PDA

View Full Version : So, Rino and I decided to brainstorm some ideas for the evolution of Assassin's Creed



pacmanate
01-05-2016, 12:26 PM
Now and then, Rino and I decide to seemingly randomly brainstorm ideas and concepts for Assassin's Creed and today we played around with the next AC game being like "The Witcher." It would be interesting to see how many of you would support our ideas (so far) for an actual EVOLUTION of Assassin's Creed so here are some of our ideas.... so far!

1. Something Assassin's Creed has tried to do over Unity and Syndicate is make the "Open World" comprise of 1 City. Sure, you could class Versailles in Unity as the 2nd City but that place had no activities whatsoever, honestly it baffles me why they even let you go back there seeing as it's just filled with chests. Something that Rino and I loved about previous AC games is that there are multiple cities. They actually FEEL different from one another. I know the developers have tried to keep this in making Paris and Syndicate very large so each borough feels like a different place, but it doesn't seem to work for me.

This is where the idea comes in, related to The Witcher. Why not actually have an Open WORLD. Something Rino and I would like to see is multiple cities seamlessly integrated with a Frontier, some small villages, underground tombs. This sounds SO appealing to me and actually, isn't far off AC1 basically having no load times between the 3 cities and the Kingdom. Along with this you could have bandit raids similar to The Witcher, help travelers, do quests for other people. In short, actually feel like you are in a huge world with freedom to go wherever you please.

2. Exploration and collectibles, the bane of Assassin's Creed. Honestly, there are better ways to encourage exploration rather than bulking your game out with 600+ chests and a bunch of other useless map cluttering crap. Taking inspiration from The Witcher again, how about rewards being swords, short blades, different types of bows (assuming bows is an addition in this fantasy AC we are creating).

In practice, you find a treasure map in a city or find it once looting a dead guard. Upon reading the map you see you have to go to a point in the Fronteir. Climb on your horse and seemlessly exit the city into the outside world. You think it's all going to be easy as per, but neigh! The map leads you to a bandit settlement where you have to kill or sneak past everyone and find an entrance to an underground tomb. Again, there are more obstacles in your way as bandits are down here too. This situation however allows you to explore and parkour in a completely new place in search of a reward that will actually BENEFIT you, and lets be honest, how is this not more fun that finding 1/600 chests and getting a pointless reward?

So what do you guys think? Would you support the idea of an Open World being an actual world and for exploration/collectibles being tied in a different way?

D.I.D.
01-05-2016, 01:01 PM
I'm into multiple cities. What I don't like so much is being Bear Grylls. I don't want to be a rural explorer, and I don't want to be in the countryside for too long. I don't want to be crafting a bigger rucksack from mongoose hides, or strangling a pelican to make a nicer pair of trousers.

I'm playing The Witcher 3 right now, and it's finally earned its place. It took 19 hours before I got a single fight that felt remotely troublesome or reaction-based (Werewolf mission, when I was at Level 4), and past the 20 hours mark until I got a quest that felt interesting (Keira). Until then it was beautiful landscapes broken up by irritating menus and appalling world structure (Armorers of different levels with very specific abilities and stock? Who thought this was fun?). I don't want to have swords I can't use until I reach a certain level. I don't want tonics that have to be made out of several rare ingredients. TW3 gets away with a hell of a lot, and the thought of AC designers being enamoured with it makes me nervous.

I hate this "journeyman" wilderness thing. I want to be an assassin. I want interesting missions where I head into a big building with a complex interior and have to beat enormous odds to reach my target. I want exciting chases when I'm getting out of there (or sweaty-palmed stealth to get out unseen, I don't mind).

I do like TW3's information gathering. The only thing I like about looting is the rare moment you find (or buy) books and scrolls which you then read and get new abilities, new missions, etc. That's really good. I'd like that in AC.

pacmanate
01-05-2016, 01:09 PM
That's why I didn't mention leveling or skill trees, I'm not up for that stuff in an AC game and never will be. And that's also why I didn't mention crafting. Most of the stuff in your post I didn't even mention as things that I want in AC so that's 3 of your Witcher issues out straight away

m4r-k7
01-05-2016, 01:22 PM
Yep agree with all your points, especially point 1. From the 4chan guy it sounds like there will be villages, boat travel, wilderness, sandstorms etc so our wish may come true. I am imagining AC 3 but on a more seamless and bigger scale. I have always wanted the AC 1 style on a larger scale - Great and unique cities seperated by an explorable kingdom. I hope they encourage the use of parkour throughout the world though even though horses will be present.

(if this whole rumor turns out to be true of course)

MikeFNY
01-05-2016, 01:26 PM
I'm a fan of the multiple cities idea, I believe I mentioned it already in an earlier thread earlier last week.

Paris and London, especially Paris, were lovely but after sometime you get that claustrophobic feeling, a feeling that everything is slowly becoming old.

It would also be nice if different cities = different type of enemies. One piece of Syndicate criticism I agreed with is that all enemies are the same, you cannot really tell who is stronger than the other.

As for the Witcher, I played it for a few hours, it's overwhelming, not sure I would be interested in something that huge in AC, or maybe yes, it all depends on how well it's done at the end of the day.

D.I.D.
01-05-2016, 01:28 PM
That's why I didn't mention leveling or skill trees, I'm not up for that stuff in an AC game and never will be. And that's also why I didn't mention crafting. Most of the stuff in your post I didn't even mention as things that I want in AC so that's 3 of your Witcher issues out straight away

Good, I'm glad you're in charge of exactly where the game is going with this Witcher influence then. I shall rest easy.

dxsxhxcx
01-05-2016, 02:14 PM
I'm with D.I.D on the "journeyman" issue, I don't hate it (this is a must in RPGs but Assassin's Creed isn't one and shouldn't try to be), but IMO Assassin's Creed shines in urban environments and not rural ones, seamlessly going from one city to another would be cool, but not a requirement for me, I'm all for some missions in the countryside, but I don't want them to become a chore after some time, the focus should stay in the cities.

I've been saying for some time that I want multiple cities back, never really liked the concept of one huge city per game, IMO this will also do wonders for the story (and its pace) as well, so I'm all for it.

About collectibles and rewards, yes, IMO we should have a lot less collectibles (specially the pointless ones such as chests and flags) and the ones that are kept, should have a little story attached to them. Quality over quantity should be the norm here.

The story was always a selling point for me in AC, so I don't mind if we have fewer weapons to choose, I don't mind having more optins to choose either, but I don't think they should waste much time here, I don't need 52 types of swords (just for variety' sake), give me 4 or 5 and I'll be perfectly fine with it. Sometimes less is more.



ps: Crafting should never return to this franchise.

cawatrooper9
01-05-2016, 03:24 PM
1. People have been wanting multiple cities back for a while now. I personally really hope they return, but I hope we get a wilderness also worth exploring.

2. I think it would be cool if chests (alongside money and crafting materials) had new unique weapons. It would be much better than, for instance, finding a Viking Sword fragment and needing a dozen or so more before it actually meant anything.

In my opinion, Rogue went way too crazy with collectibles. There were so many collectibles for different things- the Viking Sword stuff, the Templar Crusader stuff... having so many different collectibles basically forced the good old "McDonalds Monopoly" principle- you might get the majority of what you need to complete something, but you'll probably not get it all, and it's all or nothing. Besides, by the time someone had found all of the collectibles of a type, they'd almost assuredly beaten the short Rogue campaign. So yeah, no more of that please.

