PDA

View Full Version : Why Unity Sucks



qmagnet
01-31-2016, 07:28 PM
I've now put about 20 or so hours into Unity.

Honestly, I can't understand why people hated that game. I've only experienced a handful of bugs. Only two have been game stopping but reloading the game, it works.
Visual glitches just make me laugh. I've only seen 2 so far. People who get upset at visual glitches are overreacting.

The missions are fun. The side quests are fun. The customization of gear is wonderful.
I was getting tired of boats from 3 AC games so it's nice to be in just a city.
And Unity is definitely absolutely beautiful, from the clothing animations, to the cutscenes, to the small 180 parkour jumps from hopping down to a lower platform.
I haven't even played coop yet.

To me, Unity is a great game and a wonderful addition to the AC universe.
I have played every main title, AC, ACII, Brotherhood, Revelations, ACIII, Black Flag, Rogue. Unity is probably my favourite after ACII and BF.


Why people said "it sucks" is beyond my comprehension.
Seriously, this game is great. If I had to make some changes, I'd say:

- I don't like the non-French accents, from French characters
- the royalist bad guys look too similar and don't have enough variety
- the pop ups over pop ups are annoying when you're trying to do murder mysteries and you can't read the evidence
- I don't really like having a limit on my bank amount
- I don't like how you can accidentally enter Dead Kings without finishing the main story
- I miss the auto kill combat from a previous kill
- the Nostradamus riddles are way too hard (i cant solve them without an online guide)
- skills should not be locked until certain sessions are completed (lock picking, double assassination, etc.)

The fact that I waited until it was $20 (because of the poor reception) makes it even better. But after being tired of the series obsessed with boats, now I just want to buy Syndicate.

To me, Unity returned to what I loved about the earlier games. Can;'t wait to play Syndicate, but I'm loving Unity currently.

MikeFNY
01-31-2016, 08:02 PM
Welcome to the club :)

Maybe you meant "Why Unity DOES NOT suck" in the title.

qmagnet
01-31-2016, 08:15 PM
Welcome to the club :)

Maybe you meant "Why Unity DOES NOT suck" in the title.

Well the thing is, I figure people might come in here looking for reasons not to play it, like myself.

VestigialLlama4
01-31-2016, 08:30 PM
The reason why Unity sucks is best explained here:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/954025-ACU-History-A-list-of-demonstrable-lies-and-inaccuracies-**SPOILERS**

BananaBlighter
01-31-2016, 09:22 PM
The reason why Unity sucks is best explained here:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/954025-ACU-History-A-list-of-demonstrable-lies-and-inaccuracies-**SPOILERS**

I agree, the historical inaccuracies sure are shameful, but I don't believe that's not why so many people hated it.

I think there was a huge overreaction. I had plenty of great fun in the game, and it's mostly thanks to a great progression system which covered up the boring story. Though when I go back to it now, the gameplay does feel quite unpolished. The parkour is very sticky and inaccurate; vaulting it useless; the cover system feel awkward; the combat is ridiculously slow and the animation/sound are always out of sync; its quite immersion breaking when NPCs teleport to the sides and pop in about the place. Syndicate is better in this regard but it's also taken a few steps back in some ways, namely the controls and over-automation of the parkour as well as the progression system.

VestigialLlama4
01-31-2016, 09:38 PM
I agree, the historical inaccuracies sure are shameful, but I don't believe that's not why so many people hated it.

I think there was a huge overreaction. I had plenty of great fun in the game, and it's mostly thanks to a great progression system which covered up the boring story. Though when I go back to it now, the gameplay does feel quite unpolished. The parkour is very sticky and inaccurate; vaulting it useless; the cover system feel awkward; the combat is ridiculously slow and the animation/sound are always out of sync; its quite immersion breaking when NPCs teleport to the sides and pop in about the place. Syndicate is better in this regard but it's also taken a few steps back in some ways, namely the controls and over-automation of the parkour as well as the progression system.

The thing is the historical immersion is the crux of an AC game. If that isn't there, the rest of the game has to 1) Have an Exceptionally Good Story 2) Exceptionally Strong Gameplay.

To tell an exceptionally strong story in the French Revolution setting, and to have exceptionally strong gameplay grounded on the same...you need to have strong historical immersion. So it feeds itself. The reason Black Flag was great, it had excellent story and gameplay was because it was grounded and immersed in that historical period, same with AC2 and AC1.

UNITY was a game made in bad faith. They decided to flatten all the things that had made their game to appeal to the broadest audience possible, so that's why everything is marketing driven. drawn from popular myths about the Revolution from Scarlet Pimpernel and Scaramouche, with Frenchzio as the Hero. The only real innovations are technical coming from the conversion to Next-Gen.

I hated Unity from Day 1 for its content and not for its glitches. The truth is Unity's glitches could have been and would have been pardoned had the game's content been strong. That's why so much of the backlash has to do with glitches.

Megas_Doux
01-31-2016, 09:50 PM
The game was, for many, plain unplayable at release. That played a huge factor..... That wasn't the case for me, but I certainly do understand the heavy criticism it got because of it since I have the SAME feeling about Arkham Knight -PC player here-. However there's other reasons that many had/have that I don't share such as the "hard combat" or the accents, or lack of them.

Personally, I like what they tried to do with Unity in regards of the whole 'return to roots' department. However I just can't forget its rather void open world, weak story and the fact that the French Revolution was MY dream setting out of the plausible ones since the moment I realized AC was a franchise didn't live up to the expectations.

BananaBlighter
01-31-2016, 10:40 PM
The thing is the historical immersion is the crux of an AC game. If that isn't there, the rest of the game has to 1) Have an Exceptionally Good Story 2) Exceptionally Strong Gameplay.

To tell an exceptionally strong story in the French Revolution setting, and to have exceptionally strong gameplay grounded on the same...you need to have strong historical immersion. So it feeds itself. The reason Black Flag was great, it had excellent story and gameplay was because it was grounded and immersed in that historical period, same with AC2 and AC1.

UNITY was a game made in bad faith. They decided to flatten all the things that had made their game to appeal to the broadest audience possible, so that's why everything is marketing driven. drawn from popular myths about the Revolution from Scarlet Pimpernel and Scaramouche, with Frenchzio as the Hero. The only real innovations are technical coming from the conversion to Next-Gen.

I hated Unity from Day 1 for its content and not for its glitches. The truth is Unity's glitches could have been and would have been pardoned had the game's content been strong. That's why so much of the backlash has to do with glitches.

I get that Unity messed up the whole revolution, but I think that many people don't realise that. The coop missions actually make you feel like you're playing through history, despite many not realising that this version of history is messed up. So people go along with it, because the whole historical immersion in AC can be enjoyed without actually knowing much history (though it's much more entertaining when you do get nice references).

Sesheenku
02-01-2016, 01:57 AM
I bought the PC version way later. Gameplay was superior to all AC's including Syndicate imo and game play is all that matters to me in this series.

qmagnet
02-01-2016, 01:57 AM
The reason why Unity sucks is best explained here:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/954025-ACU-History-A-list-of-demonstrable-lies-and-inaccuracies-**SPOILERS**

I won't read that yet since I haven't yet finished the story.

