PDA

View Full Version : Is the series getting too modern?



sharpblade1508
10-29-2015, 05:14 AM
I've played all of the Assassin's Creed games to date and have thought that all of them ranged from at least good to great. I love Syndicate, (my only gripes being that the story felt too short, and that you can't wear the hood without sneaking) but now more than ever I feel that the games are becoming to modern in setting. I really want to see time periods like feudal japan (almost everyone wants this) and ancient rome (pax romana era). I feel like ever since AC:3 the story just hasn't felt the same, I want to see something plot wise on par with AC 2 again, or at least go back into the past, I feel like because of the ever advancing time periods, the series is losing some of what made it great originally. Maybe it's just me. Any thoughts on this guys? What time periods would you like to see? (I'm hoping Ubi reads this and gets some ideas for where the series could go based on fan opinion).

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 05:38 AM
I've played all of the Assassin's Creed games to date and have thought that all of them ranged from at least good to great. I love Syndicate, (my only gripes being that the story felt too short, and that you can't wear the hood without sneaking) but now more than ever I feel that the games are becoming to modern in setting. I really want to see time periods like feudal japan (almost everyone wants this) and ancient rome (pax romana era).

I personally don't feel too caught up about it. I made a thread

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1120359-If-AC-ever-went-to-the-20th-Century-which-era-decade-would-you-prefer

about whether or not the series should go to a more modern era.

And I personally wouldn't mind if it does, there are lots of interesting stuff. The thing is the 20th Century is now 100 years + in the past so it is a historical era. So I personally wouldn't mind it if it goes there.


I feel like ever since AC:3 the story just hasn't felt the same,

The fact is that an Ancient World setting or even Feudal Japan would be like AC3. These are eras with vast countryside, limited urbanisation, low ceiling houses.

Anyone who wants an Ancient Egypt setting must answer how do they picture Parkouring across the sand.

Namikaze_17
10-29-2015, 05:46 AM
Let's get more modern shall we? at least till the 30's...

#JazzAgeAC2016 :cool:

CalgaryJay
10-29-2015, 06:05 AM
Completely agree it's getting too modern. I've enjoyed the more recent time periods to date, but it's time to hit the rewind button pretty solidly now. There was just a certain mystical magic to the cities in AC1, in part to how long ago that was. I'd love to see them go back to medieval times, or even back into the ancient world. Even a much expanded version of Jerusalem at any older point in its history would be amazing, love what a cultural melting pot it's always been.

And not that I was talking about Egypt specifically, but it doesn't necessarily have to be Old Kingdom and it's more southern, desert cities. Egypt is actually fairly lush as you get into the more northern floodplains of the Nile draining into the Mediterranean, a city like ancient Alexandria during the Ptolemies with it's large buildings, or of later Roman occupation would be cool. Even in the New Kingdom with it's expansionist campaigns and larger cities, and Rameses II battling the Sea Peoples, you could have the whole naval side re-introduced as well.

Not to mention Egypt has a very interesting history more recently than the ancient world as well. It would definitely be a do-able area for an AC game, especially when looking at the series' roots.

Consus_E
10-29-2015, 07:25 AM
While I don't feel that it's getting too modern, I do want to see the next game go back in time... then the next go forward... then back... then forward... Basically jump all over human history, no more sagas set in the same century with similar locations.

The games become too modern for me when the protagonist or people they interacted with can still be alive in the present day. It's when that happens that I question the need for the Animus when they or their children can just say exactly what happened. If the Cold War Assassin is still alive in 2015 why should Abstergo explore his/her genetic memories.

Rafe Harwood
10-29-2015, 11:15 AM
I personally don't feel too caught up about it. I made a thread

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1120359-If-AC-ever-went-to-the-20th-Century-which-era-decade-would-you-prefer

about whether or not the series should go to a more modern era.

And I personally wouldn't mind if it does, there are lots of interesting stuff. The thing is the 20th Century is now 100 years + in the past so it is a historical era. So I personally wouldn't mind it if it goes there.



The fact is that an Ancient World setting or even Feudal Japan would be like AC3. These are eras with vast countryside, limited urbanisation, low ceiling houses.

Anyone who wants an Ancient Egypt setting must answer how do they picture Parkouring across the sand.

You forgot the origionals covered vast distances between instances and didn't involve climbing much in between. There is no reason at all not to bring that back. However, that being said, Tomb Raider covered the probem solving in pyramids so unsure if it would look more like one of those than an AC title.

Yesterday is historical :/

Rafe Harwood
10-29-2015, 11:17 AM
While I don't feel that it's getting too modern, I do want to see the next game go back in time... then the next go forward... then back... then forward... Basically jump all over human history, no more sagas set in the same century with similar locations.

The games become too modern for me when the protagonist or people they interacted with can still be alive in the present day. It's when that happens that I question the need for the Animus when they or their children can just say exactly what happened. If the Cold War Assassin is still alive in 2015 why should Abstergo explore his/her genetic memories.

Although I agree with what you say, I had to point out that on an espionage level, it could be interesting to explore someone elses memories while they are still alive.

dxsxhxcx
10-29-2015, 11:42 AM
I agree with the OP.. about Egypt, I think it would be nice to relive the memories of one of Altair's granddaughters in Alexandria (and neighboring cities, please bring back multiple cities!), the Order structure still would be similar to AC1's (the one I like the most) and they would be able to show us Altair's (real) library (and maybe hide some secret messages -written in blood- in his books! hehehe), we could have some memories of the time she and her family lived with Altair in Alamut as well.

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 11:52 AM
I agree with the OP.. about Egypt, I think it would be nice to relive the memories of one of Altair's granddaughters in Alexandria (and neighboring cities, please bring back multiple cities!), the Order structure still would be similar to AC1's (the one I like the most) and they would be able to show us Altair's (real) library, we could have some memories of the time she and her family lived with Altair in Alamut as well..

