Then you have Unity, which was a fan request with an Ezio-Clone and going back to Europe after spending time in that uncultured and barbaric New World, and now we have Syndicate, a game set in one of the most over-exposed and over-fetishized periods of English history, where we have reached a point where the original ethos of AC, do periods nobody has ever done, is fully dead in the water.

Until AC comes up with something really new again, something different and unexpected, AC3 will still retain that hold because it was the last game that really did have the original AC spirit of curiosity, discovery and innovation. Because so far what they are doing is spinning their wheels trying to find the next Ezio or popular period where they can do annualized sequels, a formula which allows them to make shallow dives to make shallow games.

Since AC3, none of the games really have any guts. You could say the franchise has lost its b-lls and you are only going to get castrated, compromised products from now on.

strigoi1958
09-15-2015, 11:51 AM
I really enjoy AC3.... but then when I game I just do it to enjoy myself... I don't over think things, I don't compare a game to another game while playing, I don't see race, colour or religion, I don't get emotionally wrapped up in the story, I just have fun... maybe there is something wrong with me ;)

SixKeys
09-15-2015, 06:56 PM
Regardless of how you feel the game turned out, the fact is none of the games that came after that have that sense of newness. When Black Flag's trailers came out, and it had Connor's grandpa, everyone was like "White Dude takes over Native guy" or the game becoming Pirate's Creed. Then you have Unity, which was a fan request with an Ezio-Clone and going back to Europe after spending time in that uncultured and barbaric New World, and now we have Syndicate, a game set in one of the most over-exposed and over-fetishized periods of English history, where we have reached a point where the original ethos of AC, do periods nobody has ever done, is fully dead in the water.

I disagree. Sure, AC4 was based on the same engine as AC3, but to me it was the fresher experience. Not just gameplay-wise, but having the balls to make an outright pirate game when everyone thought it would ruin Assassin's Creed. It did less recycling than the titles after it have done. Regardless of most people's fears, Edward didn't turn out to be an Ezio clone. The stealth wasn't worse because of naval, it was still plentiful in the game. And pirates or not, the story focus was still on the assassin philosophy. It took some of AC3's innovations and gave them a context where they actually worked (captaining a ship never made sense for Connor and AC4 made better use of the crafting system, too). I think AC4 was a pretty daring leap - it could have been just like Rogue, which was all about recycling assets (including New York) and characters. I was certain the game was going to suck because of the emphasis on naval battles, but it turned out to be the most narratively coherent experience since ACB.



Until AC comes up with something really new again, something different and unexpected, AC3 will still retain that hold because it was the last game that really did have the original AC spirit of curiosity, discovery and innovation. Because so far what they are doing is spinning their wheels trying to find the next Ezio or popular period where they can do annualized sequels, a formula which allows them to make shallow dives to make shallow games.

I partly agree with the second half of your argument (there's been a noticeable increase of recycling assets in the last few games), even though I think Unity was trying to take the series in the right direction - back to its stealthy roots and harder combat - compared to its predecessors.
Regarding the first part: AC3 is an example of a game that thinks innovation automatically equals fun, which turned out not to be the case. They made a big hoopla about technical achievements like "look! Connor can climb slopes!" but forgot to make exploring those slopes fun. They focused a lot on Connor's native heritage but forgot to make him interesting. They introduced new stealth mechanics like stalking zones but forgot to actually make stealth a viable option. The only thing I think makes AC3 special is modern day (regardless of how I feel it was handled), which was the last time we had a proper story around MD and TWCB, which made the whole game feel more epic. I couldn't wait to get through the Connor sections because I was more interested in Desmond's quest. I can't imagine the game feeling any more special than Unity had the modern day not been there to beef it up and make Connor's story seem more important in the grand scheme of things. Otherwise it's just as pointless as Unity. Both would have ended on the note of "whoops, looks like everything you did was pointless, the hero didn't actually achieve their main goal and now they're doomed to live unhappy and lonely for the rest of their lives. Good job, Initiate!".

VestigialLlama4
09-15-2015, 10:11 PM
I disagree. Sure, AC4 was based on the same engine as AC3, but to me it was the fresher experience.

There were three games made after AC3 and naturally you picked on Black Flag as your best bet. It was a general statement after all and the games after that, Unity and Rogue, and now Syndicate, are far less innovative and far less courageous certainly. There is a definite decline there and a persistent betrayal of the series core aesthetics.


(captaining a ship never made sense for Connor

AC3 thoroughly established that Connor was a privateer, taking specific contracts to improve trade on the East Coast, the naval missions you do make it safer to send naval convoys with the Homestead's crafting though I can understand if most people never figured that out since the crafting economy is not very clear about that, and most people probably didn't know about sending naval convoys.


I partly agree with the second half of your argument (there's been a noticeable increase of recycling assets in the last few games), even though I think Unity was trying to take the series in the right direction - back to its stealthy roots and harder combat - compared to its predecessors.

I honestly don't know how gameplay divorced from the series' aesthetic ideas of historical immersion and subversive spirit, can be considered "right direction". Is Unity being judged as a HITMAN/Splinter Cell mod with period clothing and weapons or as an AC game and everything that it entails? So far all the defenses for that game are entirely on how its supposedly more stealthy, but nobody has made a defense on the story/character/worldbuilding aka the context in which we interact with it, and the reason for that is it's indefensible and it's atrocious.

Gameplay can always be improved and tweaked after all but once the original idea that animated the games, historical immersion/subversive spirit/experimental concepts goes, it never really comes back. AC is defined fundamentally by its original aesthetics, and AC3 (and Black Flag by extension) is the last game that's essentially true to it.

VestigialLlama4
09-15-2015, 10:28 PM
I really enjoy AC3.... but then when I game I just do it to enjoy myself... I don't over think things, I don't compare a game to another game while playing, I don't see race, colour or religion, I don't get emotionally wrapped up in the story, I just have fun... maybe there is something wrong with me ;)

There is nothing wrong with you at all, you are playing the game as it was meant to be played, to be enjoyed.

The fact is that games aren't judged by themselves, they are always placed within this pre-existing context. And within that context, AC3 has this importance which is clear in that it's obviously not a game that has been forgotten, it's still debated and talked about after all. AC3 has never properly been appreciated for simply existing and how absolutely improbable that game is, and it's a shame that the lessons Ubisoft took from that is, "No nonwhite dudes in major games again".

I mean they pillaged the considerable assets made for AC3 to make Black Flag and Rogue, but there's even more great ideas and lessons to be learnt there which they are absolutely not taking forward and they have completely turned against the original spirit that made AC3, which is in fact the core ideas of the franchise.

EmbodyingSeven5
09-16-2015, 12:24 AM
I really enjoy AC3.... but then when I game I just do it to enjoy myself... I don't over think things, I don't compare a game to another game while playing, I don't see race, colour or religion, I don't get emotionally wrapped up in the story, I just have fun... maybe there is something wrong with me ;)

Not goanna lie strigoi, your statments baffle me sometimes.

