PDA

View Full Version : E3 Trailers Resemblance to Gamplay



crusader_prophet
11-28-2015, 09:55 PM
Which E3 CGI trailer among the above entries best depicted the gameplay elements in the released game?

Note: I added Liberation HD as well, but I think there wasn't any E3 trailer for it.

dxsxhxcx
11-28-2015, 11:46 PM
AC1 I think, the crossbow used in it didn't make into the final game but the trailer was able to perfectly capture the atmosphere the game had, the eagle vision (right at the beginning of the trailer, 0:27, when the screen blinks) the moment before the assassination (where the HUD dissapear, 0:36 until the assassination itself) and the escape sequence after it, I'll watch the other trailers to see if they capture their respective game's essence as well, but off the top of my head I would say AC1..

for those interested in doing the same:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoTetj4HQhk

Assassin_M
11-28-2015, 11:49 PM
AC I (Although a bit iffy because of the crossbow), Brotherhood, Revelations and AC IV.

AC II comes close, but it takes too much cinematic liberty that it doesn't accurately represent the gameplay nor even offer a slightly similar scenario in the game.
AC III just takes a small portion and centers the whole trailer around it, while adding things that you can't even do in the game.
ACU was too stuck on co-op imo and nothing even similar to that scenario happens in the game.
ACS doesn't get my vote because the Rooks are nothing but a bunch of cardboxes in the game.
Nothing really happens in Rogue, so it's off my vote by default.

Why's Liberation HD here then?

I-Like-Pie45
11-29-2015, 12:55 AM
cast my vote, I tried not to be too opinionated

crusader_prophet
11-29-2015, 01:22 AM
Why's Liberation HD here then?

I thought I would include it since it did come out on consoles as an independent entry. It did have a gameplay trailer prior to launch. I am just being inclusive :)

I agree with AC1 and AC Brotherhood. They top my list as well.


AC1 I think

Yeah me too (except the crossbow. But it was scrapped at the end I believe. It was supposed to be in AC1.

Assassin_M
11-29-2015, 01:33 AM
I thought I would include it since it did come out on consoles as an independent entry. It did have a gameplay trailer prior to launch. I am just being inclusive :)

I agree with AC1 and AC Brotherhood. They top my list as well.
Oh oh, apologies, I also read your reason in the OP, I didn't see it, my bad.

AdrianJacek
11-29-2015, 09:36 AM
AC IV

Good luck trying to kill someone with a steering wheel, though. :P
And what the heck was the deal with that Delicia ship?

SixKeys
11-29-2015, 11:48 AM
AC1 and AC2. AC trailers used to be really good about showing off actual gameplay elements in their trailers. It's taken a bit of a dip in recent years in favor of more dramatics. Like the only thing Unity's trailer showed off was the co-op. We weren't actually part of any storming crowds. AC4 had Edward grabbing random objects like bottles and breaking them against enemy heads, but that wasn't in the game. Neither was the ability to "kidnap" the target's female escort after covertly killing him and then walking away with her like everything's normal. Syndicate's trailer was pretty accurate though.

Megas_Doux
11-29-2015, 05:53 PM
Good luck trying to kill someone with a steering wheel, though. :P
And what the heck was the deal with that Delicia ship?

Woodes Rogers Ship....

crusader_prophet
11-30-2015, 04:14 PM
I think AC 3 trailer also pretty accurately reflected the gameplay in Battle of Bunker Hill and assassination of Pitcairn, the navigation through woods, use of tomahawk and multi-finishers, use of bow and arrow, George Washington's face lighting up with hope for his people seeing Connor in action.

VestigialLlama4
11-30-2015, 04:27 PM
I think AC 3 trailer also pretty accurately reflected the gameplay in Battle of Bunker Hill and assassination of Pitcairn, the navigation through woods, use of tomahawk and multi-finishers, use of bow and arrow, George Washington's face lighting up with hope for his people seeing Connor in action.

The E3 Trailer has Connor charging into a battlefield that's quite different from what happens in the game itself. Where you have to dodge several sallies of gunfire as you move through cover and then climb up a hill overlooking the battle and then whack Pitcairn.

As for George Washington looking in hope...that doesn't happen. The relationship between George and Connor in the game is that between Manipulator and Pawn.

I actually don't mind a great deal if the CGI trailers don't accurately reflect the gameplay. Some exaggeration is okay. But then I don't think any of AC's CGI trailers (save for Brotherhood) are very good so I don't care too much either way.

cawatrooper9
11-30-2015, 04:47 PM
The E3 Trailer has Connor charging into a battlefield that's quite different from what happens in the game itself. Where you have to dodge several sallies of gunfire as you move through cover and then climb up a hill overlooking the battle and then whack Pitcairn.

As for George Washington looking in hope...that doesn't happen. The relationship between George and Connor in the game is that between Manipulator and Pawn.

I actually don't mind a great deal if the CGI trailers don't accurately reflect the gameplay. Some exaggeration is okay. But then I don't think any of AC's CGI trailers (save for Brotherhood) are very good so I don't care too much either way.

Agreed, the trailer for ACIII seems like it's for a completely different game- and though it looks like it would be a lot of fun to charge into battle and single-handedly kill a redcoat army, I'm kind of glad that's not how the game ended up being. That would've been kind of silly...

crusader_prophet
11-30-2015, 04:50 PM
The E3 Trailer has Connor charging into a battlefield that's quite different from what happens in the game itself. Where you have to dodge several sallies of gunfire as you move through cover and then climb up a hill overlooking the battle and then whack Pitcairn.

