PDA

View Full Version : Why I don't class Assassin's Creed as a AAA game anymore



pacmanate
10-20-2015, 01:46 PM
I know I've been crapping on AC a lot lately, despite it being my favourite franchise, but that's exactly why. I feel like AC just doesn't live up to so many other games despite the amount of work that gets put in. The following are problems more focused towards Unity and Syndicate.

Character model graphics/textures

AC graphics/textures, whatever you want to call them have always been good in my opinion. The cities in Unity and Syndicate look great, but the detail in NPC's and even main characters seem to be lacking horribly. Textures seem minimal, animations seem minimal, and for some reason there seems to be only 4 different face models for enemy archetypes. All the female enemies look the same, all the brutes look the same, etc.

To me this lowers the quality of the open world, its like constant deja vu when seeing enemies.

Combat

Unity and Syndicate have different styles of combat for sure, however Ubisoft in my opinion keep missing the balance between ease and fun. Unity's combat was slow and thus turned into a chore after a while. Whilst this added a certain pace and difficulty to the fighting, it wasn't fun in the long term. Syndicates on the other hand looks too easy, almost back to AC3's. If your attacks don't work, break defense, then go HAM. Whilst this might be more fun, there is not really a sense of accomplishment. They have added a level system for difficulty but that just alters damage dealt/taken.

As said before, it looks like Syndicate is an AC3 scenario where you have a few "combos":

1. Attack attack attack
2. Counter - attack
3. Break defense - attack

There is nothing to learn here at all. Technically you don't even need bullet point #1. You just need 2 and 3.

AI

This is where AC really looks stupid compared to a lot of other games when it comes to AI. I'm just going to list them for ease of looking:

1. Guards will see a dead body, act bothered for a while, then not care
2. Guards don't seem to have much life. They just stand around a lot of the time walking a few meters now and then.

I guess it doesn't seem like much, but imagine how more real the world would seem if the guards changed their positioning after finding a dead body, perhaps starting to stand back to back, guarding the body, moving to cut off alleyways into the area etc. They just seem really not bothered by anything.

Voice Acting

The most inconsistent thing in AC games for sure. This mainly goes for the main characters and enemies/guards, however. Accents and tone of voice seem to be off sometimes depending on the situation and in relation to body movements.

I'm not sure why this happens but having people sound British in France really takes away from the immersion. Also for the main characters, I wonder sometimes if the voice actors always know what exactly is going on whilst they record their lines... either that or they are bad at voice acting, I don't know.

Story

This is one of the biggest reasons I play games, the story. For a game like AC that is exactly the case. I remember when I played AC1... the concept of the animus, the glitches, the white room, being held captive, eagle vision, first civ, the apple of eden, modern day, the templar/assassin conflict. All of these hooked me into AC, the story up until AC3 was so rich. Not saying AC4 is a bad game, its one of my favourites but only for Edwards character development story.

AC Unity's story was really bland in my opinion. I would much rather have had a game playing that Templar at the start in the 1300's. Arno turned from a light hearted character at the start to just being a rebel blinded by revenge. Also the Elise and Arno relationship? I don't see why anyone would care. Why should I care? We never saw any progression of those characters, we were just thrown into the game with the notion that they really like each other and that's why I didn't give a crap about their relationship.

Even Rogue wasn't amazing if I'm honest. If I had to rate last years games on story, Unity would be a 6 and Rogue would be a 7.

AC NEEDS to bring back the mystery that AC1 - AC3 had. Personally, I loved the MD in that saga, I would love for it to return. But this whole 1st person/you are the MD protag is just crap. I can't see how anyone can like it. They pull you out of the game for a cutscene for something I don't even feel invested in due to me not even really being a part of it. If they want to keep MD they should give us a character to care about, no one hated Desmond for a laugh, he was badly written. Then the hate got worse because in every game up to AC3 he got less screen time, was less developed, and seemed like a chore as he was uninteresting.

Broken Pillars

The 3 pillars of AC:

1. Stealth
2. Navigation
3. Combat

Navigation = Great. The most fluid in the series, sure the characters are sorta floaty but it is just a game.
Combat = Meh. As said above, Ubisoft can't nail the difficulty/fun aspect of combat at all


Stealth... broken.

1. You can crouch now, great, but why can't you move around cover whilst still crouched? If Stealth was such a pillar why is this not a thing in Syndicate?
2. Guards can see through walls
3. Guards are alerted at too wide a radius when a fight breaks out
4. Going to Unity, Phantom blade kills could get you alerted, even if the eye icon wasn't showing that people were watching you

To fix stealth, polish the game. There seems to always be a case of a guard seeing you doing some long range attack even if they aren't looking, it just makes the game frustrating to play stealthy.

Animations

In regard to Syndicate, the combat animations are ridiculous. Not so much Jacob or Evies fighting style, but how the enemies react to being hit. They fly up, have some weird ragdoll effect on them. It just looks silly and cartoonish. Contrast the combat animations to the rest of the game and its like 2 games have been mashed together. Whatever the next AC game is, their animation department needs to get rid of these ragdoll/cartoon effect.

So yeah, these are my reasons why AC isn't regarded to me as a huge AAA game anymore. The best thing about AC and always has been throughout all the games is the worlds they create. But:

NPC reused assets, NPC textures, voice acting inconsistencies, combat, stealth, AI, bugs, and story seem to plague AC now.

Again these are just my opinions but I thought I'd do a long post as I never normally do. I wish these were fixed in the future.

cawatrooper9
10-20-2015, 02:11 PM
AAA is more than about a game's quality. It's about how commercially successful it is (of which Assassins Creed always is, even if it's considered a flop) and how big of a budget it is (once again, of which Assassins Creed always has a large budget).

So, you may not like the games' quality anymore, but that doesn't mean they're not AAA games.

crusader_prophet
10-20-2015, 03:06 PM
I have noticed all those things and brought up in the forums before, but got shot down with extreme hatred. It seems AC has been re-using most of its assets which creates fatigue and shows laziness.

strigoi1958
10-20-2015, 04:25 PM
I can understand you want specific points to be better... that's great we all like better :D

NPC's... th different things the NPC's did in Unity were amazing... on the pc section was a thread about the guy with cats in the boat, the dogs scratching and stretching, the cats, the guy throwing a bucket of water, the women selling cockades, newspapers, shoe cleaners, (have to cut this short but I hope you can see the list can go on)...
As to their actual appearance/ facial features... it doesn't bother me (they are just NPC's ;)) and I wouldn't want the budget for the missions halved to create better background characters.
As for Brutes/ Captains/ jagers etc all looking the same... I think it helps to make them easier to recognise... besides it is just a game not real life..we have to have some allowances.

Combat well I agree with you here about the difficulty... over the years here I see as many posts complaining the combat/ stealth is too difficult as I do see posts saying it's too easy. So maybe a difficulty setting should be added in the future... raising AI alertness, more brutes etc.... less hiding places ? the guards changing positions or altering their patrols would be good.

Most games are similar now... Mordor I kill an uruk the guard 5 feet away turns round and says "someones killed this Uruk..." 5 seconds later "I don't care who killed him... I never liked him anyway" (ALL SAID IN A STRONG LONDON COCKNEY ACCENT but.... it makes the game better) In a realistic way it is bad but.... I wouldn't want to wait 30 minutes while all the alarms shut down after 30 search parties hadn't found me... there could be a difficulty setting so everyone can choose.

Voice acting... I like the main characters, when Ubi put up the videos of the actors, some are how I imagine them to be and others really surprise me. As for less important characters (things like the english accents in Unity) I simply assume that the helix/animus is translating and using that accent/ tone because it thinks it is what is right for me....

Unity is actually an incredible game... it was overshadowed by a few teething problems that many couldn't overlook.... I personally see the same potential it has as a base... that AC1 gave us. The story felt a bit disjointed and I didn't bond with Arno. but the city, NPC's and the open world and free access to buildings was brilliant.

The MD, 1st CIV, part for a lot of people was not engaging to game players like myself... lots of people don't want to put their controllers down for 10 minutes at a time to listen to a juno/ minerva/desmond conversation... collecting the battery cells in the cave or repairing electric cable was not interesting. I have no problem with MD but it was intrusive for me... it broke the action.... I would have preferred it to be a big section after the credits when the game had finished...

but the way it could be acceptable would be to make it fully interactive as part of the game... (I've said this before) track things through time, find their hidden location, use the MD section to collect and assemble them (like a 1st civ machine parts... to build a machine over a few games).... either that or have the MD section optional and hide lots of easter eggs for the MD guys to find... they love the mystery.. I mean things like a web site address scribbled on a notepad in the office and when you type it in to google you go to a real site with info and interaction with juno etc...


I don't think the pillars are broken just different.

you are saying AI is bad (then contrarily) saying guards are alerted when a fight breaks out and phantom blade kills get alerted... I assume they can hear the noise of a fight or a body hitting the floor.

I'm not bothered by the animation of the fights... it doesn't affect gameplay it is something that could be changed but it's not important.

Perhaps it is just the fact that you have invested so much into the series that makes you more critical of it... which is actually a very good thing... but I can assure you... if you pass a critical look over any AAA title, you will see they are all similar.... just watch some honest trailer reviews on YT they stop everyone from getting too serious about a game. :D

steveone01
10-20-2015, 04:31 PM
Sorry to post this here, but I can't even get a result when I search the forum. Did they shut down the multiplayer servers for AC 4 Black Flag? Again, I'm sorry to post here but I can't get any answers anywhere else. Thanks for any useful responses.

pacmanate
10-20-2015, 05:10 PM
AAA is more than about a game's quality. It's about how commercially successful it is (of which Assassins Creed always is, even if it's considered a flop) and how big of a budget it is (once again, of which Assassins Creed always has a large budget).

So, you may not like the games' quality anymore, but that doesn't mean they're not AAA games.

Okay, well it has a big budget. They should use it wisely.



