PDA

View Full Version : I just cant get into Syndicate...



LionHeart XXII
12-18-2015, 07:13 PM
first off, let me start off by saying I'm a long time AC fan. I've played them all from the beginning and for the most part have enjoyed them all. I even enjoyed Unity even it was a bit buggy. However for the life of me I can not get into AC: Syndicate. I dont know if its the setting or what but I've tried playing it several times since it's release, I even preordered it. When it was announced I remember feeling a little underwhelmed by the setting but as we got closer to its release my hype for it grew. I played it for about a week straight, but havent been able to return to it for any substantial amount of time. What's up?

cawatrooper9
12-18-2015, 07:47 PM
I mean, maybe this just isn't the game for you.

Regardless, we have pretty little information to go on here. How far into the game are you? What have you done so far? Specifically, what have you thought about those things?

I've found that the community here is usually pretty open with talking about why a game might be good or bad for someone (especially compared with other forums I'm a part of, hardly any typical "fanboys" here at all), so I wouldn't worry too much about making more specific criticisms- that's how discussion is done! ;)

ImaginaryRuins
12-19-2015, 04:42 AM
my personnal downfall on syndicate is the way Jacob acts like a clown ... well i mean i did not like his personnality. not enough serious for an assassin , for the creed. if you understand what i mean.....

I know what you mean. At first he started out like an over-energetic kid. I later on liked him more when he displayed some character growth, like fixing the mistake of wrongly helping Pearl, and most importantly immediatley severing ties with Roth after seeing him willing to sacrifice innocent children. After that mission he was in a really bad mood in the train hideout, and in my opinion, that's because he finally saw how recklessness and completely freedom of Roth could turn into chaos. That was his turning point, and he finally changed to be a more respectable assassin.

Sesheenku
12-19-2015, 02:41 PM
It's weaker in game play, characters, and story compared to Unity so that's not surprising. The story is also kinda subdued, it's not epic like previous games. In Unity you got those huge crowds and great atmosphere, really feels a lot like the first two AC's.in those moments. Syndicate doesn't really set up anything.

It's all kinda like eh... let's go kill Templars in London cause that's just what we do.

MikeFNY
12-19-2015, 03:14 PM
It's all kinda like eh... let's go kill Templars in London cause that's just what we do.

This is ultimately the conclusion many long-time fans of the series reached.

If you play the game thinking that it has a solid story and interesting characters it will disappoint you, which is probably why Sylynce didn't appreciate the game, although I stand corrected.

If, however, you play the game thinking that it will be fun, then you will love it because that's just what the game is: fun.

The "oh let's clean London" story, as Sesheenku correctly said, is too weak to be considered an unforgettable chapter of the series.

Also remember, the game is getting old. Air assassination, assassinate from a haystack, ledge assassination, these all features of the game that have been part of the series for years. You know what they say, even the most delicious dish, if eaten daily, at one stage it will bore you.

And if the new ingredients are a rope launcher blatantly copied from another game and an invisibility skill, well, you know why many believe the series should have ended ages ago.

Megas_Doux
12-19-2015, 03:19 PM
Also remember, the game is getting old. Air assassination, assassinate from a haystack, ledge assassination, these all features of the game that have been part of the series for years. You know what they say, even the most delicious dish, if eaten daily, at one stage it will bore you.



I agree!!!!

If these games were released every three years, we won't even notice that, like in GTA.......

whatr_those
12-19-2015, 04:43 PM
Well, you have to realize that Syndicate is one of the most structurally poor games in the series, reminiscent of the first game, where the mission design lends itself towards repetitiveness and stagnancy.

The only facet saving the game from complete failure, like with the first game, is its beautiful, well-design world. Besides that, it's pretty boring and lackluster, both in gameplay and story.

Adryn Bliss
12-20-2015, 03:56 AM
I don't know if it's ever been brought up but the entire storyline is started by them abandoning the brotherhood and taking their own targets, and this is never addressed, whatsoever. As much as i like the game this bugs the crap out of me it just seems so damn lazy, story wise, in that it's previously set up that this behaviour and choice is a massive no no, it's like the worse crime you can commit as part of the brotherhood and now it's completely meaningless.
It's that kind of thing that can throw a dampner on the game as it goes forward, no matter how great the rest of it, it kinda becomes tainted by a meaningless start.

