PDA

View Full Version : Why do you play Assassin's Creed?



Eziodagreat
10-29-2015, 06:54 AM
I've been seeing a lot of discussion on what games are everyone's favourites.

In my opinion, the first installment that you bought and what time that you started playing the games is a HUGE factor in determining this. For example, I started playing in 2007 and LOVED the lore and modern day, and that is why I keep playing. And I believe the people who think Black Flag and Syndicate maybe started with those games first, and maybe have a different appreciation for the games that I do. That isn't saying that these aren't good games, I did enjoy playing them, but the reason for these games being good is different from what made the few first games good.

I'm just trying to see what aspects of the games are most popular on this forum, and maybe give reasons why you like/dislike certain characteristics, what year you started, and what your first game was.

Assassin_M
10-29-2015, 07:04 AM
Started in 2008 with AC I, thought AC II was terrible, think AC IV has more lore and modern day than AC I and II, love modern day, but I don't think it's super essential to what makes an AC game.

VestigialLlama4
10-29-2015, 07:15 AM
It's all about the historical part for me.

Consus_E
10-29-2015, 07:17 AM
I enjoyed AC1. lol

I think it's mainly the history for me. Part of what I love about this franchise is that with every new entry it gives me a beautifully rendered recreation of historical settings, and in turn encourages me to learn more about the larger history that isn't included in the game. AC really shows the potential games have as an educational tool.

I also enjoy convoluted plots... And AC has LOTS of those!

Eziodagreat
10-29-2015, 07:17 AM
Started in 2008 with AC I, thought AC II was terrible, think AC IV has more lore and modern day than AC I and II, love modern day, but I don't think it's super essential to what makes an AC game.

I agree that IV probably has more info and lore available to you, but it's presented in a different way. I think playing as a 3rd person and "living" through the lore has a much more deeper impact than reading information and listening to audio files about what you would already know about (if you played the previous games).

I'm probably in the minority when I say modern day is a big factor to what makes AC. For me, it has to make sense why we are visiting a specific historical period, and something can be learned about how to proceed in the modern day.

Assassin_M
10-29-2015, 07:24 AM
I agree that IV probably has more info and lore available to you, but it's presented in a different way. I think playing as a 3rd person and "living" through the lore has a much more deeper impact than reading information and listening to audio files about what you would already know about (if you played the previous games).

I'm probably in the minority when I say modern day is a big factor to what makes AC. For me, it has to make sense why we are visiting a specific historical period, and something can be learned about how to proceed in the modern day.
Eh, we did the same things in AC I and II. All we did was walk around, read emails and listen to audio files. Difference is that we had a third person protagonist? He was a pretty empty vessel if you ask me. We only saw him for what, 15 minutes each game? 30 minutes? He'll always be an empty vessel because of the MUCH more interesting historical protagonists.

Regarding ACB and AC III, the gameplay there was just more of the same. The parkour was the same, the combat was the same. Might as well just extend the historical portion. This is why I'm okay with Syndicate's modern day. You can do a lot with cutscenes. I don't see why people are asking reskinned historical gameplay in a modern day skin. it just feels fake, I mean....guards with sticks?? really?

BananaBlighter
10-29-2015, 09:57 AM
If I had to choose one thing, I'd say parkour, but what really got me in to the franchise is this in conjunction with the setting. I love that feeling of freedom you get when roaming the rooftops of wherever, taking in the atmosphere, admiring the sights. Syndicate's probably my favourite game (my first AC was BF). The parkour is super smooth and refined, and London is absolutely astounding. The carriages, the boats, the trains, the parks, the slums, the varying heights of buildings. So satisfying...

Pr0metheus 1962
10-29-2015, 11:12 AM
The poll doesn't mention the history. I think a lot of people play because they enjoy seeing history brought to life. That's why I play, so I had to vote "Other".

MATTHEW076480
10-29-2015, 11:22 AM
I play AC for the story generally, as I have always enjoyed games that have good stories e.g. Red Dead Redemption [In my opinion] I do also play for the historical aspects and to learn about history but generally it is to find out more about MD story and to see if I can have almost some kind of bond between the historical assassins e.g. like with Ezio but not with Arno. I do feel that there has been a bond lost between the historical story and the MD story to a degree when Desmond died as he was related to Altair, Ezio and Connor [And I think Edward] but I felt a lack of bond to Arno and to a degree Jacob and Evie with the MD story and wish they could bring this aspect back to the games. Sorry for the long post everyone!

dxsxhxcx
10-29-2015, 11:23 AM
the story (all of it) and gameplay

the_don7684
10-29-2015, 01:09 PM
Love the story. The game as a whole is great and I always like how with each game the Map/ environment itself keeps getting richer with content.

ze_topazio
10-29-2015, 01:39 PM
First thing that attracted me was the possibility of walking and climbing buildings in more or less faithful full 3D reproductions of real world cities in specific periods of time, a very specific interest of mine, to learn and see how cities looked like back in the days.