I thought the trailer does show Connor having to dodge gunfire by going in cover behind the stones. But yeah the assassination does not exactly happen that face to face, as it happens in the game which required more stealth and going around the hill.


As for George Washington looking in hope...that doesn't happen. The relationship between George and Connor in the game is that between Manipulator and Pawn.

Yeah that was sad, I guess his face light up more about the thought that I finally have an expendable pawn with guts :D

I-Like-Pie45
11-30-2015, 05:23 PM
Ubi be insulted the George Washingotn! :mad:

George Washington be without peer, George Washington is the respect and humbles amongst his men unlike Thomas Jefferson :mad: George Washington fight on battlefields alongside his men unlike Thomas Jefferson :mad: George Washington grapple with his morality and free his slave in the end unlike Thomas Jefferson :mad: George Washington faithful to his wife unlike Thomas Jefferson :mad: George Washington president never blunder into war like Thomas Jefferson :mad: George Washington be cool with everyone even Hamilton and cool Frenchman Lafayette not stupid Frenchman Napoleon unlike Thomas Jefferson :mad: George Washington know that political party are dumb and will only destroy America, unlike Thomas Jefferson and all the other Presidetn :mad: George Washington #1 American still, even better than Lincoln and Richard Nixon :mad: I demand Ubi be change AC3! :mad:

But seriously speaking, you could technically charge through the soldiers that you encounter in AC3's Bunker Hill mission after the initial bullet dodging section like in the trailer, all the way up to Pitcairn without desynchronizing. But he's such a good fighter that you can't instantly assassinate him like in the trailer. You can also try to replicate the horse charging over the lines, in spite of the bad horse controls of AC, which is what I tried to do the first time I played this mission. Needless to say, you probably won't make it to the woods alive.

But you know what actually is disappointing about AC3? You rarely see skirmishes between redcoats and bluecoats outside of story missions, to get fullout battles in freeroram you like have to run into a group of soldiers and upset them, then run into an area where their opposing side is like Valley Forge or a fort and afterwards the winners try to kill you. (Although if you do this in Valley Forge, right in front of Washington, the guy is noticeably very pissing his pants at the sight of Connor) The war atmosphere isn't all that readily apparent outside of missions. We see the aftermath of events, like the Redcoats taking control of NYC and Washington holing up in Valley Forge but not the journeys that got the world to this state. The world actually seems pretty peaceful throughout the game. There aren't any apparent signs of martial law or anything once you clear all the liberation missions out of the way, which don't do that good of a job conveying the war atmosphere and if anything, the liberation missions just feel like nothing but the mediocre and drawn out checklist activities that have become the face of Ubi open world games. Even Valley Forge, where Washington's army froze its tushies off and a couple thousand died I guess, doesn't feel that oppressive. If it's one thing TOKW did well, it's actually convey a war-torn America feeling.

I think rando(m) events could've helped with that

And why are John Handcock and all those other pencil pushers in the game when actual military figures that it would've been more logical for Connor to meet aren't.

BananaBlighter
11-30-2015, 06:19 PM
Ubi be insulted the George Washingotn! :mad:

George Washington be without peer, George Washington is the respect and humbles amongst his men unlike Thomas Jefferson :mad: George Washington fight on battlefields alongside his men unlike Thomas Jefferson :mad: George Washington grapple with his morality and free his slave in the end unlike Thomas Jefferson :mad: George Washington faithful to his wife unlike Thomas Jefferson :mad: George Washington president never blunder into war like Thomas Jefferson :mad: George Washington be cool with everyone even Hamilton and cool Frenchman Lafayette not stupid Frenchman Napoleon unlike Thomas Jefferson :mad: George Washington know that political party are dumb and will only destroy America, unlike Thomas Jefferson and all the other Presidetn :mad: George Washington #1 American still, even better than Lincoln and Richard Nixon :mad: I demand Ubi be change AC3! :mad:

But seriously speaking, you could technically charge through the soldiers that you encounter in AC3's Bunker Hill mission after the initial bullet dodging section like in the trailer, all the way up to Pitcairn without desynchronizing. But he's such a good fighter that you can't instantly assassinate him like in the trailer. You can also try to replicate the horse charging over the lines, in spite of the bad horse controls of AC, which is what I tried to do the first time I played this mission. Needless to say, you probably won't make it to the woods alive.

But you know what actually is disappointing about AC3? You rarely see skirmishes between redcoats and bluecoats outside of story missions, to get fullout battles in freeroram you like have to run into a group of soldiers and upset them, then run into an area where their opposing side is like Valley Forge or a fort and afterwards the winners try to kill you. (Although if you do this in Valley Forge, right in front of Washington, the guy is noticeably very pissing his pants at the sight of Connor) The war atmosphere isn't all that readily apparent outside of missions. We see the aftermath of events, like the Redcoats taking control of NYC and Washington holing up in Valley Forge but not the journeys that got the world to this state. The world actually seems pretty peaceful throughout the game. There aren't any apparent signs of martial law or anything once you clear all the liberation missions out of the way, which don't do that good of a job conveying the war atmosphere and if anything, the liberation missions just feel like nothing but the mediocre and drawn out checklist activities that have become the face of Ubi open world games. Even Valley Forge, where Washington's army froze its tushies off and a couple thousand died I guess, doesn't feel that oppressive. If it's one thing TOKW did well, it's actually convey a war-torn America feeling.