VernalBreak
12-20-2015, 06:43 AM
Syndicate was not my favorite game because less happened in story in the start and the leveling and skill systems were weird. The game would be truly lost if it wasn't for Jacob adding emotion and that want to liberate London to the game. I liked evie but never really cared about what she was doing where I was relatively engaged in what Jacob did.

Sesheenku
12-20-2015, 04:44 PM
I agree!!!!

If these games were released every three years, we won't even notice that, like in GTA.......

This is nonsense. Games like Pokemon continue to do the exact same thing for years. What's new? A new setting and new Pokemon.

The only reason people continue to buy this is because AC has a formula that works and is enjoyable. This doesn't give them the excuse to stagnate ofc. Changes to the formula are fine but they need to be well thought out and not just made willy nilly. I'd rather they focus on refining the new parkour and combat, those are still shaky.

If they do that and gives us a new setting, new story, etc it'll be fine.

Now's the time imo to switch to a less European setting or an older time period. It may have been done before but because it hasn't been done in a while it'll feel fresh again.

Let's go back and get a protagonist that is more in tune with the creed like Altair but his own person of course.

Hell, they could just take a break on thinking up totally new stuff and remake AC1 or 2. I highly doubt anyone wouldn't want to play it, especially if it addresses the flaws without changing what was good.

Megas_Doux
12-20-2015, 08:01 PM
This is nonsense. Games like Pokemon continue to do the exact same thing for years. What's new? A new setting and new Pokemon.

The only reason people continue to buy this is because AC has a formula that works and is enjoyable. This doesn't give them the excuse to stagnate ofc. Changes to the formula are fine but they need to be well thought out and not just made willy nilly. I'd rather they focus on refining the new parkour and combat, those are still shaky.
.

I'm fine with Parkour, in fact I like it more than ever before. In regards of the combat, well I do think the fan base is equally to blame; the combat in Unity was not the joke in terms of difficulty as it is in the rest of the franchise. You know, facing 3 guards could get you killed and I thought that could be leading to some good things and yet it was one of the most disliked features in that game because and I can quote many people saying "It's hard, the guards dare to kill me, I want it to be like in the Ezio games, blah blah blah".

What I said about GTA, well I have played EVERY game of that franchise on the day of release since GTA: San Andreas and then replay them when available before the launch of the next tittle . I can tell you that the mechanics/ideas have been almost the same ever since 2005. Don't get me wrong, as the tech got better so did their possibilities of adding features for the main missions, side missions and even easter eggs, but at its core the game feel almost the same since San Andreas.

The differences????

1) What they do with that "samey" technology feels almost flawless. Whereas in AC you ALWAYS have that feeling of "this could've been done better" all the time,
2 The Story/Narrative are MILES above that of any AC to date, as simple as that. Whereas I'm not such as a story guy, having a great story and a solid narrative truly motivates the player to continue playing. And one has to admit that, in terms of story narrative, Rockstar in general is in a league of its own.

Annualization not only brings fatigue to the fan base just because, it's also making writers simply run out of stories. The MAIN reason many successful single games/franchises in hollywood and video games in general don't continue with sequels/prequels despite critical acclaim and profit is the inability to come up with a good story. I do feel it for writers trying up to come up with something original after 9r5095432095'3495'349' games. That is, amongst all the problems in the franchise, probably the biggest.

What's with Syndicate and me??? I LOVE London, the most if not the most alive location I've played in a open world game with the Thames/Southwark area being a highlight. It's full details that seem to be neverending and traverse it using the rope launcher/train/carriages greatly pleases me. The problem???? The rather meh/ok story that just feels like filler.

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying those aspect you pointing out are perfect -still I have bare to none complaints about parkour- but I'm sure annualization makes everything look worse; the already bad things and even the positive ones. I mean, if GTA games were released annually, people will go like "oh you have steal a car, kill a dude and run away again.....Boring!!!!!!!!".

VestigialLlama4
12-20-2015, 09:31 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying those aspect you pointing out are perfect -still I have bare to none complaints about parkour- but I'm sure annualization makes everything look worse; the already bad things and even the positive ones. I mean, if GTA games were released annually, people will go like "oh you have steal a car, kill a dude and run away again.....Boring!!!!!!!!".