As to their actual appearance/ facial features... it doesn't bother me (they are just NPC's ;)) and I wouldn't want the budget for the missions halved to create better background characters.
As for Brutes/ Captains/ jagers etc all looking the same... I think it helps to make them easier to recognise... besides it is just a game not real life..we have to have some allowances.

Voice acting... I like the main characters, when Ubi put up the videos of the actors, some are how I imagine them to be and others really surprise me. As for less important characters (things like the english accents in Unity) I simply assume that the helix/animus is translating and using that accent/ tone because it thinks it is what is right for me....

The MD, 1st CIV, part for a lot of people was not engaging to game players like myself... lots of people don't want to put their controllers down for 10 minutes at a time to listen to a juno/ minerva/desmond conversation... collecting the battery cells in the cave or repairing electric cable was not interesting. I have no problem with MD but it was intrusive for me... it broke the action.... I would have preferred it to be a big section after the credits when the game had finished...

you are saying AI is bad (then contrarily) saying guards are alerted when a fight breaks out and phantom blade kills get alerted... I assume they can hear the noise of a fight or a body hitting the floor.

I'm not bothered by the animation of the fights... it doesn't affect gameplay it is something that could be changed but it's not important.


I doubt making a few random NPC face changes takes a lot of time at all. Just randomly shape the eyes and stick it on a guy.

I'm not saying the way the voice actors sound is bad, im talking more the execution. Some are way too overdramatic its laughable, sometimes lines are said in a really odd way. The Cafe scene with Elise in Unity comes to mind for me.

As for MD, thats exactly what im talking about. Its not engaging, why? Because Ubisoft dont make it engaging. I love MD but its being half arsed. People didn't like Desmond because they found him boring but Ubisoft made him that way by giving him less screen time and making him a burden. Now with this "you are the protag" thing, its even LESS engaging, we just sit on our asses waiting for the cutscene to end. The either need to give us back a modern day protagonist and make us like them, or scrap it. I'm fine with either, but no inbetween.

Your noise argument is invalid though, thats just you trying to find a way to explain the bug. There is no sound system in AC Unity and Syndicate other than walking/running.

The reason the animations for the fights looks silly to me is that it doesn't fit. The animations for everything else in AC Syndicate are great, then you have these over the top ragdoll physics with legs flailing around, to me it just doesnt fit in the game.

SofaJockey
10-20-2015, 05:27 PM
I... Again these are just my opinions but I thought I'd do a long post as I never normally do. I wish these were fixed in the future.

You'll be able to play the game soon,
perhaps some of them are.

cawatrooper9
10-20-2015, 05:33 PM
Okay, well it has a big budget. They should use it wisely.


Again, it's only your opinion that they don't. That doesn't change anything about its classification as an AAA series.

LoyalACFan
10-20-2015, 05:34 PM
Agreed with mostly everything in Pac's post, honestly.


NPC's... th different things the NPC's did in Unity were amazing... on the pc section was a thread about the guy with cats in the boat, the dogs scratching and stretching, the cats, the guy throwing a bucket of water, the women selling cockades, newspapers, shoe cleaners, (have to cut this short but I hope you can see the list can go on)...

And that's all cool, except there's virtually no way to interact with any of it. It's just window dressing. You can't manipulate the crowds, they don't really react to violence convincingly, and their stealth/blending functionality has remained completely unchanged since AC2. Okay, we got the extra addition of a circle around the character to show how far away guards can detect you from. Woohoo. On paper the crowds sound really dynamic and immersive, but in-game, the extent of our interaction with them boils down to FOUR random events. Four. That cycle endlessly with the exact same dialogue every five minutes.


Most games are similar now... Mordor I kill an uruk the guard 5 feet away turns round and says "someones killed this Uruk..." 5 seconds later "I don't care who killed him... I never liked him anyway" (ALL SAID IN A STRONG LONDON COCKNEY ACCENT but.... it makes the game better) In a realistic way it is bad but.... I wouldn't want to wait 30 minutes while all the alarms shut down after 30 search parties hadn't found me... there could be a difficulty setting so everyone can choose.

Except SoM is an action game with some lite stealth elements, and its enemy AI is literally just as good as AC's, which is supposed to be a dedicated stealth game with lite action elements. That's kind of a problem. Plus SoM has the in-universe excuse that Orcs are murderous and cannibalistic, and it isn't unusual for some of them to turn up dead sometimes. Versus a policeman on the street who inspects a corpse for a few seconds and continues his normal patrol.


you are saying AI is bad (then contrarily) saying guards are alerted when a fight breaks out and phantom blade kills get alerted... I assume they can hear the noise of a fight or a body hitting the floor.

They can hear the sound of a body hitting the floor and immediately extrapolate the location of the attacker regardless of whatever obstacles might be between them? But if they see a dead body just lying in the street, they examine it for ten seconds then say "ah, f*** it." They need to look to MGS for inspiration here; there's a distinct divide between patrol mode (when enemies see something suspicious like a dead body and call for reinforcements to patrol around and make it more difficult for the player to sneak) and alert mode (enemies know where you are and can kill you in seconds if you're not mindful).


I can assure you... if you pass a critical look over any AAA title, you will see they are all similar.... just watch some honest trailer reviews on YT they stop everyone from getting too serious about a game. :D

Honest Trailers is a comedy show so they naturally have to nitpick and poke fun at whatever they can, but I can say with complete confidence that AC genuinely does not put forth the same quality, cohesiveness, attention to detail, and sense of identity that beloved AAA franchises (e.g. GTA, Witcher, Arkham, Elder Scrolls, Metal Gear, Fallout, Uncharted) do. The series has fallen into a trap of predictability that likely has a lot to do with annual releases, but it's also because the gameplay has become so by-the-numbers. And it sucks, because I feel like this series could produce one truly amazing game and completely pull its name out of the mud, but they seem content to just rehash stuff instead.

strigoi1958
10-20-2015, 05:37 PM
there were 5000 npc's in Unity :D so that's 10,000 eyes and some people might say it wasn't enough...... besides someone said about the budget.... they should spend it wisely... would you rather have more MD or better looking NPC's ? I think they prioritise very well...

The voice acting in specific scenes is open to interpretation... I'm not even recalling it and I put hundreds of hours into Unity. I loved the larger than life characters in Farcry 3 but a lot of people said they were too much.

As for my noise point... what if only WE hear just the walking running sounds in the helix/ animus but in the "real" world they hear all the sounds...the memory filters out background noise.

The ragdoll animations... it's just a game... it gets as close to real as it needs to be and no more... in MGSV we tie a weather ballon to a persons arm... it appears on their back leg... it inflates in a split second not as long as it should take.. when it lifts them it is by the waist.. it hovers for a second 6 feet off the ground then flies up at 200 miles an hour accelerating at impossible speed... and the guy always screams out... it never alerts anyone in hearing distance....

In Mordor you grab an Uruk (there's only about 6 types) as soon as you throw him from a ledge (even 5 feet high) he dies instantly and goes stiff as a board .... you can go through ANY and I do mean ANY AAA title and find flaws... but maybe because you want AC to be better because you like it so much... or maybe because it doesn't feature the MD/ 1st CIV parts that you want so much.... that you view it more critically than other games. If the things you prefer changed were changed I would expect you or someone else would look for other things... it's a game and it is like other games... I ignore he insignificant things and just enjoy the good things.

@loyalACfan
It's a game not real life... just because the characters look more realistic than other games does not mean everything in it has to be as realistic....

4 random events were more than enough... they're NPC's

Regardless of what genre other AAA games are they have similar unrealistic events but people here gloss over them because they want to nit pick AC because they're not getting MD.

I've pointed out MGSV and SoM things in this post already or are they realistic to you ?

Honest trailers IS a comedy show... my point is they show ALL AAA games have unrealistic points or flaws and also you might need to lighten up... there are more things important in life than a video game and definitely more things in life important than just 1 aspect of a video game including MD/1st CIV... if it hurts so much not having MD that some peoples time is just used to try and pick holes in a video game then they need a break...

RVSage
10-20-2015, 05:49 PM
I can agree about AI, lot of scope for improvement.

regarding animations, after watching sequence 1-3 of the final game. I can say they are pretty good. (Well again that is me)

Stealth in syndicate is better, IMHO

As I said so many times earlier, the models really look the same as unity to me

As long as whether it is AAA or not , it is AAA. Just because of the scale and level of detail London has.

TO_M
10-20-2015, 05:55 PM
I think the combat animations look stupid. I'm not a fan of the "brawler" type combat, plus the combat animations look like they have increased animation speed or whatever you call it.

cawatrooper9
10-20-2015, 05:57 PM
Except SoM is an action game with some lite stealth elements, and its enemy AI is literally just as good as AC's, which is supposed to be a dedicated stealth game with lite action elements.

Sure, stealth is a big part of the game, I think it's been thoroughly discussed here before that AC is not a stealth game. Never has been, never will be. There's stealth in it, and it's always a fun option, but the series does not identify itself that way.



quality, cohesiveness, attention to detail, and sense of identity that beloved AAA franchises (e.g. GTA, Witcher, Arkham, Elder Scrolls, Metal Gear, Fallout, Uncharted) do.
Oh gosh, really? GTA?
Look, I enjoy creating havoc around Los Santos as anyone else, but I wouldn't make an argument that it's a quality game, at least not from a critical standpoint.

pacmanate
10-20-2015, 06:24 PM
Yet stealth is a "core pillar".... and the game is called ASSASSIN's Creed.

king-hailz
10-20-2015, 06:59 PM
The only thing I disagree with is the navigation, it has been getting worse with each installment sInce AC3, (except black flag and Syndicate probably). It used to feel way more realistic and grounded in AC1-2 (Brotherhood and 2 had the best). Then AC3 came out with the strange animations that felt floaty unnatural and annoying. Unity went even further.