Well that's not really an exciting period of Egyptian history. And it doesn't get a broad sense of the period.

To do Egypt properly, ideally what they should do is kind of take a new approach to storytelling. Based on Time Anomalies, the way to do it is create some kind of story or puzzle by which you can visit Egypt in different eras. So Giza, Memphis and Luxor is Ancient Egypt, Alexandria is Hellenic and Ptolemaic Egypt, and Cairo you can go to Napoleon. You can also maybe visit Modern Egypt around the time the Suez Canal was built.

The thing is Alexandria achieved its height of glory during the Hellenic Age, think Cleopatra and Mark Antony or the First Century. But the pharoahs were long gone. Cairo was a city built by the Arabs. Ancient Egypt will give you the Pharoahs, maybe Pythagoras (who was Egyptian), Hellenic civilizaiton will give you Euclid.

Now of course how this works is that you will visit each city and place in one time period, so this way you only have to build and reuse a smaller set of assets.

If you time and shuffle it right you can have an Egyptian game where you can meet Rameses II, Akhenaten, Pythagoras, maybe Moses and the early Prophets (Old Testament prophets are less controversial than New Testament ones), then Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Euclid, Hypatia, and later Napoleon, Muhammad Ali and several others.

dxsxhxcx
10-29-2015, 12:14 PM
Well that's not really an exciting period of Egyptian history. And it doesn't get a broad sense of the period.

To do Egypt properly, ideally what they should do is kind of take a new approach to storytelling. Based on Time Anomalies, the way to do it is create some kind of story or puzzle by which you can visit Egypt in different eras. So Giza, Memphis and Luxor is Ancient Egypt, Alexandria is Hellenic and Ptolemaic Egypt, and Cairo you can go to Napoleon. You can also maybe visit Modern Egypt around the time the Suez Canal was built.

The thing is Alexandria achieved its height of glory during the Hellenic Age, think Cleopatra and Mark Antony or the First Century. But the pharoahs were long gone. Cairo was a city built by the Arabs. Ancient Egypt will give you the Pharoahs, maybe Pythagoras (who was Egyptian), Hellenic civilizaiton will give you Euclid.

Now of course how this works is that you will visit each city and place in one time period, so this way you only have to build and reuse a smaller set of assets.

If you time and shuffle it right you can have an Egyptian game where you can meet Rameses II, Akhenaten, Pythagoras, maybe Moses and the early Prophets (Old Testament prophets are less controversial than New Testament ones), then Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Euclid, Hypatia, and later Napoleon, Muhammad Ali and several others.

the fact that nothing of note happened during that time IMO is what could make it interesting, the "war" between the two Orders would be happening in the shadows, and there would be a complete focus on it, without a "major" event taking the spotlight..

we could have a time anomaly taking place during Amunet's time as well.. :)

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 12:36 PM
the fact that nothing of note happened during that time IMO is what could make it interesting, the "war" between the two Orders would be happening in the shadows, and there would be a complete focus on it, without a "major" event taking the spotlight..

Avoiding major events or being scared of it is pointless for AC. It's the strength of the game that they can show these events or go there and not playing to that is a waste of opportunities in my view. The AvT conflict is boring, dry and empty for most people since it's just you're the good guy, kill the bad guy, but a game set in the Pirate Era or American Revolution will attract people regardless of the AvT. Likewise Egypt will bring a big audience since its featured in endless Hollywood movies, and it would be silly if having attracted that audience you don't give them what they come for.

Even AC1 it deals with these conflicts but still features Richard the Lionheart. The fact is the Assassins and Templars don't truly exist but what did exist are some of the people, places and figures who they interact with, so that will always be important.

darksavior1977
10-29-2015, 01:49 PM
I don't mind them coming into the modern day if it can tie into the story well and they execute the modern day mechanics nicely. It honestly solely depends on how well it is done. That said, would a modern day AC and Watchdogs be too close to the same game for Ubisoft? The major separator would have to be the story, and unfortunately, Ubisoft hasn't engendered trust with us that they won't give the story of AC further poor treatment.

dxsxhxcx
10-29-2015, 01:52 PM
Avoiding major events or being scared of it is pointless for AC. It's the strength of the game that they can show these events or go there and not playing to that is a waste of opportunities in my view. The AvT conflict is boring, dry and empty for most people since it's just you're the good guy, kill the bad guy, but a game set in the Pirate Era or American Revolution will attract people regardless of the AvT. Likewise Egypt will bring a big audience since its featured in endless Hollywood movies, and it would be silly if having attracted that audience you don't give them what they come for.

Even AC1 it deals with these conflicts but still features Richard the Lionheart. The fact is the Assassins and Templars don't truly exist but what did exist are some of the people, places and figures who they interact with, so that will always be important.

you may be right, but I still think it could work and (IMO) it's worth a try, I think waste a setting like Egypt in multiple eras like you suggested might looks good on paper, but in action I don't think it would work very well, the story already is a mess as it is, imagine how it would be if we had a "x" number of different eras in the same game, as a (huge) side mission this approach could work, but as the main thing, I don't think so..


ps: I don't have my hopes up though, because I doubt Ubisoft would miss the chance to take advantage of the fantasy that comes with a famous setting like Egypt, so if we ever have Egypt as a setting, it'll probably be full of "clichés"..

cawatrooper9
10-29-2015, 02:19 PM
Depends on what you mean by "too modern"... I'd say we have far less 3rd person action games set in the late 1800s to early 1900s, so it's not as if it's preventing the game from being unique.

As to whether or not the setting works for the AC universe... well, consider two things:

1) Since AC1, the series has had a modern setting. Why not fill in the gaps more?
2) Around the time Black Flag came out, the developers said they'd never go to a more modern age because it would be too hard to get the assets right, particularly cars. Well, Syndiacte not only gives us trains and an incredibly impressive Thames full of boats, but horse carriages that we can GTA our way all over London. In fact, these horses can plow over street lights, and a horse's body can slam into the side of a cart, inflicting massive damage to a cart while the horse itself remains relatively fine... it's almost as if the horse carriage are reskinned cars, prepared to be reused assets for a future game...