But if the people are upset over history being rewritten, that's quite silly.
It's not like Arno Dorian was a real French-Austrian who shaped French history. From the Borgias, to Washington, it's all a fictitious rewrite of what could be interesting.
I always look at these storylines as an alternate universe. It's fun to see how the protagonists might interact with real history figures.

I admit, I am playing this after many of the bugs have been worked out. So my experience is starting off better than those who played on release.
But I personally find Arno very likable and I am enjoying the conspiracy unfolding, plus Elise is damn sexy so that's a bonus.
I mean this game is miles above the dreadful ACIII. Connor was absolutely bland and one dimensional.
But I prefer Arno more than any other Assassin (except Ezio). Black Flag was great, but I never felt any actual connection from Edward to the Assassins.
He just felt like a badass pirate who had no interest in the Creed. Looking back, I don't even remember what Edward did with the Creed. Edward was a cool and funny pirate, but I don't consider him an Assassin.
And Shay was like this "could-have-been" cool anti-hero. The whole game he's convinced the Assassins are bad. But the moment where he turns to the Templars never felt justified. It felt like Ubisoft "forced" it just "to be different".

Those who complain about the gameplay, come on! It's great. Combat is a bit less fluent without the one hit auto-kills and the parkour is wrong-direction at times, but we've had that problem since the original game. I really don't know why the hate on that.

For those who think the story sucks, either I'm not at the suck part yet, or they have a ridiculous love for the American Revolution borefest of the previous 3 games.

Kaschra
02-01-2016, 02:08 AM
I have no problem with gameplay or bugs, it's just that I really really dislike story, don't give a damn about the characters, the antagonists are really bland too, and the modern day part is a bad joke. And since I care the most about story and characters, well... can't say I like Unity at all.

VestigialLlama4
02-01-2016, 04:31 AM
But if the people are upset over history being rewritten, that's quite silly.

Saying its silly is as good as telling Ubisoft that they should not be ambitious or creative, its ignoring all the previous games and its ignoring how blatantly false and outright biased the game is.

I can't take very seriously the "It's about the gameplay, stupid" crowd because AC is fundamentally about story. Using this argument only works if you judge UNITY on entirely specific standards since quite obviously if it is judged by the standards of the series, the game is a pathetic failure. If it's judged by the standards of other quality games, it's a pathetic failure.


I mean this game is miles above the dreadful ACIII. Connor was absolutely bland and one dimensional.

I believe the word you are looking for is...European. Europeans as we all know are special perfect people, all you need to be European is a bag of catchphrases, an endless supply of vests, Bruce Wayne features and people will project all kinds of fantasies and personality on you. Good writing doesn't matter if you're European.


I admit, I am playing this after many of the bugs have been worked out. So my experience is starting off better than those who played on release.

I personally think I deserve some credit for being among the very few people to take Unity seriously on release. Absolutely nobody else has discussed the content, the story and all that it implies in the depth and detail that I have. That includes main missions/side missions/databases/co-op missions. If you know something about the real period, like I do, it's baffling how the developers went out of their way to lie to people, and the blatant incompetence on display. No other AC game, with all its inventions and licenses, was this appalling.

Ultimately Ubisoft and the development team didn't care about this period at all. They originally wanted to make a game set in Paris in multiple eras but chose this as a compromise measure, and I think that's the main reason for its overall incoherence.

nukelukespuke34
02-01-2016, 05:33 AM
I surprisingly liked Unity as well. First of all, the graphics are just gorgeous. The buildings, the streets, random piles of wooden stuff scattered around, it was all so detailed. And not to mention the lighting! Gawd, the lighting was beautiful. And on the whole, I liked the revamped parkour too, despite it still having problems with Arno jumping onto the next closest wall when you just want him to get to ground level.

Now, what really pissed me off though was the stealth, which is beyond broken. I don't know what Ubisoft was thinking, putting a thousand guards in every restricted area with barely any places to hide. At times, it felt like there was really no way to stealth some of those missions since every inch of the place is being watched. At least ACIII - Rogue had the stalking zones, which I understand is to make up for the lack of crouch, but even so, it allowed you safe refuge so you can move when a guard's back is turned. In Unity however, the crouch button doesn't make up for the lack of places to hide, so you're detected no matter what. A lot of times I ended up attempting stealth at first, then getting detected, giving up stealth, and fighting my way through. :/

MikeFNY
02-01-2016, 08:46 AM
Saying its silly is as good as telling Ubisoft that they should not be ambitious or creative, its ignoring all the previous games and its ignoring how blatantly false and outright biased the game is.

It's a videogame we're talking about here, not a movie. The beauty of a videogame is that you, the user, can interact with what is going on, the surroundings, maybe deciding your own faith.

Unlike movies.

If you watch a movie you thought was going to be true to history but turned out not be that way, yes, I can understand why you're upset but videogames are not just about the story, they are also about the gameplay and I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong but I sense qmagnet is praising the game for the gameplay which yes, after all bugs were fixed can be a very refreshing and unique experience.

You may like the story and dislike the gameplay or vice-versa. But don't throw away the whole game simply because you found inaccuracies in the story.


I believe the word you are looking for is...European. Europeans as we all know are special perfect people, all you need to be European is a bag of catchphrases, an endless supply of vests, Bruce Wayne features and people will project all kinds of fantasies and personality on you. Good writing doesn't matter if you're European.

I suggest you take it easy before putting words into another user's mouth. If someone believes Connor was not fun it's not because of his colour, age, height, race or nationality. I found the Frye twins boring, will you accuse me of being anti-British?


Now, what really pissed me off though was the stealth, which is beyond broken. I don't know what Ubisoft was thinking, putting a thousand guards in every restricted area with barely any places to hide. At times, it felt like there was really no way to stealth some of those missions since every inch of the place is being watched. At least ACIII - Rogue had the stalking zones, which I understand is to make up for the lack of crouch, but even so, it allowed you safe refuge so you can move when a guard's back is turned. In Unity however, the crouch button doesn't make up for the lack of places to hide, so you're detected no matter what. A lot of times I ended up attempting stealth at first, then getting detected, giving up stealth, and fighting my way through. :/

You need to be patient, very patient, understand every single movement of each and every guard in the mission and also keep an eye on all the hiding places available to you. I had your same, exact opinion when I played the game for the very first time but I also knew that I wasn't being patient enough. Credit goes to user "Ultimatgameplyr" over at Game FAQs. The irony is that I never watched his videos but his "the right way" always kept buzzing in my head. I went back to Unity a few weeks ago and I now know what he meant.

VestigialLlama4
02-01-2016, 09:56 AM
You may like the story and dislike the gameplay or vice-versa. But don't throw away the whole game simply because you found inaccuracies in the story.

For a multi-million dollar AAA game with a Single Player Character story (as in every AC game since its origin), the story is a fundamental part of the game's core. it is as important as the gameplay. To do a game in this genre with only only story or only gameplay is as good as driving a four wheel truck with two wheels. To make special excuses for UNITY is not only ridiculous it is insulting to the developers of AC1, AC2, AC3 and Black Flag. It's basically spitting in the face of Patrice Desilets, Corey May, Raphael Lacoste, Darby McDevitt and others who spent so much time and effort in putting together this unique historical open world game. It's saying that all that extra effort they made was meaningless and unimportant. That those databases written by Danny Wallace was unimportant distraction and a waste.