As long as they keep on delivering that I will probably stick around.

RaggedTyper
10-29-2015, 01:46 PM
The lore, the time period and setting, parkour and the open world.

cawatrooper9
10-29-2015, 02:22 PM
I picked overarching story, but man, in truth it's all of the above.

DynaRider
10-29-2015, 04:01 PM
The whole game got me hooked. I don't like first person games and the war games are just too "busy" for me. AC has a more relaxed style and being able to walk around in another historically accurate time period enjoying the graphics and settings was a big plus for me. Combat is not overly complicated or difficult (Unity excepted) and my 78 year old fingers can do what needs to be done. It's fun trying to figure out how to get to people you need to eliminate and being able to use ranged weapons and stealth/hiding is a game play style that I like.

Speaking of graphics I'm really impressed with Syndicate. It just amazes me that the programmers can make such a realistic environment and the detail level and being able to move around inside factories, buildings, etc. adds hours of play time for me. I thought it would be neat to be able to get inside Buckingham Palace in Syndicate and surprise, surprise I found a way in. The programmers didn't disappoint me here and they have recreated the opulence and colors quite well. I'm playing on a new 50" 4K resolution television with a new Yamaha high resolution capable receiver and sound system. I'm a happy gamer when I fire up Syndicate.

Xstantin
10-29-2015, 04:47 PM
First thing that attracted me was the possibility of walking and climbing buildings in more or less faithful full 3D reproductions of real world cities in specific periods of time, a very specific interest of mine, to learn and see how cities looked like back in the days.

As long as they keep on delivering that I will probably stick around.

Same here. I spend more time simply running around and looking at the buildings than actually playing the game.

Eziodagreat
10-29-2015, 05:34 PM
Eh, we did the same things in AC I and II. All we did was walk around, read emails and listen to audio files. Difference is that we had a third person protagonist? He was a pretty empty vessel if you ask me. We only saw him for what, 15 minutes each game? 30 minutes? He'll always be an empty vessel because of the MUCH more interesting historical protagonists.

I agree that Desmond was underdeveloped. But that wasn't because of I and II, I think the bad taste from Desmond comes from Revelations and AC 3. In the first two games, there was so much mystery, and conspiracy theories that added to Desmond's persona, which made him much more interesting to me. The first two games builds up the hype for Desmond becoming this master assassin, and that's what made me excited for the future of AC. It was the handling of the ending journey of Desmond that shows how unimportant Desmond was. This was not the first two games' fault.


Regarding ACB and AC III, the gameplay there was just more of the same. The parkour was the same, the combat was the same. Might as well just extend the historical portion.
I'm not really sure how to interpret this, could you explain this again?


This is why I'm okay with Syndicate's modern day. You can do a lot with cutscenes. I don't see why people are asking reskinned historical gameplay in a modern day skin. it just feels fake, I mean....guards with sticks?? really?

I also thought the cutscenes in Syndicate were a step forward, but isn't reaching it's full potential. Would Jacob and Evie's stories be more effective through cutscenes? Why not just make this game a movie-only franchise then?

I disagree that people are asking for reskinned combat in the modern day, I think people would enjoy something newer, and innovative to make it feel more realistic. AC has the potential to be one of the most flexible gaming series there is. If they made modern combat similar to the gameplay of Uncharted, I think that would be amazing. That would be pretty difficult, but with the resources they have, I don't think it's out of the question. It doesn't even have to be a major portion of the game, maybe just small tidbits of modern day missions.

SixKeys
10-29-2015, 06:38 PM
My first game was AC1. I was immediately hooked to the blend of modern day and history, the mystery and unpredictability of it all. Now that the overarching narrative is pretty much gone, I'm not nearly as invested anymore.

The second biggest reason is the parkour. Other games can take you to historical eras but they don't have the same sense of freedom as AC. I'm so used to climbing everything now that it feels weird when I can't do it in other games.