SenseHomunculus
10-29-2015, 02:43 PM
But we're JUST on the verge of modern sanitation and indoor plumbing! Please let's not regress!! The stench is unbearable!

Aphex_Tim
10-29-2015, 02:48 PM
#JazzAgeAC2016 :cool:

I'll never forgive Ubi for that Unity c*ck-tease...

firess_anyanka
10-29-2015, 03:08 PM
It can be set in any era as long as the story and characters are good and the open world is fun and believable. I would love to play one set during the Prohibition in the U.S.

cawatrooper9
10-29-2015, 04:55 PM
I'll never forgive Ubi for that Unity c*ck-tease...

Same here. I still have trust issues.

phoenix-force411
10-29-2015, 05:25 PM
In my opinion, it's feeling pointless to go back in time. We're really learning nothing about Modern Day, and the excuses to visit memories of ancestors have been unconvincing and uninteresting. I think we need a modern day game soon.

steveeire
10-29-2015, 05:58 PM
Its not modern enough, see the MD stuff that happened in Syndicate, I want to be doing that. We definitely need a MD game.

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 06:07 PM
It can be set in any era as long as the story and characters are good and the open world is fun and believable. I would love to play one set during the Prohibition in the U.S.

Prohibition is not a good AC setting in my view because not a lot happened then to really justify it. It's a good game for a crime game, but not an AC game. AC isn't mainly or entirely about crime after all. It's about politics. A better setting would be the Gangs of New York era, where you have the rise of Yellow Journalism, the construction of the statue of liberty, the brooklyn bridge and the like. There's this famous story in this period about a guy who jumped off the brooklyn bridge and survived, so obviously you have a Leap of Faith waiting to happen. But then new york is wasted for AC3 and Rogue.

The other thing is that Parkour in American cities will always look like a stretch and be fairly odd. Social stealth in American contexts will generally be unbelievable because failure to report a crime is a big thing over there, even in the early 20th Century. Rockstar games get away with it because they do alternate-universe America where everything is over-the-top and exaggerated. But AC can't do that. The other problem of doing an American city is that Rockstar games have already cornered that market with LA Noire, Vice City, San Andreas, Liberty City. The American West is tackled in Red Dead Redemption. So there isn't a lot of sense going to America. In many ways, AC3 was the only logical game that could be done. The American Revolution isn't something that can be done by Rockstar games, it's too serious for them to touch but Ubisoft can do it.

It's better to go to other places in the 20th Century, which is why I am obsessed with 20s Berlin. It has everything going for it.



you may be right, but I still think it could work and (IMO) it's worth a try, I think waste a setting like Egypt in multiple eras like you suggested might looks good on paper, but in action I don't think it would work very well, the story already is a mess as it is, imagine how it would be if we had a "x" number of different eras in the same game, as a (huge) side mission this approach could work, but as the main thing, I don't think so..

ps: I don't have my hopes up though, because I doubt Ubisoft would miss the chance to take advantage of the fantasy that comes with a famous setting like Egypt, so if we ever have Egypt as a setting, it'll probably be full of "clichés"..

Well I always felt that Ubisoft is kind of taking over from the big Hollywood Epic movies of the 50s and 60s. That was a time when historical eras were really popular and the producers made a real effort to give a sense of the past in their movies, not always to good or accurate effect admittedly, but it led to movies like Lawrence of Arabia which is generally accurate, likewise some interesting darker films like Fall of the Roman Empire or even Cleopatra which is surprisingly accurate if you see the 4 hour version.

Now in the 21st Century, they became the ones to do that in movies.

SixKeys
10-29-2015, 06:19 PM
I think the Victorian era is as modern as they should go. Beyond that it's all guns and no more blades. I hope the next game goes far, far back.

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 06:26 PM
I think the Victorian era is as modern as they should go. Beyond that it's all guns and no more blades. I hope the next game goes far, far back.

I don't know why people assume that. I actually see the opposite. In the 20th Century, with the rise of forensics and police investigations, as well as improved communication and greater civic awareness, using weapons that are not easily traceable and identifiable is a huge edge. So theoretically you can have missions where you have to "disappear" someone, i.e. kill, hide the body, destroy records and stuff. Kill someone than handle it so that the evidence looks like natural causes and so on. The Assassin can also do something poetic, like forge suicide notes and hand out a corporation's money to workers after he dies, and other kinds of schenanigans.

In a 20th Century game, you can have assassination missions where you are told that you can't use certain kinds of weapons, you have to plan and map out the way to do it. So that means searching medical records, scoping out work routines and who he's seen with and where he's seen with. You can also do Dishonored stuff, frame people for their crimes, expose public indiscretions to make the public have no sympathy for the victim and all kinds of cool things.

A 20th Century AC game can potentially be the most stealthiest and most diverse yet.

Rafe Harwood
10-29-2015, 06:29 PM
I don't know why people assume that. I actually see the opposite. In the 20th Century, with the rise of forensics and police investigations, as well as improved communication and greater civic awareness, using weapons that are not easily traceable and identifiable is a huge edge. So theoretically you can have missions where you have to "disappear" someone, i.e. kill, hide the body, destroy records and stuff. Kill someone than handle it so that the evidence looks like natural causes and so on. The Assassin can also do something poetic, like forge suicide notes and hand out a corporation's money to workers after he dies, and other kinds of schenanigans.

In a 20th Century game, you can have assassination missions where you are told that you can't use certain kinds of weapons, you have to plan and map out the way to do it. So that means searching medical records, scoping out work routines and who he's seen with and where he's seen with. You can also do Dishonored stuff, frame people for their crimes, expose public indiscretions to make the public have no sympathy for the victim and all kinds of cool things.