Bottom line is this series is not AAA quality. It feels about the same quality as AC2 and the series hasn't evolved much since then. If AC2 had next gen graphics, it would probably be a more next gen game then Unity or Syndicate.

Plus if you look at Unity or Syndicate next to MGS5 it seriously looms like a PS2 game!

strigoi1958
10-20-2015, 07:09 PM
Depends on everyone's own point of view... MGSV... if I was told I could play 1000 games then I'd be executed... I'd play MGSV last .... because after I'd finished 999 I'd rather be shot than play it ;)

It doesn't make MGSV a bad game or not an AAA title it's just that awful for me (but I have better things to do than hang around the MGSV forum and try to undermine it ;) )... just as AC is awful for anyone who wants MD and hopes to encourage others to dislike it by picking fault as though no other game in the world is anything but perfect.

cawatrooper9
10-20-2015, 07:14 PM
Yet stealth is a "core pillar".... and the game is called ASSASSIN's Creed.

It is a core pillar, among many other things. And we just got a dedicated crouch button last year.

And yes, we have had "social stealth" in the past- and some missions even require it! But by and large, the most critically appraised sections of the games are the ones in which the player can choose their own approach.

phoenix-force411
10-20-2015, 07:19 PM
The only thing I disagree with is the navigation, it has been getting worse with each installment sInce AC3, (except black flag and Syndicate probably). It used to feel way more realistic and grounded in AC1-2 (Brotherhood and 2 had the best). Then AC3 came out with the strange animations that felt floaty unnatural and annoying. Unity went even further.


While I agree that Unity's animations were just hilarious especially when you are holding down the Free-Run Up button, no game besides AC1 actually had the most realistic navigation. ACII-Revelations had the ridiculous climbing lunge that Ezio performs when there was an angled balcony above him. III made animations more smooth when transitioning to other animations. Edward couldn't climb cliffs and Shay couldn't climb cliffs either besides "obvious cliffs" with a visual texture. III was so well-grounded. Run up a cliff and he starts climbing. But seriously, who the heck wants to see the same climbing and parkouring animations since AC1? ACB and Revelations felt old because they kept reusing old animations.

phoenix-force411
10-20-2015, 07:29 PM
Combat seems fine. Sure, slow the animations down a bit, but overall, I can see the enjoyment. AC1, in my opinion, still has the best combat system. II being the worst with IV as the second, and Rogue as the third. Uggh! Honestly, though, what kind of combat do you want that has not already been done? Ubi tries new things, and people hate it. Ubi adopts a similar combat system and people still hate it. Ubi makes a female protagonist playable and Syndicate and people still hate the game. Hmm... It seems the fans are never satisfied. My only concern with the games, actually, is the pacing.

pacmanate
10-20-2015, 07:45 PM
Combat seems fine. Sure, slow the animations down a bit, but overall, I can see the enjoyment. AC1, in my opinion, still has the best combat system. II being the worst with IV as the second, and Rogue as the third. Uggh! Honestly, though, what kind of combat do you want that has not already been done? Ubi tries new things, and people hate it. Ubi adopts a similar combat system and people still hate it. Ubi makes a female protagonist playable and Syndicate and people still hate the game. Hmm... It seems the fans are never satisfied. My only concern with the games, actually, is the pacing.

Enjoyment and Skill, thats what I said in the OP. There is either one, or the other, but they haven't hit the sweet spot for me. ACB had the EASIEST combat in AC history, but it was the most fun, and my favourite, but it didn't make me feel accomplished, it didn't force me to stealth because I never had to.

Ubi tries new things, we hate it? Not all the time? Murder mysteries are good, paris stories were good additions, as were parkour down and parkour up.

People hate on Ubi and Evie because of the rumour she only has 30% of story missions, they also hate because... well have you seen the promo material? Evie doesnt even sit center stage to Jacob on the front cover. In the special editions only Jacob is a figure. In the material which shows all the Assassin's in a row standing on some snow, Jacob is there and not Evie.

strigoi1958
10-20-2015, 08:10 PM
Stealth is a tool it is something I quite enjoy... the heist missions in Unity that lost us money when we were seen were very enjoyable... and the fact that the correct painting was in a different place each time and different windows were open or closed was excellent.

AC1 Altair had few resources and used stealth more. Ezio had bombs and better weapons and as time progressed the others got more... I would think if the next AC game was set in a much earlier time we wouldn't have so many weapons...

But in Unity co-op I often played with people who would just go on killing sprees or 1 guy ran through the building using just smoke bombs ... very effective but too difficult for me...

In the games now it is there when we need/ want it... but as I said the pillars are not broken they are just different... if we had been given 8 games all like AC1 ... the series would have died a long time ago.

As for protagonists... I don't care what gender, race, religion or nationality they are (or even if they're an alien or plant :) ) as long as I get to play... I would like a female protagonist, I'd like to see the same protagonist get a few games like Ezio did.... but 30% of Syndicate is better than nothing at all and we can play some missions as one... then as the other... which is great. And I seriously doubt people hate Ubi because Evie has 30% of story missions.... or the promo material. And as Jacob gets the majority of the game, it would not be right to put Evie... or even Henry Green in the star role.

pacmanate
10-20-2015, 08:22 PM
For sure, I want AC to go back in time now. I have no idea if the intention was to always progress further in time throughout the games but I would love a game set in the 1100 - 1400's because you would be less OP... theoretically.

strigoi1958
10-20-2015, 08:31 PM
unless Evie has 1 or 2 more games (which I'd like) I don't see how it can come much further into modern day so... it must go back... I have said before I'd like to make the circle join... by going back to where it all began with Altair... but at a more recent time... maybe as his great great grandson or daughter.

BananaBlighter
10-20-2015, 10:21 PM
I know I've been crapping on AC a lot lately, despite it being my favourite franchise, but that's exactly why. I feel like AC just doesn't live up to so many other games despite the amount of work that gets put in. The following are problems more focused towards Unity and Syndicate.

Agreed.


Character model graphics/textures

AC graphics/textures, whatever you want to call them have always been good in my opinion. The cities in Unity and Syndicate look great, but the detail in NPC's and even main characters seem to be lacking horribly. Textures seem minimal, animations seem minimal, and for some reason there seems to be only 4 different face models for enemy archetypes. All the female enemies look the same, all the brutes look the same, etc.

To me this lowers the quality of the open world, its like constant deja vu when seeing enemies.

The NPCs in Unity DO NOT feel alive whatsoever despite having plenty of scripted things they do. I don't understand how the quality of NPCs has gone down so much lately. Pre AC3, they would REACT to things you did like notice their wallet was missing, cheer you on in fights, run away from dead bodies. It's like the difference between a game and a film, NPCs have to be INTERACTIVE to feel ALIVE.

Character models are pretty low quality too but this doesn't bug me anywhere near as much, it is pure aesthetics. The cities and architecture have always been great and I'm really looking forward to 19th century London.



Combat

Unity and Syndicate have different styles of combat for sure, however Ubisoft in my opinion keep missing the balance between ease and fun. Unity's combat was slow and thus turned into a chore after a while. Whilst this added a certain pace and difficulty to the fighting, it wasn't fun in the long term. Syndicates on the other hand looks too easy, almost back to AC3's. If your attacks don't work, break defense, then go HAM. Whilst this might be more fun, there is not really a sense of accomplishment. They have added a level system for difficulty but that just alters damage dealt/taken.

As said before, it looks like Syndicate is an AC3 scenario where you have a few "combos":

1. Attack attack attack
2. Counter - attack
3. Break defense - attack

There is nothing to learn here at all. Technically you don't even need bullet point #1. You just need 2 and 3.


I honestly don't believe that Syndicate's combat is 'easy' as such. Enemies take A LOT of hits to take down with a weapon of their level, dealing an adequate amount of damage too with each hit. You are mistaken when you say that the level only changes health and attack stats. From what I have observed in previews, the level 7 guards attacked and countered your attacks far more than level 3s. Accidentally attacking an enemy who is blocking can be a big mistake. Depending on their level they will react differently, but high levels will counter you, stunning you very temporarily, giving them time to string attacks and batter you if you aren't quick.

However, I don't think making enemies so resistant to your attacks was the best way to increase combat difficulty. Looking at some low level guards it is still ridiculous how idle thy are in fights, especially since unless they are blocking, there is no combat stance, even for the player. Instead, enemies should have been made more aggressive if they truly wanted to make fights last longer, which would also reduce button mashing.


AI

This is where AC really looks stupid compared to a lot of other games when it comes to AI. I'm just going to list them for ease of looking:

1. Guards will see a dead body, act bothered for a while, then not care
2. Guards don't seem to have much life. They just stand around a lot of the time walking a few meters now and then.

I guess it doesn't seem like much, but imagine how more real the world would seem if the guards changed their positioning after finding a dead body, perhaps starting to stand back to back, guarding the body, moving to cut off alleyways into the area etc. They just seem really not bothered by anything.


Totally agree. AC needs to look at other games and how they handle AI.

I've talked at length before why (especially for Syndicate) making guards more alert really isn't such a bad idea from a 'fun gameplay' perspective. I mean, why bring back the ability to hide bodies when it isn't even needed? When you approach stealth you don't see the enemy as humans, you see them as stupid robots who follow a set of rules such as detection range, and then plan your moves accordingly. However this becomes hard when detection can be so inconsistent it doesn't make any sense in relation to the other rules these robots follow (don't know if that made any sense to anyone :D).

It's also kinda sad that one of the 'biggest' things in this game (gangs) is ultimately flawed because of how stupid Rooks are. STOP CHARGING IN TO BATTLE, WAIT FOR MY COMMAND! And then when they're in fights it looks so awkward the way they take turns to make the same weak swipe animation with their knife at eachother.

I was horrified when I watched the mission with Henry, he was even worse than the Rooks! He just stood back and made lazy shots with his gun, then joined in for the occasional hit or two, getting battered himself in the process.