Ureh
09-16-2015, 01:07 AM
I do get that AC3 itch every once in a while. Whenever I line up the discs side by side there's a good chance that AC3 grabs my attention if I'm in the mood for combat. Out of 3, 4, and Rogue; I prefer 3's combat. They're very similar but AC3 has more enemies on screen, the way that tools function in combat fit my playstyle, Connor's finishers look awesome, and completing a perfect kill streak on 20+ guards in this game feels more cool than 4 and R.

SpiritOfNevaeh
09-16-2015, 02:34 AM
I always have some nostalgia to play AC3 again and again just because I have it/wanna watch some awesome kill animations/hear Connor's voice. :P

Shahkulu101
09-16-2015, 03:10 AM
When I'm replaying AC2, I get the strong urge to play AC3, just to experience something that isn't intellectually vacuous.

strigoi1958
09-16-2015, 03:15 AM
There is nothing wrong with you at all, you are playing the game as it was meant to be played, to be enjoyed.

The fact is that games aren't judged by themselves

I judge every game by itself... I have an open mind. I certainly have no preset standards or expectations of Syndicate. If I dislike it... it certainly will not be because of how comparable things are in previous AC games.

I simply accept every AC game has different ways to achieve the same result. Then I play I don't worry over perceived ideas or conjecture as to why Ubisoft changed something... it's only a game. Don't get me wrong I know people here are fantastic AC fans and can break games down into detail and discuss them... but things seem more black and white to me... when I see someone saying the voice acting in one game lacked something that was in another game... I just think maybe that was how that voice was supposed to sound... (but that is just here... in the game it doesn't cross my mind once).

When a company makes a product, people expect better (hence all the "New and improved" statements on detergents ;)) the problem is "better" requires change....if they change things too much Ubi are pilloried by the purists and if they keep things the same they are pilloried by those who shout "copy and paste" ideas, weapons, plot. Either way Ubi get made out to be the bad guys :(.

For me... games are escapism... Maybe that's why I can appreciate the sights and sounds and how much effort went into making something brilliant that only cost a few pounds ... If I don't replay a game.. it's either not to my liking (which doesn't make it bad, AC2 is a brilliant game... but I wouldn't replay it for a million pounds) which brings me to my second reason... AC2 had parts that exceeded my abilities and my frustration level... those sections reduced my enjoyment.

For a game to be good to me... I simply have to enjoy playing it, I don't need a comparison for that.

If you don't like AC3 don't play it. Me... I loved it.

SixKeys
09-16-2015, 05:50 AM
There were three games made after AC3 and naturally you picked on Black Flag as your best bet. It was a general statement after all and the games after that, Unity and Rogue, and now Syndicate, are far less innovative and far less courageous certainly. There is a definite decline there and a persistent betrayal of the series core aesthetics.

Um, YOU'RE the one who brought up Black Flag. :confused:
"When Black Flag's trailers came out, and it had Connor's grandpa, everyone was like "White Dude takes over Native guy" or the game becoming Pirate's Creed."

I said I disagree that AC4 had no sense of newness. Didn't say anything about Unity or Syndicate being innovative. And I specifically pointed to Rogue as being a prime example of recycled material.



AC3 thoroughly established that Connor was a privateer, taking specific contracts to improve trade on the East Coast, the naval missions you do make it safer to send naval convoys with the Homestead's crafting though I can understand if most people never figured that out since the crafting economy is not very clear about that, and most people probably didn't know about sending naval convoys.

Right, and captain what's-his-face gave the reins of his beloved ship over to a teenage native boy with no experience because......?



I honestly don't know how gameplay divorced from the series' aesthetic ideas of historical immersion and subversive spirit, can be considered "right direction". Is Unity being judged as a HITMAN/Splinter Cell mod with period clothing and weapons or as an AC game and everything that it entails? So far all the defenses for that game are entirely on how its supposedly more stealthy, but nobody has made a defense on the story/character/worldbuilding aka the context in which we interact with it, and the reason for that is it's indefensible and it's atrocious.

I'm a gameplay-first person. If the gameplay satisfies me, which it does in Unity for the most part, then I don't really care about story shortcomings. Remember, I'm one of the few people here who has no problem with ACB's black-and-white story and moustache-twirling villains.



Gameplay can always be improved and tweaked after all

And yet that's the area where they consistently fail. Unity was the first game in years to at least make an effort at making combat challenging and stealth preferable.


but once the original idea that animated the games, historical immersion/subversive spirit/experimental concepts goes, it never really comes back. AC is defined fundamentally by its original aesthetics, and AC3 (and Black Flag by extension) is the last game that's essentially true to it.

I disagree about AC3's aesthetics. That game never felt like an AC game to me, that's why I can't stand it. Too much about it is in such stark opposition to what I consider the heart of AC, though I understand that people always have different ideas about what a "real" AC game is.

LoyalACFan
09-16-2015, 06:25 AM
I get that same feeling too, OP. I honestly think that AC3 isn't just flawed; I actually believe it's a pretty bad game. But my God, there are flashes of complete f--king brilliance in there too. The music! The terrain! The animations! The battlefields! The ships! The tragedy! But unfortunately all of those things had at least one glaring fault in their execution, and none of it came together in a package that was well-executed or even (IMO) very fun. Occasionally I'll look back to that 2010 target gameplay footage (which I'm sure we've all seen and drooled over) and think about what could have been one of the best games I've ever played. If ever there was a game in desperate need of a full remake, it's AC3; in a lot of ways, it was ahead of its time.

VestigialLlama4
09-16-2015, 06:46 AM
Right, and captain what's-his-face gave the reins of his beloved ship over to a teenage native boy with no experience because......?

...because he's not the Captain. Robert Faulkner is the First Mate.


Unity was the first game in years to at least make an effort at making combat challenging and stealth preferable.

I disagree with that chiefly because much of its stealth patterns (snipers, alarm bells, looting) comes from Black Flag (firecrackers from Freedom Cry).So how can Unity be the first game "in years". Even AC3 advanced stealth a great deal, even if its not well implemented in the mission design. That was a game where you could blend in any crowd or groups of people, you could also do corner assassinations, whistling (which the game converts into firecrackers), and you had the Rope Dart (an admittedly overpowered stealth tool).

It is more accurate to say that Unity tried to make the main missions more stealthy. That is true. But mostly they do it by taking away tools and they make combat challenging by making combat annoying, not by providing tougher enemies. So its a modest achievement especially when placed against repititive level design, shallow movement and neutering of social stealth. It also suffers from a stuffed to the gills HUD display (much like Syndicate), when AC3 and Black Flag did a lot to reduce graphics on-screen and Black Flag especially made it possible to go through the whole game without consulting the map. And likewise it had X-Ray glow in the dark enemies which cluttered up the display, stolen from Black Flag, and while there it worked in the jungle environment, in UNITY it destroys the art direction. I mean of all the things they remove to make it stealthier, why bring back overpowered eagle vision?