A 20th Century AC game can potentially be the most stealthiest and most diverse yet.

That's for the likes of Watchdogs, not AC.

Yes, I have played WD and yes, I did enjoy it (before anyone asks)

DumbGamerTag94
10-29-2015, 06:34 PM
Personally I don't think there's really a limit on how far in the time line they go as long as they don't go completely modern with a present day AC. That would just turn into Watch Dogs(which is awful) or GTA V(which is awesome but you don't want AC to become a knock off). Ideally I would keep it before and up to 1920 just because those eras are far more unique and aren't covered as heavily in open world games. Though I get this feeling they are setting up for a WW1 or WW2 game next year or in the near future. Due to the WW1 missions in Syndicate and Winston Churchill.

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 06:44 PM
That's for the likes of Watchdogs, not AC.

Yes, I have played WD and yes, I did enjoy it (before anyone asks)

That's not a stealthy game you know. It's pretty much GTA Chicago with unbelievable random violence.

An Assassin would not have an option to carry a AK or other weapons at all.

Rafe Harwood
10-29-2015, 06:48 PM
That's not a stealthy game you know. It's pretty much GTA Chicago with unbelievable random violence.

An Assassin would not have an option to carry a AK or other weapons at all.

Not a stealthy game? Ok *sarcasm*

Assassins have whatever armoury is required for the job at hand. An assassin wouldn't take a knife to a high power sniper fight.

SixKeys
10-29-2015, 06:51 PM
I don't know why people assume that. I actually see the opposite. In the 20th Century, with the rise of forensics and police investigations, as well as improved communication and greater civic awareness, using weapons that are not easily traceable and identifiable is a huge edge. So theoretically you can have missions where you have to "disappear" someone, i.e. kill, hide the body, destroy records and stuff. Kill someone than handle it so that the evidence looks like natural causes and so on. The Assassin can also do something poetic, like forge suicide notes and hand out a corporation's money to workers after he dies, and other kinds of schenanigans.

In a 20th Century game, you can have assassination missions where you are told that you can't use certain kinds of weapons, you have to plan and map out the way to do it. So that means searching medical records, scoping out work routines and who he's seen with and where he's seen with. You can also do Dishonored stuff, frame people for their crimes, expose public indiscretions to make the public have no sympathy for the victim and all kinds of cool things.

A 20th Century AC game can potentially be the most stealthiest and most diverse yet.

You're forgetting combat. Assassination missions could have those types of "don't use X weapon" restrictions, but as soon as you get detected, every policeman that surrounds you is going to be equipped with a gun. Combat would get real annoying, real fast.

Sushiglutton
10-29-2015, 06:54 PM
For my taste absolutley. I would love to back go to medieval times (or earlier) and North Africa/ the Middle East. I want AC to be sunny :). Basically an AC games should partly feel like a vacation in an exotic location with fantastic architecture and rich history.

Rafe Harwood
10-29-2015, 06:56 PM
You're forgetting combat. Assassination missions could have those types of "don't use X weapon" restrictions, but as soon as you get detected, every policeman that surrounds you is going to be equipped with a gun. Combat would get real annoying, real fast.

You saw how much hoohar there was with the snipers in Unity. Can you imagine if you screw up and get absolutely blown away by the police/military and the uproar from people saying the combat is too hard?

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 06:58 PM
You're forgetting combat. Assassination missions could have those types of "don't use X weapon" restrictions, but as soon as you get detected, every policeman that surrounds you is going to be equipped with a gun. Combat would get real annoying, real fast.

The thing is there won't be as much police as you think. The kind of police you generally see in the historical and other parts is exaggerated. In the 20th Century, police will be on street corners but you won't have cops on rooftops and other places since that kind of stuff happens only in places where you have curfew. In an era of telecommunications and car travel, cops go to the scene of the crime remember.

So the strategy now is to blend in, hide noises, avoid gunshots and maybe intimidate or kill witnesses, and kill witnesses in stealthy manner. Now you have to disguise yourself, your voice and movement. So it's entirely about evasion then, zero or very little combat at that. You know before targeting a guy, you have to destroy the lights and cut the telephone wires, that kind of thing.

GTA is also pretty exaggerated and over the top obviously for reasons of satire and fun, but basically the point of modern life is that citizens go to the police and the police don't spy or interfere with the general population. They mainly target poor people and minorities obviously.



You saw how much hoohar there was with the snipers in Unity. Can you imagine if you screw up and get absolutely blown away by the police/military and the uproar from people saying the combat is too hard?

In which city are there police snipers on the roof 24/7, you tell me. Guys that kind of stuff only happens in police states and wartorn areas where the army occupies and covers the grounds. A city is generally not supposed to be a prison with guard towers and concentration camp walls ready to shoot you down.

Rafe Harwood
10-29-2015, 07:10 PM
The thing is there won't be as much police as you think. The kind of police you generally see in the historical and other parts is exaggerated. In the 20th Century, police will be on street corners but you won't have cops on rooftops and other places since that kind of stuff happens only in places where you have curfew. In an era of telecommunications and car travel, cops go to the scene of the crime remember.

So the strategy now is to blend in, hide noises, avoid gunshots and maybe intimidate or kill witnesses, and kill witnesses in stealthy manner. Now you have to disguise yourself, your voice and movement. So it's entirely about evasion then, zero or very little combat at that. You know before targeting a guy, you have to destroy the lights and cut the telephone wires, that kind of thing.

GTA is also pretty exaggerated and over the top obviously for reasons of satire and fun, but basically the point of modern life is that citizens go to the police and the police don't spy or interfere with the general population. They mainly target poor people and minorities obviously.