I also enjoy the stealth/sandbox elements. I lump those two together because I like them as one whole, i.e. sandbox assassination missions. Just a sandbox world is no longer anything new and it's easy to lose focus of the story in such a world. And stealth on its own isn't exciting either, you need that element of freedom and choice to tackle a mission however you want.

The most boring missions in AC are always the linear ones. They play the same way every time and frankly, the other primary gameplay elements aren't strong enough to support the series. Enemy AI has never been substantially improved, combat is too easy, there are way too many collectables and tailing/eavesdropping missions are annoying. The last one would be all right if we had true blackbox missions like Unity promised, in that elements of the mission could change based on your actions. Like you start out tailing an informant, but if he slips away from you, you'll have to figure out another way to get the information. Or if you kill him before he reaches his destination, his mates will start wondering where he is and be more alert. Sadly, we still don't have that kind of unpredictability.

Assassin_M
10-29-2015, 06:42 PM
I agree that Desmond was underdeveloped. But that wasn't because of I and II, I think the bad taste from Desmond comes from Revelations and AC 3. In the first two games, there was so much mystery, and conspiracy theories that added to Desmond's persona, which made him much more interesting to me. The first two games builds up the hype for Desmond becoming this master assassin, and that's what made me excited for the future of AC. It was the handling of the ending journey of Desmond that shows how unimportant Desmond was. This was not the first two games' fault.
People already didn't care for Desmond since after AC I. People were already complaining that he's boring, that the modern day is immersion breaking and who can blame them? All the fun stuff was done inside the animus, Desmond was just never ever going to be able to hold up. Narrative wise AND gameplay wise, the story told inside the animus was superior. AC I had more of Desmond, but AC II is the real culprit, showing only 20 minutes of him. I think about Patrice's original plan (Or at least what people think his original was, because I don't think Patrice was going to relegate the historical portion to such a small scale. It's the soul of AC), and I just don't know how it could have worked. A trilogy where the last game has full modern day gameplay with master assassin Desmond. I have NO idea how that would have worked with the little time we had with the guy in AC II. He had less screen time than AC I, and all we did in AC I was walk around and read emails. AC III and Revelations are the ONLY games that actually have a big character arc for Desmond. ACR explores his origins and how he comes to terms with the responsibility of being an Assassin and AC III explores his relationship with his father and shows him maturing a lot. The complaints about Desmond and Modern Day are not new, they'v been there since after AC I.



I'm not really sure how to interpret this, could you explain this again?
I'm saying that the gameplay of modern day in ACB and AC III was the same as the gameplay from the historical portion, so might as well just have more historical portion than modern day, because the nature of the gameplay pasted on modern day was silly.




I also thought the cutscenes in Syndicate were a step forward, but isn't reaching it's full potential. Would Jacob and Evie's stories be more effective through cutscenes? Why not just make this game a movie-only franchise then?
No, comparing the historical and modern portions is moot. The historical portion has always been the star and the modern day was ALWAYS the side show. Yeah, it was the overarching conflict, but AC's central premise is the war between Assassins and Templars across history. This is what Ubisoft's slogans, developers and marketing say and that is what most fans agree on.


I disagree that people are asking for reskinned combat in the modern day
They kind of are when they ask for third person gameplay, I explain why below.


I think people would enjoy something newer, and innovative to make it feel more realistic. AC has the potential to be one of the most flexible gaming series there is. If they made modern combat similar to the gameplay of Uncharted, I think that would be amazing.
That would be pretty difficult, but with the resources they have, I don't think it's out of the question. It doesn't even have to be a major portion of the game, maybe just small tidbits of modern day missions.
Okay, lets look at this technically first. A system similar to Uncharted would be so different from usual system of AC gameplay, that it'd probably take a whole other full development to implement properly. The principle thing that they'd have to change is obviously the AI. This is not entirely out of the question, like you said. I mean, they managed to have Naval combat in AC IV, which is probably as hard to implement as modern day combat similar to uncharted. THE difference, however, is that Black Flag had 60% of the game be played on sea (It's more likely a larger percentage if you count all the side missions). Naval combat was proved to be a worthy investment due to its popularity and they brought it back again and again. The investment, of course, meant that all this development would not go into just three 20 minute or so missions. Each game with naval combat had a considerable amount of naval gameplay. So lets apply this criteria to a game that would have modern gameplay similar to Uncharted.

- Because it's a huge investment, it can't be a one off thing, it'd have to be at least 60% of the game. They're not going to develop a WHOLE system to just be used once or twice for short time.
- For that to happen, it has to be proven as a worthy investment. Outside of this forum and the subreddit, Modern day is looked at with contempt and people cheered when Desmond died. Heck, to this day, even Gamespot's review of AC syndicate says that modern day sucks.