I understand that people always have different ideas about what a "real" AC game is

The fact is when people talk about AC they are referring to something specific and tangible. AC was never just about the stealth and Parkour after all, why do people get excited when discussing new periods and settings, or coming up with cool ideas on where to take the story forward, or say talking about Ubisoft's women issues and why they won't have a woman be front and center of the game.

So obviously stuff like aesthetics (story, setting, character) matter to a great extent, and can't be neglected at all. If you go back to AC1, the mission design and structure, was never just about killing someone, it had a larger point to it namely that these targets are human beings and however bad they seemed to you, there might be more to the story. All that was expressed in the level design. It was never "medieval Hitman' to use Jade Raymond's own words. In UNITY, the targets just exist to get killed, there's no sense of personal connection (aside from foggy notions of guilt and daddy issues, stolen from Ezio games) or any test or challenge to Arno, its simply a sadistic game about how I can best humiliate and kill this person. And you know, why play AC to do that, play any of the other stealth games then.

LoyalACFan
09-16-2015, 08:35 AM
Lol are people still arguing over whether Connor's captaincy made sense? Because I'm sorry, that was some stupid sh*t, no matter how big of an AC3 fanboy you are.

Faulkner before departing voyage: "DON'T STEP ON THE SHIP WITH YOUR LEFT FOOT, STUPID, YOU'LL DESTROY THE ENTIRE TRIP!"

Faulkner before returning voyage: "OK Connor, you've proved you can steer slowly through a harbor at 1kph, I'm totes cool entrusting the lives of myself and the entire crew in your hands in a naval clash where you're outnumbered like 6 to 1"

SixKeys
09-16-2015, 08:47 AM
...because he's not the Captain. Robert Faulkner is the First Mate.

Okay then, so why did the first mate give the reins over to a young native boy with no experience? 9_9



I disagree with that chiefly because much of its stealth patterns (snipers, alarm bells, looting) comes from Black Flag (firecrackers from Freedom Cry).So how can Unity be the first game "in years". Even AC3 advanced stealth a great deal, even if its not well implemented in the mission design. That was a game where you could blend in any crowd or groups of people, you could also do corner assassinations, whistling (which the game converts into firecrackers), and you had the Rope Dart (an admittedly overpowered stealth tool).

It doesn't matter where the mechanics were first introduced, it matters how they were implemented. AC1 introduced some mechanics that didn't quite work, then AC2 took some of those and made them work. The issue isn't that other games hadn't added new weapons and features, it's that the combat was fundamentally broken in those games. Who cares if you have firecrackers or a rope dart if you can slice through enemies like butter using just your fists? AC4 and Freedom Cryhad a lot of fun gameplay mechanics but (land-based) combat wasn't one of them. Unity tried to address this to some extent by tying certain perks to different outfits and weapons. Jacket A might offer more protection but jacket B allowed you to carry more ammo, etc. If you needed a challenge, you could always downgrade from the highest gear to basic gear. This is something so simple and basic in game design it's baffling that it's taken this long for AC to implement. Pre-Unity, once you bought an upgrade, you could no longer get rid of it.



It is more accurate to say that Unity tried to make the main missions more stealthy. That is true. But mostly they do it by taking away tools and they make combat challenging by making combat annoying, not by providing tougher enemies.

The game had varying tiers of enemies, from 1-star to 5-star. Taking down a level 5 guard with 1-star gear was the challenge. Just like AC1's Templar knights. It's certainly possible to kill them early on even if you haven't learned how to counter yet, but it's very difficult. And AC1 does a good job of pacing its upgrades throughout the game.

Secondly, I have exactly zero problem with making stealth more difficult by taking away tools and weapons. Give me a hidden blade and let me loose, that's all I need. More tools may seem like it provides more options, but the more you have, the more you break the stealth. This is a common problem in almost all games, not just AC. The Last of Us has great enemy AI, the stealth feels good and real-time crafting creates tension in the early scenes, but towards the end you have plenty of shivs to take down Clickers and a frickin' flamethrower for the rest. Poof, tension gone.

I never found Unity's combat annoying so I don't really know what you mean by that.


So its a modest achievement especially when placed against repititive level design, shallow movement and neutering of social stealth. It also suffers from a stuffed to the gills HUD display (much like Syndicate), when AC3 and Black Flag did a lot to reduce graphics on-screen and Black Flag especially made it possible to go through the whole game without consulting the map. And likewise it had X-Ray glow in the dark enemies which cluttered up the display, stolen from Black Flag, and while there it worked in the jungle environment, in UNITY it destroys the art direction. I mean of all the things they remove to make it stealthier, why bring back overpowered eagle vision?

....Not sure what any of this has to do with the topic of stealth and combat, but okay?



The fact is when people talk about AC they are referring to something specific and tangible. AC was never just about the stealth and Parkour after all, why do people get excited when discussing new periods and settings, or coming up with cool ideas on where to take the story forward, or say talking about Ubisoft's women issues and why they won't have a woman be front and center of the game.

I don't know about everyone else, but to me AC is mostly about stealth and parkour, atmosphere being the third most important thing. As long as those things are in order, I'm content.



So obviously stuff like aesthetics (story, setting, character) matter to a great extent, and can't be neglected at all.

If things like story and character development can't be neglected at all then why did the multiplayer work so well? There was no story, beyond the flimsy "you're an Abstergo trainee" framing. It was just stealth, parkour and atmosphere with only 2-3 tools at your disposal at any time. And it was glorious. If AC games allowed for mods, I'd be perfectly happy playing user-created missions for the rest of my life, context be damned.

This is why I say everyone has different ideas about what AC should be and what it is at its "purest". AC3 let me down in all three things I value most: stealth, parkour and atmosphere. If those are ****ed, why should I care about anything else?

SixKeys
09-16-2015, 08:51 AM
Lol are people still arguing over whether Connor's captaincy made sense? Because I'm sorry, that was some stupid sh*t, no matter how big of an AC3 fanboy you are.

Faulkner before departing voyage: "DON'T STEP ON THE SHIP WITH YOUR LEFT FOOT, STUPID, YOU'LL DESTROY THE ENTIRE TRIP!"

Faulkner before returning voyage: "OK Connor, you've proved you can steer slowly through a harbor at 1kph, I'm totes cool entrusting the lives of myself and the entire crew in your hands in a naval clash where you're outnumbered like 6 to 1"

I want to make sweet love to this post.

Farlander1991
09-16-2015, 09:16 AM
Who cares if you have firecrackers or a rope dart if you can slice through enemies like butter using just your fists?

More to the point, 'more' doesn't always equal 'better'. AC4 has greatly reduced options from AC3 in terms of tools and weapon types, but it's more streamlined in its use - everything has a purpose and design accounts for its use (Even though straight up combat can make it obsolete, I agree with that). While AC3 has lots of tools and options and nowhere really to use them.