People actually do say that. When GTA 4 came out, it wasn't a game that was liked by people, because it kind of felt like a comedown from San Andreas. Fumito Ueda, the developer of Shadow of the Colossus and Ico, slammed that game for being a repeat of GTA4. In fact, aside from Red Dead Redemption, none of Rockstar's games were really liked in the most recent generation. They were successful but nobody really respected say, Max Payne 3 or for that matter, LA Noire. Red Dead Redemption and GTA 5 were the games people really liked.

More than annualization, I think the real reason is how Rockstar positions itself. GTA 4 was made for people who wouldn't have played GTA 3 and San Andreas, that was its main audience. Then GTA 5, it came at the end of the console cycle and the start of the new, it had a radically new Multiplayer, so it was made for a different audience. Then it had PC, PS4 and XBONE releases. With AC, the audience it targets are mainly the ones who have been there since AC1...since 2007, and now with Unity and Syndicate, Ubisoft is stuck because it can't get new audiences.

As for annualization being a problem, well without annualization, we would never have had Black Flag, to say nothing of Revelations or Brotherhood.

Megas_Doux
12-20-2015, 11:28 PM
People actually do say that. When GTA 4 came out, it wasn't a game that was liked by people, because it kind of felt like a comedown from San Andreas. Fumito Ueda, the developer of Shadow of the Colossus and Ico, slammed that game for being a repeat of GTA4. In fact, aside from Red Dead Redemption, none of Rockstar's games were really liked in the most recent generation. They were successful but nobody really respected say, Max Payne 3 or for that matter, LA Noire. Red Dead Redemption and GTA 5 were the games people really liked.




There's people that say that, of course, but GTA and Rockstar don't get not even the 5% of AC and Ubi backlash. Not that the latter don't deserve it, though. GTA IV may not have been the uber hit RDR and GTA V were, but it was certainly way better received/popular than any AC with the exception of AC II. However I won't deny its problems, mostly on PC.





As for annualization being a problem, well without annualization, we would never have had Black Flag, to say nothing of Revelations or Brotherhood.

AC IV might be my favorite AC, but I have come to the conclusion that it is so for the wrong reasons. And as for Revelation and Brotherhood goes, whereas I do like the former despite its shortness. I believe that Ezio having 3 main games and even one short animated film hurt the franchise in the long term.

If I had a time machine and I was put in charge of UBI -lol- Brotherhood would have been a episodic DLC instead of a full game and ACR won't even exist. I have yet to decide which between AC III and AC IV would not exist as well.....

Having second thoughts, I would have included the modern day arc of the end world in AC IV purely because the 'mayan connection' AC IV has with it. And between Unity and Syndicate, one one would remain, but the thing is that even though The French Revolution was my ultimate AC setting, I really love Syndicate's London....

Cannot decide yet.

Farlander1991
12-20-2015, 11:39 PM
If I had a time machine and I was put in charge of UBI -lol- Brotherhood would have been a episodic DLC instead of a full game and ACR won't even exist.

It started out as an episodic DLC, btw :) Assassin's Creed II: Episodes

Megas_Doux
12-20-2015, 11:45 PM
It started out as an episodic DLC, btw :) Assassin's Creed II: Episodes

I remember that! ACR was a nintendo DS game called Lost Legacy....

Farlander1991
12-20-2015, 11:53 PM
I remember that! ACR was a nintendo DS game called Lost Legacy....

Yeah, though it wasn't really a direct transformation. Lost Legacy was cancelled after E3 because of all the 3DS projects they saw there and didn't feel like they could compete, and then later it was decided to make a new console AC (when there was none planned for 2011), with Lost Legacy setting and some plot elements as a starting point, but the story for LL was different (and no Altair sections too).

SixKeys
12-21-2015, 03:44 AM
With AC, the audience it targets are mainly the ones who have been there since AC1...since 2007, and now with Unity and Syndicate, Ubisoft is stuck because it can't get new audiences.