MikeFNY
01-05-2016, 03:40 PM
In my opinion, Rogue went way too crazy with collectibles. There were so many collectibles for different things- the Viking Sword stuff, the Templar Crusader stuff... having so many different collectibles basically forced the good old "McDonalds Monopoly" principle- you might get the majority of what you need to complete something, but you'll probably not get it all, and it's all or nothing. Besides, by the time someone had found all of the collectibles of a type, they'd almost assuredly beaten the short Rogue campaign. So yeah, no more of that please.

In all fairness I always found the problem of the "way too many collectibles" a no-problem but I do agree with the "give me a reason to go after it" conclusion. Just like "The Truth" in AC2.

Funnily enough Rogue is the only game where I gave up chasing all those collectibles you mentioned, also because some are in some very awkward places.

But in the end, I definitely agree with the idea of collectibles that give you something other than money in return, something you can actually use.

One other nice feature I would love to see is to have main missions introduced in a trailer-like fashion. Not sure how feasible it is but one thing AC fans always agree on are how jaw-dropping trailers are. Having that type of cinematic before a main mission would be nice instead of a "simple" cutscene.

Sushiglutton
01-05-2016, 04:12 PM
I strongly approve both of those points :D!

My guess is that the map will have the Nile going through the center and you can use it for transportation. Then there will be some places like Abu Simbel, Karnak and Memphis along the Nile you can visit (just as the frontier it will be a heavily compressed version ofc). Then there will be some desert areas. The desert will probably be a bit like the oceans in AC4 in that they are home to random events like say caravans, bandits and what not. And there will be sprinkled some oasis, or other smaller settlements/tombs etc. I really hope for the bringing back of tombs. More focus on adventuring a la PoP and a bit less stealth/combat.


http://www.comeseeegypt.com/images/mapegypt3.gif


As for your second point I couldn't agree more and have been very vocal about that in the past :). When you explore you should find either resources (generic rewards for generic activities) or handcrafted gear (handracfted rewards for handcrafted activities).

pacmanate
01-05-2016, 06:29 PM
Good, I'm glad you're in charge of exactly where the game is going with this Witcher influence then. I shall rest easy.

Well I'm in charge of my own ideas, which is what this thread is about. It's not a "Will Ubi do this with the Witcher feel", its what I would want from that inspiration if it is true.

LoyalACFan
01-05-2016, 08:09 PM
I'm actually a bit of a contrarian when it comes to the single-map open world idea. I know most people are in love with the idea of having several cities integrated into a single map, but I can't help thinking of something Alex Hutchinson said in one of those AC3 dev videos. They were originally going to do that with AC3 (having Boston and NY at opposite ends of the Frontier map, with the Homestead nestled somewhere in between) but they ultimately thought it felt too much like Disney World. And I can totally see his point; there's no way that you can capture the sense of scale necessary to emphasize the distance between two separate, major cities in one game map. It would feel like a very shrunken version of the real thing, and I think it might actually have the opposite effect of making the world feel less vast. You said it in the OP, Pac, that having different boroughs in the same city just didn't cut it for you, and I think this would actually have a similar feel to it, even if it's on a larger scale. Like you're playing in a toy model version of the North American frontier (or in this case the Nile Valley) rather than the real thing.

I think it's best if they're kept to separate maps (which is what the Witcher does as well, even if the over-map tells a different story). I'm just recalling how awesome it felt in AC2 when you unlocked a whole new city to explore for the first time; you can't easily get that feeling from a single map (unless it's locked off with those BS Animus walls). That was part of what made AC2 so memorable for me; that constantly unfolding world. It lagged a little in Venice, you could say, but the point stands. I think being given a slow drip of new areas to explore is a better way of doing it than having it all mushed into one map.

Totally agree about the collectibles and open world content though, that's arguably AC's Achilles' heel.

cawatrooper9
01-05-2016, 08:24 PM
I'm actually a bit of a contrarian when it comes to the single-map open world idea. I know most people are in love with the idea of having several cities integrated into a single map, but I can't help thinking of something Alex Hutchinson said in one of those AC3 dev videos. They were originally going to do that with AC3 (having Boston and NY at opposite ends of the Frontier map, with the Homestead nestled somewhere in between) but they ultimately thought it felt too much like Disney World. And I can totally see his point; there's no way that you can capture the sense of scale necessary to emphasize the distance between two separate, major cities in one game map. It would feel like a very shrunken version of the real thing, and I think it might actually have the opposite effect of making the world feel less vast. You said it in the OP, Pac, that having different boroughs in the same city just didn't cut it for you, and I think this would actually have a similar feel to it, even if it's on a larger scale. Like you're playing in a toy model version of the North American frontier (or in this case the Nile Valley) rather than the real thing.



Yeah, I think the closest AC has come to a single-map open world is Black Flag (even though there were technically loading areas)- but even then, the Caribbean was big enough to feel real, partially because of Travel Speed serving as a sort of "fast forward" option.

It would be really hard to convey that on land- though, I think the recent Mad Max game does a decent job of creating a really atmospherically big region- and it's also a desert.

Assassin_M
01-05-2016, 08:47 PM
With all due respect to Rino and you (I still love you guys), did this need its own thread? Maybe I'm an idiot, but I thought there'll be something more in depth than "Take things from best games and combine them to make perfect game". I mean, they're good ideas, but I don't think it needed its own thread.

ze_topazio
01-05-2016, 08:51 PM
All I know is that if this game doesn't have rideable Camels I will be extremely angry for one hour and six minutes.

BananaBlighter
01-05-2016, 09:04 PM
That's why I didn't mention leveling or skill trees, I'm not up for that stuff in an AC game and never will be. And that's also why I didn't mention crafting. Most of the stuff in your post I didn't even mention as things that I want in AC so that's 3 of your Witcher issues out straight away

Oh my god yes!!! I've been repeating so much lately how my favourite progression system was AC1's with the beautiful simplicity of learning new abilities as the story progresses, that felt unique and had context. The whole collecting herbs and stuff really puts me off games like Witcher 3.

Ureh
01-05-2016, 09:09 PM
All I know is that if this game doesn't have rideable Camels I will be extremely angry for one hour and six minutes.

Imagine thirst was one of the stats we had to monitor in the game... we could always drink the camel milk.

Actually if I remember right, camels love to defecate while traversing... if we can train our camel to do this on command it could be used as a tool to stop guards from chasing us.

Seriously though, you're right, Camels should be one of our main companions.

LoyalACFan
01-05-2016, 09:21 PM
Yeah, I think the closest AC has come to a single-map open world is Black Flag (even though there were technically loading areas)- but even then, the Caribbean was big enough to feel real, partially because of Travel Speed serving as a sort of "fast forward" option.

It would be really hard to convey that on land- though, I think the recent Mad Max game does a decent job of creating a really atmospherically big region- and it's also a desert.

Haven't played Mad Max yet, but isn't like 95% of the map just a barren sandpit for car chases/battles? That kind of environment would suuuuck for AC.

cawatrooper9
01-05-2016, 09:37 PM
Haven't played Mad Max yet, but isn't like 95% of the map just a barren sandpit for car chases/battles? That kind of environment would suuuuck for AC.

Indeed, and it works well for that specific game.

However, the same thing could be argued about ACIV's Caribbean.