So the earlier part means that the star of the game, the main appeal, will be relegated to only 40% of play time. I don't know about you, but this is what AC is. A historical open world game and that's the ONLY reason it continues to sell to this day. It's the only franchise that offers this sort of fantasy, it's the closest thing to time travel until we can invent a time machine.

Sushiglutton
10-29-2015, 07:04 PM
I suppose the two aspects I've enjoyed most are visiting exotic locations and the stylish choreography of the parkouring, hooded, assassins. I guess this image sums it up:

http://images.wikia.com/assassinscreed/images/3/32/Altair_free-run.jpg

steveeire
10-29-2015, 07:06 PM
In it for the MD story line.

Eziodagreat
10-29-2015, 08:55 PM
People already didn't care for Desmond since after AC I. People were already complaining that he's boring, that the modern day is immersion breaking and who can blame them? All the fun stuff was done inside the animus, Desmond was just never ever going to be able to hold up. Narrative wise AND gameplay wise, the story told inside the animus was superior.

I agree that most people thought that way. I'm just trying to say that I didn't think that way, and the most "fun" I had during the game was the philosophical conversations in the past, and learning stuff that was going on in present day. But my opinion on that can't change anything that happened, it's just my two cents, so you know where I am coming from.


AC I had more of Desmond, but AC II is the real culprit, showing only 20 minutes of him.
Although his actual screen time was indeed short, there is one part of the game that many won't consider "modern day story" but I do. The glyphs. At the time, I was a bit of a conspiracy nut, so these glyphs were one of my favorite factors in that game, and I consider them modern day because they are told by Clay, and are meant for Desmond to learn. This contributed mightily to the present day story for me, although others may not see that way.


I think about Patrice's original plan (Or at least what people think his original was, because I don't think Patrice was going to relegate the historical portion to such a small scale. It's the soul of AC), and I just don't know how it could have worked. A trilogy where the last game has full modern day gameplay with master assassin Desmond. I have NO idea how that would have worked with the little time we had with the guy in AC II. He had less screen time than AC I, and all we did in AC I was walk around and read emails.
I do think it could've been possible, but also again, there's no point in trying to justify it, what's done is done. Just by listening to Nolan North at that panel (can't remember the exact one), it gave me a little taste of what could've been.

I mean, in a way, learning bit by bit about a protagonist before his full-fledged game could still be a good story, and it possibly would've changed people's minds about Desmond. And by full - fledged game, I mean a game where it is split roughly 50/50 between Desmond and an ancestor, that didn't require an Animus, and worked solely through the Bleeding Effect.



I'm saying that the gameplay of modern day in ACB and AC III was the same as the gameplay from the historical portion, so might as well just have more historical portion than modern day, because the nature of the gameplay pasted on modern day was silly.
Nothing wrong with this, I just fundamentally disagree with you. I don't think it was silly, and did provide value for me.


No, comparing the historical and modern portions is moot. The historical portion has always been the star and the modern day was ALWAYS the side show.
Just fundamentally disagree with you. I do acknowledge that the majority of people will take your side, and that's what sells the games. It's hard arguing why I value the modern day story more than the story from the past. This will sound corny, but once upon a time the philosophy was so convincing to me that I actually believed some of the stories being told were real. So I believe I have a subconscious connection with modern day story and my own life. I'm not saying this is more important for everyone and that this is what they should believe, once again, it is just my two cents and doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.



Technical stuff.....
I don't know anything about designing games. This was just my hope. Like you said, it probably has to take up 60% game time for them to invest in something, but why not invest a solid amount of time and money to implement something that can be used 15-20% for the next 10 games? Once again, that's from an idealist perspective.


I don't know about you, but this is what AC is. A historical open world game and that's the ONLY reason it continues to sell to this day. It's the only franchise that offers this sort of fantasy, it's the closest thing to time travel until we can invent a time machine.
It is indeed the only game series that can go wherever it wants in time. I may be wrong, but I don't believe this was the intention from the start. I don't think it was meant to be Ubisoft taking fan opinions of what time period to do next. I think PD had a direct goal of what he wanted to accomplish, and that was using the past as a tool to teach Desmond about the solar flare/TWOCB. I want to believe so bad there was an ending in mind from the beginning So your definition of what an AC game is, is different from mine.

Keep in mind that nearly all my arguments stem from a story-telling perspective, rather than a gameplay/mechanics perspective.