Can't say I agree. I don't think AC is targeting its original audience anymore, at least not primarily. The first two games have a different feel from the ones that followed. They took more risks, they were politically charged and they seemed to have a goal they were working towards, a natural progression. Then ACB came along and the overarching narrative started to falter because they hadn't planned on stretching it.
Now it feels like AC is stuck in limbo: it simultaneously tries to keep all the old fans on board and expand its market as wide as possible. Very few games have ever managed that. It refuses to let go of its superbly complicated metanarrative and lore that's been in the games since the very beginning. Unity was marketed as being a sort of reboot of the franchise, an easy way for newbies to step in without needing extensive foreknowledge of the lore. But it completely failed in that. We ended up with a game that was equally confusing to old timers as to new fans.

Old fans: "The Father of Understanding is an actual person now? What? Where's Juno? And why is the MD so pointless?"
New fans: "What's this Father of Understanding they keep mentioning? Am I supposed to understand what they're talking about? Who are these Templars anyway and why should I hate them?"

They need to pick their audience and stop trying to please everybody. If they want the series to be newbie-friendly, they're going to have to let go of the metanarrative at some point and keep the stories simple. If they want to primarily focus on the existing, loyal fanbase, they need to accept that the series has a rich, complex lore filled with all kinds of heavy baggage and keep expanding it without trying to explain it anew in every game. (Metal Gear is brutally unapologetic about this.) Syndicate was pretty good about this, I felt. They don't explain what PoEs are beyond "powerful artifacts", they don't explain Juno, they don't get into the whole Desmond saga aside from a few mentions etc. It felt like a game that knew who it was catering for and what the fans wanted, while also having enough jokes and entertaining action to entertain those who don't care about MD and TWCB.



As for annualization being a problem, well without annualization, we would never have had Black Flag, to say nothing of Revelations or Brotherhood.

I wouldn't say we would "never" have gotten those games without annualization. In fact, they would have had more time to polish those games to perfection, test what works and what doesn't etc. ACB is the only one that benefited from the annualization IMO, and that's because it could recycle a ton of assets and the barebones plot for the story had already been concocted during AC2's development. Modern day took big leaps forward, and since the game was basically an expansion of its predecessor, they didn't try to reinvent the wheel but focused on polishing what was already there. The game had very few bugs when it came out. ACR struggled a lot more because it had to create a new city entirely different from the Italian ones and had to justify its existence, since it kind of appeared out of nowhere and people were already looking forward to AC3. Modern day was literally in a coma the entire time and the game had a noticeable lack of side content due to lack of time. (Multiplayer was also way buggier than ACB's.) By the time AC4 rolled around, the company had established a more reasonable, long-term plan for the annualization. AC4 benefited from some asset-recycling whilst also creating a new world from scratch that felt nothing like AC3's. It felt like the devs had learned some valuable lessons and combined the strengths of ACB and ACR. Rogue felt much more like ACR because it was developed with the same mindset as ACR had been: came outta nowhere, very short development cycle, short story, all side content was recycled from AC4 and modern day took place literally in the same office. Without the pressure of annualization, we could have gotten a pretty decent Templar game that wasn't just a weak carbon copy of its predecessor. Richard Farrese admitted that a lot of the story problems were due to lack of time.

VestigialLlama4
12-21-2015, 07:09 AM
They need to pick their audience and stop trying to please everybody.

Ideally they should please themselves and make a game they are interested in but I guess those days are over.


I wouldn't say we would "never" have gotten those games without annualization.

Can you honestly picture Ubisoft dedicating 4 or 5 years to do a game set in Istanbul and Ottoman Turkey? Revelations came about because they needed a game...they said "Brotherhood was cool, it had Rome a new city, say, you know Istanbul is a pretty cool city and it existed during this time." And that led to Revelations. No developer would put a great deal of investment in making a AAA Byzantine or Ottoman big-budget game. But it was possible with annualization as a small-window game where you had an established and popular character like Ezio.

Likewise, Black Flag being made over a long development cycle is hard to imagine. The games with long development times, meant basically be the "Epic Game" essentially are AC3 and Unity, big-subject epic stories. Much like AC1 and AC2 was. Same with Rogue, I don't think a big AAA Templar game would ever be made by Ubisoft. But an annualized title worked for their purposes, the point of Rogue was that it was a game that had to be satisfying and made quick.


There's people that say that, of course, but GTA and Rockstar don't get not even the 5% of AC and Ubi backlash.