Would a Mad Max style map work for a game like Unity or Syndicate? Absolutely not. But, if they somehow found a way to make random encounters and sandbox gameplay much more important in the game, the I think it would be doable.

Still, though, I agree with you that the best way to convey scale is to have multiple maps.

BananaBlighter
01-05-2016, 09:39 PM
Haven't played Mad Max yet, but isn't like 95% of the map just a barren sandpit for car chases/battles? That kind of environment would suuuuck for AC.

Yeah, at least the frontier had trees, and BF had ship battles (which still contained some of the core AC gameplay; combat and sorta parkour) as well as the ocean being littered with fun little islands to explore. Deserts can be beautiful (Journey?), but I find urban landscapes much more appealing. Like, they've actually got stuff going on in them.

Assassin_M
01-05-2016, 09:42 PM
Yeah, at least the frontier had trees, and BF had ship battles (which still contained some of the core AC gameplay; combat and sorta parkour) as well as the ocean being littered with fun little islands to explore. Deserts can be beautiful (Journey?), but I find urban landscapes much more appealing. Like, they've actually got stuff going on in them.
Mad Max's wasteland had convoys to ambush...Those were pretty fun.

cawatrooper9
01-05-2016, 09:54 PM
Mad Max's wasteland had convoys to ambush...Those were pretty fun.

Right, it had convos, random looting locations, random enemy raiding parties, various camps and activities- they ran a good medium between making you feel like you were in a vast wasteland thematically while still having plenty of things for players to actually access easily- as opposed to a game like Skyrim which is actually deceptively pretty small but just feels big, or Just Cause 2 which is just a little bit too empty sometimes.

Again, not sure this would be the best approach for AC, but it's worth a thought.

BananaBlighter
01-05-2016, 10:08 PM
Mad Max's wasteland had convoys to ambush...Those were pretty fun.

I mean like not side activities. I can spend ages in an AC open world without doing any side activities, just admiring the parkour, the architecture, the people, everything. If Syndicate's London was a desert but retained its carriage hijacks and all that...well. Of course, when I'm jumping along the Thames and come across a smuggler's boat, OK I'll raid it, but I need more than just activities to do.

col_96
01-05-2016, 11:34 PM
Very Interesting -

Pyramids are the thing I'm most looking forward to in the game.

Sorrosyss
01-06-2016, 02:04 PM
I could literally type for hours about what I'd like to see the series evolve into. So I'll try to condense it. :p

For me, it is very good news to hear that they are using Witcher 3 as a basis. I have long argued that the series needs to lean more heavily on it's RPG elements to give it more depth, and in fairness to Ubisoft they have steadily added more and more of these. Take Syndicate for example, look at what it shares with Witcher;

- Quest Givers
- XP meters
- Enemies with numbered levels
- Dialogue Options (Dreadful Crimes)
- Investigation using a sixth sense
- Hidden collectibles
- Gear and weapons with stats
- Talent trees

There are likely far more, but already you can see the similarities. What I like about other RPGs such as Mass Effect and Dragon Age is the ability to personalise the protagonist to your desire. I mean they still have default appearances, and our Assassins should always retain that, but having the option is great for me and promotes the inclusitivity that all games should strive for. Those games proved that you can write a compelling story that you can easily switch the gender/sexuality etc without an issue. I'd like to see Ubisoft to strive for the same.

Having such a character creation would be ideal for multiplayer as well. The Old Republic MMO proved that you can pull off dialogue options and cutscenes within a group setting, and playing sandbox co-op levels with friends and their custom assassins would be amazing.

As to the main points, I've always believed that AC1 had the right formula. Multiple smaller cities with distinct personalities is far more interesting than one giant one. If you were to put a frontier in between, akin to AC3, that would be the ideal. The issue with large areas is that they often feel sparse. I feel there is an opportunity here for them to use the collectibles to properly incentivise exploration. Perhaps if you see a small hill on the horizon, with a glitch above it. It may be out of the way to where you are going, but if they add decent rewards to the collectibles people will go out of their way to climb that hill. It's far better than just littering the map with icons I feel.

Anyhoo, if there is one thing they desperately need to address for 2017 it's the hood toggle. That's an evolution that we've wanted for literally years, and Syndicate's 'hoodgate' should hopefully have made them fully aware.

dxsxhxcx
01-06-2016, 02:28 PM
- Quest Givers
- XP meters
- Enemies with numbered levels
- Dialogue Options (Dreadful Crimes)
- Investigation using a sixth sense*
- Hidden collectibles
- Gear and weapons with stats
- Talent trees


I'm of the opinion that the bold ones should be removed from AC, not that they don't have a place in it, but IMO they aren't really necessary and don't add that much to the table, this effort could've been put in other areas that need fixing or more interesting mechanics.

the one in italic* should be expanded, over time the Eagle Vision has become too powerful and automatic for its own good, they should tune it down a bit and give more control to the player instead, one thing I absolutely loved in Revelations was the necessity to use EV to find the Den's Captains, if I'm not wrong we could use EV in AC3 to track down animals' tracks as well, find hidden entrances in AC2, etc.

I also loved the fact that it was in 1st person in AC1, really immersive detail here.

Eagle Vision should give the protagonist an edge over others and don't be this almighty super power it has become nowadays, the ability to see through walls should be removed and predict the enemies' paths (ACR) should never return to this franchise.



Anyhoo, if there is one thing they desperately need to address for 2017 it's the hood toggle. That's an evolution that we've wanted for literally years, and Syndicate's 'hoodgate' should hopefully have made them fully aware.

Couldn't agree more

cawatrooper9
01-06-2016, 04:01 PM
I'm of the opinion that the bold ones should be removed from AC, not that they don't have a place in it, but IMO they aren't really necessary and don't add that much to the table, this effort could've been put in other areas that need fixing or more interesting mechanics.

No gear or weapons with stats? Not even like from the ACII variety?

m4r-k7
01-06-2016, 04:46 PM
What I really dislike about Unity + Syndicates progression system is precisely that it is like an RPG. For instance, at the beginning when you are level 1, you have a level 1 sword that would take around 1000 hits to kill a level 7 guard for example. I don't like this. An Assassin should not be better based on the weapon they are using, it should be based on training (which the games should focus on throughout the game).

In AC 1 for example, you could kill any soldier, but the harder ones (like the Templar knights) took skill (countering/dodging etc) rather than just hitting them 1000 times. Whatever sword an Assassin is using, it should damage the enemy no matter what. Levelling in AC games is just a pain - it hardly symbolises training at all as its basically just equipping perks. It would be awesome if at several points throughout the game we get training sequences with your mentor that gradually gives you more skills. An Assassin shouldn't suddenly be a master assassin (in terms of skills at the beginning) but killing harder enemies should not be limited to the weapon you are using.

cawatrooper9
01-06-2016, 04:52 PM
What I really dislike about Unity + Syndicates progression system is precisely that it is like an RPG. For instance, at the beginning when you are level 1, you have a level 1 sword that would take around 1000 hits to kill a level 7 guard for example. I don't like this. An Assassin should not be better based on the weapon they are using, it should be based on training (which the games should focus on throughout the game).

In AC 1 for example, you could kill any soldier, but the harder ones (like the Templar knights) took skill (countering/dodging etc) rather than just hitting them 1000 times. Whatever sword an Assassin is using, it should damage the enemy no matter what. Levelling in AC games is just a pain - it hardly symbolises training at all as its basically just equipping perks. It would be awesome if at several points throughout the game we get training sequences with your mentor that gradually gives you more skills. An Assassin shouldn't suddenly be a master assassin (in terms of skills at the beginning) but killing harder enemies should not be limited to the weapon you are using.