I think rando(m) events could've helped with that

And why are John Handcock and all those other pencil pushers in the game when actual military figures that it would've been more logical for Connor to meet aren't.

Ummm...Pie?

crusader_prophet
11-30-2015, 06:56 PM
But you know what actually is disappointing about AC3? You rarely see skirmishes between redcoats and bluecoats outside of story missions, to get fullout battles in freeroram you like have to run into a group of soldiers and upset them, then run into an area where their opposing side is like Valley Forge or a fort and afterwards the winners try to kill you. (Although if you do this in Valley Forge, right in front of Washington, the guy is noticeably very pissing his pants at the sight of Connor) The war atmosphere isn't all that readily apparent outside of missions. We see the aftermath of events, like the Redcoats taking control of NYC and Washington holing up in Valley Forge but not the journeys that got the world to this state. The world actually seems pretty peaceful throughout the game. There aren't any apparent signs of martial law or anything once you clear all the liberation missions out of the way, which don't do that good of a job conveying the war atmosphere and if anything, the liberation missions just feel like nothing but the mediocre and drawn out checklist activities that have become the face of Ubi open world games. Even Valley Forge, where Washington's army froze its tushies off and a couple thousand died I guess, doesn't feel that oppressive. If it's one thing TOKW did well, it's actually convey a war-torn America feeling.

I could be wrong, but it could be that the war atmosphere (like in Unity) was not captured that well in free roam due to technical limitations (processing power of the last gen consoles). But that is just my random guess. I could be wrong. However, I do get the point that you are pretty mad about AC3.

ze_topazio
11-30-2015, 06:59 PM
Rogue captured a scenario of an ongoing war happening around us better than AC3.

I-Like-Pie45
11-30-2015, 07:00 PM
I could be wrong, but it could be that the war atmosphere (like in Unity) was not captured that well in free roam due to technical limitations (processing power of the last gen consoles). But that is just my random guess. I could be wrong. However, I do get the point that you are pretty mad about AC3.

I'm not actually

Megas_Doux
11-30-2015, 07:49 PM
Rogue captured a scenario of an ongoing war happening around us better than AC3.

Instead of atmosphere of an ongoing Revolution/war The Frontier felt like my grandpa's backyard. The Tyranny did a MUCH better job to a point is not even close.

VestigialLlama4
11-30-2015, 07:57 PM
Rogue captured a scenario of an ongoing war happening around us better than AC3.

Seriously...is this some joke? AC3 captured the war atmosphere perfectly, especially in the Boston sequence leading up to the Tea Party Protest.

The 7 Years War was nowhere in Rogue.

Anyway, we all know the game that did the war atmosphere the worst...Unity. I mean this was the era when France was filled with three simultaneous civil wars, invasions on all sides and we get none of that in the game anywhere. Winning the war was the main reason the Reign of Terror took place after all...


The Tyranny did a MUCH better job to a point is not even close.

The point is the idea people have about war environment is based on 20th Century battlefields. The American Revolutionary War like most pre-French Revolutionary conflicts was not as intense and violent as later wars, or even earlier conflicts like the 30 Years War or the English Civil War. The most violent part of the entire conflict was in the South, which is not where the game is set (mostly because none of the American Revolutionary celebrities were there often enough).

If stuff like you saw in Tyranny DLC (i.e. battlefields and trees filled with hanged men, countryside and villages) was there in the main game, the British public would be up in arms because it would essentially be the same as what Mel Gibson did in The Patriot painting them as proto-nazis (which is obviously an act of projection on his part given later events).

SixKeys
11-30-2015, 08:07 PM
The point is the idea people have about war environment is based on 20th Century battlefields. The American Revolutionary War like most pre-French Revolutionary conflicts was not as intense and violent as later wars, or even earlier conflicts like the 30 Years War or the English Civil War. The most violent part of the entire conflict was in the South, which is not where the game is set (mostly because none of the American Revolutionary celebrities were there often enough).


AC has never been 100% historically accurate. In an action-adventure game the focus should be on enveloping the player in a certain atmosphere. Lots of historical events have in fact been quite boring if considered by our modern standards, but that kind of accuracy doesn't make for good entertainment. We're supposed to feel invested in Connor's concern for his people and the growing tension between all the different groups. For that purpose it's necessary to create an exaggerated sense of urgency and violent conflicts all over the game.

crusader_prophet
11-30-2015, 08:23 PM
Anyway, we all know the game that did the war atmosphere the worst...Unity. I mean this was the era when France was filled with three simultaneous civil wars, invasions on all sides and we get none of that in the game anywhere. Winning the war was the main reason the Reign of Terror took place after all...

I disagree. I think Unity's art and atmosphere was incredible at depicting a war torn country. It may not be the best game, but certainly did a great job of creating a representative open world. It just did not take full advantage of the beautiful environmental assets they had created in the game.

Assassin_M
11-30-2015, 08:26 PM
AC has never been 100% historically accurate. In an action-adventure game the focus should be on enveloping the player in a certain atmosphere. Lots of historical events have in fact been quite boring if considered by our modern standards, but that kind of accuracy doesn't make for good entertainment. We're supposed to feel invested in Connor's concern for his people and the growing tension between all the different groups. For that purpose it's necessary to create an exaggerated sense of urgency and violent conflicts all over the game.
Not saying I liked AC III's presentation of the war atmosphere, but this argumentative logic is mind-boggling and is used to argue for a lot of things like everyone not batting an eye to Ned being a transsexual.