GTA will always be more loved than AC purely because that setting and style has a broader mass appeal than Assassin's Creed does. In GTA you are playing an American psychopath who runs around killing everyone else. Whereas AC punishes you for randomly killing people around you (which is one of the backlash complaints) and it teaches people geography and other lands and places. I am not saying that GTA is a dumb game, it has interesting moments and it's all ironic in a sub-Simpsons kind of way, but the appeal of the games does target that crowd of gaming neanderthal meatheads. GTA also has a common house style (parody of popular criminal genres/movies/TV shows, Fake-New York and Fake-Los Angeles) and setting (always America in the 20th-21st Century). Whereas AC changes settings and locations and genres.

So AC versus GTA in terms of popularity is always going to be a losing battle. Purely for the fact that it doesn't mainly revolve around America, and more specifically white America, makes it unique among gaming franchises, there's nothing else quite like it.


AC IV might be my favorite AC, but I have come to the conclusion that it is so for the wrong reasons. And as for Revelation and Brotherhood goes, whereas I do like the former despite its shortness. I believe that Ezio having 3 main games and even one short animated film hurt the franchise in the long term.

Objectively speaking (in terms of sales and overall reception), AC3 and Unity were the games that hurt the franchise in the long run. Both of them were intended to be the Big Games, the ones that introduce new assets, engine and gameplay but neither were as respected or liked as the annualized titles that came before and after them. As a certain character in SYNDICATE would put it, the first time is tragedy (AC3) the second time is farce (Unity). AC3 was a game made with hubris...after AC2, everyone thought that AC could do any period and historical setting, that they could tackle big ideas and concepts. So they went ahead and it was a super successful game but not very well liked. Then they decide that with Unity they would make it streamlined and that failed too.

Between both of them, AC3 is the preferable kind of setback. They made a ton of assets since it was a big game, and they could repurpose assets from that for other games. But Unity, because it was smaller scale and over-streamlined, it left them with no ground to stand on when that collapsed.


If I had a time machine and I was put in charge of UBI -lol- Brotherhood would have been a episodic DLC instead of a full game and ACR won't even exist. I have yet to decide which between AC III and AC IV would not exist as well.....

Well Patrice Desilets did plan AC3 being set in America. The main thing of course is that without annualization every game would be different. AC3 after AC2 without Brotherhood and Revelations wouldn't have the Brotherhood mechanic, nor would it have the crafting system, the economy would also be more basic. It would lack the elements that came in with the annualized titles. UNITY with AC3 but without Black Flag, would not have the Stealth Room System devised in Brotherhood which it copies wholesale. But with more time and more planning, it is likely Unity would be the game that it initially planned on being, Paris-Through-The-Ages, so who knows?

SixKeys
12-22-2015, 05:01 AM
Ideally they should please themselves and make a game they are interested in but I guess those days are over.

That was called AC1 and not many people apart from the creators seemed to enjoy it. :rolleyes:

Joking aside, I think AC4 was a labour of love and it shows. But I think its creators were more excited about creating a pirate game than they were about meshing it with AC. They pulled it off in the end, but the pirate-y stuff seems so far removed from everything else from the series that it feels like that was their #1 priority.


Can you honestly picture Ubisoft dedicating 4 or 5 years to do a game set in Istanbul and Ottoman Turkey? Revelations came about because they needed a game...they said "Brotherhood was cool, it had Rome a new city, say, you know Istanbul is a pretty cool city and it existed during this time." And that led to Revelations. No developer would put a great deal of investment in making a AAA Byzantine or Ottoman big-budget game. But it was possible with annualization as a small-window game where you had an established and popular character like Ezio.

Who says Revelations absolutely had to take place in Constantinople? It could have been any other city, there was no story-related reason why Ezio would go to Constantinople of all places. The location was just convenient because they already had that idea in mind for the DS title. Or even if they decided to go with Constantinople, the game wouldn't necessarily need to be confined there. With a proper development cycle, the game could have starred both Alta´r and Ezio in different cities and different timelines, an idea that was tossed around for a while but would have required two distinctly different versions of Constantinople and they didn't have the time for that. Imagine if instead of a couple of short missions in Masyaf we could have followed Alta´r during his exile. Didn't he kill Genghis Khan, or was that his son? Anyway, the book that accompanied the game mentioned several interesting locations and stuff that would have been great to see in a game. (Like Malik dying in prison or Abbas' backstory.) We could have followed Alta´r to Mongolia and possibly some other locations in addition to seeing him in a Crusades-era Constantinople. It would have been epic as hell. But they didn't have the time or resources for such a complex project, so they had to abandon a lot of ideas and just go with whatever they could accomplish in 10 months.