Voice Acting

The most inconsistent thing in AC games for sure. This mainly goes for the main characters and enemies/guards, however. Accents and tone of voice seem to be off sometimes depending on the situation and in relation to body movements.

I'm not sure why this happens but having people sound British in France really takes away from the immersion. Also for the main characters, I wonder sometimes if the voice actors always know what exactly is going on whilst they record their lines... either that or they are bad at voice acting, I don't know.


Probably true that a lot of the time voice actors don't know what is going on, and it can seem awkward at times, though it's not an issue that would classify AC as non AAA.


Story

This is one of the biggest reasons I play games, the story. For a game like AC that is exactly the case. I remember when I played AC1... the concept of the animus, the glitches, the white room, being held captive, eagle vision, first civ, the apple of eden, modern day, the templar/assassin conflict. All of these hooked me into AC, the story up until AC3 was so rich. Not saying AC4 is a bad game, its one of my favourites but only for Edwards character development story.

AC Unity's story was really bland in my opinion. I would much rather have had a game playing that Templar at the start in the 1300's. Arno turned from a light hearted character at the start to just being a rebel blinded by revenge. Also the Elise and Arno relationship? I don't see why anyone would care. Why should I care? We never saw any progression of those characters, we were just thrown into the game with the notion that they really like each other and that's why I didn't give a crap about their relationship.

Even Rogue wasn't amazing if I'm honest. If I had to rate last years games on story, Unity would be a 6 and Rogue would be a 7.

AC NEEDS to bring back the mystery that AC1 - AC3 had. Personally, I loved the MD in that saga, I would love for it to return. But this whole 1st person/you are the MD protag is just crap. I can't see how anyone can like it. They pull you out of the game for a cutscene for something I don't even feel invested in due to me not even really being a part of it. If they want to keep MD they should give us a character to care about, no one hated Desmond for a laugh, he was badly written. Then the hate got worse because in every game up to AC3 he got less screen time, was less developed, and seemed like a chore as he was uninteresting.


Story is seeming to lose focus, and many successful games out there have much more enjoyable plots, though I did like AC4's quite a bit, especially with Edward. MD is tricky because there are so many people who could not care less about modern day and focusing on it too much could lower review scores, so TBH I doubt we'll be getting anything major anytime soon. The mystery of previous games has always been cool, though I just feel if they keep building things up it will only disappoint when they inevitably throw it away.


Broken Pillars

The 3 pillars of AC:

1. Stealth
2. Navigation
3. Combat

Navigation = Great. The most fluid in the series, sure the characters are sorta floaty but it is just a game.
Combat = Meh. As said above, Ubisoft can't nail the difficulty/fun aspect of combat at all


Stealth... broken.

1. You can crouch now, great, but why can't you move around cover whilst still crouched? If Stealth was such a pillar why is this not a thing in Syndicate?
2. Guards can see through walls
3. Guards are alerted at too wide a radius when a fight breaks out
4. Going to Unity, Phantom blade kills could get you alerted, even if the eye icon wasn't showing that people were watching you

To fix stealth, polish the game. There seems to always be a case of a guard seeing you doing some long range attack even if they aren't looking, it just makes the game frustrating to play stealthy.

I wouldn't say the pillars are broken as such. Navigation is great, though there is still room for improvement. I love Unity's fluidity and especially the controlled decent mechanic, though I feel that the pre AC3 parkour required a lot more skill and was far more responsive and accurate, something that I am sorely missing when I play Unity. In Unity you can only side jump in certain scenarios, can't jump off a high point or drop easily, nor can you back eject with speed. These are all limitations I feel when I run about Paris. TBH there was actually controlled descent pre AC3 with the drop and grab if used well, and in AC3/4/Ro, you could jump straight down off a building instead of leaping forwards the same way you would do it in Unity.

Combat still needs a lot of work on, I really don't think that enemies just standing about makes the combat more 'fun'. The animations are very disappointing in Syndicate. None of the multi kills are anywhere near as impressive as what we got in AC3, a game whose combat animations were absolutely stunning. Syndicate's combat seems more fun than Unity, but is still lacking compared to previous games. Did they have to leave behind what made me proud of AC combat (awesome animations and fluidity) just to replace it with Batman brawling?

Stealth has, as mentioned above, shameful enemy AI, and inconsistent detection makes it really hard to play stealth. In fact, other games do stealth way better than AC in so many little ways. We need way more options, and by that I don't mean 10 different bombs that do the same thing with different particle effects. However I do love how the parkour integrates beautifully with stealth in AC, something to differentiate it from other games.


Animations

In regard to Syndicate, the combat animations are ridiculous. Not so much Jacob or Evies fighting style, but how the enemies react to being hit. They fly up, have some weird ragdoll effect on them. It just looks silly and cartoonish. Contrast the combat animations to the rest of the game and its like 2 games have been mashed together. Whatever the next AC game is, their animation department needs to get rid of these ragdoll/cartoon effect.

Mentioned above about how Syndicate is a definite downgrade with animations, quite sad actually. Nice to see they polished vaulting animations from Unity though. It's quite shocking, when you look at the awful combat animations and then compare them with the breathtaking parkour. The contrast in Syndicate animations doesn't feel right. Animations were great in AC3 though, I wouldn't say they are preventing AC as a whole from being AAA.


So yeah, these are my reasons why AC isn't regarded to me as a huge AAA game anymore. The best thing about AC and always has been throughout all the games is the worlds they create. But:

NPC reused assets, NPC textures, voice acting inconsistencies, combat, stealth, AI, bugs, and story seem to plague AC now.

Again these are just my opinions but I thought I'd do a long post as I never normally do. I wish these were fixed in the future.

Agree with a lot here. It is really is quite sad to see how many little things other games do a lot better from AI to the cover system. AC only comes out on top in terms of city and probably parkour. So much stuff felt unpolished in Unity. I know Ubi probably can't, but as soon as they get the chance to let go of the yearly cycle, then we will return to AAA quality. They shouldn't be chucking away ideas because they don't have time, but instead working on as many features as they can before they decide to release.

LoyalACFan
10-21-2015, 02:04 AM
Sure, stealth is a big part of the game, I think it's been thoroughly discussed here before that AC is not a stealth game. Never has been, never will be. There's stealth in it, and it's always a fun option, but the series does not identify itself that way.

Yes it does. At least it used to... ALL of the marketing for AC1 was stealth- and chase-oriented. Very little combat was even shown off in trailers. The box art depicts Altair as a blade in the crowd, both in the image and the text on the back. AC was very much a stealth game until it got hijacked with the Ezio trilogy (which even then was more stealth-based than AC3 and 4).


Oh gosh, really? GTA?
Look, I enjoy creating havoc around Los Santos as anyone else, but I wouldn't make an argument that it's a quality game, at least not from a critical standpoint.

Except literally every single critic says it's one of the best games of all time. I respect your opinion, but GTA5 is objectively, unquestionably a high-quality game. Same with all the others I've listed, like 90% metascore or higher across the board on every major release in all of those series. AC... not so much. Not to say 70s-80s are terrible, but they're not representative of how awesome this series could be if it was treated as an artistic endeavor rather than a cash cow.

I-Like-Pie45
10-21-2015, 02:14 AM
paid review scores

go on any gta forum, you'll learn the truth of the ****ty game that is gta 5

GunnarGunderson
10-21-2015, 02:20 AM
Voice Acting for sure needs work. I liked Cesare but I don't need to hear his voice coming out of every second NPC and major character

crusader_prophet
10-21-2015, 03:16 AM
If CD Projekt Red, BioWare and Naughty Dog can create games like Witcher, Mass Effect and Uncharted series , there is no excuse for UbiSoft to fail at delivering quality games. May be they need to reduce their arrogance and pride, and look around in other games/studios and evaluate their priorities and not manipulate fan base to make money every year.

VestigialLlama4
10-21-2015, 04:11 AM
unless Evie has 1 or 2 more games (which I'd like) I don't see how it can come much further into modern day so... it must go back... I have said before I'd like to make the circle join... by going back to where it all began with Altair... but at a more recent time... maybe as his great great grandson or daughter.

I would actually like Ubisoft to do a 20th Century setting. 20s Berlin. It's an amazing period and it would be incredible to do.

strigoi1958
10-21-2015, 05:02 AM
paid review scores

go on any gta forum, you'll learn the truth of the ****ty game that is gta 5

I'm a member of the RSC and the GTA forum and half of them are as childish on the forum as they are in the game.... they whine and troll constantly like 13 year olds. The online is overflowing with guys with a mod menu and cheats. It is full of people who hate GTA V

@LoyalAcFan what you just said was only the 1st game was mainly stealth so that wouldn't make it a stealth series... even if AC1 was marketed as stealth then it did what it promised.

Also you are projecting it would be a higher (paid) review score if they made it how you and the rest of the MD fans want it... it could kill sales and the series for all you know... :(

TBH I truly think most of these threads (which are rehashed) are just MD fans searching for anything that annoys others to try to bring them on board with the "Let's force Ubi to do it our way" campaign... All it does is lose sympathy from others because it means constantly complaining and usually about the game (that they say they're not going to buy) that others like. Then when it fails there is the "if ubi did it our way it would be a worldwide success".... then it's followed by "Ubi need to delay it 2 years" then "Ubi should end the series."... :(

@Vestigial that is an interesting time and place considering the land concessions and the volatile political unrest.... also a few prominent people who would fit nicely into a templar role.

VestigialLlama4
10-21-2015, 06:13 AM
Character models are pretty low quality too but this doesn't bug me anywhere near as much, it is pure aesthetics.

Well to me Character Models are very important. I loved AC3 for the fact that it had so many unique character designs. The Mohawk in Connor's village, the Homestead residents, the American Revolutionaries, Assassin Recruits, the Templars and the general colonial design. And the animation for each was incredible, like the Homestead animations and close-ups are pretty good. As are the Revolutionaries, like Israel Putnam on Bunker Hill for instance.