There has to be a line, otherwise, why not include dragons? I mean, we have pieces of eden and tanks, so why not dragons? Or how about laser guns? Or why not have cars in 1868 London? They're more efficient than carriages, obviously and it'd be more fun, so where does it end? Do you see where I'm going with this?

VestigialLlama4
11-30-2015, 08:32 PM
AC has never been 100% historically accurate. In an action-adventure game the focus should be on enveloping the player in a certain atmosphere. Lots of historical events have in fact been quite boring if considered by our modern standards, but that kind of accuracy doesn't make for good entertainment. We're supposed to feel invested in Connor's concern for his people and the growing tension between all the different groups. For that purpose it's necessary to create an exaggerated sense of urgency and violent conflicts all over the game.

I would disagree that accuracy doesn't make for entertainment, but in any case I have never advocated "100% historical accuracy", I am advocating against extreme distortion of the kind we see in Unity which is essentially an insult and a waste of time. AC3 does have some distortion but it doesn't do it to needless levels. Obviously there was concerns about them avoiding the mistakes made by The Patriot which is essentially one-sided nationalistic propaganda so they didn't want to demonize or glorify either side too much.

As far as concern over Connor's people goes, the fact is the problem isn't the Frontier is not active or bloody or violent, the fact is we don't see many Iroquois and other tribes. It's just the one village on the top-middle of the Frontier and that's it.

The war is reflected greatly in the side missions, like the Liberation missions in Boston, the Homestead missions (many of whom were fleeing or harassed by soldiers, one of whom Dave is an army deserter). The frontier has it with the constant soldier patrols (with that scary drum noise) and convoys, the fact that Connor always has an alert in the Frontier (since any side wiill see a guy skulking in the trees and path as a spy/combatant). So it is there but at a general level.

VestigialLlama4
11-30-2015, 08:53 PM
I disagree. I think Unity's art and atmosphere was incredible at depicting a war torn country.

Huh...I have never heard Unity's defenders cite the game's depiction of a "war torn country" seriously. The defense generally has been "It's about the gameplay, stupid" and I liked Arno and Elise.

The problem with Unity's depiction, leaving aside the massive pack of venomous lies that is its historical backdrop, is that the game dials down the violence. The promotion of Unity promised a violent game, we saw lot of guillotines throughout trailers and posters. Unity's A logo even has the guillotine blade in the middle. That Marquis de Buillon Co-Op Mission had the dude's head put on a pike and we saw it from his eyes. In the game, we don't see violence of this kind anywhere (barring one co-op cutscene). Louis XVI's execution for instance doesn't show Louis' head displayed. The Storming of the Tuileries, when Arno meets his future Master Napoleon, is incredibly subdued. Arno walking around this palace like it's a stealth room when it would not have been possible for him to move at all in that tumult. The whole are was in lockdown.

Here's the Storming of Tuilleries in the 1937 French Film, La Marseillaise (directed by Jean Renoir, one of the greats). Go to 3:43, Its unsubtitled French but the battle starts at that point and the dialogue isn't needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSJ3RDNmKp8

Just compare that with Unity's depiction of that battle, and it is to laugh. This is a 1937 movie made on a French budget (i.e. fraction of what Hollywood has) and done in black-and-white and yet it still conveys the violence and nature of the conflict well.


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

The September Massacres is laughably sanitized.

ACZanius
11-30-2015, 08:54 PM
Agreed with SixKeys regarding that really was let down of how i imagined world to be "war like" idk how to explain like i was expecting mini conflicts on frontier or E3 vid where that camp was you can see random small but beautiful detail of injured soldiers or getting animal skins if anyone remembers that, or like deep massive side mission, also at that camp in E3 vid we see like 2 soldiers with back back packs going into the wild i mean just i was so impressed, or that pre-alpha game play where Connor shots soldier with an arrow in the leg and he is struggling to walk where was that? Or the game play reveal where right before he is about to kill Pitcairn he performs hidden blade kill with this epic roll animations that was never in the game, i just man, AC3 lol, Jesus of AC i was so hyped, like unbelievably hyped, i am playing it ATM and i love it still but damn i wish te so called "war atmosphere" would be more there not saying to include made up historical events but like smaller battles or smaller deep side missions, taking out Templars but not main ones, well what we got was random generic NPC "templar agent" lol walking and that's it...Bunker Hill also was kind of false advertised it looked and played sooo much more amazing in game play reveal, you could see like soldiers fighting in between melee, massive shooting, canons, Connor just blazing trough battlefield or E3 Bunker Hill CGI variation, sad that was not actually in the game.


Not complaining but just pointing out because i was so hyped lol but based on facts what they shown, still AC3 is at top of my not only AC games but overall video games list of all time.


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

1.41 Min HOLY **** LOOK AT IT LOOKS SO SICK

Trailer gives me chills everytime!





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cXbigJHjs8

1.41 holy **** where was that in the game? that dodge man looks great, smooth

2.06 damn the epic thing the camp and where everything is so alive, mini stuff, wounder soldiers being carried, damn i love it the quests the whole thing just felt like atmosphere of American Revolution if you feel me

3.24 where Connor approaches, soldiers going in, looked so tactical and great man it's 2012 all over again for me haha

I WANT TO SEE ASSASSIN'S CREED III REMASTER WITH WHAT GAME COULD HAVE BEEN IN IT'S FULL ULTIMATE POTENTIAL

ze_topazio
11-30-2015, 09:03 PM
Seriously...is this some joke? AC3 captured the war atmosphere perfectly, especially in the Boston sequence leading up to the Tea Party Protest.