And story doesn't just mean plot, and main campaign. Story means the global story communicated via open world design -- Side Missions, Background Detail, Enemy Factions, Ambient Dialogue, In-Game Text, Collectibles, on top of this you have the main campaign. These are all crucial to communicate to the audience, to make the open world and its background convincing and, to use everyone's favorite meaningless buzzword, immersive. Without a proper story, you won't have stuff like sea shanties in Black Flag, the name of Kenway's Ship being Jackdaw, Adewale's presence as First Mate and how his relationship with Edward and other pirates moves in the background. All of these are elements from storytelling and they communicate stuff. This applies to the open world design of Black Flag where you see a world of slave plantations, Mayan Ruins, Merchants, Tiny wooden settlements, cities like Havana which is very well developed and Kingston which is fairly recent and still in construction. All of these are story elements and all of them come from a proper historical background and research. Now you may say that all this is meaningless and Black Flag would be enjoyable purely for its naval gameplay even if it was released in a pre-Alpha Render with wireframe models, to which I say, since the game is out in PC, debug the game, remove all cutscenes and extravenous stuff and put out a Mod (call it BLACK FLAG UNFETTERED) and see how people respond then.

Historical accuracy is a fair and legitimate complaint to make about Assassin's Creed games. These are Historical Fiction games for a reason and not PRINCE OF PERSIA: ASSASSIN (as originally intended). AC1, AC2, AC3, Black Flag (aka the games people actually like and which sold well and without which Unity would not exist) were grounded in a proper historical context communicated via the global story of the open world. In my link discussing the historical inaccuracy of Unity, I tackled the entire global presentation in the open world...main missions/side missions/co-op/databases. So my criticism about the historical inaccuracy and its lack of immersion isn't about simple fact-checking, its about dealing with a total failure of vision, made point-by-point. UNITY is a very incompetent product even without its glitches. The open world is not immersive, the equation between main and side missions doesn't make sense and many gamers complained that they couldn't work out the chronology of when certain activities are supposed to take place.

MikeFNY
02-01-2016, 11:37 AM
I'm not denying that Unity has historical inaccuracies and I'm not denying that the story and the characters could have been written in a much better way.

You have to understand that just like yourself and others I was looking forward with excitement to Unity, to Paris, to the French Revolution. In my case it's because of "The Rose of Versailles" that I used to watch on TV way back when I was a child. That anime made me fall in love with the French Revolution, the picturesque Paris, the people, Oscar François de Jarjayes, incidentally a female protagonist.

But even if the story of Unity let me down, I will not put the gameplay on the same level and bash it because the scripting is not as good as I was hoping for.

You seem to be very upset because of the historical inaccuracies of the game. If I were in your shoes I would rewrite the story, I believe it's called fan fiction, pinpointing what should have been done.

But to criticise the whole game, even the gameplay, well I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. Like many I found Syndicate way too easy and going back to Unity made me fell in love with it, the gameplay yes, but it's still man to game love :)

VestigialLlama4
02-01-2016, 12:45 PM
But even if the story of Unity let me down, I will not put the gameplay on the same level and bash it because the scripting is not as good as I was hoping for.

You act as if the gameplay of Unity is separable from all its other choices. It's not. The stealth in the game is very dull and repetitive, the combat is elongated and annoying rather than genuinely challenging and most of the Assassination missions follow the general pattern of conventional steatlh games. Sneak in to a building, move around like a turtle, kill and sneak out. There aren't as many variations and diversity as you have in Dishonored, and moving the stealth indoors (as Unity does) compromises the whole social stealth/crowd aspect of the series. In terms of setting, it's nonsensical since the Revolution was a time of very active and vigilante crowds and public life.

In terms of aesthetics, it's a major step back. In AC3, you had a weather system built to reflect the terrain and climate of North America. Black Flag had a simpler weather system but it suited its setting, then with Unity and Rogue you have the corruption. Unity is set in Paris, a Northern European city, it should have rains, heat and snow (especially since the Revolution was famous for a calendar it created based on the metric system and Parisian weather). Instead it has none. Rogue gives Havana colours to New York. This made sense with AC2 and the Ezio games where the systems wasn't in place yet, but to come after AC3 and refuse to follow up on immersion is a huge letdown.


You seem to be very upset because of the historical inaccuracies of the game.

You seem to act as if this is somehow unreasonable on my part. It is no such thing.


If I were in your shoes I would rewrite the story, I believe it's called fan fiction...

No, that isn't fanfiction. That is people doing Ubisoft's job for itself, and doing it free of charge.

That's what's been happening lately with Ubisoft with their obsession for fan feedback, social backlash and so on. ROGUE wasn't a game made by Ubisoft, it was essentially cooked up by fans online who made up theories about Noble Templars based on over-interpreting Haytham in the third game. Unity was made as a laundry list of "things to avoid doing" so the game answered fan complaints : Protaognist who is Ezioclone/Not serious like Altair and Connor/More focus on Assassin Cult Aspects/Less of a Gump Factor (aka less history)/Less side missions and bloat. There's plenty of fan fiction in Unity as it is.

Personally, I think Ubisoft should not listen to any of its fans, even me. They should make a game and story that they are satisfied with. They should have made Paris through the Ages. They should never make a game set in the French Revolution if they didn't care for it. And UNITY is evidence that they had no interest in that period. Ubisoft is under no obligation to do the complete history of the world and if they don't care about certain periods and settings, they shouldn't tackle it.

MikeFNY
02-01-2016, 01:14 PM
You act as if the gameplay of Unity is separable from all its other choices. It's not..
For you maybe it is not, for me it is, and no I'm not acting, pretending or behaving, I meant what I said. I set my own rules, ignoring the story, the characters and in a certain way also the setting and I'm enjoying the gameplay very much.

Assassin_M
02-01-2016, 05:06 PM
I mean this game is miles above the dreadful ACIII. Connor was absolutely bland and one dimensional.
Okay, I was starting to like you, just starting, but you blew it, man. You blew it.

VestigialLlama4
02-01-2016, 05:37 PM
I set my own rules, ignoring the story, the characters and in a certain way also the setting and I'm enjoying the gameplay very much.

Well that really doesn't mean much as a defense. On that level you can like and enjoy virtually any game.

To really defend UNITY as a good AC game (leave alone good game period) you need to engage with the story, if not the main campaign, then the global open world story. To defend this you need to properly explain the following things:

1) The overall sensibility coming through all this. What it says about Arno as a character, and an Assassin. What special characteristics of Arno are revealed in side missions, his dueling sessions with Augustin Grisier, his interactions with the Cafe Theatre lady, the side missions where he randomly does stupid errands. In the case of Ezio, Edward and Connor you absolutely can get a sense of their character in the side missions and their interactions with NPCs.

2) The weird contradictions you see all over the place. Like Arno is anti-revolutionary for most of the game but then occassionally there are moments he's pro-revolutionary. Like that part where he escorts a funeral procession of a kid soldier to the Pantheon and Robespierre praises him and Arno looks on...is Robespierre a Templar, what is the Assassin interest in this, do the Assassins see him as a Germain puppet and so on?