That's a fair point, actually. Kinda seems silly when Arno can't take on a single guard because he's a higher level.

The section that I bolded- do you mean like the training in AC1 and (to a lesser extent) in AC2?

m4r-k7
01-06-2016, 04:55 PM
That's a fair point, actually. Kinda seems silly when Arno can't take on a single guard because he's a higher level.

The section that I bolded- do you mean like the training in AC1 and (to a lesser extent) in AC2?

Yes precisely, but maybe I am thinking on a bigger level. I really want to see a character progress as an assassin from a skill standpoint, rather than from a story standpoint. I guess it hasn't made sense post-Ezio as all the games are single protagonists only, but if this rumour is true and we see this character in a trilogy, I really want to see him progress as an Assassin :)

EDIT: I loved in AC 2 learning the climb leap from a thief. Its stuff like this which is awesome - learning new parkour / fighting skills from others.

cawatrooper9
01-06-2016, 04:56 PM
Yes precisely, but maybe I am thinking on a bigger level. I really want to see a character progress as an assassin from a skill standpoint, rather than from a story standpoint. I guess it hasn't made sense post-Ezio as all the games are single protagonists only, but if this rumour is true and we see this character in a trilogy, I really want to see him progress as an Assassin :)
Ah, game to game even. That would be cool to see.

MikeFNY
01-06-2016, 05:01 PM
Yes precisely, but maybe I am thinking on a bigger level. I really want to see a character progress as an assassin from a skill standpoint, rather than from a story standpoint. I guess it hasn't made sense post-Ezio as all the games are single protagonists only, but if this rumour is true and we see this character in a trilogy, I really want to see him progress as an Assassin :)

EDIT: I loved in AC 2 learning the climb leap from a thief. Its stuff like this which is awesome - learning new parkour / fighting skills from others.

So true, I remember trying to climb a tall building and stopping mid-way through because I was yet to learn how to do the leap :)

And yes, I've been very critical of the way you acquire skills in Unity and Syndicate, out of thin air, it would be great if the assassin gets those through training or maybe side-missions where you're guided by a mentor, clearly, until you, become the mentor ;)

Which I see is basically what you said in an earlier post, so we fully agree mate.


Ah, game to game even. That would be cool to see.

That would be epic, really, a trilogy where the assassin keeps improving until he is fully equipped, fully trained for the very last game. I believe God of War had a similar story where in the third and final game you're fully armoured and can go all out attack against your enemies but I could be wrong on this one.

The idea of having an already-strong assassin at the start of the game does not allow you to grow fond of the character in my opinion. I like the idea of starting the game when he is still young, knowing his background, who raised him, how, where, his initial skills, etc.

m4r-k7
01-06-2016, 05:07 PM
So true, I remember trying to climb a tall building and stopping mid-way through because I was yet to learn how to do the leap :)

And yes, I've been very critical of the way you acquire skills in Unity and Syndicate, out of thin air, it would be great if the assassin gets those through training or maybe side-missions where you're guided by a mentor, clearly, until you, become the mentor ;)

Which I see is basically what you said in an earlier post, so we fully agree mate.

Yea exactly :) Feeling like you as a player are learning and progressing as an Assassin whilst the story unfolds would be much more impactful than just spending points out of thin air like you said.

cawatrooper9
01-06-2016, 05:19 PM
To be honest, I've felt that way about a lot of the games.

Altair's abilities made sense, for the most part- he was a trained Assassin. After de Sable's attack, he was stripped of his gear and wounded, forcing him to build himself back up again (after being a competitive swimmer and then not swimming for years until I began training again recently, I can certainly relate). Also, he was asked to "show them (trainees) what you know" in training segments/tutorials"- so it wasn't as if he was relearning stuff, but rather the player was being taught by Altair.
Similarly Shay, Aveline, and Haytham's stories begin after their training, so their progression, if any, is based on receiving new weapons rather than skills.

Ezio was a terrible fighter in ACII when compared with ACR and ACB, but he gained abilities like counters and dodges as the game went on- so honestly, I feel like his skill progression has been the most real so far as far as showing the full picture. Still, I take issue with the fact that he (like Edward as well) could always apparently parkour/eagle jump. I don't know why Ubi is so afraid of limiting that early in the games (we could learn it as a skill pretty quickly ingame). I mean, young Arno couldn't climb. Heck, Aveline's Lady persona could NEVER climb. It's doable, for sure.

Connor also could parkour before becoming an Assassin- Ubi kind of went the "tribal mysticism" route like they did with Far Cry 3's tattoos (to a lesser extent, though), in that they just kind of hoped players would assume that his tree climbing parkour was part of his culture (as evidenced by the hunting mission). Also, while his combat as a young Connor was nowhere near as powerful as when he's an Assassin, it's still kind of ridiculous, like when he takes on a dozen thugs outside of Achilles's house.

Then, of course, there's the ACS/ACU progression, which is basically just a menu of choices.

What I think might work best for the series is an ingame training session that still allows for customization- think the Batmobile Upgrades in Arkham Knight. Fox asks which upgrade you'd prefer, then you'd have to do an ingame quest (or simply go to an ingame location) to get it. It allows for some customization and making the player feel in control, but still is very grounded in the lore and story.

XavierSaviour
01-06-2016, 05:45 PM
One of the things that I really disliked the most was the huge cities for Unity and Syndicate. Syndicate not so much, but I really disliked how big they were. I'd rather have a bunch of small cities like Witcher 3.

I'd love for there to be modern day sequences, as well as First Civilisation sequences, from the period that Adam and Eve was born into - Assassin's Creed 2. If anything, I'd love for there to be a First Civ section like the secret section in ACS.

WW1

SixKeys
01-06-2016, 06:01 PM
To be honest, I've felt that way about a lot of the games.

Altair's abilities made sense, for the most part- he was a trained Assassin. After de Sable's attack, he was stripped of his gear and wounded, forcing him to build himself back up again (after being a competitive swimmer and then not swimming for years until I began training again recently, I can certainly relate). Also, he was asked to "show them (trainees) what you know" in training segments/tutorials"- so it wasn't as if he was relearning stuff, but rather the player was being taught by Altair.
Similarly Shay, Aveline, and Haytham's stories begin after their training, so their progression, if any, is based on receiving new weapons rather than skills.

Ezio was a terrible fighter in ACII when compared with ACR and ACB, but he gained abilities like counters and dodges as the game went on- so honestly, I feel like his skill progression has been the most real so far as far as showing the full picture. Still, I take issue with the fact that he (like Edward as well) could always apparently parkour/eagle jump. I don't know why Ubi is so afraid of limiting that early in the games (we could learn it as a skill pretty quickly ingame). I mean, young Arno couldn't climb. Heck, Aveline's Lady persona could NEVER climb. It's doable, for sure.

Connor also could parkour before becoming an Assassin- Ubi kind of went the "tribal mysticism" route like they did with Far Cry 3's tattoos (to a lesser extent, though), in that they just kind of hoped players would assume that his tree climbing parkour was part of his culture (as evidenced by the hunting mission). Also, while his combat as a young Connor was nowhere near as powerful as when he's an Assassin, it's still kind of ridiculous, like when he takes on a dozen thugs outside of Achilles's house.