The 7 Years War was nowhere in Rogue.

Anyway, we all know the game that did the war atmosphere the worst...Unity. I mean this was the era when France was filled with three simultaneous civil wars, invasions on all sides and we get none of that in the game anywhere. Winning the war was the main reason the Reign of Terror took place after all...



The point is the idea people have about war environment is based on 20th Century battlefields. The American Revolutionary War like most pre-French Revolutionary conflicts was not as intense and violent as later wars, or even earlier conflicts like the 30 Years War or the English Civil War. The most violent part of the entire conflict was in the South, which is not where the game is set (mostly because none of the American Revolutionary celebrities were there often enough).

If stuff like you saw in Tyranny DLC (i.e. battlefields and trees filled with hanged men, countryside and villages) was there in the main game, the British public would be up in arms because it would essentially be the same as what Mel Gibson did in The Patriot painting them as proto-nazis (which is obviously an act of projection on his part given later events).

The random battles, both on sea and land, that you can interfere with, the random bodies of soldiers and vestiges of battles that happened in certain locations, it ain't perfect, but it's better than the peaceful Frontier of AC3 where you can only find random patrols and the occasional camp, the size of the Frontier has something to do with it, too large and this camps and patrols are way too spaced out, you can only feel the war in the cities where it's fairly well done, but I was talking about the rural areas.

You wouldn't find so many random painters, bards and art shops in the Renaissance cities like you do in AC2/B, in such small games the objective is to give you an impression, a micro-cosmos of what you're trying to represent, that's why certain things need to be exaggerated to make you feel like you're experiencing the period and event.

VestigialLlama4
11-30-2015, 09:21 PM
1.41 Min HOLY **** LOOK AT IT LOOKS SO SICK

Trailer gives me chills everytime!

That is in the game, it's the Actual Assassination of John Pitcairn...and it looks "sick" because the title helpfully tells us at the start that it's Pre-Alpha footage. So obviously it looks a little better than the final thing (and the final part is pretty gorgeous too).


The random battles, both on sea and land, that you can interfere with, the random bodies of soldiers and vestiges of battles that happened in certain locations, it ain't perfect, but it's better than the peaceful Frontier of AC3 where you can only find random patrols and the occasional camp, the size of the Frontier has something to do with it, too large and this camps and patrols are way too spaced out, you can only feel the war in the cities where it's fairly well done, but I was talking about the rural areas.

Well, I think the approach taken in AC3 fits the game well in terms of reflecting the war atmosphere. It would have been better if we had seen more different elements of that world, like more of the Iroquois Confederacy so that when the Sullivan's Expedition comes we can get a sense of who all it's going to affect.

The problem is also that Connor is openly a supporter of the American Revolution and the Patriots, so he can't really be caught in the middle, obviously later on that position gets challenged and reversed but not in any gameplay or story way. The best way to really show that ground level sense of war is to be in the middle, not supporting either side. The Assassins should ideally do that but we only see that in AC1 during the Crusades where Altair is pretty much on nobody's side, and when you ride through the Kingdom and the other cities, and everyone's against you. After that, Ezio is openly supporting the Medici and Caterina Sforza, Connor is supporting Washington, Ezio is supporting the Ottomans, Arno is supporting the monarchy.

crusader_prophet
11-30-2015, 09:34 PM
I WANT TO SEE ASSASSIN'S CREED III REMASTER WITH WHAT GAME COULD HAVE BEEN IN IT'S FULL ULTIMATE POTENTIAL

I could say that about pretty much every AC game starting Revelations.

ACZanius
11-30-2015, 09:36 PM
That is in the game, it's the Actual Assassination of John Pitcairn...and it looks "sick" because the title helpfully tells us at the start that it's Pre-Alpha footage. So obviously it looks a little better than the final thing (and the final part is pretty gorgeous too).


bro not that lol the 1.41 Hidden Blade kill and roll THAT IS NOT IN THE GAME, looks sick that's what i meant also other points i raised above, all gone

cawatrooper9
11-30-2015, 11:02 PM
I absolutely agree about AC III. Black Flag showed how random encounters in an AC game could be done right. It's too bad we couldn't stumble across random skirmish on the frontier. The cargo heists were horribly underwhelming.

Megas_Doux
11-30-2015, 11:19 PM
Not saying I liked AC III's presentation of the war atmosphere, but this argumentative logic is mind-boggling and is used to argue for a lot of things like everyone not batting an eye to Ned being a transsexual.

There has to be a line, otherwise, why not include dragons? I mean, we have pieces of eden and tanks, so why not dragons? Or how about laser guns? Or why not have cars in 1868 London? They're more efficient than carriages, obviously and it'd be more fun, so where does it end? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Well yes, AC is no steampunk thing like the order 1886, or super fantasy exaggeration in the likes of Dante's Inferno and God of War. However you have to concede that 5 years before, with worse technology and way less experience the developers were able to deliver the Kingdom. A place that despite its bare to none outside activities, was more convincing at its task of representing a war than 2012 ACIII's Frontier. Which leads me to......




Well, I think the approach taken in AC3 fits the game well in terms of reflecting the war atmosphere.