3) The efficacy of these missions. In some cases the mission content makes Arno's actions seem trivial. One mission is about Arno investigating someone who killed a woman and then used her skin to make a costume. This story derives from a totally false legend made up in the French Restoration, but leaving aside the historical falsification, how does Arno's actions make sense. A guy commits Hannibal Leckter violence and he basically sneaks into a room and steals stuff and gives it to someone else, while the same guy is a powerful politician...when did Assassins lose their b--ls? As a designer if you are introducing content like this the mission has to live up to this violence and intensification, otherwise its just ghoulish anecdote added for no reason. Arno says, "He will pay" and does nothing.

This incident is totally made up anyway, nothing like it ever happened so Ubisoft deliberately inserted it but didn't follow up, I guess they liked the idea of gratuitous violence towards women, which considering how they treated Charlotte Corday in her side mission and made the famous feminist Olympe de Gouges into a collectible head for a sex maniac in another mission, leaving aside how they treat Elise, is probably the case.

4) The chronology of the Co-Op missions and the main game. You need to defend and explain this in a way that makes some amount of sense because even people who liked Unity haven't been able to understand it.

So far nobody has written a proper defense of Unity. By defense I mean people addressing the criticisms and problems people have with this game. Anytime someone mentions Ezioclone, they change the subject, they mention the sexism and fridging of Elise, they change the subject or defend the decision and slam critics as SJWs. I bring up the historical errors, all they do is cite earlier games which made errors. In all these cases, they are not defending Unity on any intrinsic merit it possesses. A defence on intrinsic merits can be made, and has been made, for Revelations or AC3, the two most divisive games before UNITY but it's not been made for Unity, not one that actually engages with the game on a global level at any rate.

So far people have defended UNITY on entirely ideological grounds. They like what Unity represents: a no-fat Assassin experience that supposedly goes back to AC1 as if the games in-between were hackwork unworthy of its cover art. They use words like "gameplay" as if it ends an argument. It does no such thing. The emotional reasons they cite are Paris is Pretty, the new Parkour controls, which means that they are seeing the game as playtesters or tech demonstraters and not as players. By that I mean they aren't immersing themselves in the open world and the environment, they aren't being Arno Dorian.

If the only way Unity can be enjoyed is on a surface and casual glance through and that it's meant to be discarded and disposed on a single playthrough, well that's okay, but then I have never heard people defending such games as worthy of praise. No one has said that Red Dead Redemption is an awesome game except for the lame story, the worse side missions, the bad characters and terrible dialogue.

cawatrooper9
02-01-2016, 05:39 PM
The fact that I waited until it was $20 (because of the poor reception) makes it even better.

I mean, that's probably not only what makes it better, but it may be why you liked it in the first place.

I was lucky in that I didn't really have any significant technical difficulties with Unity when I played it on release week. It seems many people found the game unplayable due to technical issues and glitches. Even then, I thought it was kind of bland, but it did have redeeming qualities (customization, great graphics, even coop was still novel enough to be fun then).

It wasn't until after a few months that patches made the game essentially playable across the board. Then, though, these patch still couldn't fix areas of the game that I took issue with- story being chief among them.

So, I'm glad you like the game and can look past some of its shortcomings, but frankly you may be lucky you paid a third of the price for a game that worked the day you bought it- same can't be said for everyone.


But after being tired of the series obsessed with boats, now I just want to buy Syndicate.

As much as I disliked Unity, I do heavily recommend Syndicate. Again, it's not particularly well done in the story department, but it is still a significant improvement over Unity- plus, if you can look past Unity's failure, you shouldn't have a problem with ACS.


Well that really doesn't mean much as a defense. On that level you can like and enjoy virtually any game.


VL4, man, sometimes you just gotta let it go. You're arguing about whether or not he can subjectively enjoy a game... :p

In MikeFNY's defense, I'd argue that ACU does offer a certain degree of roleplaying that not all other games in the series could. I think this would in fact allow someone to "ignore the story" and still enjoy the game, if they are so inclined. Personally, I'd still find it lacking, but you know the forum mantra by now- "to each their own".

VestigialLlama4
02-01-2016, 06:00 PM
VL4, man, sometimes you just gotta let it go. You're arguing about whether or not he can subjectively enjoy a game... :p

If this was a post about gushing about how people liked Arno or Unity, I wouldn't complain because nobody is raising any question about defending Unity from criticism. It's just them expressing their fondness of this produc.

The point of this post is "Why Unity Sucks". I have said why it sucks on every fundamental level and if you cannot defend against that, then the game is indefensible.


In MikeFNY's defense, I'd argue that ACU does offer a certain degree of roleplaying that not all other games in the series could. I think this would in fact allow someone to "ignore the story" and still enjoy the game, if they are so inclined. Personally, I'd still find it lacking, but you know the forum mantra by now- "to each their own".

That is the first legitimate defense I've seen. As a RPG-esque game, I guess if you approach that way, then it might work. But fundamentally the game is a single player action game and judged in that light its a failure.

Kaschra
02-01-2016, 07:00 PM
Well that really doesn't mean much as a defense. On that level you can like and enjoy virtually any game.

To really defend UNITY as a good AC game (leave alone good game period) you need to engage with the story, if not the main campaign, then the global open world story. To defend this you need to properly explain the following things:

1) The overall sensibility coming through all this. What it says about Arno as a character, and an Assassin. What special characteristics of Arno are revealed in side missions, his dueling sessions with Augustin Grisier, his interactions with the Cafe Theatre lady, the side missions where he randomly does stupid errands. In the case of Ezio, Edward and Connor you absolutely can get a sense of their character in the side missions and their interactions with NPCs.

2) The weird contradictions you see all over the place. Like Arno is anti-revolutionary for most of the game but then occassionally there are moments he's pro-revolutionary. Like that part where he escorts a funeral procession of a kid soldier to the Pantheon and Robespierre praises him and Arno looks on...is Robespierre a Templar, what is the Assassin interest in this, do the Assassins see him as a Germain puppet and so on?

3) The efficacy of these missions. In some cases the mission content makes Arno's actions seem trivial. One mission is about Arno investigating someone who killed a woman and then used her skin to make a costume. This story derives from a totally false legend made up in the French Restoration, but leaving aside the historical falsification, how does Arno's actions make sense. A guy commits Hannibal Leckter violence and he basically sneaks into a room and steals stuff and gives it to someone else, while the same guy is a powerful politician...when did Assassins lose their b--ls? As a designer if you are introducing content like this the mission has to live up to this violence and intensification, otherwise its just ghoulish anecdote added for no reason. Arno says, "He will pay" and does nothing.

This incident is totally made up anyway, nothing like it ever happened so Ubisoft deliberately inserted it but didn't follow up, I guess they liked the idea of gratuitous violence towards women, which considering how they treated Charlotte Corday in her side mission and made the famous feminist Olympe de Gouges into a collectible head for a sex maniac in another mission, leaving aside how they treat Elise, is probably the case.

4) The chronology of the Co-Op missions and the main game. You need to defend and explain this in a way that makes some amount of sense because even people who liked Unity haven't been able to understand it.