Then, of course, there's the ACS/ACU progression, which is basically just a menu of choices.

What I think might work best for the series is an ingame training session that still allows for customization- think the Batmobile Upgrades in Arkham Knight. Fox asks which upgrade you'd prefer, then you'd have to do an ingame quest (or simply go to an ingame location) to get it. It allows for some customization and making the player feel in control, but still is very grounded in the lore and story.

I agree with all this except for a couple of points. Ezio knowing how to parkour from the beginning wasn't strange to me. It was obvious he was taught by his older brother (who was supposed to become Giovanni's successor and probably received some training). What bugged me more was that Ezio's combat skills were overpowered from the moment he gets his first sword. He kills those two guards that show up at his house like it's nothing, despite the dialogue suggesting that he's scared and vulnerable. What they should have done is force the player to climb to safety because Ezio realizes he's outmatched, and only receive proper training after arriving at Monteriggioni.

I see your point about Connor's tree parkour. It's a double-edged sword for me. It can definitely be read as tribal mysticism, making him seem more "exotic" to white players. OTOH, I can't really think of a better way to introduce it than a hunting mission. They show Connor having to climb a tree to escape from an angry bear which makes perfect sense. His people also collect feathers so they must get them from somewhere. I don't envy the devs for having to come up with a new scenario every game that explains the protagonist's powers in a way that doesn't seem contrived, but AC3 did a pretty good job.

pacmanate
01-06-2016, 06:25 PM
If anything, Connor had the best progression out of all the protagonists in my opinion.

Also I really hope AC stays out the RPG route of skill trees, multiple dialogue options and the like. The stories and lore is complex enough when you get into it and having multiple endings or different ways things pan out for the protag wouldnt make sense seeing as we are reliving memories and not creating new ones.

cawatrooper9
01-06-2016, 06:49 PM
I agree with all this except for a couple of points. Ezio knowing how to parkour from the beginning wasn't strange to me. It was obvious he was taught by his older brother (who was supposed to become Giovanni's successor and probably received some training). What bugged me more was that Ezio's combat skills were overpowered from the moment he gets his first sword. He kills those two guards that show up at his house like it's nothing, despite the dialogue suggesting that he's scared and vulnerable. What they should have done is force the player to climb to safety because Ezio realizes he's outmatched, and only receive proper training after arriving at Monteriggioni.

True, that's an interesting way of thinking about how Ezio learned parkour. It always just struck me as kind of strange how everyone just kind of accepts it as a "kids will be kids" kind of thing, like how with Edward it's an "apparently all sailors can do this" kind of thing. It should be a little more surprising, I guess.

And there definitely was an awkward period of time when Ezio was not trained but had a sword. However, it doesn't last long, and for much of the time that Ezio is not trained, he has a hidden blade (which, for some of that time, is broken) thereby rendering him actually pretty vulnerable.

Keep in mind as well that a lot of the guards you encounter during this time are just Pazzi gang members and not trained Florentine guards (though there are some).



I don't envy the devs for having to come up with a new scenario every game that explains the protagonist's powers in a way that doesn't seem contrived, but AC3 did a pretty good job.
It was decent. Again, could be perceived as a little racist, but it was at least somewhat explained.

Like I said, I think the best way to do it would be to restrict parkour for a short time during the tutorial or earlier segments, then introduce it early in the Assassin's training. This could even make the tutorial area have more natural boundaries than the silly animus glitch walls.


If anything, Connor had the best progression out of all the protagonists in my opinion.

I'm a little torn on Connor. A huge bulk of his training was relegated to a voiceover during gameplay- so, from a logistical and storytelling standpoint it checks out, and honestly I don't think we needed any more tutorial segments than that game already had (far less would be nice, actually), but it just came across as kind of rushed. I wish they hadn't glossed over some of the major stuff, I guess, like Connor learning about the Templars. We never even see the moment that Connor hears that Grandmaster Haytham Kenway is his father- he just sort of absorbs that information offscreen. It would be like if Luke heard Vader was his father in the events between Episode V and VI, and the audience just kind of had to accept it.

pacmanate
01-06-2016, 06:54 PM
I'm a little torn on Connor. A huge bulk of his training was relegated to a voiceover during gameplay- so, from a logistical and storytelling standpoint it checks out, and honestly I don't think we needed any more tutorial segments than that game already had (far less would be nice, actually), but it just came across as kind of rushed. I wish they hadn't glossed over some of the major stuff, I guess, like Connor learning about the Templars. We never even see the moment that Connor hears that Grandmaster Haytham Kenway is his father- he just sort of absorbs that information offscreen. It would be like if Luke heard Vader was his father in the events between Episode V and VI, and the audience just kind of had to accept it.

AC3 definitely has lots of flaws but him knowing how to tree run as a kid seems to be something all his tribe knew how to do, so he just learn it. At least the first time we got to fight as Connor it got us to a cutscene where we got our *** kicked, thus showing little real training at that point.

The voice over did fill in the gap but in an open world game as well, its hard to progress a character properly without being restrictive.

BananaBlighter
01-06-2016, 07:01 PM
What I really dislike about Unity + Syndicates progression system is precisely that it is like an RPG. For instance, at the beginning when you are level 1, you have a level 1 sword that would take around 1000 hits to kill a level 7 guard for example. I don't like this. An Assassin should not be better based on the weapon they are using, it should be based on training (which the games should focus on throughout the game).

In AC 1 for example, you could kill any soldier, but the harder ones (like the Templar knights) took skill (countering/dodging etc) rather than just hitting them 1000 times. Whatever sword an Assassin is using, it should damage the enemy no matter what. Levelling in AC games is just a pain - it hardly symbolises training at all as its basically just equipping perks. It would be awesome if at several points throughout the game we get training sequences with your mentor that gradually gives you more skills. An Assassin shouldn't suddenly be a master assassin (in terms of skills at the beginning) but killing harder enemies should not be limited to the weapon you are using.

I agree sooo much. I loved AC1's progression the best. Every so often we received meaningful upgrades hat had context and unlocked unique abilities. Syndicate's system ruined a lot of the game for me. It makes no sense that one enemy who looks exactly the same as another except for a higher number floating above his head, can have as much as 10x more health. If you want to increase difficulty as the game progresses, start introducing new and more skilled enemy types. The worst bit was that gear and the skill tree were integrally linked, meaning that unless I acquired all skills, I wouldn't be allowed to wear high level gear.

I actually was pretty OK with Unity's customization. Unlike the weaponry, the clothing didn't make too much of a difference but enough to be noticeable. For example when I wear the high stealth trousers I can run up to enemies from behind without them hearing me and turning. Some gear also increased the total ammunition which you could carry, which I'm fine with. Unlike crafting upgrades like pouches, the nice thing about gear is that it can be taken off. The problem with Syndicate's system is that the level also permanently increases your stats, whereas Unity it was based off the gear. Downgrading to low defense gear in Unity makes me feel more vulnerable, but there isn't a ridiculous difference. Also thanks to the variety, there was a lot fun in balancing stats (health, ammo, stealth) to create your own perfect assassin.