That's the point, the 'war atmosphere' felt empty as a desert, even to AC's levels.....The kingdom and the Caribbean as a whole beat the Frontier in that regard, with ease. I mean, in AC I you could encounter anything from decent groups of patrolling soldiers, to big military camps to the likes of the Crusader one near Acre. In ACIV, you have the random units of British vs Spanish soldiers fighting for the control of little islands to open battles at sea. But in ACIII????? Aside from Valley Forge and 'huge' random encounters between massive groups of 2 or 3 -LOL- The Frontier looked pretty much like a super peacefully place. Another thing is that Connor's Village is the ONLY place in which you could see Indigenous peoples in the WHOLE map aside from lone walking dudes here and there.....

I do get that AC is a game BASED on historical stuff, but sometimes liberties need to be taken for gameplay purposes, such as with the Mayan Ruins in ACIV. In reality, there's no such thing as 'mayan islands' in places like Misteriosa, Pinos or Santanilla and Tulum is nowhere as big as we see it in the game. But I don't complain for those locations added variety to the game. In fact, I wish there were more Tomb Raideresque platforming levels and TWCB related stuff on those Mayan Ruins.

PD Why in the world STONEHENGE was nowhere to be found in AC syndicate????? Such a missed opportunity.....

Assassin_M
11-30-2015, 11:22 PM
Well yes, AC is no steampunk thing like the order 1886, or super fantasy exaggeration in the likes of Dante's Inferno and God of War.
Says who? By Sixkey's logic, anything that's fun can be excused by saying "Hey, it's AC, it has POEs, jumping into haystacks...etc".


However you have to concede that 5 years before, with worse technology and way less experience the developers were able to deliver the Kingdom. A place that despite its bare to none outside activities, was more convincing at its task of representing a war than 2012 ACIII's Frontier. Which leads me to

I'll conceded when you explain how Kingdom showed a better war atmosphere:p

Megas_Doux
11-30-2015, 11:37 PM
I'll conceded when you explain how Kingdom showed a better war atmosphere:p

You can find corpses of Crusaders and Saracens due to what seems to be battlefields throughout the kingdom and there are several groups of patrolling units from both sides of the conflict in many places and as I said above, even military camps like the one near Acre.

In ACIII aside from Valle Forge, The Frontier does not give you the idea of a war going on. That's why ,with liberties, The Tyranny did a much better job at that task.

Assassin_M
11-30-2015, 11:41 PM
You can find corpses of Crusaders and Saracens due to what seems to be battlefields throughout the kingdom
My memory might be hazy, but I do not remember seeing this at all.


and there are several groups of patrolling units from both sides of the conflict in many places and as I said above, even military camps like the one near Acre.
Well, AC III had those too. Valley Forge is one. Each and every Fort in the frontier is more army camps than in all of Kingdoms', I think.

cawatrooper9
11-30-2015, 11:46 PM
ach and every Fort in the frontier is more army camps than in all of Kingdoms', I think.

The forts were cool. The forts were REALLY cool. But almost nothing about them would necessarily be exclusive to wartime (other than, perhaps the size of the garrisons). They were pretty chill places, until Connor comes along.

Assassin_M
11-30-2015, 11:47 PM
The forts were cool. The forts were REALLY cool. But almost nothing about them would necessarily be exclusive to wartime (other than, perhaps the size of the garrisons). They were pretty chill places, until Connor comes along.
Well, like I said, I'm not arguing that AC III had great wartime atmosphere. I agree with all of you that it was a missed opportunity. I'm just offering equivalences to the Kingdoms' army camps.

Namikaze_17
11-30-2015, 11:50 PM
Hmm, kinda torn on this conversation going on...

Both sides have good points, and while I think the overall war was represented fairly well, the 'war atmosphere' as everyone calls it, could've been better in some regards. If anything, the pre-alpha footage seemed like it got it more right than the final game, regardless if it seems a bit exaggerated or whatever.

cawatrooper9
11-30-2015, 11:52 PM
Well, like I said, I'm not arguing that AC III had great wartime atmosphere. I agree with all of you that it was a missed opportunity. I'm just offering equivalences to the Kingdoms' army camps.

Fair enough.

Sidebar- Could Saracens fight Crusaders in the Kingdom? Like, would these two groups ever meet in the game, and would they engage in combat?

Assassin_M
11-30-2015, 11:54 PM
Sidebar- Could Saracens fight Crusaders in the Kingdom? Like, would these two groups ever meet in the game, and would they engage in combat?
Good point. I never actually tried that. Both sides were placed so far away from each other that I never thought about dragging some Saracens or Crusaders to each other and see what happens. I also don't have a PS3 anymore, so I can't try it. Dangit, now I wont sleep tonight.

Megas_Doux
11-30-2015, 11:57 PM
My memory might be hazy, but I do not remember seeing this at all.



There are some ruins that HEAVILY resemble Palmyra https://mosereien.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/palmyra3.jpeg Near there you can find corpses of Crusaders that were presumably killl by Saracens archers. There's one also one place near Damascus, again swords thrusted in the ground and shields here and there, along with corpses.



Well, AC III had those too. Valley Forge is one. Each and every Fort in the frontier is more army camps than in all of Kingdoms', I think.

Valley Forge is the only one, but I missed more British camps or patrolling units such as the one you have near Acre, which is big. Or the Saracen´s close to Damascus and Jerusalem.



Fair enough.

Sidebar- Could Saracens fight Crusaders in the Kingdom? Like, would these two groups ever meet in the game, and would they engage in combat?