So far nobody has written a proper defense of Unity. By defense I mean people addressing the criticisms and problems people have with this game. Anytime someone mentions Ezioclone, they change the subject, they mention the sexism and fridging of Elise, they change the subject or defend the decision and slam critics as SJWs. I bring up the historical errors, all they do is cite earlier games which made errors. In all these cases, they are not defending Unity on any intrinsic merit it possesses. A defence on intrinsic merits can be made, and has been made, for Revelations or AC3, the two most divisive games before UNITY but it's not been made for Unity, not one that actually engages with the game on a global level at any rate.

So far people have defended UNITY on entirely ideological grounds. They like what Unity represents: a no-fat Assassin experience that supposedly goes back to AC1 as if the games in-between were hackwork unworthy of its cover art. They use words like "gameplay" as if it ends an argument. It does no such thing. The emotional reasons they cite are Paris is Pretty, the new Parkour controls, which means that they are seeing the game as playtesters or tech demonstraters and not as players. By that I mean they aren't immersing themselves in the open world and the environment, they aren't being Arno Dorian.

If the only way Unity can be enjoyed is on a surface and casual glance through and that it's meant to be discarded and disposed on a single playthrough, well that's okay, but then I have never heard people defending such games as worthy of praise. No one has said that Red Dead Redemption is an awesome game except for the lame story, the worse side missions, the bad characters and terrible dialogue.


Oh god dammit, if he enjoys Unity for it's gameplay, then let him enjoy it.
I don't like Unity either, but man, you are really overdoing it.

PedroAntonio2
02-01-2016, 07:32 PM
The story is great to some level, but near Sequence 11 everything just feels rushed and without explaination. The Council is just dumb and blame Arno for everything while he is the only one doing something in the Brotherhood, then suddenly he becomes Master Assassin. The Sword of Eden just appears for no reason and importance, the '' see the memories of your targets'' is just stupid, they had a lot of potential in doing some ambiguous storyline with the Templars, but they decided to throw that away. Oh, and the plot twists are all predictable and without emotion at all, they just try to repeat the same old AC storyline formula.


The gamepaly whatever is the best in the franchise. Stealth, combat and parkour are great.

qmagnet
02-01-2016, 10:49 PM
Okay, I was starting to like you, just starting, but you blew it, man. You blew it.

LOL you actually liked ACIII? I found not one thing about that game, Connor, or Haytham interesting.



If this was a post about gushing about how people liked Arno or Unity, I wouldn't complain because nobody is raising any question about defending Unity from criticism. It's just them expressing their fondness of this produc.

I don't want spoil anything for myself, so I'm trying not to read to many points about Unity's story. But as you have issues with historical inaccuracies, why wouldn't you have issues with all the AC games then?
I mean, I'm no history buff, but is the stretch that much more than Edward/Blackbeard, Connor/Washington and Ezio/Borgias?
I hear in Syn, you team up with Dicckens and Darwin. Like are those issues for you as well?




So, I'm glad you like the game and can look past some of its shortcomings, but frankly you may be lucky you paid a third of the price for a game that worked the day you bought it- same can't be said for everyone.


As much as I disliked Unity, I do heavily recommend Syndicate. Again, it's not particularly well done in the story department, but it is still a significant improvement over Unity- plus, if you can look past Unity's failure, you shouldn't have a problem with ACS.

Well as I said, I honestly don't see these "shortcomings". I legitimately really enjoy Arno and Unity. It was like expecting a crappy game, then realizing I had a very fun game and I only had to pay a budget price for it. I have played all the games from the main series and I was actually thinking about being done with the AC games after BF. I bought Rogue but it sat on my shelf for about 6 months. I just found the whole Kenway Saga incredibly uninteresting and unlike pretty much everyone else, I was pretty bored of sailing. Unity actually rekindled my love for the series and it is the reason I am going to buy Syndicate. So I am looking forward to playing the twins.

I just really hope we go to Japan some day and see Ninjas.

BATISTABUS
02-02-2016, 12:08 AM
LOL you actually liked ACIII? I found not one thing about that game, Connor, or Haytham interesting.
I'm not speaking for M, but those two characters are possibly my favorite in the franchise. I'll admit that AC3's gameplay was lacking in a lot of ways...and the game did not deliver on all of its promises, but I think it has some of the best characters and storytelling in the series.

As for Unity, I think it's much better than the rap that it ended up with. These complaints were very strongly focused on the bugs and social features, causing the rest of the awesome content to get glossed over. I really liked Arno as a character, I thought the changes to freerunning were fantastic, and I really liked the way the game put a focus on stealth.

As for historical inaccuracies...Revolutionary France is one time period I'm quite uninterested in, so I can't really say I noticed or care. There's always the "Templars re-write history" excuse.

Assassin_M
02-02-2016, 12:47 AM
LOL you actually liked ACIII? I found not one thing about that game, Connor, or Haytham interesting.
Well, it's funny you say this because you're here arguing why ACU is great, so it's ironic. I really couldnt care less that you didnt think AC III was interesting. Really, I don't. Just like you shouldnt care if I think Unity is not that great, nor if anyone else thought so as well. I guess that's the difference between me and you. I didnt come to your thread and say "Lololo you actually liked Unity it sucks".

Bipolar Matt
02-02-2016, 02:35 AM
Unity, in my eyes:

The good:
Arno as a character. I liked him
Increased difficulty in combat
The lovingly crafted city of Paris
Parkour up/parkour down
Elise de la Serre
The weapons/armor/gear system

The bad:
Light on story
Didn't fully capitalize on the potential of the French Revolution
The combat system could be flaky at times
Disjointed side missions
I really didn't like the year and a half jump between killing Bellec and then you rejoin Arno in Paris for the next sequence. That left a bad taste in my mouth. Why so long?

The ugly:
After all the patching, still managed to fall through the map twice
The game took WAY too long to get Arno to Assassin in the story Way too long and way too slow...
Taking whistle out. Hated that.
No treasure maps to purchase. Hated that.

Still enjoyed the game and will replay through it someday.

VestigialLlama4
02-02-2016, 05:56 AM
I don't want spoil anything for myself, so I'm trying not to read to many points about Unity's story. But as you have issues with historical inaccuracies, why wouldn't you have issues with all the AC games then?

I don't know because I am a human being and I'm rational (or I try to be at any rate). I am judging Unity's historical accuracy as per the standards of the preceding games and the original intent and vision of the series by its developers and writers. Without that vision, without the success of their work, nobody would think of a game set in Revolutionary France, so Unity owes its success and existence to their hard work and precedents. While every game should have the freedom to change and take a new approach, I don't think comparing it to the established style in earlier games is unfair or unreasonable in any measure. You cannot make drastic changes to style and approach and not expect people to raise eyebrows, if you are making those changes you should have a damn good reason for doing so and a great story to tell. Those who believe Unity is defensible need to make a case for the latter and so far they have not done so.


I mean, I'm no history buff,

That is okay, but it's important to keep in mind that these games were made by history buffs, and are popular among that crowd. Assassin's Creed would not be the games it is, or have the prestige it does as this innovative open world concept, if it didn't appeal to a broader audience, an audience that wants smarter storytelling and seek from games what they can't get elsewhere. This is what led to the birth of Assassin's Creed at the dawn of the 7th Gen Console and what allowed the series to be constantly refreshing for that great golden cycle between AC1-Black Flag.


...but is the stretch that much more than Edward/Blackbeard, Connor/Washington and Ezio/Borgias?