I felt like Unity's skill tree was a lot less pointless than Syndicate's, like we unlocked new tools and combat moves through it. IMO skills should unlock unique abilities, not increase stats, that's for gear to do. Generally I hate skill trees, because they give no context unlike AC1. However a variety of gear is great, so long as it's purpose is more for the balancing of stats to create an assassin that suits your playstyle, rather than just increasing all stats and making the entire game easier. Instead of having three weapon types and each with +10 varieties that do nothing but make you more OP, have many more weapon types with three varieties for each category with their own unique aesthetics, and a few with abilities, like poisoning or being able to throw them.

Regarding your idea of training sequences, I was thinking more along the lines of a set of side missions, each unlocking a unique ability and giving it context as well. They could simulate a tree in a way because some would appear on the map once you complete others, and some would only appear when you reach a certain stage in the story. Of course thee side missions would probably be often just training missions, but they don't have to be just that. For example I think an idea like this was a missed opportunity for Syndicate's gang upgrade system. We could have missions with our gang doing things like: hanging up barrels, actually meeting and doing some work for the police in order to bribe them, escorting cargo to upgrade your carriages with, etc.

dxsxhxcx
01-06-2016, 08:33 PM
No gear or weapons with stats? Not even like from the ACII variety?

From what I remember AC2's seemed to be fine, I barely changed equipment to be honest, I just don't want them wasting too much time on this, I don't need 50 types of swords/daggers/pistols/outfits (having more outfits for aesthetic purposes is cool though) with different stats or bonuses (most part of the time just for variety' sake) and I don't think the combat system should be built around that.

While I understand that having an economic system in the game can bring new gameplay possibilities, it's something I wouldn't miss if they decided to remove it, AC1 was perfectly fine without it.



Still, I take issue with the fact that he (like Edward as well) could always apparently parkour/eagle jump. I don't know why Ubi is so afraid of limiting that early in the games (we could learn it as a skill pretty quickly ingame).

Sixkeys beat me to it, I think the same way.



What I think might work best for the series is an ingame training session that still allows for customization- think the Batmobile Upgrades in Arkham Knight. Fox asks which upgrade you'd prefer, then you'd have to do an ingame quest (or simply go to an ingame location) to get it. It allows for some customization and making the player feel in control, but still is very grounded in the lore and story.

My problem with this kind of customization is that sometimes our "character build" may go against the character personality, something that would be totally immersion breaking for me.

cawatrooper9
01-06-2016, 08:40 PM
From what I remember AC2's seemed to be fine, I barely changed equipment to be honest, I just don't want them wasting too much time on this, I don't need 50 types of swords/daggers/pistols/outfits (having more outfits for aesthetic purposes is cool though) with different stats or bonuses (most part of the time just for variety' sake) and I don't think the combat system should be built around that.

That's fair, the gear in AC2 definitely increased Ezio's stats, but it's not as if it was game-breaking by any means. I don't even think I bought a new sword the first time I played through the game.


While I understand that having an economic system in the game can bring new gameplay possibilities, it's something I wouldn't miss if they decided to remove it, AC1 was perfectly fine without it.

The general consensus of AC1 seems to be that the game is pretty bland. Don't get me wrong, I think it did a lot of things right, but stripping down the series and using AC1 as a template might not be the best idea.



My problem with this kind of customization is that sometimes our "character build" may go against the character personality, something that's totally immersion breaking for me.

There's definitely potential for it to be that way, but the devs could always be smart about it and ensure that both choices still fit within the character's perceived personality.

dxsxhxcx
01-06-2016, 09:13 PM
The general consensus of AC1 seems to be that the game is pretty bland. Don't get me wrong, I think it did a lot of things right, but stripping down the series and using AC1 as a template might not be the best idea.

I see your point and you may be right, AC1 had the advantage of being a "small" game without many things to do, maybe that's the reason why I don't miss an economic system there, and since the games are getting bigger and bigger, its removal might become problematic..



There's definitely potential for it to be that way, but the devs could always be smart about it and ensure that both choices still fit within the character's perceived personality.

that's true, but I think it could also lead to less unique characters, maybe they could find a way to make our inclination towards certain a build (let's say: stealth, combat, pacifist, middle ground, for arguments' sake) could affect our character's personality accordingly through the game, it could work but I don't think it's worth the shot since AC isn't a RPG and there's a very specific story they want to tell.

BananaBlighter
01-06-2016, 09:21 PM
I'm fine with customization, aesthetics are really important for me and it's always nice to build your own assassin around your playstyle. However I hate progression systems with pointless skill trees that have no context behind the stat boosts and abilities you gain. What's worse is when leveling systems lock gear and cause significant differences in stats for the sake of so called 'progression', as your enemies strengthen, so do you.

Why is this needed? Comparatively you're still the same, but what makes it worse is that now enemies of higher and lower levels are either too strong or too weak. This can sometimes restrict exploration because you want to stay in an area that complements your level. Instead of giving us this illusion of progressing, the better way would be to introduce new enemy types, that have to be dealt with unique abilities which you learn. These need not make you ridiculously OP, but simply add more variety.

In AC1 enemies could pretty much do everything I did. I felt as if they were learning the moves I did too. So as the game progressed the combat slowly grew in variety, which I very much liked.

pacmanate
01-06-2016, 09:25 PM
I hate Syndicates Leveling, talk about game breaking progression. That last fight with Starrick was dire for me. Hit him 2 times and get flown away, rinse and repeat like 4 times. It was so annoying.

Levels need to go. It either makes things too easy or too hard. Fighting level 2's when you are level 10 is about a 2 hit kill. What makes them different to any higher level? They have the same moveset. The only difference is their health.

cawatrooper9
01-06-2016, 09:25 PM
I see your point and you may be right, AC1 had the advantage of being a "small" game without many things to do, maybe that's the reason why I don't miss an economic system there, and since the games are getting bigger and bigger, its removal might become problematic..

Yeah, that's the issue with a series that's gone on this long. If you try and strip it down, people will complain about losing things. A lot of people still think the loss of boats was a step backward for the series, even though ship combat isn't really a staple of the series at all. Imagine if we lost economy as a whole- people would be very upset.


that's true, but I think it could also lead to less unique characters, maybe they could find a way to make our inclination towards certain a build (let's say: stealth, combat, pacifist, middle ground, for arguments' sake) could affect our character's personality accordingly through the game, it could work but I don't think it's worth the shot since AC isn't a RPG and there's a very specific story they want to tell.
This is just a small example since I'm not feeling particularly imaginative today, but here goes:
Consider the abilities learned in AC2. What if in a game, you choose whether to be taught a dodge technique, a counter technique or a disarm technique? Then, later in the game in future training sessions, you'd have an opportunity to pick up the rest, with additional more complicated options thrown in as well. This way, it isn't even as if you're being taught things that could even contradict your character, but just combat maneuvers that any Assassin would need to know.

SixKeys
01-06-2016, 11:09 PM
The general consensus of AC1 seems to be that the game is pretty bland. Don't get me wrong, I think it did a lot of things right, but stripping down the series and using AC1 as a template might not be the best idea.