In which city are there police snipers on the roof 24/7, you tell me. Guys that kind of stuff only happens in police states and wartorn areas where the army occupies and covers the grounds. A city is generally not supposed to be a prison with guard towers and concentration camp walls ready to shoot you down.

It isn't like the country was in a state of turmoil or civil war... oh, wait a second, it was a revolution.

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 07:24 PM
It isn't like the country was in a state of turmoil or civil war... oh, wait a second, it was a revolution.

What exactly are you referring to?

I was saying that assuming that a 20th Century setting will feature combat as a matter of course is not necessarily the case.

Rafe Harwood
10-29-2015, 07:33 PM
What exactly are you referring to?

I was saying that assuming that a 20th Century setting will feature combat as a matter of course is not necessarily the case.

Obviously the referal was to Unity which is what you were responding to.

A 21st century setting, as much as I am completely against anything more recent than Syndicate, has a lot of conflict areas and I'm sure certain places like the Kremlin would have fairly tight 24hr security and then we could go back to the 20th and think of places like Cuba.

You limit yourself. Stop doing that. It's a work of fiction 'based' on reality. That doesn't mean it has to be exact.

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 07:51 PM
Obviously the referal was to Unity which is what you were responding to.

I don't want this to be fight. You mentioned that people would have issues with Modern Day because of the snipers in Unity making combat and evasion hard. I was referring to the underlying assumption that a 20th Century setting would necessarily have snipers on the roof or stuff like that. Even GTA doesn't have that.

I don't have anything against guards or rooftop rifle wielders in pre-modern games because there's the fog of history that kind of hides that kind of stuff, and there's some artistic license you can get away with.


A 21st century setting, as much as I am completely against anything more recent than Syndicate, has a lot of conflict areas and I'm sure certain places like the Kremlin would have fairly tight 24hr security and then we could go back to the 20th and think of places like Cuba.

Not really, the only real police state that fit the Cold War stereotype was places like East Berlin and Poland, both of them were buffer states erected by the Soviet Union to keep the Americans on the defensive. East Germany had the Stasi where you had this scary network of informants, and Poland was seen by the USSR as a buffer-state from NATO so it had a heavy Soviet military presence. That's still a problem to this date, because Russians were angry that Poland came into NATO after America promised that they wouldn't do it. The Russians even said it was okay with a reunited Germany joining NATO.

In places like Cuba and Soviet Union, the spy agencies generally kept a list and targeted people (not unlike J. Edgar Hoover targeted Civil Rights groups and homosexuals) but the police on the ground generally didn't interfere too much. North Korea on the other hand projects this image but it's basically too incompetent and we don't really know enough because of lack of transparency on how totalitarian it really is.

The thing is totalitarianism isn't cheap, even Stalin never really had that all-pervasive level of control people imagine. He generally controlled the party and bureaucracy and army. But at the height of his power, USSR was so inefficient they didn't even have communication in eastern parts of Russia, and most of the people weren't really policed greatly. This is based on American researchers by the way, lest I get accused for being a Communist. The kind of Orwellian Big Brother thing of all-pervasive propaganda and control is just a fantasy. Most communists stay in power by breads and circuses than anything else. At the end of the day, they put food on the people and provide some kind of order so the dissidents are basically seen as oddballs by the populace and people generally support these governments.

The Nazis were the only true totalitarians, but even there that was because Hitler was elected to power legally and most people acquiesced and consented. He had a modern developed bureaucracy behind him.


You limit yourself. Stop doing that. It's a work of fiction 'based' on reality. That doesn't mean it has to be exact.

I am not limiting myself at all. By challenging preconceptions based on actual evidence you can create new kind of gameplay rather than simply following the tracks laid down by Rockstar for how 20th Century city open worlds should be. Watch_Dogs failed in that, since the hacking mechanic there is not fully developed for that to be the sole and major thing. There's no reason for there to be a vehicle hijack and all these weapons stuff, or for the hero to be a murderer/vigilante. Ubisoft chickened out of making the game really new so they made it another hodgepodge.

Eurostar7
10-29-2015, 08:46 PM
Since AC3 i was asking for an ancient Egypt game, or Ancient Rome (Brutus in Ancient Rome was very interesting story in ACB and ACR. His armor was a collectible in ACB and in ACR even the cover shows Ezio wearing it)

I also wanted to see an AC game in Spain during the Inquisition for example, or during the Visigothic time (the Visigoths actually conquered Rome politically and then mass migrated to Spain and created Septimania/Hispania). Visigoths were similar to the Vikings, but more politically/financially educated

I also want to see an AC game in Mesopotamia, the first civilization of humankind, the Sumerians (and my ancestors in real life), the story of Enki and Enlil from roughly 3000-4000 B.C. is VERY similar to The Ones Who Come Before in the AC universe. In the Sumerian story of Enki and Enlil, the God of Gods Anu created humankind as a slave species. Enki and Enlil quarreled, Enlil wanted to destroy humankind and Enki bred with a human woman and he ultimately saved humankind. The story is more than that, but that is the synopsis i guess you can say. LOL

jesserugby_13
10-29-2015, 08:52 PM
I think you're right.
i mean, Unity and Syndicate are great games, but it is getting 'too easy' in my opion.
my first AC was AC:Brotherhood, on the PS3, i was in love right away.
the best part is the old 'fashion'.
you get a clear view of the life in that time, and thats a cool feature.
but, we can't forget that it is very hard to make a new game about an old game, it will just be the same.
but your choice about Japan is also very intressting.
maybe a game about Egypt, or Greece, because Greece is very 'outshined' by the Roman empire, but the acctualy had even better inventions and thinkers, like Plato or Aristotoles
Good question!!

Eurostar7
10-29-2015, 08:55 PM
Japan and Greece are also great locations by the way, both have rich history, there is a lot of content for AC to feed off of and add their twist to it.