Technically, ACB/ACR have more options than AC2, but is it really better? Oh, you don't just have hidden blade, poisoned blade, hidden gun and throwing knives (AC2), you also have crossbow and poison darts! That's good, more options, right? Except, crossbow takes all advantages of hidden gun and throwing knives with no disadvantages at all (plain and simply making it THE ranged weapon), while poison darts remove the risk/reward situation of using poisoned blade (AC4, btw, in its ranged options at least tried to balance it out - sleep is temporary, poison leads to a berserk mode and can be potentially dangerous for yourself as well, you can have only one lethal throwing knife at a time). I guess the disadvantage is that you have to buy them. And while we're at it, the most OP option of all time - Brotherhood recruits. I have an unconfirmed theory that optional objectives exist because if not for them, people would always use the recruits.

I'm not saying that these things can't be fun or engaging (Brotherhood recruits lead to some of my favourite moments in ACB), but more options doesn't equal to better/more strategic options, and from the perspective of good system design - less can be more. There's no strategy with crossbow - you just point and shoot. There is strategy if you use hidden gun or knives - do you go for a one hit kill and risk to be heard and noticed, or do you risk getting a bit closer to throw a knife or several if it's not a one hit kill? Etc.

VestigialLlama4
09-16-2015, 01:55 PM
Okay then, so why did the first mate give the reins over to a young native boy with no experience? 9_9

I don't know, the same reason Mario Auditore and other Assassins decided that a 16 year old playboy was their best hope? I mean why did Paola decide, "Okay all you need to assassinate the mayor of Florence is to blend among mobile prostitutes and whack him in broad daylight at an art gallery. No a mayor is not an important enough target that we send in a professional rather than a novice, why do you ask?." In any case, Connor's training sequence is obviously compressed, so you can assume he did many other missions between Teen Connor and the adult Connor to better improve his captaincy and, unlike Ezio, Connor was a trained hunter/explorer and woodsman at the age of 16, so I don't think him being a naval captain is any stretch at all, unless you think rich Florentines are quicker studies than poor orphan mohawk of course, which is another debate entirely.


If you needed a challenge, you could always downgrade from the highest gear to basic gear. This is something so simple and basic in game design it's baffling that it's taken this long for AC to implement.

Actually you can. In AC2, you can always downgrade the level of swords, and armor (even the Altair, special ones). The logic is that you impose your own challenge, whether its using only hidden blade counters in AC1, or in AC2, go through game using only dual blades and disarm. In UNITY, its you know put on another stupid looking costume.


I never found Unity's combat annoying so I don't really know what you mean by that.

The fact is that the combat is needlessly elaborate and illogical. It makes zero sense that Arno wastes so much time having a duel to the death with Mook Jr. Assassins may not be supermen but they are above average at the very least. If Arno can't fight or defeat these mooks easily, it makes zero sense that he'd have the stamina and muscle reflexes to climb and Parkour off these tall buildings. You can't have one without the other. Rather than come up with tougher enemies and change the combat pattern (like AC3 did), you instead have to repeatedly chug yourself like an idiot.


Not sure what any of this has to do with the topic of stealth and combat, but okay?

It's part of the overall aesthetic failure of UNITY, the fact that the stealth and combat isn't intuitive enough that you can do it without distracting graphics. You always need that weird last-position-ghost-impression to escape that guy, nothing like what you get in Dishonored or Arkham Games or earlier AC games, where you had a tiny alert level that told you simply and precisely that you were spotted and needed to hide. These also didn't clutter up the display.


If things like story and character development can't be neglected at all then why did the multiplayer work so well?

When did Ubisoft release a pure Multiplayer or MMORPG of AC? Hmmm? No they put it on the B side of the single player game and obviously most people bought the game for the single player. I don't think very many people bought AC just for the multiplayer. There might be a few of course but we are dealing with generalizations aren't we? AC is mainly a single player story-driven open world game, I would know because I never played multiplayer, I don't care for it so I never talk about it.


AC3 let me down in all three things [b]I[b] value most: stealth, parkour and atmosphere.

I get stealth, but Parkour...AC3's treerunning was glorious and extensive, and it wasn't nerfed as in Black Flag and Rogue where the natural environments are reduced to wafer thin pathways that didn't look like real trees or forests. You also had mountain climbing and you had many ways and paths cleaved into the trees. Boston is pretty fun to Parkour around as well. And as far as atmosphere goes, AC3's forest and natural environment, Boston with its bustling seaport and even the fully upgraded Davenport Homestead is astounding. Even Assassin_M and Shahkulu said elsewhere that it's singularly beautiful. Anyway, it's common for people to let one issue colour everything else. So i don't want to go over this part again.

The fact is that AC3 is unlike any other game, nobody had tackled that period and era, created unique gameplay fitting to it. That was the original AC ethos, do things no other game does, do things differently, don't fall into formula, nothing is true...yadda yadda yadda. Do games in a setting without monuments, tall buildings and see if you can create something new in that. After AC3, you can imagine the franchise do say an Ancient World setting since it will basically be similar, natural environments, small settlements, low buildings. You can do rural areas. To do an urban setting after AC3, it meant that you had to go forward in a big way, and UNITY is a turgid failure in that regard, it does not build on the achievements of the earlier games, including AC3. For instance, it doesn't even have the same amount of unique NPC models that AC3 does, compare the Homestead to the interchangable mission dispensers of the paris side stories.

VestigialLlama4
09-16-2015, 02:16 PM
More to the point, 'more' doesn't always equal 'better'. AC4 has greatly reduced options from AC3 in terms of tools and weapon types, but it's more streamlined in its use - everything has a purpose and design accounts for its use (Even though straight up combat can make it obsolete, I agree with that). While AC3 has lots of tools and options and nowhere really to use them.

From my experience, Black Flag had nearly the same amount of weapons that AC3 did, except of course it had the additional Blow Pipe (with its sleep and Berserker darts), where Connor mainly had the Poison Dart. In terms of weapons, Connor had Rope Darts, Smoke Bombs, Pistols (which can go up to four holsters with crafting, much like Black Flag, only easier to achieve in Black Flag), a sword, hidden blade and Tomahawk. Instead of Hidden Blade and tomahawk, Edward had dual cutlasses. The main difference is that Connor also has a lot of hunting tools including a snare and bear trap and few others but in terms of active weapons, it was the same number.


...but more options doesn't equal to better/more strategic options, and from the perspective of good system design - less can be more.

That depends on the kind of game you are making. It makes no sense for an Assassin not to have access to the best and most effective weapons in general unless the enemies are tougher and the stealth is denser, like say noise/witness/chaos level which they have not instituted into the games. AC is not a game that "less is more" serves well, it needs density, it needs largeness of detail simply because the scope of these games are huge and there's absolutely no way to reduce that scope. For me Unity's shriveling of gameplay choices is a reactionary approach, rather than an imaginative one. It addresses the average stealth gamer rather than people who played the earlier AC games, there's no sense that, okay you are familiar with the old AC bag of tricks but now its harder and smarter.