In Unity, you have these Paris Side Stories and none of them have unique models, even if some of them are meant to be famous figures. The speaking cast is also small, you have Napoleon, Sade, Templars, and among the Assassins you have Mirabeau, Pierre and Arno and those three other council members we don't really like. Having character models makes your game immersive like nothing else, because you get a sense that it's not just you, that there are people out there who are protagonists and not merely transplanting 3D figures with the personality of 2D sprites.

Syndicate for instance is a sub-par and very cheap game from what we can see. But the fact that so many characters have unique models across the game makes it feel more convincing than Unity's Paris did.


They shouldn't be chucking away ideas because they don't have time, but instead working on as many features as they can before they decide to release.

Agree with this. I honestly feel Ubisoft should just make an AC game they want to make. Make something they believe in and are interested in, rather than cater to fan demands. The fans didn't ask for the Renaissance setting, or American Revolution setting and definitely not the Pirate era and yet people came to love them. Unity, Syndicate and I guess Japan next year are the "Fan Request Trilogy", just shallow dives into a culture and setting with minimal immersion.


@Vestigial that is an interesting time and place considering the land concessions and the volatile political unrest.... also a few prominent people who would fit nicely into a templar role.

The amazing thing is that 20s Berlin is an awesome time to bring in AC while using modern. This was a time before commercial air travel colonized the skies, so you can have planes. Berlin in the 20s was a time of architectural innovation and early modernization, so you will have cars and bikes but not so much. Parts of the city have crime and other stuff. This was also an era with many Assassinations. It was quite common at the time because it was a very unstable period. Also since forensics developed you can have modern assassination missions, that is kill target, destroy evidence and wipe away trail and you can plan every detail.

The only problem with setting a game in 20s Berlin is the same with AC3. The minute you cast a Native American as an Assassin hero you know that the story will be a downer, likewise the minute you set a game in 20s Berlin you know the Assassins will lose big time and many people will die at the end.

Sushiglutton
10-21-2015, 09:51 AM
Well, you are not wrong Pac. I just don't have the energy to discuss these things anymore as Ubi has had sooo many chances to fix them but instead focus all resources on developing new HUD-features, flying eagles around London and creating a billion different customization objects to be sold through MT. When I look at Syndicate's gameplay I just feel tired. So I've made up my mind that I won't buy Syndicate either (never played Rogue, nor Unity).

I'm just in it for the movie and Pie's shenanigans now :D! When I first heard about the movie I was sceptical. But after they revealed the cast I'm very excited. Also the era/setting intrigue me. Hopefully it will feel AAA!

As for the games they are so far from what I want that I don't think any individual change matters much. AC needs new leadership with a much more artistic vision.

pacmanate
10-21-2015, 11:57 AM
They have had many chances, thats what sucks. And I will definitely stand by my opinion that yearly releases are the problem for all of these issues. Spend 1 more year making 3 more faces for the archetypes, allow us to move around cover in stealth.

These things are such small things to put into the game but so important, and AC games are missing them completely.

ace3001
10-21-2015, 03:27 PM
This is one of the biggest reasons I play games, the story. For a game like AC that is exactly the case. I remember when I played AC1... the concept of the animus, the glitches, the white room, being held captive, eagle vision, first civ, the apple of eden, modern day, the templar/assassin conflict. All of these hooked me into AC, the story up until AC3 was so rich. Not saying AC4 is a bad game, its one of my favourites but only for Edwards character development story.

This so much. What got me hooked on Assassin's Creed from the very first game was that overarching narrative and mystery that it brought.
I remember there being super long threads over here where people looked at the various hints in the story and tried to decipher what they would mean, and then try to predict where the game would go next. It was really exciting, to be honest. And this wasn't just limited to the main games. Remember Project Legacy, anyone? After AC3, all that was gone, and not properly resolved either. AC4 also did somewhat of a decent job of showing another side of the same story.

But then Unity happened. And all that was gone. Why even have a modern day story when it has nothing interesting whatsoever? Not only that, it was almost entirely disconnected from the main narrative that the main AC games followed upto that point. Only a few files obtained from those holy-balls-what-********-is-this time anomalies at least made some reference to it. This is one of the biggest reasons that Unity ranks among the bottom of my AC game preferences. Even performance issues didn't annoy me that much.

At this rate, I don't think I'll get Syndicate.

cawatrooper9
10-21-2015, 03:32 PM
They have had many chances, thats what sucks. And I will definitely stand by my opinion that yearly releases are the problem for all of these issues. Spend 1 more year making 3 more faces for the archetypes, allow us to move around cover in stealth.

These things are such small things to put into the game but so important, and AC games are missing them completely.

You think it would take an extra year to add a "move around cover" feature and add more face textures...
This is why I can't take the Anti-annualization crowd seriously.

pacmanate
10-21-2015, 03:37 PM
You think it would take an extra year to add a "move around cover" feature and add more face textures...
This is why I can't take the Anti-annualization crowd seriously.

You're saying it would take more time? All they need to do is change some jaw widths and eye placements, its not hard.

If you are saying they COULD do this with annual releases, well, evidently they cant.

cawatrooper9
10-21-2015, 03:42 PM
You're saying it would take more time? All they need to do is change some jaw widths and eye placements, its not hard.

If you are saying they COULD do this with annual releases, well, evidently they cant.

They haven't. Doesn't mean they can't.
You could give them five whole years, if you want. Doesn't mean that they'll bend to pacmanate's entitled will.

pacmanate
10-21-2015, 03:56 PM
They haven't. Doesn't mean they can't.
You could give them five whole years, if you want. Doesn't mean that they'll bend to pacmanate's entitled will.

Don't know why you're getting slightly passive now. You mentioned annualisation and me thinking they need extra time. I responded directly to what you were saying... No idea why you are being so defensive.

My argument is its not immersive. You have this beautiful open world then you are seeing clones everywhere. You are fighting against 3 brutes who look the same, 3 women who look the same. It just pulls me out of the world being alive

cawatrooper9
10-21-2015, 04:02 PM
Don't know why you're getting slightly passive now. You mentioned annualisation and me thinking they need extra time. I responded directly to what you were saying... No idea why you are being so defensive.

My argument is its not immersive. You have this beautiful open world then you are seeing clones everywhere. You are fighting against 3 brutes who look the same, 3 women who look the same. It just pulls me out of the world being alive

What makes you think I'm being passive/defensive (contradictions, I might point out)?
I'm merely pointing out that while I do agree that these things would be nice additions to the series, it's apparent that Ubisoft is not prioritizing them. It would not be hard at all to include more face textures, and it's simply laughable to suggest that doing so would require at least another year of development time.

pacmanate
10-21-2015, 04:27 PM
Im saying ALL my points need extra development time. Not just one thing or another.

strigoi1958
10-21-2015, 04:47 PM
Actually what you are saying is ... you think it would take Ubi 5 years to get a game to your own personal standards ... why not simply take 5 years off yourself. We'll carry on enjoying the game.

I think some people are too involved, spent too much time focused on AC lore, MD and 1st CIV that they have lost their appetite for AC... even coming to the forum in search for kindred souls is detrimental to their ability to enjoy playing the game.

If people take a break, (don't worry they'll see if MD is back) I think it will help. Coming here voicing their pain is not healthy. It's just a video game.

cawatrooper9
10-21-2015, 04:48 PM
Im saying ALL my points need extra development time. Not just one thing or another.

And I'm saying it wouldn't help. If they viewed these things as a priority, they would've hired someone to work on them.

BananaBlighter
10-21-2015, 04:57 PM
Well to me Character Models are very important. I loved AC3 for the fact that it had so many unique character designs. The Mohawk in Connor's village, the Homestead residents, the American Revolutionaries, Assassin Recruits, the Templars and the general colonial design. And the animation for each was incredible, like the Homestead animations and close-ups are pretty good. As are the Revolutionaries, like Israel Putnam on Bunker Hill for instance.

In Unity, you have these Paris Side Stories and none of them have unique models, even if some of them are meant to be famous figures. The speaking cast is also small, you have Napoleon, Sade, Templars, and among the Assassins you have Mirabeau, Pierre and Arno and those three other council members we don't really like. Having character models makes your game immersive like nothing else, because you get a sense that it's not just you, that there are people out there who are protagonists and not merely transplanting 3D figures with the personality of 2D sprites.

Syndicate for instance is a sub-par and very cheap game from what we can see. But the fact that so many characters have unique models across the game makes it feel more convincing than Unity's Paris did.

I was talking more about individual model quality, not the variety. It is quite disturbing to see the same bald guy all the time. Actually the bald guy has one of the best models simply because he does not have hair. The hair in Syndicate looks just like the hair on cheap dolls, similar to a toothbrush. However this isn't something that concerns me as much. TBH I take that back about the aesthetics, I do care about them, though what is most important for me in a game is the interactivity, and that is what makes something feel alive more than anything else.

LoyalACFan
10-21-2015, 07:18 PM
@LoyalAcFan what you just said was only the 1st game was mainly stealth so that wouldn't make it a stealth series... even if AC1 was marketed as stealth then it did what it promised.

... It's supposed to be a stealth series, dude. I don't even know why this is an argument.


Also you are projecting it would be a higher (paid) review score

Yeah, I'm sure Ubisoft paid for all those Unity reviews that landed it at a highly-coveted 70 on Metacritic...


if they made it how you and the rest of the MD fans want it... it could kill sales and the series for all you know... :(

I friggin HATE the modern day BS, so I dunno where you got that.


TBH I truly think most of these threads (which are rehashed) are just MD fans searching for anything that annoys others to try to bring them on board with the "Let's force Ubi to do it our way" campaign... All it does is lose sympathy from others because it means constantly complaining and usually about the game (that they say they're not going to buy) that others like. Then when it fails there is the "if ubi did it our way it would be a worldwide success".... then it's followed by "Ubi need to delay it 2 years" then "Ubi should end the series."... :(.