Rafe Harwood
10-29-2015, 09:10 PM
I don't want this to be fight. You mentioned that people would have issues with Modern Day because of the snipers in Unity making combat and evasion hard. I was referring to the underlying assumption that a 20th Century setting would necessarily have snipers on the roof or stuff like that. Even GTA doesn't have that.

I don't have anything against guards or rooftop rifle wielders in pre-modern games because there's the fog of history that kind of hides that kind of stuff, and there's some artistic license you can get away with.



Not really, the only real police state that fit the Cold War stereotype was places like East Berlin and Poland, both of them were buffer states erected by the Soviet Union to keep the Americans on the defensive. East Germany had the Stasi where you had this scary network of informants, and Poland was seen by the USSR as a buffer-state from NATO so it had a heavy Soviet military presence. That's still a problem to this date, because Russians were angry that Poland came into NATO after America promised that they wouldn't do it. The Russians even said it was okay with a reunited Germany joining NATO.

In places like Cuba and Soviet Union, the spy agencies generally kept a list and targeted people (not unlike J. Edgar Hoover targeted Civil Rights groups and homosexuals) but the police on the ground generally didn't interfere too much. North Korea on the other hand projects this image but it's basically too incompetent and we don't really know enough because of lack of transparency on how totalitarian it really is.

The thing is totalitarianism isn't cheap, even Stalin never really had that all-pervasive level of control people imagine. He generally controlled the party and bureaucracy and army. But at the height of his power, USSR was so inefficient they didn't even have communication in eastern parts of Russia, and most of the people weren't really policed greatly. This is based on American researchers by the way, lest I get accused for being a Communist. The kind of Orwellian Big Brother thing of all-pervasive propaganda and control is just a fantasy. Most communists stay in power by breads and circuses than anything else. At the end of the day, they put food on the people and provide some kind of order so the dissidents are basically seen as oddballs by the populace and people generally support these governments.

The Nazis were the only true totalitarians, but even there that was because Hitler was elected to power legally and most people acquiesced and consented. He had a modern developed bureaucracy behind him.



I am not limiting myself at all. By challenging preconceptions based on actual evidence you can create new kind of gameplay rather than simply following the tracks laid down by Rockstar for how 20th Century city open worlds should be. Watch_Dogs failed in that, since the hacking mechanic there is not fully developed for that to be the sole and major thing. There's no reason for there to be a vehicle hijack and all these weapons stuff, or for the hero to be a murderer/vigilante. Ubisoft chickened out of making the game really new so they made it another hodgepodge.

You my friend live in cotton wool land. Even the Olympics made major headlines about the security forces involved and snipers on London rooftops. I guess you missed that one.

As for how Watchdogs failed... it didn't. I enjoyed it thoroughly and wished for more. Nothing in this day and age is ever perfect, but as for a good game, that it was. Sit back and enjoy these things instead of analysing everything to death. You might actually enjoy them :)

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 09:16 PM
You my friend live in cotton wool land. Even the Olympics made major headlines about the security forces involved and snipers on London rooftops. I guess you missed that one.

Wow you mean to tell me that every major city in the world hosts Olympics every day 24/7...Gee I had no idea. I thought games that are clearly high profile security risks are rare occurences. :rolleyes:



As for how Watchdogs failed... it didn't. I enjoyed it thoroughly and wished for more. Nothing in this day and age is ever perfect, but as for a good game, that it was. Sit back and enjoy these things instead of analysing everything to death. You might actually enjoy them :)

If you truly believe the stuff you say you wouldn't be here.

The point of forums is precisely "analysing everything to death". If that is bothering you so much, that is clearly your problem and not mine.

Rafe Harwood
10-29-2015, 09:27 PM
Wow you mean to tell me that every major city in the world hosts Olympics every day 24/7...Gee I had no idea. I thought games that are clearly high profile security risks are rare occurences. :rolleyes:

If you truly believe the stuff you say you wouldn't be here.

The point of forums is precisely "analysing everything to death". If that is bothering you so much, that is clearly your problem and not mine.
So, the signing of the declaration of independence happened a lot then? I wonder how many times people have to be killed to be regarded as dead. I thought just the once covered it.

End of the day, as I said before, I don't think they 'should' dot it, but moving it into the 20th,21st century would be entirely possible.

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 09:47 PM
So, the signing of the declaration of independence happened a lot then?

If you are going to be inane at least be funny.


End of the day, as I said before, I don't think they 'should' dot it, but moving it into the 20th,21st century would be entirely possible.

Cool. This we can agree.

RomanoTjavo
10-29-2015, 11:04 PM
I've played all of the Assassin's Creed games to date and have thought that all of them ranged from at least good to great. I love Syndicate, (my only gripes being that the story felt too short, and that you can't wear the hood without sneaking) but now more than ever I feel that the games are becoming to modern in setting. I really want to see time periods like feudal japan (almost everyone wants this) and ancient rome (pax romana era). I feel like ever since AC:3 the story just hasn't felt the same, I want to see something plot wise on par with AC 2 again, or at least go back into the past, I feel like because of the ever advancing time periods, the series is losing some of what made it great originally. Maybe it's just me. Any thoughts on this guys? What time periods would you like to see? (I'm hoping Ubi reads this and gets some ideas for where the series could go based on fan opinion).

I 100% agree with you. I`d LOVE to see ancient ROME!! or greece, or egypt!