Regardless of how you feel about the game overall (for me it's closely tailing ACB as the best in the franchise), there's no reason why devs shouldn't look into older games to see what they did better. AC1 had better combat and better pickpocketing than AC2, for example. AC2's economy was utterly broken. Syndicate and AC4 are the only ones that succeeded in not making you a billionaire before you were even halfway through the game. In AC4 it was because upgrading the Jackdaw was an essential part of player progression and in Syndicate there was a wide selection of gear and upgrades that allowed you to keep buying stuff with all that spare cash. All in all though, they've never quite managed an economy system that makes sense for all protagonists (Connor having to oversee cargo ships and convoys was just dumb, I'd rather we earn the money ourselves), it's just another thing that keeps repeating game after game even when it doesn't fit or when it breaks the progression in fundamental ways. Like in the Ezio games you could buy every armor set, weapon and painting very soon into the game, and the more you renovated the Villa, the more discounts you got. Instead of making the best stuff more difficult to obtain late-game, they made it easier, rendering all other upgrades obsolete. Why buy the metal pauldrons if you already have the Missaglias armor? Why use any other weapon besides the sword of Alta´r?

For Ezio the economy system, flawed as it was, still made sense on some level since he was nobility and the son of a banker. But it doesn't make sense for all assassins. I wouldn't mind seeing the economy dropped if they can think of a better progression system.

BTW, I'm surprised so many people like AC1's progression. I always thought it was kind of silly. Some things make sense like not having throwing knives until you've proven yourself, but how does Alta´r's demotion make him forget how countering works or how to grab hold of something while falling?

Assassin_M
01-06-2016, 11:18 PM
but how does Alta´r's demotion make him forget how countering works or how to grab hold of something while falling?
Apple ;)

I always saw Al-Mualim's use of the Apple on Altair as far deeper than just "Hey, i made you think I killed you". The Apple was always on Al-Mualim's desk when he and Altair would speak after each mission. He tried to use it again on him halfway through the game but it didn't work and Al-Mualim slightly fumbled, apparently dumbfounded at how Altair resists it. When Al-Mualim says "You're a Novice (NOVICE!!!), a child once more, as the day you first joined our order", he meant that. Literally. The Apple can make you THINK things, it can make you think you're dying, it can make you think you're being held in place, it can make you think your dead enemies are brought back to life, so it wouldnt be a far fetch to say that it made Altair somehow "forget" his abilities. It makes sense because Altair's genes prevent him from actually being controlled ala the Masyaf villagers and Assassins. That was necessary for Al-Mualim because he needed to subdue Altair. Merely taking his weapons and rank would have achieved nothing, but taking away his skill as well...well.

I-Like-Pie45
01-06-2016, 11:24 PM
That just raises the question of why Al Muslim instead of using his Apple to just have Altar cut his own head off with the hidden blade or hop off a cliff when Altar came to confront him, chose to use it to conjure up a couple of illusions and fight Altar thus risking his life and masterplan.

BananaBlighter
01-06-2016, 11:25 PM
BTW, I'm surprised so many people like AC1's progression. I always thought it was kind of silly. Some things make sense like not having throwing knives until you've proven yourself, but how does Alta´r's demotion make him forget how countering works or how to grab hold of something while falling?

I guess I was a bit lenient in that regard. In terms of countering, well he learned that skill when he got a new sword which I guess allowed him to parry more easily and hence he could swiftly counter? He also got upgrades to his bracer to explain things like grabbing ledges. Trust me, doing basic parkour I know enough about how it feels to cat leap on to a ledge and wish you had that extra grip as you quickly slip off.

Regardless, it's much better than a skill tree, which offers no explanation as to why air assassinating people grants you with the ability to ride carriages faster. And at least the gameplay felt like it was improving. Though I must admit, Black Flag also handled it well, with the ship upgrades and new tools throughout the game. It could also be that I was a bit unimpressed with Altair's skillset compared to other assassins when I first played AC1 (my first was AC4) and so was overjoyed as it soon became more varied.


Apple ;)

I always saw Al-Mualim's use of the Apple on Altair as far deeper than just "Hey, i made you think I killed you". The Apple was always on Al-Mualim's desk when he and Altair would speak after each mission. He tried to use it again on him halfway through the game but it didn't work and Al-Mualim slightly fumbled, apparently dumbfounded at how Altair resists it. When Al-Mualim says "You're a Novice (NOVICE!!!), a child once more, as the day you first joined our order", he meant that. Literally. The Apple can make you THINK things, it can make you think you're dying, it can make you think you're being held in place, it can make you think your dead enemies are brought back to life, so it wouldnt be a far fetch to say that it made Altair somehow "forget" his abilities. It makes sense because Altair's genes prevent him from actually being controlled ala the Masyaf villagers and Assassins. That was necessary for Al-Mualim because he needed to subdue Altair. Merely taking his weapons and rank would have achieved nothing, but taking away his skill as well...well.

Possibly, though it could seem as a bit of an odd explanation, given his confidence at the beginning. Even after he's stripped of his gear he clearly remembers how to be an assassin, and makes that very clear in the first mission to regain honor. But then again, that mission was a tutorial, so maybe he thought he knew what to do but really he didn't?

cawatrooper9
01-06-2016, 11:26 PM
Regardless of how you feel about the game overall (for me it's closely tailing ACB as the best in the franchise), there's no reason why devs shouldn't look into older games to see what they did better.

Again, I'm not saying AC1 was bad, or that it shouldn't be used for inspiration- in fact, I really like the game, far more than most fans (still not quite as far near the top for me as it apparently is for you, though). What I mean is that when people talk about how the series moved forward, one of the biggest milestones is the huge leap from AC1 to AC2, in that so much more content and interactivity was added. If we were to go back and essentially leap backward, that would be an issue for the vast majority of fans.


BTW, I'm surprised so many people like AC1's progression. I always thought it was kind of silly. Some things make sense like not having throwing knives until you've proven yourself, but how does Alta´r's demotion make him forget how countering works or how to grab hold of something while falling?
That's a good point, and one that I've thought was kind of hard to reconcile, too. If any games do decide to follow a model like this in the future, I'm sure they could tie some abilities to gear- for instance, it was clever to relegate the climb leap to a glove in ACB (even though that wasn't really the case in AC2).

Assassin_M
01-06-2016, 11:38 PM
Possibly, though it could seem as a bit of an odd explanation, given his confidence at the beginning. Even after he's stripped of his gear he clearly remembers how to be an assassin, and makes that very clear in the first mission to regain honor. But then again, that mission was a tutorial, so maybe he thought he knew what to do but really he didn't?
Like I said, the Apple has a seldom mental effect on Altair. Its sole power is always physical. While he remembers everything about being an Assassin (Actually you raise a good point that Al-Mualim would get one of his scribes to tell Altair what it means to be an Assassin, perhaps Al-Mualim DID think that his illusion would make him forget the tenants, but he was wrong), his body seems to have forgotten how to execute the skills he supposedly learned years before.


That just raises the question of why Al Muslim instead of using his Apple to just have Altar cut his own head off with the hidden blade or hop off a cliff when Altar came to confront him, chose to use it to conjure up a couple of illusions and fight Altar thus risking his life and masterplan.
Hey, plot convenience.

SixKeys
01-07-2016, 01:56 AM
I guess I was a bit lenient in that regard. In terms of countering, well he learned that skill when he got a new sword which I guess allowed him to parry more easily and hence he could swiftly counter? He also got upgrades to his bracer to explain things like grabbing ledges. Trust me, doing basic parkour I know enough about how it feels to cat leap on to a ledge and wish you had that extra grip as you quickly slip off.

The problem with that is that he has all those skills in the early fight in Masyaf. Most players won't realize it if it's their first time, but if you've played through it more than once and experimented with Alta´r's skills, you'll find he already has all the skills and upgrades.