People are just frustrated that these games are only a shadow of what they could be given more time and polish. There's no subversive agenda... AC games used to be great, and now (according to basically everyone outside these forums and most people on them) they're just OK.

VestigialLlama4
10-21-2015, 07:38 PM
Yeah, I'm sure Ubisoft paid for all those Unity reviews that landed it at a highly-coveted 70 on Metacritic...

If they have to pay to get 70 then they are essentially paying for nothing, since Unity is a 70-rating game. I.E. overproduced mediocrity.

The reviews of Unity were actually quite poor in general, it was basically all "Meh" from everyone.

RVSage
10-21-2015, 08:04 PM
Yeah, I'm sure Ubisoft paid for all those Unity reviews that landed it at a highly-coveted 70 on Metacritic...



Metacritic is the only unbiased review point for most gamers, the game got the 70 for its, graphics and failed attempt.

cawatrooper9
10-21-2015, 08:28 PM
Yeah, I'm sure Ubisoft paid for all those Unity reviews that landed it at a highly-coveted 70 on Metacritic...


I mean, a 70 is by no means anything to scoff at, but it's not good, either. I'd hardly call it "highly-coveted."
It's just kinda "meh". Just like Unity was just kinda "meh". It's not good, it's not bad, it's just forgettable.

I'm sure there are a lot of bitter people out there that think ACU deserves like a 20 or a -999999 or what have you, but a 70 is a realistic score given Unity's quality, and it's silly to think that they bribed for it.

LoyalACFan
10-21-2015, 09:14 PM
If they have to pay to get 70 then they are essentially paying for nothing, since Unity is a 70-rating game. I.E. overproduced mediocrity.

The reviews of Unity were actually quite poor in general, it was basically all "Meh" from everyone.


I mean, a 70 is by no means anything to scoff at, but it's not good, either. I'd hardly call it "highly-coveted."
It's just kinda "meh". Just like Unity was just kinda "meh". It's not good, it's not bad, it's just forgettable.

I'm sure there are a lot of bitter people out there that think ACU deserves like a 20 or a -999999 or what have you, but a 70 is a realistic score given Unity's quality, and it's silly to think that they bribed for it.


Metacritic is the only unbiased review point for most gamers, the game got the 70 for its, graphics and failed attempt.

Dudes... I was totally joking. A 7/10 for a AAA game is... not good. At all. Ubisoft didn't bribe their way to that (paid reviews aren't nearly the gigantic widespread conspiracy most gamers think they are). I thought the snarky "..." at the end was evidence of me being facetious but apparently not.

Ugh you guys just don't GET me! *slams bedroom door, dyes hair black, and puts on skinny jeans*

VestigialLlama4
10-21-2015, 09:16 PM
Dudes... I was totally joking. A 7/10 for a AAA game is... not good. At all. Ubisoft didn't bribe their way to that (paid reviews aren't nearly the gigantic widespread conspiracy most gamers think they are). I thought the snarky "..." at the end was evidence of me being facetious but apparently not.

Ugh you guys just don't GET me! *slams bedroom door, dyes hair black, and puts on skinny jeans*

Sarcasm is hard to do in boards.

But yeah...sorry for that.

cawatrooper9
10-21-2015, 09:36 PM
Dudes... I was totally joking. A 7/10 for a AAA game is... not good. At all. Ubisoft didn't bribe their way to that (paid reviews aren't nearly the gigantic widespread conspiracy most gamers think they are). I thought the snarky "..." at the end was evidence of me being facetious but apparently not.

Ugh you guys just don't GET me! *slams bedroom door, dyes hair black, and puts on skinny jeans*

Ah, that makes sense- yeah, I'm a robot and cannot detect human emotion unless explicitly stated.

Yeah, you usually seem pretty logical, figured maybe you had a few too many drinks today or something.

dxsxhxcx
10-21-2015, 10:03 PM
Actually what you are saying is ... you think it would take Ubi 5 years to get a game to your own personal standards ... why not simply take 5 years off yourself. We'll carry on enjoying the game.

I think some people are too involved, spent too much time focused on AC lore, MD and 1st CIV that they have lost their appetite for AC... even coming to the forum in search for kindred souls is detrimental to their ability to enjoy playing the game.

If people take a break, (don't worry they'll see if MD is back) I think it will help. Coming here voicing their pain is not healthy. It's just a video game.

How the hell is Ubisoft supposed to know that they aren't doing a good job if the people who think that way don't voice their concerns about what they think it's wrong with the franchise?

These people don't want to stop playing the game, these people care about the franchise and want it to improve, some believe that this won't happen until Ubisoft take a break and reevaluate what they have been doing with the franchise, or fix what they think it's wrong with it, they also would rather see it gone than continue being milked to death like it has been for the last years, are they being selfish because they think this way? Maybe, but not more than you are for wanting the franchise to continue at a state they don't consider good enough (it's just a matter of perspective). Why should your opinion hold more weight than theirs/ours?

SixKeys
10-21-2015, 10:06 PM
I'll never understand why 7 is considered a failure in the video game industry. If 7 is practically the worst, then why do we even have a scale from 1-10? We might as well move to a 4-star rating system since there are only four degrees that matter, apparently.

LoyalACFan
10-21-2015, 10:06 PM
No worries folks, I just suck at online humor.


Yeah, you usually seem pretty logical

D'awww, you're making me blush.


I'll never understand why 7 is considered a failure in the video game industry. If 7 is practically the worst, then why do we even have a scale from 1-10? We might as well move to a 4-star rating system since there are only four degrees that matter, apparently.

It's considered a failure on the AAA level because if you're spending several years and hundreds of millions of dollars to make the game, you should be doing better than what the American grading system considers a C minus. A game with AC's budget and scope should not register as a "slightly below average."

pacmanate
10-21-2015, 11:18 PM
It's considered a failure on the AAA level because if you're spending several years and hundreds of millions of dollars to make the game, you should be doing better than what the American grading system considers a C minus. A game with AC's budget and scope should not register as a "slightly below average."

To add to this point, triple A means something with a big budget and lots of promotion (taken straight from wiki). Something with a budget and the amount of studios ubi has working on AC games should not be churning out games wavering around 7/10's every year. That is not good, that gets stale. You're playing at a level where the game is "decent" every year, after a while it will get boring.

If AC games were annual and were scored 9/10 every year it would be a different story.Fact is, Ubisoft and AC are only good at one thing, recreating cities.

strigoi1958
10-21-2015, 11:47 PM
How the hell is Ubisoft supposed to know that they aren't doing a good job if the people who think that way don't voice their concerns about what they think it's wrong with the franchise?

These people don't want to stop playing the game, these people care about the franchise and want it to improve, some believe that this won't happen until Ubisoft take a break and reevaluate what they have been doing with the franchise, or fix what they think it's wrong with it, they also would rather see it gone than continue being milked to death like it has been for the last years, are they being selfish because they think this way? Maybe, but not more than you are for wanting the franchise to continue at a state they don't consider good enough (it's just a matter of perspective). Why should your opinion hold more weight than theirs/ours?


1 Ubi know they're doing a great job by the volume of sales.... doing a great job doesn't mean listening to a handful of people on this forum who deride the series because they want a specific thing...

2. Pretending that it is in Ubi's best interest to get your own way is foolish.. (ever see the Simpsons episode where Homer is allowed to design a car) Ubi have market researchers and analysts for finding out what is best for Ubi... It is just unfortunate that some people are misguided enough to think they know better .

3. Many people here say they're AC fans then state they haven't bought a few recent games and are not buying Syndicate but still come here to feed their misery... I don't mind constructive criticism but most of it comes from spite... a case of "I'm not happy so I'm going to pick at what you like" in order to spread the misery. That is unhealthy... that is someone crying out for help...
When someone says the series should be delayed or finished they are putting their own selfish needs before all the other buyers...and as you rightly point out about opinions being equal... who are they to decide ?
Besides they can achieve a break or an end to the series simply by leaving, temporarily or permanently but I think some people lack the willpower and want Ubi to enforce their cold turkey by denying millions of others... and as they are still part of the AC "family" I think it somewhat sad :(

So our opinion are equal except I do not deride MD, 1st CIV or lore, I am not under the illusion I know what's best for Ubi and AC and I don't waste time on forums being spiteful when there's is a wealth of untouched things in the world (including other video games) to make me happy....


@Pacmanate .... stale for whom ? for the newcomers to AC this year and recent years or stale for long time series players ( I've got over 2500 hours in AC games... I don't find them stale) or just stale a few people who feel entitled and miserable they are not getting their own way ?

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/59680662.jpg

LoyalACFan
10-22-2015, 12:34 AM
I think you've got it backwards, strigoi. "The many" (based on reviews, previews, the consensus on most other video game sites, etc.) seem to overwhelmingly agree that AC is getting too formulaic and stale. The review scores have certainly taken a nosedive, and preorder rates for Syndicate are much, much lower than they were for Unity (preorders peaked with AC3). Yes, Ubisoft has market researchers out the wazoo, but all they do is take care of Ubi's bottom line. They don't care about quality as long as the games sell enough to be profitable.


I've got over 2500 hours in AC games

That's over 3.5% of the time that has elapsed on Earth since the first Assassin's Creed game came out.

pacmanate
10-22-2015, 12:41 AM
Diid you even read the OP where I state the reason I wrote that was because I do care and what the franchise to go forward instead of wavering on the same quality forever?
Did you even read the part where I said these were my OPINIONS?

Your post was above is just snarky for no reason.

1. "Pretending that it is in Ubi's best interest to get your own way is foolish." - Lol well thanks, they were my opinions on where I want the franchise to go. But thanks for saying I'm foolish for it.

2."Unfortunate that some people are misguided enough to think they know better" - Again, thank you. Thank you so much for saying I am misguided for giving my opinion what I think AC lacks. And sorry, but when it comes to dumb *** AI, yeah I know better. You kill someone on the streets and people just look at you like you pet a cat or something.