SixKeys
09-16-2015, 05:37 PM
Actually you can. In AC2, you can always downgrade the level of swords, and armor (even the Altair, special ones). The logic is that you impose your own challenge, whether its using only hidden blade counters in AC1, or in AC2, go through game using only dual blades and disarm. In UNITY, its you know put on another stupid looking costume.

In the Ezio games downgrading to completely basic level is impossible, as you get more sync/health bars after each sequence, more from deciphering Codex pages and even at the most basic if you've bought at least the leather armor, Ezio can never get rid of it. In Unity you can choose to never upgrade Arno's skill tree or his gear, and even if you do, you can always downgrade to the most basic ones.



The fact is that the combat is needlessly elaborate and illogical.

The fact is that AC3 is unlike any other game, nobody had tackled that period and era, created unique gameplay fitting to it.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/a4/a43aec536d26d8488ebcd107e02ab57907dc2c1a8a1b3a184b fa923a0a04ccb9.jpg




It makes zero sense that Arno wastes so much time having a duel to the death with Mook Jr. Assassins may not be supermen but they are above average at the very least. If Arno can't fight or defeat these mooks easily, it makes zero sense that he'd have the stamina and muscle reflexes to climb and Parkour off these tall buildings. You can't have one without the other. Rather than come up with tougher enemies and change the combat pattern (like AC3 did), you instead have to repeatedly chug yourself like an idiot.

Oh, come on. :rolleyes: Are we really going to get into the realism in these games? There's always a certain amount of suspension of disbelief required to balance out good gameplay and realism. Sure, an assassin who slices through enemies like butter probably does have good stamina for climbing, but it doesn't make for good, challenging gameplay. Next you're going to claim that in Connor's case the leap of faith makes total sense because he has more body mass to withstand the fall or something.



It's part of the overall aesthetic failure of UNITY, the fact that the stealth and combat isn't intuitive enough that you can do it without distracting graphics. You always need that weird last-position-ghost-impression to escape that guy, nothing like what you get in Dishonored or Arkham Games or earlier AC games, where you had a tiny alert level that told you simply and precisely that you were spotted and needed to hide. These also didn't clutter up the display.

It's not about needing a complicated HUD. It's about what the devs choose to make the default. Unity can be played by turning off all HUD elements, including blending effects. Since this can't be done to the same extent in AC3, does that mean AC3 is the less intuitive game?



When did Ubisoft release a pure Multiplayer or MMORPG of AC? Hmmm?

When did I ever mention anything about an MMORPG? Hmmm?



No they put it on the B side of the single player game and obviously most people bought the game for the single player. I don't think very many people bought AC just for the multiplayer. There might be a few of course but we are dealing with generalizations aren't we? AC is mainly a single player story-driven open world game, I would know because I never played multiplayer, I don't care for it so I never talk about it.

You'd be surprised, actually. I iknow quite a lot of people who only bought ACB because the multiplayer looked interesting. Some even ignored the campaign completely.

The point still stands. The multiplayer worked well enough for four games to include it. Had it been a failed experiment like Unity's co-op, it wouldn't have survived that long. In some respects it was more balanced and innovative than the single-player when it came to stealth.



I get stealth, but Parkour...AC3's treerunning was glorious and extensive

The fact is (see what I did there? :rolleyes:) that it was g0ddamn atrocious. It was the first time AC straight up made parkour a chore. Getting stuck on walls, Connor veering in the opposite direction than where he's directed, jumping on chimneys all the time, refusing to get down, refusing to follow the treerunning path even though you can see he should be able to move forward etc. etc. None of the previous games had ever ****ed up parkour to the same extent. Perhaps THE single most defining aspect that set AC apart from other games. If anything should be a priority to get right, it's that. I'm not defending Unity here, either, its parkour is only marginally less annoying than AC3's because it's based on the same flawed system. Unity only wins out because of "parkour down" button.



And as far as atmosphere goes, AC3's forest and natural environment, Boston with its bustling seaport and even the fully upgraded Davenport Homestead is astounding. Even Assassin_M and Shahkulu said elsewhere that it's singularly beautiful.

Umm......so? Different forum members have different opinions, yes. Why is this relevant?


That was the original AC ethos, do things no other game does, do things differently, don't fall into formula, nothing is true...yadda yadda yadda.

Yeah, but they forgot "do it in a way that's fun". It's not enough just to be different and innovative, you also need the game to be good.

Mr.Black24
09-16-2015, 05:38 PM
Okay then, so why did the first mate give the reins over to a young native boy with no experience? 9_9 The same reason you'd give a car 16 year old? To learn how to use it. If we go by that logic, then nothing in the world would ever be done, ever.

Person 1: He can't do the job?
Person 2: Why not?
Person 1: He has no experience.
Person 2: Can't we just teach him so he can do the job?
Person 1: Nah.

Ureh
09-16-2015, 06:31 PM
In the Ezio games downgrading to completely basic level is impossible, as you get more sync/health bars after each sequence, more from deciphering Codex pages and even at the most basic if you've bought at least the leather armor, Ezio can never get rid of it. In Unity you can choose to never upgrade Arno's skill tree or his gear, and even if you do, you can always downgrade to the most basic ones.

It's almost possible - based on my experience with ps3 version - to downgrade to just 1-6 health bars and maintain it throughout the majority of the game. Iirc, almost all of the codex pages are completely optional till the last sequence, except for a 4-5 pages that are required in the early missions (ex: gathering 4 pages after Ezio moves into the villa) and a few that are granted after assassinations.

Almost all armour (I think Altair's is indestructible) can suffer wear and tear, they'll eventually break and then stop providing the bonus hp until repaired by smith. If you choose not to use smelling salts throughout the game then Ezio would only have 1 sync bar.


I always have some nostalgia to play AC3 again and again just because I have it/wanna watch some awesome kill animations/hear Connor's voice. :P

That's right, there's nothing like watching the slow-mo animations where the game proudly displays the power and determination etched on Connor's face. It's a really impressive detail that is missing in most of the other combat systems.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m1x3RjtMPAU/maxresdefault.jpg

VestigialLlama4
09-16-2015, 06:56 PM
Are we really going to get into the realism in these games?

Well you are the one questioning Connor being captain of the Aquila, so obviously the threshold of realism does in fact exist for all of us. I am merely centering it on basics. On a basic level, a man with Eagle vision, who can survive Leaps of Faith like Arno can, who can climb up a great many buildings and Parkour with incredible stamina should not have a great deal of trouble with the basic guards and captains and the combat is needlessly elaborate rather than difficult. You avoid combat not because you are afraid of losing so much as afraid of repititive combat that bores you.

I mean the Ezio games, you generally do try to be stealthy because its a chore to reduce your notoriety by tearing out stuff and bribing people. In AC1, the penalty is walking really slowly or hiding in spots till you get off map. In AC3, if the notoriety goes to the highest level, out comes the Jaegers. So there the penalty was social and open-world rather than the actual combat being annoying. And by the way the absence of notoriety (which surely makes hide and seek very easy, lacking even the slow movements of AC1) makes even less sense in Unity's Paris (home to a very efficient police force by the end of the 1700s) than it does say in Black Flag, where there was no unified police across all three islands and the main consequences was on the ocean gameplay where you deal with Pirate hunters. So as far as realism goes, the combat in UNITY is fantastic and nonsensical in terms of social stealth, all the games before Unity (the good ones) were smarter in their approach to discourage combat.