Apple ;)

I always saw Al-Mualim's use of the Apple on Altair as far deeper than just "Hey, i made you think I killed you". The Apple was always on Al-Mualim's desk when he and Altair would speak after each mission. He tried to use it again on him halfway through the game but it didn't work and Al-Mualim slightly fumbled, apparently dumbfounded at how Altair resists it. When Al-Mualim says "You're a Novice (NOVICE!!!), a child once more, as the day you first joined our order", he meant that. Literally. The Apple can make you THINK things, it can make you think you're dying, it can make you think you're being held in place, it can make you think your dead enemies are brought back to life, so it wouldnt be a far fetch to say that it made Altair somehow "forget" his abilities. It makes sense because Altair's genes prevent him from actually being controlled ala the Masyaf villagers and Assassins. That was necessary for Al-Mualim because he needed to subdue Altair. Merely taking his weapons and rank would have achieved nothing, but taking away his skill as well...well.

I guess this theory makes the most sense.

ze_topazio
01-07-2016, 02:32 AM
Or maybe Altair was just that obedient.

Al Mualim: You're now a novice again, you're forbidden from using counterattacks all other cool skills because novices are not supposed to know them.

Altair: Ok.

pacmanate
01-07-2016, 01:41 PM
That just raises the question of why Al Muslim instead of using his Apple to just have Altar cut his own head off with the hidden blade or hop off a cliff when Altar came to confront him, chose to use it to conjure up a couple of illusions and fight Altar thus risking his life and masterplan.

I thought it was because at that point Altair saw past the delusions conjured by the Apple and was strong willed enough now that he knew that he could fight it. Hence why he eventually gets out of that state of paralysis.

Or it was more a respect thing on Al Mualim's part. It would have been very cheap to kill Altair in such a way and a fight must be between 2 people. Fair enough he still conjured up illusions of himself but I like to see the final fight being due to respect. Al Mualim could have just slit Altair's throat whilst he had him in paralysis but it doesn't seem like a way people would go about things back then.

I like to see it as one or the other, the second making more sense to me

BananaBlighter
01-07-2016, 06:15 PM
The problem with that is that he has all those skills in the early fight in Masyaf. Most players won't realize it if it's their first time, but if you've played through it more than once and experimented with Alta´r's skills, you'll find he already has all the skills and upgrades.

I don't see the problem here. I thought we were talking about how he lost and then regained skills as the story progressed. What I was trying to say was that as he slowly retrieved the gear he once had,t allowed him to perform abilities that were too hard without them. It makes sense, since, after each sequence, when Al Mualim has had a nice chat with Altair and gives you the gear, that is when the notification comes up to tell you that you've unlocked new abilities. It may seem a bit far fetched that his sword is what controls the moves he can do, though I'll let that pass.

I think that when I said 'new' sword you thought I meant one that he had never previously owned, though I assume all the sword upgrades that he got throughout the game, he would have originally had. By the time you finish the game you have regained all the gear and hence abilities you had in the first mission. His first sword can only combo kill, then the next one can counter, and if my memory serves me correctly he soon gets another which allows him to break defense.


Like I said, the Apple has a seldom mental effect on Altair. Its sole power is always physical. While he remembers everything about being an Assassin (Actually you raise a good point that Al-Mualim would get one of his scribes to tell Altair what it means to be an Assassin, perhaps Al-Mualim DID think that his illusion would make him forget the tenants, but he was wrong), his body seems to have forgotten how to execute the skills he supposedly learned years before.

I mean but, wouldn't he realise that he's forgotten his physical skills. His confidence suggests that he's aware that he's still a great assassin.

I always thought Al Mualim sent the scribe just to kinda tease Altair, though it makes quite a lot of sense that he in fact just thought Altair really had forgotten.

cawatrooper9
01-07-2016, 06:21 PM
I don't see the problem here. I thought we were talking about how he lost and then regained skills as the story progressed. What I was trying to say was that as he slowly retrieved the gear he once had,t allowed him to perform abilities that were too hard without them. It makes sense, since, after each sequence, when Al Mualim has had a nice chat with Altair and gives you the gear, that is when the notification comes up to tell you that you've unlocked new abilities. It may seem a bit far fetched that his sword is what controls the moves he can do, though I'll let that pass.

I think that when I said 'new' sword you thought I meant one that he had never previously owned, though I assume all the sword upgrades that he got throughout the game, he would have originally had. By the time you finish the game you have regained all the gear and hence abilities you had in the first mission. His first sword can only combo kill, then the next one can counter, and if my memory serves me correctly he soon gets another which allows him to break defense.

There are the animations that show Altair equipping new gear, even when he only regains new abilities. I guess it is implied that these abilities come from enhanced gear.

BananaBlighter
01-07-2016, 06:28 PM
There are the animations that show Altair equipping new gear, even when he only regains new abilities. I guess it is implied that these abilities come from enhanced gear.

Exactly. Though the gear is just what he once originally had is my point. None of the gear Al Mualim gives him is new, since, as SixKeys pointed out, he had all of the abilities in the first mission.

cawatrooper9
01-07-2016, 06:31 PM
Exactly. Though the gear is just what he once originally had is my point. None of the gear Al Mualim gives him is new, since, as SixKeys pointed out, he had all of the abilities in the first mission.

That's what I always just kind of assumed, at least. The game isn't so much about him improving his skills, but about him rebuilding himself to what he was, but with an attitude adjustment.

BananaBlighter
01-07-2016, 06:54 PM
That's what I always just kind of assumed, at least. The game isn't so much about him improving his skills, but about him rebuilding himself to what he was, but with an attitude adjustment.

Right, I've always assumed that too as well. He doesn't 'forget' how to counter, but needs better gear to do it.

I was just explaining this to SixKeys, whose point was that it seemed strange that Altair was suddenly able to remember skills he'd once had. Which is understandable since a sword shouldn't determine what moves you can pull off with it so much, though it's a good enough explanation for me, much better than any skill tree has ever done.

itsamea-mario
01-07-2016, 07:04 PM
Assassin's Creed will evolve bio-luminescence and sharper more powerful talons, capable of breaking hard shells.

pacmanate
01-07-2016, 09:00 PM
Right, I've always assumed that too as well. He doesn't 'forget' how to counter, but needs better gear to do it.

I was just explaining this to SixKeys, whose point was that it seemed strange that Altair was suddenly able to remember skills he'd once had. Which is understandable since a sword shouldn't determine what moves you can pull off with it so much, though it's a good enough explanation for me, much better than any skill tree has ever done.

At least you can try and justify stuff in AC1. Justify the Chameleon "skill" i dare ye!

BananaBlighter
01-07-2016, 09:03 PM
At least you can try and justify stuff in AC1. Justify the Chameleon "skill" i dare ye!

Cheese.

I-Like-Pie45
01-07-2016, 11:25 PM
At least you can try and justify stuff in AC1. Justify the Chameleon "skill" i dare ye!

Beijing-level smog obscuring enemy vision caused by Industrial Revolution pollution

Ureh
01-08-2016, 09:41 PM
Gear gives new abilities! :)

Ezio: I put on this glove and now I remember how to climb leap. I added a little hook to my blade and now I can use those zip lines.


Or maybe Altair was just that obedient.

Al Mualim: You're now a novice again, you're forbidden from using counterattacks all other cool skills because novices are not supposed to know them.

Altair: Ok.

Actually let's just go with this one.