I've tried but it is not possible, the closest place in which both actually almost gather are those ruins above. The thing is that once you engage fighting one side, the other will leave :(

Assassin_M
12-01-2015, 12:01 AM
There are some ruins that HEAVILY resemble Palmyra https://mosereien.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/palmyra3.jpeg. Near there you can find corpses of Crusaders that were presumably killl by Saracens archers. There's one also one place near Damascus, again swords thrusted in the ground and shields here and there.

Oh yes, you're right, I remember that. I still don't think that's enough at all, it's comparable to AC III's portrayal, if anything. So we'll just have to agree to disagree there.


Valley Forge is the only one, but I missed more British camps or patrolling units such as the one you have near Acre, which is big. Or the Saracen´s close to Damascus and Jerusalem.

But didn't we have a few British camps dotted around with chests to picklock? We also had the convoys that appeared randomly and, as mentioned, there're the forts and I'd say they're equivalent to the camps.


I've tried but it is not possible, the closest place in which both actually almost gather are those ruins above. The thing is that once you engage fighting one side, the other will leave :(
Oh thank you, now I can sleep tonight.

I-Like-Pie45
12-01-2015, 12:18 AM
that picture of Palmyra reminds me

now that it's blown up assassin's creed and pictures will all that will ever be left to remind us that it existed

its a very depressing thought that more and more each day the world's cultural heritage is lost

VestigialLlama4
12-01-2015, 06:08 AM
Hmm, kinda torn on this conversation going on...

Both sides have good points, and while I think the overall war was represented fairly well, the 'war atmosphere' as everyone calls it, could've been better in some regards. If anything, the pre-alpha footage seemed like it got it more right than the final game, regardless if it seems a bit exaggerated or whatever.

Well what is called "war atmosphere" is really not "war atmosphere" so much as a hankering after cliches. AC3 had other blind spots, like its timidity about the Iroquois but in terms of the actual war and tensions between the Patriots and the English, it got into that very well. You understood how the war developed, you kind of got the sense that there's more to this war then simply 'Murica against Limeys and all the other hypocrisies. The fact is that the American Revolution was a fairly civilized war, at least in the Northern theatre which is where the game is set. Washington's strategy was basically one of attrition, to keep his soldiers alive for the next battle, keep them alive through the winter in Valley Forge, which is why he was able to last so long despite losing nearly every battle in which he took command.

The idea of "civilized war" is alien to 21st Century conception but the 1700s is not the 20th Century, and you can't project post-Vietnam angst onto the American Revolution (see The Patriot where Mel Gibson' "hero" initially tries to argue against the war citing anachronistic pacifist arguments). To show every battle and conflict with the same cliche'd scenery and decoration is to basically make every battle the same. This is not only ahistorical, but it's also lazy and uncreative. Contrary to Fallout advertisements, war does and has changed. What people really want is a greater sense of factionalism. That is you have different groups in different places, territory changing hands in the background and all that. Which would be interesting but then for that to happen you need to see more factions than simply Patriot and Loyalists, and among the white Americans at that time those were the main factions.

What I liked in the Frontier, especially the areas of the Hunting Clubs and the Frontiersman stories and the smaller towns is the sense that you have instances where Native groups co-operate and live alongside frontiersman, especially the hunting clubs. It's true that historically you did have trade between those groups. You also saw this in the Homestead which is basically an idealized community of how America should have been, that ultimately people could have gotten along and lived together. So this actually shows the dark side of nationalism, that although it's a strong noble idea it can create a smaller and less inclusive world than before. The fact that the English get replaced by the Americans towards the end reflects that, and that Connor still has that one alert dot there. So by showing the Frontier as "peaceful" or not really as intense as people would like, what it does is that it gives a greater sense of loss.

Namikaze_17
12-01-2015, 07:22 AM
Well what is called "war atmosphere" is really not "war atmosphere" so much as a hankering after cliches.

Maybe clichés work sometimes; while AC3 did well in showing off the tensions in the narrative, the feel is completely different from a gameplay perspective. We're supposed to believe that this war - though civil - is about men who want their independence against those who wanted the nation secure with Connor in the middle of it. A small fish in a big pond he doesn't belong in. Yet, we don't really get that. We kinda do, but not to its fullest extent in a relatively "peaceful" environment. So maybe the 20th century/movie depiction could've worked in the sense of demonstrating not only the Patriot struggle, but Connor's struggle to be that much more dire & impactful.


AC3 had other blind spots, like its timidity about the Iroquois

Yeah... they kinda just dropped the ball there. In some ways I see it like a cake: Johnson words were a great set-up, Kani's death was icing on the cake, but it just missed something in-between to piece it together.




So by showing the Frontier as "peaceful" or not really as intense as people would like, what it does is that it gives a greater sense of loss


Dang, now my mind is even more torn on this. :rolleyes:

ACZanius
12-01-2015, 08:37 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZrklEy9ohQ

1.41 min, that was gone from the main released game, that smooth dodge in animal combat

2.06 min where was that? Look at that, the detail, 2 soldiers going into frontier with backpacks looked great holding other gear, it felt so immersive, going forward where guy seamlessly asks Connor for help, the whole camp is alive, wounded soldier being carried by a guy,these quests in the camp, that was not in the game, none of IT, the atmosphere they showed there was gone

3.23 min When Connor is approaching the fort look at that how many soldiers are slowly going in, looks and plays so well, observe the detail


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdxs8sWK5Cw

1.41 min THAT HIDDEN BLADE KILL, and the ROLL, it was gone, why was that not in looks and plays great

Currently playing AC3 and i would love more things happening in already amazing, crafted frontier, probably my favorite world location of AC3

SpiritOfNevaeh
12-02-2015, 02:58 AM
AC1
AC2
AC3
I dont count Liberation because 1. its a copy of Connor's moves 2. Handheld games are not my thing :rolleyes:
AC4
AC Rogue

LoyalACFan
12-02-2015, 06:39 AM
I think AC1 was the only one where the game actually let you do literally everything in the trailer (barring the crossbow but throwing knives do the same thing). AC2 was fairly close, as was ACB, but then ACR made the combat look like the freaking Matrix, and AC3 was essentially a complete fabrication, and that's been the pattern ever since then.