Yeah, but they forgot "do it in a way that's fun". It's not enough just to be different and innovative, you also need the game to be good.

Well a good number of people do think AC3 is good and they appreciate it for being so different. I kind of feel we are getting off topic from my original point about AC3's importance to the series aesthetics. I kind of want to move beyond (Connor Sucks/No he doesn't, you suck!....or words to that effect). The point I am making is that AC3 regardless of what people felt towards it, was a positive step for Ubisoft and games in general, and the ethos which made the game is the same that led to the birth of AC. That ethos, whether people voice it or not, or call it by the same name or not, is what keeps people committed to it. After all, anyone who is truly a fan of stealth gameplay at the expense of everything would not have cared about these games so far, since its disappointing in terms of conventional stealth games and so on. So obviously the story and background is enormously important and vital and if Ubisoft doesn't keep pushing it then that means the games will eventually die out, since there's no longer any drive to really take it all the way.

So if Unity has to be defended, people have to make a case for its story and for its approach to that period, if that can't be defended then the game cannot be defended. And generally Unity cannot really be defended on its own terms because all I hear is "More stealthy than AC3". If AC3 didn't exist, where would that leave Unity? It's not being defended on any real positive terms. In terms of story, it's offensive, appealing to ignorance, trafficking in cliches and it's quite sexist. This is apart from whether people like or dislike Arno, even if you like Arno, these facts are there, just as even if you like Connor, there are issues in AC3. What is missing is the larger dimension and that dimension is there in AC3, its also there in Black Flag and all the Ezio and Altair games.

SixKeys
09-16-2015, 09:01 PM
The same reason you'd give a car 16 year old? To learn how to use it. If we go by that logic, then nothing in the world would ever be done, ever.

Person 1: He can't do the job?
Person 2: Why not?
Person 1: He has no experience.
Person 2: Can't we just teach him so he can do the job?
Person 1: Nah.

So if you had a car and some random kid walked up to you tomorrow and asked to drive it, you would be happy to give him lessons?

SixKeys
09-16-2015, 09:17 PM
You avoid combat not because you are afraid of losing so much as afraid of repititive combat that bores you.

Right, that's AC3. Thank goodness Unity's combat wasn't like that.



So if Unity has to be defended, people have to make a case for its story and for its approach to that period, if that can't be defended then the game cannot be defended. And generally Unity cannot really be defended on its own terms because all I hear is "More stealthy than AC3". If AC3 didn't exist, where would that leave Unity?

It's the most stealthy AC game so far. AC3 just gets brought up a lot in comparison because it had the least stealth. (I think Farlander proved this once by comparing all the main missions in each game and the possibility of completing them stealthily.)



It's not being defended on any real positive terms. In terms of story, it's offensive, appealing to ignorance, trafficking in cliches and it's quite sexist.

It gets defended here fairly regularly, you just don't accept the positive things people bring up as being relevant or important. Your focus is entirely on the story and historical accuracy, in which case I can understand you were let down by the game. Other people, like me, focus more on things like mission design, stealth implementation and customization. Unity certainly has a lot of positives, you just handwave them away because they're not the things you care about.

As for larger dimensions and aesthetics and ethos and all these other vague terms you're throwing around, I don't know what you mean by them. I don't know what it is you're seeing in AC3 that I don't. All I know is that AC3 lacked whatever it is that used to make AC games magical for me, personally, and subsequent games have come some way towards restoring that again.

strigoi1958
09-16-2015, 09:36 PM
I'm a gameplay-first person. If the gameplay satisfies me, which it does in Unity for the most part, then I don't really care about story shortcomings. Remember, I'm one of the few people here who has no problem with ACB's black-and-white story and moustache-twirling villains..

Hi Six... it's good to see another gameplay-first person... I don't understand why some people look for ulterior motives to help them decide if a game is fun or not.

VestigialLlama4
09-16-2015, 09:45 PM
It gets defended here fairly regularly, you just don't accept the positive things people bring up as being relevant or important.

The story has never been defended here. After all, Unity is a game that is focused on the story. It's side activities are lame to non-existent unlike Brotherhood or Black Flag. If the game is focused on the story at the expense of the open world, then obviously the story is the major factor. If the story can't be defended then the game can't be defended. It is that simple. So where is the defense for the story, and by defense I mean, a defense without ignorance, that is to say defending the whole issues against the game (inaccuracies, sexism) that have been raised against it.


Unity certainly has a lot of positives, you just handwave them away because they're not the things you care about.

Unity's positives are interiors, and an attempt at more stealth and Time Anomalies (aka what the game was originally about before Ubisoft chickened out). That's it. I do value that, but I think an expensive game should offer a lot more than that. So if I am handwaving it away, its because it can be waved away with a single hand.

AC3 has its positives but presumably you don't care for stuff like expansive side activities, natural environment, improved graphics and comprehensive thorough innovation on every front in addition to ambitious storytelling, morally gray and tragic characters, greater historical detail, putting in stuff like a believable 18th Century battlefield, naval gameplay, side missions with unique NPC models and interactive dialogues, and so on. That stuff doesn't matter presumably. You obviously would not have liked those features in an earlier game with say, Altair or Ezio, and naturally, you would have liked Connor and his story without any of these "distractions".

Obviously, the Roman countryside with the natural detail of AC3 styles forests would have made that game worse, likewise say, optional conversations Ezio could have with supporting characters that change according to context and evolve mission by mission. I mean imagine Unity with say, decent French accents, a story with historical fidelity, urban density, unique NPCs and voices for all the side characters in Paris Side Stories, a glimpse of the battlefields of the French Revolutionary Wars (where the vast number of NPCs it can field can actually work since this was the era of mass conscription and military innovation). None of these things could have possibly improved Unity after all.

TO_M
09-16-2015, 09:59 PM
Lol, Unity's (core) GAMEPLAY ​gets defended on a regular basis. But keep on trying going through all kinds of mental hoops to convince yourself that somehow AC3 had better "AC" gameplay.

VestigialLlama4
09-16-2015, 10:06 PM
Lol, Unity's (core) GAMEPLAY ​gets defended on a regular basis.

What is that gameplay for? Why do people pretend UNITY is like Brotherhood, with its generally open map with episodic activites pivoted around a thin story? As I wrote above,

Unity is a game that is focused on the story. It's side activities are lame to non-existent unlike Brotherhood or Black Flag. If the game is focused on the story at the expense of the open world, then obviously the story is the major factor. If the story can't be defended then the game can't be defended. It is that simple. So where is the defense for the story, and by defense I mean, a defense without ignorance, that is to say defending the whole issues against the game (inaccuracies, sexism) that have been raised against it.