Rodantho04
10-30-2015, 06:08 AM
While assassins Creed Syndicate looks amazing ( best looking AC game so far), there are so many problems with it, that will make me think a lof if I will ever buy an AC game in the future... I havent bought the season pass yet, and I don't think I will be buying!
Here are my reasons why:

1) The game is too easy! guards feel like little b1tches, they are easy to kill, very predictable, and really stupid! :nonchalance:

2) Civilians serve no purpose at all... If you kill a guard and a civilian happen to stand near by, MAYBE he will just scream for 1 sec and then go back to his business like nothng happened... Really? Can it get any more lazier that that? They should react to your actions! If you are unknown it that area they should break your stealth screaming for help, or support the guards making the game even harder since you cant hurt civilians! If you became known by liberating areas, they should cheer you, and assist you when you take down guards. How hard is this? :confused:

3) Not enough enemy models! There are only 3 or 4 of them! A big bald guy, a skinny guy with a hat, the same skinny guy with no hat... seriously? you couldn't spend a couple of hours and create some more variety? I keep killing the SAME GUY OVER AND OVER! How hard can it be to add a few more models? You can have a bald buy with a beard and suit, a bald guy with a hat and beard, a bald guy with long hair and suit, a bald guy topless, WHATEVER! JUST ADD MORE!!! :mad:

4) Stealth needs to be more difficult, and more looked in to! when you sneak around and only guards notice you, but workers ignore you, thats not stealth!! I dont know what that is... Make it more complex, much much harder, and more rewarding...

Stop spending that much time on Graphics, and focus more on AI and gameplay PLEEEEEEASE :cool:
I really wont be buying season pass, and I wont buy an other AC game in the future... Here is the formula for success:
Graphics > Gameplay = WRONG :(
Gameplay > Graphics = RIGHT :)


If you release an update that will fix NPC AI (both guards and people), Add more enemy variations (at leeeeeast 10), And increase games difficulty at a point that you will really NEED to stealth, or look for an upgrade for your weapons to be stronger, THEN AND ONLY THEN I will buy the season pass...

P.S. Ease down on the climbing, or rename the game in to SPIDERMAN's CREED! FFS :mad:
Peace ;)

legendvinu
10-30-2015, 08:05 AM
I 100% agree with you. I`d LOVE to see ancient ROME!! or greece, or egypt!

Roma was out in brotherhood Eygpt i gus it will

Deezl-V
10-30-2015, 08:08 AM
I see you don't understand that the graphics/art department is separate from the gameplay department, right? They have nothing to do with one another and can put out the best their department can put out without affecting each other.

They never focused more on graphics than gameplay. They did their parts in what they wanted to accomplish. It's just that graphics trumps gameplay cuz gameplay isn't that great overall.

Deezl-V
10-30-2015, 08:17 AM
Yes I agree. The game is becoming to much about fancy gadgets and guns, that it is taking away from what AC is all about. Old times like ac1-ACRe were great for exploration but it also added a sense of feeling like how assassins would be back in the day. Now it's becoming like hitman where we get guns and shoot people.

What made this game amazing for me was the lack of guns (well at least a rarity of them) and the more realistic parkour and climbing. I don't like that all these building are now so tall for graphics purposes that it takes away from the actual climbing mechanics. Now it's all easy and fast that now syndicate brings a rope launcher. Way to make it even more lazy to climb. At least in the older games with the shorter buildings, you really felt a sense of accomplishment for climbing big buildings. Loved it. Now it's just a boring repetitive thing cuz it means nothing and go by so fast without even looking anymore.

BananaBlighter
10-30-2015, 09:44 AM
I agree, however, honestly, everything except the character models has been done purposefully/Ubi aren't planning on fixing it, simply because they WANT to keep the game easy to attract new, less experienced gamers. WE NEED DIFFICULTY OPTIONS! And not just increase enemy level, but meaningful changes.

AI is a big issue, now just with guards but civilians, they're just not interactive anymore. Guards in AC have always been stupid, not just in Syndicate, however in previous games at least civilians ran away when they witnessed a murder, breaking your cover, now it just doesn't happen and only half the NPCs notice anything. It's quite immersion breaking too when you're sneaking about a restricted area, but only guards seem to care. I have heard the odd comment or two when, say, I crouch on a train, "Wonder what he's hiding from?", though when I'm infiltrating a factory it's as if the workers don't care. I would like at least SOME acknowledgement, some civilians would alert the guards, while some could say, "Don't worry I'll keep quiet,". Social stealth could become so much more complex if the crowds were more interactive.

I hate that guards will forget about you so easily. I made a thread about this a while back, that guards should, if they have evidence that there is a killer about (fully detect you/find a dead body) they will start an endless patrol, checking hiding spots and alerting others along the way . However only guards who have physically witnessed such evidence will ever be convinced, and those who have only heard about it through word of mouth will do the usual, check a few hiding spots and return to their post. If a guard has witnessed a body, those he tells will go to see if he is telling the truth, and unless you have hidden the body by then, they will also become fully alert. After all, we have a mechanic to hide bodies, but I've never felt the need to use it. If enough guards become fully alert, they will warn the target/leader who will start escaping leading to a chase like AC1.

I actually quite like the rope launcher; it's smooth, very useful for traversing tall buildings and wide streets, but doesn't take away from the parkour at all. In my eyes, parkour isn't about climbing straight up a building, it takes more skill than that. I've seen many people complain that the parkour's too sticky and uncontrollable, but honestly I find Unit was a serious improvement with the 'parkour down' mechanic, while it has only been refined and improved in ACS. I think parkour is at it's best, and while there isn't that precision that the first games had, it feels a lot smoother and more versatile. I'm afraid that climb leaping has become a necessity simply because buildings are getting taller, and while it appears unrealistic and repetitive, as I said before, parkour isn't the journey up the building, it's the journey across the buildings.

On the flip side, I have a serious problem with the rope launcher simplifying rooftop stealth. A classic AC stealth/parkour problem would be figuring out how to reach another building. Now it is just a matter of pressing one button and zooming past all the guards below. To fix this, I propose that the rope launcher makes more sound, and so when it is used in stealth, guards will look up and detect you. However when ziplining slowly you make no noise, while the end of the line, where it has hit the wall, is the main source of noise, preventing you from going all the way across, in order to encourage problem solving when crossing between buildings, but not remove zipline assassinations which can be quite creative at times.