3."When someone says the series should be delayed or finished they are putting their own selfish needs before all the other buyers" - Uh no its not... Again it's an opinion and that's YOU get too defensive about it.

4. "I am not under the illusion I know what's best for Ubi and AC and I don't waste time on forums being spiteful when there's is a wealth of untouched things in the world (including other video games) to make me happy.... " - Yet you are under the illusion that people that want the franchise to go forward are being spiteful. We are not under any illusion. We have opinions. I for one want the franchise to grow. If you can read the OP where i state that these are my opinions and that the reason for me writing that all out was because I want it to succeed you would realise this. Also, I'm not spiteful. Opinions.


Thanks for the very insulting and genuinely stupid reply though. You should google the word "opinion" and perhaps stop getting so defense that you have to mock/insult us.


Oh and "coming here voicing their pain", which you said before. It is damn painful to see a franchise you love waver on the same quality or dip, but stop continuing to increase in quality IN MY OPINION.

SixKeys
10-22-2015, 02:30 AM
It's considered a failure on the AAA level because if you're spending several years and hundreds of millions of dollars to make the game, you should be doing better than what the American grading system considers a C minus. A game with AC's budget and scope should not register as a "slightly below average."

We don't really grade movies that way, why video games? Usually most of the points given to triple A games come from things like "does it have nice graphics?" which IMO we should be well past by now. Iron Man 2 looks great because they spent a buttload of money on the special effects, but does that make it a good movie? We don't judge movies based on mostly superficial stuff, but we do with video games. 7/10 really doesn't sound that bad (compared to 3/10 or something), but was Unity really worth a 7? Playing devil's advocate here since I actually enjoyed the game, but common complaints from those who didn't include that it was literally unplayable at times, had plenty of walled-off content and microtransactions up the wazoo. Yes, the game looks pretty, but of course it does. It's made by one of the leading game companies in the industry. That shouldn't give your game extra points if it's freaking broken and unfinished. We don't hand out sevens for people who only turn in half their homework or a paper chewed up by their dog, either. Why do games get away with decent scores even when the game is considered an utter failure? Years from now, when Unity goes on sale for a few dollars on Steam, some casual player who's never heard of AC before looks at the Metacritic score and goes "7/10, huh? That doesn't sound too bad, I'll take it". They will be paying for a broken game that has no right to such a high score. Unity was an utter PR disaster and a laughing stock of the gaming community. If Unity is a 7, just how much worse does your game have to be to get, say, a 4?

SixKeys
10-22-2015, 02:39 AM
I think you've got it backwards, strigoi. "The many" (based on reviews, previews, the consensus on most other video game sites, etc.) seem to overwhelmingly agree that AC is getting too formulaic and stale. The review scores have certainly taken a nosedive, and preorder rates for Syndicate are much, much lower than they were for Unity (preorders peaked with AC3). Yes, Ubisoft has market researchers out the wazoo, but all they do is take care of Ubi's bottom line. They don't care about quality as long as the games sell enough to be profitable.

Hate to tell you this, but...

http://i57.tinypic.com/28i2ob4.jpg

strigoi1958
10-22-2015, 02:59 AM
Diid you even read the OP where I state the reason I wrote that was because I do care and what the franchise to go forward instead of wavering on the same quality forever?
Did you even read the part where I said these were my OPINIONS?

Your post was above is just snarky for no reason.

1. "Pretending that it is in Ubi's best interest to get your own way is foolish." - Lol well thanks, they were my opinions on where I want the franchise to go. But thanks for saying I'm foolish for it.

2."Unfortunate that some people are misguided enough to think they know better" - Again, thank you. Thank you so much for saying I am misguided for giving my opinion what I think AC lacks. And sorry, but when it comes to dumb *** AI, yeah I know better. You kill someone on the streets and people just look at you like you pet a cat or something.

3."When someone says the series should be delayed or finished they are putting their own selfish needs before all the other buyers" - Uh no its not... Again it's an opinion and that's YOU get too defensive about it.

4. "I am not under the illusion I know what's best for Ubi and AC and I don't waste time on forums being spiteful when there's is a wealth of untouched things in the world (including other video games) to make me happy.... " - Yet you are under the illusion that people that want the franchise to go forward are being spiteful. We are not under any illusion. We have opinions. I for one want the franchise to grow. If you can read the OP where i state that these are my opinions and that the reason for me writing that all out was because I want it to succeed you would realise this. Also, I'm not spiteful. Opinions.


Thanks for the very insulting and genuinely stupid reply though. You should google the word "opinion" and perhaps stop getting so defense that you have to mock/insult us.


Oh and "coming here voicing their pain", which you said before. It is damn painful to see a franchise you love waver on the same quality or dip, but stop continuing to increase in quality IN MY OPINION.

@LoyalAcFan I bet those 2500 hours exceed a lot of people who say it's stale ;) so it puts it in perspective. Plus all those reviews and consensus probably add up to 3.5% of the people who buy the game but it doesn't stop people thinking they're in the majority even though they're not in the majority here.... as the polls usually show.

@Pac My post is as snarky as anything all the AC deriders post so just remember you are attacking MY side of the game I don't insult your side of the game.

I'm saying its foolish to keep saying Ubi would benefit if they do it my way.... that's utterly ridiculous...... but it doesn't stop silly remarks like Ubi has a cash cow (great that's what companies want... me too) but it would be better for them if they got higher marks from an opinionated game reviewer. Yeah right :(
Take that idea to any company and see how it goes....:D

I said some people are misguided.... but if the cap fits ;) As for AI it is similar in other AAA games and I've always said there should be a difficulty level :p

point 3. Yes it is selfish because they assume the other millions of people who buy it are of the same opinion and if they want a break temporarily or permanently THEY can go... problem solved... but THEY are saying it doesn't come up to MY standards but they think they speak for millions. That is their opinion and it's my opinion it is selfish. :p If I said I find bread tastes bland now I think bakers should stop making bread for a few years until I think bread will taste better... is that a sensible opinion or should it be JUST me who stops eating bread ?.... I don't think you realise how attacking those remarks are to all the other AC fans who will buy Syndicate and who DO still enjoy it. I don't mind opinions it's the sense of entitlement that goes with some that I dislike..

point 4. The franchise IS going forward and IS growing but maybe you are so focused on 1 thing you either cannot see it or simply refuse to see it because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs...

If you feel that my points were insulting and mocking you should see the bile throw from your side... and to me the quality is better... so that's just your opinion the quality is worse...

but like I said feel free to stay, not buy and pick holes... it will not bother me, I'll add parity where I see unwarranted remarks...

VestigialLlama4
10-22-2015, 03:15 AM
We don't really grade movies that way, why video games?

The price of an individual video game is greater than that of an invdividual movie. On average, an audience sees more movies in a given year than they play games. The main reason of course is the different consoles, in movies anyone can see it anywhere.

If you are going to save money to buy a game, you would want a game that's genuinely very good.


7/10 really doesn't sound that bad (compared to 3/10 or something), but was Unity really worth a 7? Playing devil's advocate here since I actually enjoyed the game, but common complaints from those who didn't include that it was literally unplayable at times, had plenty of walled-off content and microtransactions up the wazoo. Yes, the game looks pretty, but of course it does. It's made by one of the leading game companies in the industry. That shouldn't give your game extra points if it's freaking broken and unfinished.

Yeah, that's one huge difference between games and movies. In a movie, bad special effects and incomplete and incompetent work are given zero tolerance, actually less than that. Whereas in games it's allowed because different systems, PC/Console issues and the fact that you can patch it in later allows you time to save face. You do forgive games which have those glitches if you think the story and others are good, you do cut slack especially if it's because of graphics or because it's new systems.

Like with me, growing up on a PC that was always two steps behind latest upgrades, I was used to glitchfests growing up. The most glitchy console release isn't nearly as bad as PC releases back then were. You also have patches and online stuff that makes it easy to repair and companies are more responsive than they were then. So I always tend to ignore the glitches if the game itself was good or trying something.


Why do games get away with decent scores even when the game is considered an utter failure?

It's because there are generally fewer games made compared to movies. If you are a reviewer and said all the big games were terrible and 2/10 title which might be true objectively, then practically nobody will play any game and you will spend years searching for the 8/10, 9/10 game, leave alone 10/10. Like I don't think Red Dead Redemption is a fully successful game and it's not a game that fully solves its problems. But you would still say the game is a cut above anything else that came before. Bioshock is a first-person shooter with pretentious ideas, objectively considered. But the story ideas and general approach is fascinating and quite new for games to tackle and Infinite has some amazing stuff.

In the case of UNITY, to me that game is a waste of talent and potential, but if I were to be objective and ignore my story issues, I'd say the Co-Op was probably good (but then I don't like multiplayer), Paris 1:1 or near it is pretty good and you had sandbox assassinations, so all put together there's plenty of dumb fun to be had. And you know graphical fidelity is not something to be sneezed at and the cutscene quality and animations of Unity, especially for NPCs was kind of interesting.

That's why Unity gets judged differently, Ubisoft can do better than that, they have the potential to do so and yet they didn't fulfill it. That's why it gets judged differently than some indie developer. On average, Ubisoft should be able to hit 7/10 for any game. Rockstar Games you can pitch it at 8/10. Nintento and Valve same level. If Ubisoft hits 6/10 then that means there's something seriously wrong.