Likewise, Black Flag being made over a long development cycle is hard to imagine. The games with long development times, meant basically be the "Epic Game" essentially are AC3 and Unity, big-subject epic stories. Much like AC1 and AC2 was. Same with Rogue, I don't think a big AAA Templar game would ever be made by Ubisoft. But an annualized title worked for their purposes, the point of Rogue was that it was a game that had to be satisfying and made quick.

AC2 really wasn't that revolutionary. It ran on the same engine as AC1, parkour and combat worked the same (apart from some tweaks), it reused the same animations from AC1 and vastly downgraded the graphics. It just felt more epic because of the story scope and all the new features.
AC3 was planned as the first game on a new console, that's why its scale was epic, more so than AC2. They had to rework the parkour and combat from scratch, make all new animations, crowd system etc. Halfway through they found out that the next console generation was still a few years away, so they had to adapt. Black Flag was a game that had to run on both past-gen and new-gen consoles, which is why it may feel less ambitious in comparison. With Unity they knew for sure it would be next-gen only so that game had a large scope again.

With all that said, AC4's development cycle was 2-3 years, the same amount as AC2, so the point about AC2 being this epic game thanks to an unusually long development cycle is moot. The issue isn't whether great games can be completed within that timeframe, it's that the Ubi higher-ups keep the timeframes so rigid that there's not enough time for polish. Both AC3 and Unity suffered from problems because while they had an exceptionally long development cycle, they didn't reserve enough for playtesting and fixing bugs.


Well Patrice Desilets did plan AC3 being set in America.

Yeah, but not the way AC3 ended up doing it. He wouldn't say what time period he planned to use but I doubt it was the War of Independence. My guess is that Desilet's AC3 was going to be mostly modern day with Desmond, but that idea wasn't popular enough.



The main thing of course is that without annualization every game would be different. AC3 after AC2 without Brotherhood and Revelations wouldn't have the Brotherhood mechanic, nor would it have the crafting system, the economy would also be more basic. It would lack the elements that came in with the annualized titles. UNITY with AC3 but without Black Flag, would not have the Stealth Room System devised in Brotherhood which it copies wholesale. But with more time and more planning, it is likely Unity would be the game that it initially planned on being, Paris-Through-The-Ages, so who knows?

In game development the stories are usually developed around the planned gameplay, not the other way around. So somebody already had the brotherhood mechanic in mind, they just didn't know where to put it in AC2. Even if ACB and ACR had never existed, the brotherhood mechanic would surely have stuck around and we would have seen it for the first time in AC3. In fact, it would have made more sense there since AC3 was all about Connor trying to rebuild the American brotherhood, but they already did that story in ACB. After AC2 they could have said "okay, we have all these new ideas for AC3: brotherhood mechanic, bomb crafting, chain kills, conquering forts, ziplines, quarreling factions, upgraded Eagle Vision, random encounters, fight clubs, gambling etc. etc. The fans have never seen this stuff before, it's gonna blow their minds!" Instead they used up those ideas for two smaller games, so by the time AC3 happened, a lot of the gameplay felt recycled.

Sesheenku
12-22-2015, 08:33 AM
I'm fine with Parkour, in fact I like it more than ever before. In regards of the combat, well I do think the fan base is equally to blame; the combat in Unity was not the joke in terms of difficulty as it is in the rest of the franchise. You know, facing 3 guards could get you killed and I thought that could be leading to some good things and yet it was one of the most disliked features in that game because and I can quote many people saying "It's hard, the guards dare to kill me, I want it to be like in the Ezio games, blah blah blah".