I wouldn't say that combat is easier in ACS, though rooftop stealth has definitely become oversimplified, and now more than ever there is a serious need for meaningful difficulty options.

SofaJockey
10-30-2015, 09:55 AM
You probably have valid points OP, but I'm enjoying the game anyway to be honest...

dxsxhxcx
10-30-2015, 12:22 PM
I agree, however, honestly, everything except the character models has been done purposefully/Ubi aren't planning on fixing it, simply because they WANT to keep the game easy to attract new, less experienced gamers. WE NEED DIFFICULTY OPTIONS! And not just increase enemy level, but meaningful changes.


What makes you believe that the lack of character models' variety wasn't done on purpose as well? That's Ubisoft cutting corners, plain and simple..

RzaRecta357
10-30-2015, 07:21 PM
Personally love this time setting. I don't care where or when it takes place as long as it makes sense and has gameplay elements tailored to it like BF and Syndicate.

Hell, make a modern one now that we have the tools and vehicles. Just modern em up!

sharpblade1508
10-30-2015, 07:30 PM
I 100% agree with you. I`d LOVE to see ancient ROME!! or greece, or egypt!

The more that I thought about it, I think Greece would be a really dope place to see. Maybe set during Greece's conflicts with Persia? It fits perfectly with the Assassin's vs. Templars war as well. At that time, Persia was trying to bring their idea of order to Greece, sounds like templar logic to me. Plus I think you could have a character who would have a story similar to Ezio's motivations from AC 2. Persians attack a city under a Templar's orders and his family gets killed or something. Joins the Assassin's in some fashion or another and the game goes from there. Sure, it's another revenge story, but I feel that's what made AC 2 so strong. That it wasn't just Assassin's vs Templars because that's just how it is, the main character also had such strong personal motivations as well.

Eurostar7
10-31-2015, 02:00 AM
Im all for the difficulty options. They can do Normal and Hard mode for the combat. Not sure what they can do for the Hard mode of combat but one thing for sure is sometimes when the opponent wants to attack you, it cancels the attack when you are making a certain fighting move on another opponent. They can take off that override in Hard More so the opponent will give you cheap shots from behind.

I also like the idea in Rogue where sometimes Assassins will attack from above. Templars should be mimic the Assassins in that aspect, so you can be unexpectedly attack from a rooftop if you bring too much attention to yourself. In AC1, as the game progresses, it became harder for you because the guards throughout the cities would know who you are so they are looking out for you. It became harder to travel freely through rooftops, you had to go from rooftop and back down to the floor to avoid a guard, otherwise the whole city would be alarmed. They should bring that aspect for a Hard Mode as well.

Having a few "Assassin Operational Offices" hidden around the city would be great as well, just like in AC1 you would get missions and mission information by visiting your Assassin contact hidden beneath a building rooftop.

Eurostar7
10-31-2015, 02:10 AM
The more that I thought about it, I think Greece would be a really dope place to see. Maybe set during Greece's conflicts with Persia? It fits perfectly with the Assassin's vs. Templars war as well. At that time, Persia was trying to bring their idea of order to Greece, sounds like templar logic to me. Plus I think you could have a character who would have a story similar to Ezio's motivations from AC 2. Persians attack a city under a Templar's orders and his family gets killed or something. Joins the Assassin's in some fashion or another and the game goes from there. Sure, it's another revenge story, but I feel that's what made AC 2 so strong. That it wasn't just Assassin's vs Templars because that's just how it is, the main character also had such strong personal motivations as well.

Thats why i mentioned ancient mesopotamia, the Sumerians and Akkadians eventually were part of the Assyrian Empire (Im half Assyrian thats why i said in a different post, that my ancestors were Sumerians). Assyrian Empire stretch from Iraq all the way to Egypt. When the Assyrian Empire fell, it merged with the Babylonian Empire and Alexander the Great learned a lot from us and took knowledge back to Greece.

He actually is buried in Babylon in Iraq. His tomb should still be there actually if ISIS didnt bomb it.

But before that, when the Persian Empire was in power, Xerxes I had 1 million Assyrian soldiers in high positions in his army.

All this history is really great for AC to play around with. Im a history nerd, so it was the biggest attraction i had to AC and their twist to it is great (even though its been severely lacking the past few games)

Sometimes i wish Ubisoft would hire real historians and go a little deeper, there is some crazy things in the past that they could tie up with Those Who Came Before.

Pr0metheus 1962
10-31-2015, 10:25 PM
...now more than ever I feel that the games are becoming to modern in setting.

I agree. When Black Flag came out, I thought they had started to move things backwards in time, but it seems it was just a one-off. I think whoever at Ubisoft is forcing the series forward in time is doing the franchise a disservice. Syndicate is a good game, but the modernity (wider streets making parkour harder, ranged weapons making stealth unnecessary, etc.) is beginning to adversely affect gameplay. I really think Assassin's Creed should work best in the period between the Roman Empire and the early 1700s (after cities and societies became larger and before advances in firearms manufacture revolutionized combat), so they need to take a look at earlier periods.

I'd love to see Elizabethan London, the end of the Roman Republic, India during the founding of the Raj, feudal Japan, the Viking Age, 14th Century Europe, etc. It seems to me they're painting themselves into a corner with every new game being set in a later period, and there's no need for it - it's a game series based on time travel - so you can switch back and forth through time. There is no necessity for a linear progression through time.

I'd actually like to see AC1 remade using what they've learned throughout the series. They could rebuild all the cities bigger and fix all the criticisms that the game got. It would be nice to get back to the franchise's roots.

Thirsty_panda
11-01-2015, 04:38 AM
Prometheus:

In a series already this convoluted, I don't think I want to see competing canon, because that's almost what it would have to be to fix AC 1. They'd have to overall a lot of the actual main campaign to make it palatable for today's standard.