LoyalACFan
10-22-2015, 03:19 AM
We don't really grade movies that way, why video games? Usually most of the points given to triple A games come from things like "does it have nice graphics?" which IMO we should be well past by now. Iron Man 2 looks great because they spent a buttload of money on the special effects, but does that make it a good movie? We don't judge movies based on mostly superficial stuff, but we do with video games. 7/10 really doesn't sound that bad (compared to 3/10 or something), but was Unity really worth a 7? Playing devil's advocate here since I actually enjoyed the game, but common complaints from those who didn't include that it was literally unplayable at times, had plenty of walled-off content and microtransactions up the wazoo. Yes, the game looks pretty, but of course it does. It's made by one of the leading game companies in the industry. That shouldn't give your game extra points if it's freaking broken and unfinished. We don't hand out sevens for people who only turn in half their homework or a paper chewed up by their dog, either. Why do games get away with decent scores even when the game is considered an utter failure? Years from now, when Unity goes on sale for a few dollars on Steam, some casual player who's never heard of AC before looks at the Metacritic score and goes "7/10, huh? That doesn't sound too bad, I'll take it". They will be paying for a broken game that has no right to such a high score. Unity was an utter PR disaster and a laughing stock of the gaming community. If Unity is a 7, just how much worse does your game have to be to get, say, a 4?

I would argue that we DO do the same thing for movies. The Avengers, for instance, is essentially tied with Unity on Metacritic (it's at 69% versus Unity's 70%) and it has everything to do with the budget. But if it had been a little art house flick with the same script and same quality of performances, but none of the fancy CGI battle sequences or an ensemble cast of the highest-paid actors in Hollywood, what are you left with? A jumbled, overstuffed movie with some serious contrivances in the script and a couple of weird plot holes. The glitz is what makes it fun (and don't get me wrong, I enjoyed watching it with a few of my buddies) but it isn't what I'd call a "good" film. The same logic applies to Unity. The beautiful city and high production values are really impressive and make the game fun to look at, but when you start delving into the guts of what actually makes it a game, it kinda sucks (at least in a lot of people's opinion, I know you personally liked it).


Hate to tell you this, but...

http://i57.tinypic.com/28i2ob4.jpg

The pic is blurry and I can't really make out the small text, but isn't the 9% increase just an average increase in total preorders for all of those games combined? Because I just saw something like a week ago that showed Syndicate trailing Unity by over a quarter of a million preorders. Could have been BS but I don't think that's what this chart is showing, necessarily (Fallout 4 and the Black Ops sequel are probably accounting for a gigantic chunk of that increase).

strigoi1958
10-22-2015, 03:29 AM
@Vestigial don't forget a movie will give you 65 to 100 minutes of entertainment for 13 (for me) and Syndicate can be bought for less than double that price and offers a substantially longer time. On average now (according to google) games are played 22 hours per week.

HDinHB
10-22-2015, 03:32 AM
I'm just in it for the movie and Pie's shenanigans now :D!

You are really putting a lot of faith in the movie...



Ugh you guys just don't GET me! *slams bedroom door, dyes hair black, and puts on skinny jeans*

Dude! Not the skinny jeans! (They make your *** look fat.)

VestigialLlama4
10-22-2015, 03:37 AM
@Vestigial don't forget a movie will give you 65 to 100 minutes of entertainment for 13 (for me) and Syndicate can be bought for less than double that price and offers a substantially longer time. On average now (according to google) games are played 22 hours per week.

Yes but in most cases, it's only a few games that you replay over and over again, and you also have used games to reconsider. Only the very few and super rich can afford to play the new game that releases every month or two, whereas you can see a new movie every week.

strigoi1958
10-22-2015, 03:39 AM
But that's my point a movie each week would cost me 52 a month... while a new game every month would cost less and exceed the 7 hours of entertainment at the movies.

VestigialLlama4
10-22-2015, 03:45 AM
But that's my point a movie each week would cost me 52 a month... while a new game every month would cost less and exceed the 7 hours of entertainment at the movies.

Well a new book would cost even less and it might, depending on your reading speed, take longer than 7 hours.

strigoi1958
10-22-2015, 03:46 AM
That's true but the last book I read was 40 years ago :D and I love games and films.

SixKeys
10-22-2015, 04:41 AM
Yeah, that's one huge difference between games and movies. In a movie, bad special effects and incomplete and incompetent work are given zero tolerance, actually less than that. Whereas in games it's allowed because different systems, PC/Console issues and the fact that you can patch it in later allows you time to save face. You do forgive games which have those glitches if you think the story and others are good, you do cut slack especially if it's because of graphics or because it's new systems.

Patches do count for something, but there's no denying that it's more common these days than it used to be to release an unfinished product with the intent of patching out the problems later. Imagine the uproar if each new movie was incomplete, grainy and with mics showing in half the scenes when it came to theaters, and the producers would just go "ehh, whatever, we'll fix that stuff in time for Blu-Ray". There are a whole bunch of reasons why video games are still struggling to be recognized as art and this kind of stuff is part of it. Imagine any other art form being allowed to be full of mistakes - shoddily painted, badly acted, terrible sound quality - and still get higher-than-average scores all the time. It's preposterous.


It's because there are generally fewer games made compared to movies. If you are a reviewer and said all the big games were terrible and 2/10 title which might be true objectively, then practically nobody will play any game and you will spend years searching for the 8/10, 9/10 game, leave alone 10/10.

So? I see nothing wrong with that. If you're an art critic (and video games are supposed to be art), your job is, by definition, to separate the true masterpieces from the average and just plain bad products. Consider that the highest critically acclaimed games like Journey are on the same level or just slightly above the latest Call of Duty. Compare these two types of reviews: "Journey is a once-in-a-lifetime experience, it brought tears to my eyes, there's never been anything like it before - 10/10" vs. "Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 doesn't really innovate much, the single-player is boring and predictable, but there are a few cool new weapons and not many glitches - 9/10". How is the average consumer supposed to know which games are truly worth their time if everything is a 9 or a 10?

People still go to the movies even if reviewers give their honest opinions. That's like saying we should rate every new Wayans bros. movie at least 3 stars out of 5 because otherwise no-one would go see it. Well, BOO-****ING-HOO!! I don't want to give movie-makers my money out of pity, I want them to earn it. Same with games. If a game is only a 2/10, I want to know about it so I can save my money until something good comes along. Especially given the fact that, as you pointed out, games are about 3 times more expensive than movies. I want to know which ones are the true "must-plays", which ones are "meh" and which ones are "avoid at all costs". For years now games journalism has rated everything at least a "meh, it's all right". Surely there must be some genuine stinkers even among so-called AAA titles.

I-Like-Pie45
10-22-2015, 05:14 AM
who pays for movies now in this day and age hee hee ;) ;) ;)

VestigialLlama4
10-22-2015, 05:52 AM
People still go to the movies even if reviewers give their honest opinions. That's like saying we should rate every new Wayans bros. movie at least 3 stars out of 5 because otherwise no-one would go see it.

Yeah, but the thing is Wayans Bros don't represent the movie medium. When we think of cinema at its best we think Spielberg, Scorsese, James Cameron, Woody Allen, or older you would think Orson Welles or Alfred Hitchcock. In video games, the Wayans/Michael Bay/Shlock-Equivalents do represent the medium at least for the adult/teen crowd. For kids its Super Mario and Zelda, maybe Rayman. For others, it's stuff like Angry Birds and Temple Run.


If a game is only a 2/10, I want to know about it so I can save my money until something good comes along. Especially given the fact that, as you pointed out, games are about 3 times more expensive than movies. I want to know which ones are the true "must-plays", which ones are "meh" and which ones are "avoid at all costs". For years now games journalism has rated everything at least a "meh, it's all right". Surely there must be some genuine stinkers even among so-called AAA titles.

I think Aliens Colonial Marines was the "genuine stinker". But I actually agree with this. I was only explaining ratings in terms of how IGN saw its work cut out and why people rate so generously. Objectively considered, i.e in relation to other arts (theatre/music/sculpture/movies/comics/art), most games are terrible as a rule, of course 90% of anything is terrible but in games even the ones we think of as being "classics" or above the cut are pretty bad. If you are really into gaming, you have to put up with embarassing cutscenes, terrible dialogue and rampant misogyny and kind of do double-think all the time. Red Dead Redemption, Dishonored and Bioshock Infinite are games that are a cut above the res also have the same flaws (embarassing cutscenes, terrible dialogue and misogyny), but within the time they came out, they set some kind of standard and in terms of design and craft they are interesting. But eventually when something better and smarter comes along, they won't be admired so much.

Like Metal Gear Solid gets a lot of respect from people when it's silly hogwash, and at the same time the series is so continuity heavy that you are kind of forced to play the first two games. At the time it came out it was considered sophisticated because it taught gamers some 5 dollar words. Today, it's nearly impossible to play the first two games and pretend it's fun because the stealth, camera and story has dated badly. Snake Eater is the only game that really works and the whole style of that game, this James Bond spoof, actually fits the style and content well, and of course there these caricature characters kind of work.

Assassin's Creed is mainly interesting for enlarging the scope of game genres and introducing newer concepts. On the whole you can put it on the level of decent pulp historical fiction, which is not saying much but in the gaming industry it's actual progress.

pacmanate
10-22-2015, 10:27 AM
@Pac My post is as snarky as anything all the AC deriders post so just remember you are attacking MY side of the game I don't insult your side of the game.

I'm saying its foolish to keep saying Ubi would benefit if they do it my way.... that's utterly ridiculous......

I said some people are misguided.... but if the cap fits ;) As for AI it is similar in other AAA games and I've always said there should be a difficulty level :p

point 3. Yes it is selfish because they assume the other millions of people who buy it are of the same opinion and if they want a break temporarily or permanently THEY can go... problem solved... but THEY are saying it doesn't come up to MY standards but they think they speak for millions.

point 4. The franchise IS going forward and IS growing but maybe you are so focused on 1 thing you either cannot see it or simply refuse to see it because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs...

If you feel that my points were insulting and mocking you should see the bile throw from your side... and to me the quality is better... so that's just your opinion the quality is worse...


1. Wasn't attacking any "side" of anything. These are what I want to be improved. Why is it so bad that I want improvements? You're getting too defensive.
2. Never said Ubisoft would benefit if they did it "my way". These are what I want to be improved.
3. Never said I wanted a break from the franchise. I love the franchise. I want improvements to make me stay. I don't want to go.
4. I'm not focused on one thing, I'm focused on 6.