Yes it is much worse and far more drastic than all of that. As that link above shows. I have arranged it in boxes, so you can Avoid Spoilers. Click on Co-Op Missions which have no story spoilers whatsoever, or the Side Missions which are totally different campaigns.

Of course that might be TL;DR for some people. In that case, I must ask why you opened this thread to begin with? Are you not interested in diverse perspectives?

qmagnet
02-03-2016, 12:50 AM
Well, it's funny you say this because you're here arguing why ACU is great, so it's ironic. I really couldnt care less that you didnt think AC III was interesting. Really, I don't. Just like you shouldnt care if I think Unity is not that great, nor if anyone else thought so as well. I guess that's the difference between me and you. I didnt come to your thread and say "Lololo you actually liked Unity it sucks".
I'm sorry. It seems as though I've come across differently than I intended. I wasn't laughing at you because you like something I don't. I just found it funny how different people can enjoy stuff. It was a friendly LOL, like when my friends enjoy a movie I hated or vice verca.



Yes it is much worse and far more drastic than all of that. As that link above shows. I have arranged it in boxes, so you can Avoid Spoilers. Click on Co-Op Missions which have no story spoilers whatsoever, or the Side Missions which are totally different campaigns.

Of course that might be TL;DR for some people. In that case, I must ask why you opened this thread to begin with? Are you not interested in diverse perspectives?
I'll have to go through your notes after I've completed the game, because almost all of it has spoiler tags. But as I said earlier, I don't see the AC games as earth history. I see them as an alternate story.

And I'm okay with discussing AC lore. I'm not fighting diverse perspectives as you seem to have read. But honestly, I wrote the thread because I think Unity is fun game and it deserves to be played, even if many people trashed it.

qmagnet
02-03-2016, 12:57 AM
I'm not speaking for M, but those two characters are possibly my favorite in the franchise. I'll admit that AC3's gameplay was lacking in a lot of ways...and the game did not deliver on all of its promises, but I think it has some of the best characters and storytelling in the series.

As for Unity, I think it's much better than the rap that it ended up with. These complaints were very strongly focused on the bugs and social features, causing the rest of the awesome content to get glossed over. I really liked Arno as a character, I thought the changes to freerunning were fantastic, and I really liked the way the game put a focus on stealth.

As for historical inaccuracies...Revolutionary France is one time period I'm quite uninterested in, so I can't really say I noticed or care. There's always the "Templars re-write history" excuse.

I think my main problem with Connor, is that he wasn't really passionate about revenge. At least he didn't come across that way. He just always seem really calm and tired. Plus it was difficult for me to have a connection to a culture that was intentionally not translated to English. And the whole American Revolution doesn't interest me one bit so I guess I went in not caring anyway. But it would have been nice for Ubisoft to get me interested in that time period, like they did with Ezio's saga.

SixKeys
02-03-2016, 03:16 AM
If this was a post about gushing about how people liked Arno or Unity, I wouldn't complain

You always have before, why stop now? http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/rolleyes.png


Oh god dammit, if he enjoys Unity for it's gameplay, then let him enjoy it.
I don't like Unity either, but man, you are really overdoing it.

^ So much this. People like games for different, entirely objective reasons. You act like you're the sole authority on what people are allowed to enjoy in a video game and it has to conform to your priorities.

You (VestigialLlama) keep saying gameplay isn't a legit reason to enjoy what should be a story-focused game which is complete nonsense. I enjoyed Unity's gameplay more than some other AC games. I enjoyed the challenge of sentries having an extended range of vision and having to really circle around each area planning your attack. I liked that they nerfed Eagle Vision to a cooldown ability. I loved the customization and how different outfits could limit you in certain ways and give you an edge in others. I liked having the hidden blade be the primary assassination tool, meaning you couldn't just lob an axe at some guy's head from 200 yards away and call it a day. I didn't like the excessive collectibles, but I didn't like them in the five games prior either. The BBC accents never bothered me because it makes no less sense than people who are supposed to be speaking French with each other having French accents. When French people speak with each other, they don't sound like foreigners struggling with the language. The historical angle was never the reason I picked up these games, I was more invested in parkour and social stealth. They could have had those elements take place in a modern day setting and I would have been happy. In fact, I wish that's what AC3 would have been, but I don't want to get off track. I play these games for atmosphere, and Unity had more of that than some of my lesser favorites. If my least favorites had awesome gameplay and awesome atmosphere, I would be much more forgiving about their story flaws. (ACR only gets away with being what it is because of the city.)

BATISTABUS
02-03-2016, 03:45 AM
I think my main problem with Connor, is that he wasn't really passionate about revenge. At least he didn't come across that way. He just always seem really calm and tired. Plus it was difficult for me to have a connection to a culture that was intentionally not translated to English. And the whole American Revolution doesn't interest me one bit so I guess I went in not caring anyway. But it would have been nice for Ubisoft to get me interested in that time period, like they did with Ezio's saga.
He wasn't passionate in his actions or in his performance? I'm going to assume you mean the performance considering he was constantly asking about Lee and fighting people. Connor tends to be reserved most of the time, but has bursts of anger or intensity. The performance by Noah Watts is largely in his movements and facial expression, with the vocal aspect being pretty subtle at times. While some of the side missions (that were not performed in motion capture) have some really awkward sounding bits, for the more cinematic cutscenes, I think his performance was some of the best we had seen in AC up until that point.

If you don't connect with the non-English bits, there's nothing I can say to change your mind. Personally, I think it really adds to the authenticity of the game and helps with immersion. I would prefer characters to always speak their native languages out loud and have subtitles, but I know a lot of fans would be against that idea. I'm used to watching a lot of subtitled anime, so reading text while watching video is natural for me.

I'm not sure if you're American or not, but if you don't like the time period, I can understand that. I had no interest in the French Revolution, and honestly I felt that it hurt my enjoyment of Unity's story. To be fair, the Italian Renaissance is one of the most romantic time periods in history in terms of art, architecture, music, philosophy, etc. It's hard not to like even if you don't know anything about it going in. While the story of AC3 obviously was very strongly intertwined with the events of the American Revolution, I think the characters were interesting enough on their own without having to rely on the events around them.

VestigialLlama4
02-03-2016, 05:14 AM
You (VestigialLlama) keep saying gameplay isn't a legit reason to enjoy what should be a story-focused game which is complete nonsense.

No it's not nonsense. The fact is if a game is primarily about gameplay then the story must be downplayed in favor of that. Like SHADOW OF MORDOR which is quite a cunning game has a weak story. The game knows this so it basically puts that in the background and lore because the story is not as important as the Nemesis System so it dials everything back to that focus. You might say this is gameplay trumping story, that is true but fundamentally it's about the game playing to its strengths and reordering the entire game so as not to cheat the player with pointless story. In UNITY, such reordering is not present at all. The game is very much a story game. The meat of the game is the Main Campaign, of Arno and Elise. That's what the game is about. If UNITY was intended to show-case Co-Op as it was heavily promoted in the game, the game must be re-ordered to focus on that.


I enjoyed Unity's gameplay more than some other AC games. I enjoyed the challenge of sentries having an extended range of vision and having to really circle around each area planning your attack. I liked that they nerfed Eagle Vision to a cooldown ability. I loved the customization and how different outfits could limit you in certain ways and give you an edge in others. I liked having the hidden blade be the primary assassination tool, meaning you couldn't just lob an axe at some guy's head from 200 yards away and call it a day.