What I said about GTA, well I have played EVERY game of that franchise on the day of release since GTA: San Andreas and then replay them when available before the launch of the next tittle . I can tell you that the mechanics/ideas have been almost the same ever since 2005. Don't get me wrong, as the tech got better so did their possibilities of adding features for the main missions, side missions and even easter eggs, but at its core the game feel almost the same since San Andreas.

The differences????

1) What they do with that "samey" technology feels almost flawless. Whereas in AC you ALWAYS have that feeling of "this could've been done better" all the time,
2 The Story/Narrative are MILES above that of any AC to date, as simple as that. Whereas I'm not such as a story guy, having a great story and a solid narrative truly motivates the player to continue playing. And one has to admit that, in terms of story narrative, Rockstar in general is in a league of its own.

Annualization not only brings fatigue to the fan base just because, it's also making writers simply run out of stories. The MAIN reason many successful single games/franchises in hollywood and video games in general don't continue with sequels/prequels despite critical acclaim and profit is the inability to come up with a good story. I do feel it for writers trying up to come up with something original after 9r5095432095'3495'349' games. That is, amongst all the problems in the franchise, probably the biggest.

What's with Syndicate and me??? I LOVE London, the most if not the most alive location I've played in a open world game with the Thames/Southwark area being a highlight. It's full details that seem to be neverending and traverse it using the rope launcher/train/carriages greatly pleases me. The problem???? The rather meh/ok story that just feels like filler.

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying those aspect you pointing out are perfect -still I have bare to none complaints about parkour- but I'm sure annualization makes everything look worse; the already bad things and even the positive ones. I mean, if GTA games were released annually, people will go like "oh you have steal a car, kill a dude and run away again.....Boring!!!!!!!!".

I like the parkour too, still needs some fine tweaking, for just a touch more control. For example it's hard to jump between two pillars without going around them instead and Arno would skip over those holes with ladders even though you were holding down parkour down even though that should let him drop down. Same with windows there were times were Arno and Jacob/Evie just skip right over them no matter what you do.

I enjoyed Unities combat greatly, although I think the gun damage could go down or a better defense than dodging could be added. Animation delays makes it nigh impossible to dodge when three enemies have lines on you.

I won't talk on GTA, not my cuppa tea. Rubs me the wrong way really since I lived in a ghetto and it's far from comedic or cool irl.

I'm not on board with annualization mind you but this is all in everyone's head. While it has an overall impact on quality, it's still gonna be relatively the same each time and that's not a bad thing and it's never been a bad thing.

Nintendo fans know it better than anyone. Same with RPG players which I am.

VestigialLlama4
12-22-2015, 08:52 AM
Who says Revelations absolutely had to take place in Constantinople?

Well the location is the fundamental part for why Revelation is a good game. It's a pretty rare place for games to go to, especially an open world game. If Revelations was a game about Altair versus Genghis Khan then it would be a different game.


With all that said, AC4's development cycle was 2-3 years,

More like a year and few more months, It's definitely not two years.


In game development the stories are usually developed around the planned gameplay, not the other way around.

Well in AC games, it's the setting that comes first, then the gameplay, and then the story. The only game where the gameplay created everything was Black Flag, where the naval component developed for AC3's setting created the pirate setting and then the story. No one would have developed naval had it not been for the American Revolution setting of AC3.


So somebody already had the brotherhood mechanic in mind, they just didn't know where to put it in AC2.

Not really. Originally Brotherhood was a Story DLC and Episode for AC2. The Brotherhood mechanic directly derives from Rome being this big open world and Ezio having to rebuild the brotherhood, so obviously it's a feature built out of the expansion of a DLC to a full release, with the new feature being over-marketed.


Even if ACB and ACR had never existed, the brotherhood mechanic would surely have stuck around and we would have seen it for the first time in AC3. In fact, it would have made more sense there since AC3 was all about Connor trying to rebuild the American brotherhood, but they already did that story in ACB. After AC2 they could have said "okay, we have all these new ideas for AC3: brotherhood mechanic, bomb crafting, chain kills, conquering forts, ziplines, quarreling factions, upgraded Eagle Vision, random encounters, fight clubs, gambling etc. etc. The fans have never seen this stuff before, it's gonna blow their minds!" Instead they used up those ideas for two smaller games, so by the time AC3 happened, a lot of the gameplay felt recycled.