AC1 was a game that was storycentric and it was fairly open in stealth and assasination missions, all the side activities were thin and geared towards the story, there was no open world distractions and naturally that story is excellent and satisfying. If AC1's story was bad, it would not have been a good game in the least.

HDinHB
09-16-2015, 10:06 PM
So if you had a car and some random kid walked up to you tomorrow and asked to drive it, you would be happy to give him lessons?

I think a closer analogy to what happened in the game would be: ' if you were a stumbling drunk, and your "car" was rotting away in the harbor for years, and "random kid" was introduced to you by your old friend, who happened to own the car, and it was this kid who had persuaded that friend to come out of retirement despite him swearing "never again," so there must be something special about this kid, and oh by the way it was this kid who made it possible to fix up the car so it could even be driven in the first place and gave your life meaning again, and damn if he doesn't have an amazing natural talent for it...you might feel differently.

GunnerGalactico
09-16-2015, 10:13 PM
I think a closer analogy to what happened in the game would be: ' if you were a stumbling drunk, and your "car" was rotting away in the harbor for years, and "random kid" was introduced to you by your old friend, who happened to own the car, and it was this kid who had persuaded that friend to come out of retirement despite him swearing "never again," so there must be something special about this kid, and oh by the way it was this kid who made it possible to fix up the car so it could even be driven in the first place and gave your life meaning again, and damn if he doesn't have an amazing natural talent for it...you might feel differently.

Couldn't help but laugh when I read this.

HDinHB
09-16-2015, 10:20 PM
Couldn't help but laugh when I read this.

Mission accomplished.

Mr.Black24
09-16-2015, 10:31 PM
So if you had a car and some random kid walked up to you tomorrow and asked to drive it, you would be happy to give him lessons?
Very poor analogy. The way the game went something similar like this, see.
At my job at a warehouse, I stow items. Boss asks me to help train newbies, so I show them the ropes. The same was asked from Achilles to Robert. It was that same situation, just different time and work.

HDinHB
09-16-2015, 10:55 PM
The fact is (see what I did there? :rolleyes:) that it was g0ddamn atrocious. It was the first time AC straight up made parkour a chore. Getting stuck on walls, Connor veering in the opposite direction than where he's directed, jumping on chimneys all the time, refusing to get down, refusing to follow the treerunning path even though you can see he should be able to move forward etc. etc. None of the previous games had ever ****ed up parkour to the same extent. Perhaps THE single most defining aspect that set AC apart from other games. If anything should be a priority to get right, it's that. I'm not defending Unity here, either, its parkour is only marginally less annoying than AC3's because it's based on the same flawed system. Unity only wins out because of "parkour down" button.

My problem with the free running in AC3 (and AC4 and Rogue) was it was too easy and too automatic. I don't remember Connor being especially sticky, but I swear Arnold had super glue on his paws. I had to peel him off anything less than 3 feet high, door frames, carts, barrels. I know many people complained that Ezio was hard to keep on their chosen path.

TO_M
09-16-2015, 10:57 PM
What is that gameplay for? Why do people pretend UNITY is like Brotherhood, with its generally open map with episodic activites pivoted around a thin story? As I wrote above,

Unity is a game that is focused on the story. It's side activities are lame to non-existent unlike Brotherhood or Black Flag. If the game is focused on the story at the expense of the open world, then obviously the story is the major factor. If the story can't be defended then the game can't be defended. It is that simple. So where is the defense for the story, and by defense I mean, a defense without ignorance, that is to say defending the whole issues against the game (inaccuracies, sexism) that have been raised against it.

AC1 was a game that was storycentric and it was fairly open in stealth and assasination missions, all the side activities were thin and geared towards the story, there was no open world distractions and naturally that story is excellent and satisfying. If AC1's story was bad, it would not have been a good game in the least.

You do know that story and gameplay are separate things right?
A game can be story focused and still have gameplay that can be judged on it's own merit. I don't know why you keep mentioning the side-missions or the sandbox activities when I'm talking about the gameplay and mechanics of Unity's campaign missions. You can dislike Unity's story or the side-missions, but that doesn't somehow mean that the campaign missions are terrible as well.

Unity's campaign missions and assassinations were a definitive improvements compared to previous titles (and especially AC3) and having a bad story or non-interesting open world activities does not somehow invalidate that.

VestigialLlama4
09-16-2015, 11:05 PM
You do know that story and gameplay are separate things right?

Not in AC games they aren't.


I don't know why you keep mentioning the side-missions or the sandbox activities when I'm talking about the gameplay and mechanics of Unity's campaign missions.

Well then obviously the story that threads the campaign missions, that supplies its emotional motor, matters a great deal. If that story can't be defended I don't think the game can.

TO_M
09-16-2015, 11:16 PM
Not in AC games they aren't.



Well then obviously the story that threads the campaign missions, that supplies its emotional motor, matters a great deal. If that story can't be defended I don't think the game can.

1 Yes they are. People criticized AC1 for it's repetitive gameplay, while it's story was good. But somehow it's impossible to praise unity's gameplay when the story is bad?

2. The "emotional motor" might be lacking but that still does not mean that the gameplay itself is bad. You might not be motivated to do/continue the missions because the story does not interest you but that does not mean that there aren't other people who will keep on playing because the actual gameplay itself is enjoyable. Story alone is not the only thing that keeps players interested in a game, otherwise something like Minecraft would not be insanely popular. And story alone (even for "story-focused games") is not the only aspect on which you can judge a game.

duncanr2n
09-16-2015, 11:55 PM
Well, I for one love AC3. I've played it through probably 3 times now and to this day I don't understand why people dislike Connor. Yes, I get he's not the young, brash, ego-centric Ezio, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have personality. I actually thought he was great. I loved his character and Achilles. I loved the setting, I was really hoping that I'd get another 3-part epic with Connor as the lead so I could see how he changes (like the Ezio story arc and how he changed over the course of the 3 games). But alas! It was not to be. Yes, AC3 spent a good deal of time with Haytham at the beginning which maybe could have been shortened a bit (but I don't think it's necessary), and yes it was dumb when Connor did a ride-along with Paul Revere, and it's lame to see people walking bare-foot in the middle of winter in Boston, but aside from all that, I actually really liked the game.

When people try to explain to me why they dislike it so much I just can't see it. Parkouring through the trees was fantastic, loved running away from soldiers and then up a tree and watching as they pass under me not knowing where I went. If I recall, they change some of the button presses with AC3 from the previous games which actually messed me up at first and made parkouring really frustrating. Once I figured out the correct way to parkour, it was much more enjoyable and fun.

It was also, in my opinion the last AC with a great 'out of animus' story (Unity having the worst one). The Desmond story arc was fantastic, and now I feel like Ubi isn't quite sure what to do. Yes, they've got the Sage thing going which is cool and all but was only barely used in Unity. And what of the whole side story from Rogue? Will anything happen with that?