Well if such an expensive product can only satisfy with you only 25% to recommend it, you must be the rarest of forgiving consumers. As for customization, I would actually love it if they gave it a story reason, i.e. an Assassin taking on disguises to blend it, but no it's just something the players to do to share on social media...I mean these are Assassins, they aren't GTA protagonists who can justify endless wardrobes. As for "nerfing" Eagle Vision...well when Arkham Asylum came out, everyone said Detective Vision was overpowered, but Rocksteady refused to nerf it, they created tougher opponents and situations that complicated the use of that device. I like the Rocksteady approach, keep all the upgrades from earlier games (except for one or two) and give people harder challenges and missions.


You act like you're the sole authority on what people are allowed to enjoy in a video game and it has to conform to your priorities.

I am honestly tired of adding "in my opinion" to every second sentence I have to write. I should think that goes without saying. Yes everything I say is my subjective opinion, it's about what I think. But the important word is "I think", in that I actually take my time to think through why the game doesn't work, I try to understand why the developers made the game the same way, because these are products where every detail is constructed and layered over months. So if you are saying "It's about the Gameplay your argument is invalid" then I think that it's insulting to games like DARK SOULS, PORTAL, SHADOW OF MORDOR which heavily focus on gameplay over story simply because it lowers the bar just so trash like Unity gets through.

The sort of thinking used to defend Unity is fundamentally ideological. It's about people liking Unity because it fits the current bag of fads more than it has to do with the actual game itself. RPG-like content, Customization, Dark Souls-esque "challenging" combat (which is actually no such thing)...and expecting everybody else to be ashamed of the conventional games that came before because it had "Story" and "historical stuff", when for most of us that's what we liked about AC and this is important, that's a perfectly legitimate and good reason for liking these games. Liking Unity for some parts and pretending that those parts are the "heart and soul" of the game (i.e. that Unity is not a Single Player Story game at its core) and acting as if that excuses its incredible flaws is bad faith. I mean when i defend AC3, I acknowledge its flaws and I defend it acknowledging that there are (some) legitimate reasons why it didn't entirely work.

The fact is Unity's gameplay is nothing to write home about. The combat is not Dark Souls because the enemies are not really evenly matched. It's challening because they removed some of the button functions (Counter/Counter-Grab) from earlier games. The Parkour is redone for Next-Gen and yes that is to be credited but then this is very much an expected development. It isn't revolutionary. As for the Assassination missions, it's not social stealth, it borrows from other stealth games...you sneak into a building, past guards just like Batman's Stealth Rooms and sneak out. None of that social tensions between public/private is there. And as far as options goes, it's not Dishonored.

VestigialLlama4
02-03-2016, 06:10 AM
But honestly, I wrote the thread because I think Unity is fun game and it deserves to be played, even if many people trashed it.

Well UNITY, contrary to general beliefs, did sell well commercially so many people did play it. If you think UNITY is some forgotten underplayed game then you are mistaken. It's just that people didn't like the game by and large. The debate about Unity has been about its technical competence, its state of development and about it's general quality of content.My point is that the people who dislike Unity for its content aren't idiots who aren't true gamers and care nothing for gameplay nor is UNITY some experimental game. The game was intended to be safe, market friendly cash cow and all its aesthetic decisions (Pseudo-BBC Accents, RPG-Lite, Ezioclone/Difficult-To-Animate-Women-For-Coop) were made in that light, the fact that the game ultimately failed to perform the function it was intended to do, doesn't automatically change that.

UNITY was supposed to be the point where AC sold out, and it failed because even selling-out takes a certain talent and skill. I am quite sure that if the game was technically competent and released to the public without that backlash, you would have many people complaining about what a shallow game it is instead of jumping to its defenses. It's basic psychology. The reviews of the game were all mediocre, even the ones made on good copies. You look back you will find 6 or 7/10...not that I think these review sites matter a great deal, but the perception was that this was a bland mediocre game from the get-go and nobody had illusions otherwise.


I think my main problem with Connor, is that he wasn't really passionate about revenge. At least he didn't come across that way. He just always seem really calm and tired. Plus it was difficult for me to have a connection to a culture that was intentionally not translated to English. And the whole American Revolution doesn't interest me one bit so I guess I went in not caring anyway. But it would have been nice for Ubisoft to get me interested in that time period, like they did with Ezio's saga.

Well as Abstergo Entertainment said in BLACK FLAG: "Connor's story lacks the proper balance to tell the true history of America."


I'm not sure if you're American or not, but if you don't like the time period, I can understand that.

Well we all know that most Europeans are a pack of Eurotrash ingrates who are ignorant of how their forefathers were mostly Nazi collaborators and they needed the Americans and Soviets to bail them out. In the case of America, literally, since their post-war prosperity owes more to the Marshall Plan than any ingenuity on their part. So that's why they think American history is boring because theirs is obviously so much better...Americans were racist and Europeans weren't (except for Jews, Gypsies and these days, Greek people) and after all only Americans care about American history, it can't possibly interest anybody else unlike European history which is always super interesting.

That's pretty much what's behind all these American-history-is-boring comments, which are then repeated and rehashed by American "liberal" commenters who don't want to deal with their history either. I mean yeah American history had slavery but so did the Spanish, the French, the Dutch (which abolished slavery after the Americans did) and the English (who like to tell people about the time they abolished the slave trade rather the two centuries they profitted off it) and yet not one of these countries has made as many works dealing with the darker side of their history the way America has. Ironically, these same Europeans will like Westerns which allows them to be entertained by American cliches that fit their stereotype...live off vicarious violence while enjoying works which ironically comment on it, like Red Dead Redemption made by a Scottish development team that would never make a game about the number of Scottish Highlanders who profitted off slavery, or collaborated with the British while hypocritically talking up Scottish pride or how its soldiers loyally plundered the empire while playing its bagpipes. None of this is mentioned when they start talking about "independence"...

dei.machiavelli
02-03-2016, 12:44 PM
Well we all know that most Europeans are a pack of Eurotrash ingrates who are ignorant of how their forefathers were mostly Nazi collaborators and they needed the Americans and Soviets to bail them out. In the case of America, literally, since their post-war prosperity owes more to the Marshall Plan than any ingenuity on their part. So that's why they think American history is boring because theirs is obviously so much better...Americans were racist and Europeans weren't (except for Jews, Gypsies and these days, Greek people) and after all only Americans care about American history, it can't possibly interest anybody else unlike European history which is always super interesting.

That's pretty much what's behind all these American-history-is-boring comments, [...] Ironically, these same Europeans will like Westerns which allows them to be entertained by American cliches that fit their stereotype...live off vicarious violence while enjoying works which ironically comment on it, [...]

Wow, spurting such a massive wall of insults and generalisations towards the people of a whole continent while blaming THEM of stereotypes ... the irony, the irony.