Well AC3 still added tons and tons of new features anyway. More than AC2-B-R combined.

Sesheenku
12-22-2015, 09:01 AM
Meh nothing particularly exciting in regard to 3's changes. Changed controls, added new hiding spots, added cover, annnnd hunting for land activities. Hunting was useless too cause money was useless unless you upgraded your ship which was 100% optional. Rope dart was kinda cool but it didn't change the game just added another way to kill scrubs.

SixKeys
12-22-2015, 10:18 AM
Well the location is the fundamental part for why Revelation is a good game. It's a pretty rare place for games to go to, especially an open world game. If Revelations was a game about Altair versus Genghis Khan then it would be a different game.

ACR is my second least favorite AC game, so I disagree with the "good game" part.



Well in AC games, it's the setting that comes first, then the gameplay, and then the story.

So they claim, but do you really think Syndicate would have been made if they didn't need a game that reused a lot of assets from another Europe-centric game close to the time period in Unity? They didn't have to do so much redesigning of buildings and whatnot because they used Unity as a basis. Same deal with ACB and Rogue in relation to their predecessors. Rogue especially is a mishmash of random locations. They had the game mechanics from Black Flag already, they just needed to figure out a setting where they could realistically dump all those mechanics and call it a new game.


Well AC3 still added tons and tons of new features anyway. More than AC2-B-R combined.

Not denying that. I'm just saying the game would have felt a lot fresher if half of it didn't rely on stuff we had already been playing for the past two years.

D.I.D.
12-22-2015, 10:22 AM
ACR is my second least favorite AC game, so I disagree with the "good game" part.

Agree. The only decent mission in the whole game is the one where you have to sneak into the palace undetected to find Suleiman. The rest of it is flat or worse.

VestigialLlama4
12-22-2015, 08:59 PM
So they claim, but do you really think Syndicate would have been made if they didn't need a game that reused a lot of assets from another Europe-centric game close to the time period in Unity?

No Syndicate was made because they wanted to Victorian London because "fans wanted it". For the next-gen games they specifically wanted to target commonly requested fan settings so you had Unity set in the French Revolution for absolutely no reason whatsoever since they clearly had no interest in that period. Syndicate is Victorian London, and the next game is apparently Feudal Japan, as per Cornik's scoop. The one after that, perhaps Egypt. The Chronicles games have killed of India, Russia and China for a few good years anyway.

If they wanted to reuse assets for another Europe-centric game they could have simply made a sequel to Unity. Assuming if that was their aim. The gameplay of Unity and Syndicate is not really innovative anyway, it's stil gorging on the shoulders of what came before. The settings are the main features of both games and between them Syndicate works better because the people who make it actually do like Victorian London.


They didn't have to do so much redesigning of buildings and whatnot because they used Unity as a basis. Same deal with ACB and Rogue in relation to their predecessors. Rogue especially is a mishmash of random locations. They had the game mechanics from Black Flag already, they just needed to figure out a setting where they could realistically dump all those mechanics and call it a new game.

I don't think Rogue and ACB deserve to be in the same sentence. ACBrotherhood gave us a new city, entirely new kind of layout and open world activities. Rogue just cannibalized AC3 and Black Flag and added nothing new. It's the only game that reused an earlier city, New York, for a bulk of the game, and this too New York in the most boring period of its time.

Okay Revelations brought back Masyaf but that was entirely for scripted sequences. The bulk of the game was in Istanbul, the biggest and densest urban area in all of the Old-Gen games and for me, still the best of all AC cities (in that I replay the game just to traverse around that city and nothing more, to me it's a brilliant toy).


Not denying that. I'm just saying the game would have felt a lot fresher if half of it didn't rely on stuff we had already been playing for the past two years.

Well as Megas_Doux and I said about GTA, freshness has nothing to do with the content. As games go, GTA hasn't changed or matured nor does it have a great many features. The evolution between GTA3 to San Andreas was bigger than the one between San Andreas and GTA-V, and even that 's mainly for the multiple protagonists. But because of the long intervals between the releases, and the timing of releases (GTA 4 came out at 7th Gen Launch, GTA 5 came at 7th Gen Exit), it feels like an event.

Because the games come out every year even the fresh elements and new things which each AC game brings feels stale and dry.