Anyway, AC3's out of animus story felt way more epic and was a nice conclusion to the story that started with AC1 and Desmond.

I loved the Homestead too. I kinda feel like if you only do the story missions and never really did the Homestead you are really missing out on some character building with Connor and seeing how he acts outside of being an Assassin and trying to protect his village.

There were so many great moments in that game. I love it.

strigoi1958
09-16-2015, 11:57 PM
Not in AC games they aren't.



Well then obviously the story that threads the campaign missions, that supplies its emotional motor, matters a great deal. If that story can't be defended I don't think the game can.


You really should write IMHO at the start of your generalisations...

I know you genuinely believe this to be true (and I admire your conviction)...and it may well be true to you and others (but what percentage) you may well be in the minority, definitely the majority on the forum but I wouldn't class us as average gamers we're AC fans.

Gameplay and story are not inextricably linked for many people... even in AC but I like the fact that Ubi has done such a good job that people are invested in both.

If after Syndicate, the next AC game had all MD cut and after a short prologue, there were no more cutscenes or story ... just objectives, targets and upgrades... I could happily play it... BUT I'd be at the front of the queue asking for it all to be re-instated because I understand there are parts of games meant to make others happy... and games are meant for millions of people, not just me. :D

SixKeys
09-17-2015, 01:29 AM
Saying that story and gameplay are so inextricably linked that one can't defend a game if the story is bad is just absurd. How many classic games became classics not because they had amazing stories but because they were fun to play? Super Mario is just one example. It's been the same story for almost 30 years: the Princess gets kidnapped by Bowser, Mario saves her, the end. Yet Nintendo is still making tons of money from those games every year. Why? Because many people recognise that story and gameplay can be two separate things and one does not have to enjoy the story to appreciate the gameplay.

VestigialLlama4
09-17-2015, 05:42 AM
1 Yes they are. People criticized AC1 for it's repetitive gameplay, while it's story was good. But somehow it's impossible to praise unity's gameplay when the story is bad?

Nope. People criticized AC1 for the fact that there weren't enough open world activities or "stuff to do" in that huge map and very little incentive for exploration. That's what led to AC2, where the open world was built up and which AC3 built on even more. I find it strange you invoke AC1 since Unity was modelled and inspired by AC1 more than any other game as the developers have stated. UNITY was intended to be a nuts-and-bolts game, pare down side missions and open world activities and focus on the story as a whole.


2. The "emotional motor" might be lacking but that still does not mean that the gameplay itself is bad.

It makes the game as a whole bad or at least not anything better than any Hitman game. Unity's gameplay by itself is hardly anything special or new. Taken away from the context of earlier AC games, there's nothing there that wasn't done better in other stealth games. I mean in terms of level design and "black box", nothing beats Dishonored after all.


Story alone is not the only thing that keeps players interested in a game, otherwise something like Minecraft would not be insanely popular.

Well then why is Unity not like Minecraft? Why isn't it make your own city, your own characters, your own NPCs and so on? Those are all story choices as much as they are gameplay choices).


Saying that story and gameplay are so inextricably linked that one can't defend a game if the story is bad is just absurd. How many classic games became classics not because they had amazing stories but because they were fun to play? Super Mario is just one example. It's been the same story for almost 30 years: the Princess gets kidnapped by Bowser, Mario saves her, the end.

Well the problem is that AC is not Super Mario Bros, games with simple plots and stories that it uses to pivot complex platforming around. In the case of Assassin's Creed, these have always been, right from the beginning, games with complex plots and stories, and they are open world games at that. These have always been cutscene games. Furthermore, by grounding it in history, the point is that we are actually seeing the past and are interacting with history. So the background as whole can't be like the Mushroom Kingdom, however many Uncle Mario jokes they throw your way in the Ezio games. This determines everything from synch objectives, to levels, to open world and so on.

If you want a game that focuses on the gameplay, you must have a story with as little distraction. That's why you have Ico/Shadow of the Colossus/Portal with their minimal plots. AC games have never been like that, they are not minimalist games, these are bulky, huge games teeming with detail. And I like that. I don't subscribe to the idea that games can't be huge or have big ideas that you must remove all "non-essentials" because in an open world game, there will always be non-essentials if only to give the illusion that your protagonist is one of many in that city and that world, that you interact with a wide variety of people.

Even AC1 is a game with a very complex set of ideas. In UNITY, the story and open world as a whole is constantly distracting me from focusing on the gameplay. There's no sense of who these targets are, unlike AC1, you don't have the complexity and tragedy of motivations that you got in AC3 either. I mean yeah Bellec and La Touche turn out to be sympathetic when you scan their "dying memories" (which is another distracting detail that does not simplify the story) but there's no sense that Arno is wrong to have done what he did, which you got in AC1 and AC3 in some targets. The lack of historical detail and open world makes the entire city empty and lifeless with no real connection to that time and place and that's far from the spirit of these games.

GunnerGalactico
09-17-2015, 08:58 AM
My problem with the free running in AC3 (and AC4 and Rogue) was it was too easy and too automatic. I don't remember Connor being especially sticky, but I swear Arnold had super glue on his paws. I had to peel him off anything less than 3 feet high, door frames, carts, barrels. I know many people complained that Ezio was hard to keep on their chosen path.

Same here. I found the free running in AC3 and 4 dead easy and automatic. It can even make newcomers to the franchise look like veteran AC players. Connor and Edward always went on the intended direction that I wanted. I preferred the free running in the earlier games because it actually felt like I was putting a lot of effort into climbing. Sure it is a lot slower, but at least Altair and Ezio looked a little more realistic when they climbed tall buildings, whereas Connor and Edward moved like spider monkeys. I didn't have too much of a hassle with the free running in Unity, there were times when Arno got stuck while climbing buildings and window panes, but that might've been due to some of the bugs in the game and not the actual mechanic itself.

king-hailz
09-17-2015, 09:45 AM
I think AC3 and ACU are just as good (or just as bad) as each other. AC3 has a great plot but it was executed badly, Unity had a terribly boring plot but it was executed quite well for what it had. The game play in Unity is better than AC3 however it still wasnt that amazing, the multiplayer in AC3 is much better than the Co op. The free running in ACU is just as annoying, the stealth is more on your face than AC3 but it was done badly which makes it annoying. So Overall they're about the same, I just prefer AC3 a little more because of nostalgia and the fact that Connor (even though I don't like him much) is much better than Arno...

HDinHB
09-18-2015, 07:13 AM
Same here. I found the free running in AC3 and 4 dead easy and automatic. It can even make newcomers to the franchise look like veteran AC players. Connor and Edward always went on the intended direction that I wanted. I preferred the free running in the earlier games because it actually felt like I was putting a lot of effort into climbing. Sure it is a lot slower, but at least Altair and Ezio looked a little more realistic when they climbed tall buildings, whereas Connor and Edward moved like spider monkeys.

That's how I feel. I wonder if AC3 was so easy because they had to make it easy for Liberation on the Vita.