I-Like-Pie45
12-02-2015, 06:55 AM
I don't think it's so disappointing that some small animations and minor mechanics from the AC3 E3 gameplay are missing... all games remove stuff after E3. For example TLoU's E3 had stuff that was removed from the final game such as snap cover, individual counting when picking up ammo, etc. And then there's Bioshock Infinite's two E3 demos vs the final game...

SixKeys
12-02-2015, 04:17 PM
Not saying I liked AC III's presentation of the war atmosphere, but this argumentative logic is mind-boggling and is used to argue for a lot of things like everyone not batting an eye to Ned being a transsexual.

There has to be a line, otherwise, why not include dragons? I mean, we have pieces of eden and tanks, so why not dragons? Or how about laser guns? Or why not have cars in 1868 London? They're more efficient than carriages, obviously and it'd be more fun, so where does it end? Do you see where I'm going with this?

I didn't see this reply until now and wanted to address it.

There's a difference between slightly exaggerating events that actually did happen vs. putting in dragons. In AC3, we need to feel like there's an actual war going on, with skirmishes here and there, fallout from battlefields (corpses etc.) and genuine conflicts between the natives and settlers. In RL the war took a long time and it would be boring to portray exactly how it happened. The same way we don't see the assassins stopping to catch their breath when parkouring or to use the bathroom. We know those things must have happened, but it doesn't make for fun, immersive gameplay. Reality is often boring.

ToKW portrayed this kind of urgency and desperation better, IMO. There were dead bodies all over the place, natives being carted off to be sold as slaves, people starving, tattered tent rags and other leftover junk from where an army was once stationed, etc. It may have all been a dream and it may have been slightly exaggerated compared to how things happened in RL, but it created a nightmarish atmosphere for our hero and we knew we had to fix things. If there's no sense of urgency because everyone seems to be doing fine, why would they need us? (This was the problem with ACR. Constantinople was flourishing, the economy was booming, people were fairly happy. It felt weird for Ezio to come marching from Italy being all "I WILL SAVE YOU, GOOD PEOPLE OF ISTANBUL" when really it seemed like his presence wasn't necessary.)

Civona
12-02-2015, 06:19 PM
AC1 set up a fantasy that it didn't quite live up to but AC2 did much better at representing its actual gameplay while also telling a story and hinting at the character and personality of Ezio.

something subtle is how it shows Ezio almost using the hidden blade to kill his target, but as he's taunted he decides to switch to his gun for a more fitting end. this mirrors how the gameplay of AC is often about what you feel like doing based on the context of the moment, unlike most games where there is a very specific solution for everything. in some ways that's a flaw of the game and is why it's often not very challenging, but the strength of it is that it allows players to be very expressive.

TO_M
12-02-2015, 09:17 PM
Fair enough.

Sidebar- Could Saracens fight Crusaders in the Kingdom? Like, would these two groups ever meet in the game, and would they engage in combat?

It takes some doing, but you can get them to fight each other.


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

cawatrooper9
12-02-2015, 09:41 PM
It takes some doing, but you can get them to fight each other.


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

Ah, very cool!

SixKeys
12-03-2015, 11:44 AM
something subtle is how it shows Ezio almost using the hidden blade to kill his target, but as he's taunted he decides to switch to his gun for a more fitting end. this mirrors how the gameplay of AC is often about what you feel like doing based on the context of the moment, unlike most games where there is a very specific solution for everything. in some ways that's a flaw of the game and is why it's often not very challenging, but the strength of it is that it allows players to be very expressive.

It can be read that way, too. I always saw it as an indication of Ezio's character and his story (being more vengeful about personal insults), as well as "shocking" the audience by using a weapon that wasn't supposed to exist at the time nor was used in the first game. Both of these are explained in-game through Leonardo.

SunderedStar
12-12-2015, 07:54 AM
I feel that the wild uh...wild animalness of Connor was not adequately captured. This has more to do with the lead up in general as opposed to the E3 trailer specifically. They could've made stalking missions, where you use your superior knowledge of the outdoors and skills to track down bad guys and kill them. Instead we only use that to find animals which are mostly worthless in this iteration.

SixKeys
12-12-2015, 06:06 PM
I feel that the wild uh...wild animalness of Connor was not adequately captured. This has more to do with the lead up in general as opposed to the E3 trailer specifically. They could've made stalking missions, where you use your superior knowledge of the outdoors and skills to track down bad guys and kill them. Instead we only use that to find animals which are mostly worthless in this iteration.

I agree about the tracking missions. I'm glad they didn't emphasize Connor being like a wild animal though, as it's quite problematic to compare native Americans to wild animals. They did that in ToKW and it made me uncomfortable.