The story of Unity may have disappointed you (as it has many others for a range of various reasons). Tastes are very much different. I am also a lover of history, however my expectations simply weren't as high - tbh when I heard them touching the French Revolution I immediately was sceptical, because an "objective and fair" view of everything which happened during that time period is something even historians struggle with. Even more problematic is many political ideas of that period still living on in some form, so who you consider to be the "good" or the "bad" guys during the revolution might also depend on your own political beliefs. Concerning that: You can clearly see that Ubisoft struggles with the more modern time periods in the AC games, as they obviously fear to offend people strongly relating to the persons invovled. That's why they didn't portray Napoleon in Unity or Queen Victoria in Syndicate as evil Templar masterminds, although the earlier games clearly hinted in such directions.

You obviously dislike Unity's portrayal of the Jacobins (90 % of your criticism about historical inaccuracies boils down to that). I share that the "black/white" approach they took with that is not an example for very good storytelling, although it is present in every AC game so far (with small exceptions). What people here already told you: This is primarily a product of entertainment and not an academic paper. They are keeping it simple and creating a "hero" and a "villain" side like they always did (and stop referring to your in-detail analysis, because if you scrutinised the games so far with the same amount of effort, you will find just as many inaccuracies and simplifications as in Unity). You can dislike that - but telling other people how wrong they are because they enjoyed the GAME is just an incredible act of arrogance. If you want to be so passionate about a game, it's fine. But not accepting any other opinions and then throwing insults at people who have other tastes than you just makes you appear as a giant and narcisstic hypocrite.

VestigialLlama4
02-03-2016, 01:58 PM
...tbh when I heard them touching the French Revolution I immediately was sceptical, because an "objective and fair" view of everything which happened during that time period is something even historians struggle with.

Let me quote Alex Amancio game director of Unity, What we actually try to do, and I think this is just a personal belief that we have, is to avoid reducing history. You can’t start taking sides, because that makes it biased, and what we’re really trying to do is expose every slice of history in the most unbiased way possible (http://time.com/3471390/assassins-creed-unity). This was two months before release. I will give Amancio the benefit of the doubt and assume that, his writers and researchers (who decided the content) told him it was accurate and he simply decided to take it on faith and focus on the technical side. I can sympathize with that (and I happen to like REVELATIONS, his previous AC game a lot). But nonetheless, this statement is an utter lie. And yes, ubisoft marketing lie all the time to sell their product, in which case they should not give interviews to Time magazine and try and broaden their audience, stick to gaming sites.


What people here already told you: This is primarily a product of entertainment and not an academic paper.

I am not asking for objectivity.There's no black-and-white approach. UNITY-defenders will cite some inaccuracy in earlier games and say that Ubisoft has the right to fake stuff entirely, their extreme standards are Academic Paper(Accurate) and Dan Brown(Inaccurate). This is the standards of people suffering from borderline personality disorder, in that it refuses to accept reasonable expectations of a middle ground. Just because earlier AC games took license in some areas, the parts of the game which are accurate don't get washed away or brushed off. I am merely asking Ubisoft to live up to its own standards which has always been "slightly more accurate" than other stories in that era. So for AC1 and Crusades, everyone knows Robin Hood stories/Kingdom of Heaven and AC1 is a more accurate depiction of that era. Revelations likewise showed Ottoman Turkey more respectfully than other Western fictions. AC3 is truer to history than Mel Gibson's Patriot, and Black Flag is truer to history than Pirates of the Caribbean. The reasonable expectation for UNITY was, "Be more accurate than Scarlet Pimpernel and A Tale of Two Cities". These are low standards and perfectly doable. Instead Unity makes those two stories, written in the counter-revolutionary English tradition, look like Jacobin propaganda.


...but telling other people how wrong they are because they enjoyed the GAME is just an incredible act of arrogance.

This post is asking "Why Unity Sucks"/ I only gave a link to an old post and that's it. Then the OP came and said that the history is unimportant which to me is even more arrogant than anything I could say. If the history is unimportant than Patrice Desilets, Corey May and all the developers who created accurate backgrounds, database entries and the like were wasting their time. As was Darby McDevitt when he wrote Black Flag and created an unusually rich and detailed background and milieu. To me it's arrogant to spit on the hard work and artistic committment of the game's developers and writers. By not calling out UNITY's failings in light of earlier games, you are insulting the hard work and creativity that made AC what it is today. Without that hard work and creativity, Unity/Rogue/Syndicate would not exist.

Nor is Unity some radical innovator in gameplay. All it does is adjust earlier systems to Next-Gen, that its still enjoyable on that level merely vindicates the original conceptual vision of the franchise. It's stealth mission design is stolen without credit or acknowledgement from Black Flag, its ideas for hard combat and hard stealth is to nerf abilities rather than create more challenging enemies, missions and environments (aka how Rocksteady and actually creative developers work). This approach is ideologically appealing to some people because it validates their complaints but that doesn't mean that the gameplay is sufficiently different or innovative that its flaws can work away. These are expensive products and fundamentally Unity doesn't offer enough to merit its sale price.

cawatrooper9
02-03-2016, 03:34 PM
No it's not nonsense. The fact is if a game is primarily about gameplay then the story must be downplayed in favor of that. Like SHADOW OF MORDOR which is quite a cunning game has a weak story. The game knows this so it basically puts that in the background and lore because the story is not as important as the Nemesis System so it dials everything back to that focus. You might say this is gameplay trumping story, that is true but fundamentally it's about the game playing to its strengths and reordering the entire game so as not to cheat the player with pointless story. In UNITY, such reordering is not present at all. The game is very much a story game. The meat of the game is the Main Campaign, of Arno and Elise. That's what the game is about. If UNITY was intended to show-case Co-Op as it was heavily promoted in the game, the game must be re-ordered to focus on that.


Look, I agree that Shadow of Mordor is an excellent game in spite of its weak campaign. I have spent way more time than I'm proud to admit simply hunting orcs and ignoring the storyline. But to say that Shadow of Mordor "puts that (the storyline) in the background" isn't necessarily true. The story is there, always- it's the gamer who puts it into the background. If someone wanted to rush through the game's campaign, they certainly could- and in my opinion, would be missing out on the best parts of the game, but who am I to say what someone can subjectively enjoy?

Same goes for Unity. There obviously is no shortage of content in Unity. Sure, some storyline has to be suffered through before the world opens up, and more storyline has to be completed to unlock subsequent events, but that's also technically the case for Mordor too.

Do I think Unity is a weak game in the AC franchise, and its gameplay does not redeem its story? Sure, I'd totally agree with you on that from my own personal perspective. But we don't get to bully people by saying that their entire basis for enjoying a game is invalid. I'm pretty sure people can decide for themselves, actually.

VestigialLlama4
02-03-2016, 04:09 PM
...but who am I to say what someone can subjectively enjoy?

I am not telling anyone what to enjoy or not. People who enjoy Unity are playing the game and not posting here. The people who post here are only a small part of the gaming public after all. If they come here to discuss the game or ask why people didn't like it, then they should expect someone to reply to that. I actually didn't want to get into a long argument. I merely said a link, but then the OP took offense to that and attacked me for saying that the historical inaccuracy is a silly reason for disliking the game.

I have a problem with the idea that the history is "silly", or unimportant, because the historical part has always been fundamental to what makes the game unique, even if some people don't entirely get the background details. The global story in the open world in the earlier games, the story and metaphor, even the fiction is grounded with a strong historical framework which is what sets AC unique and gives the games its time machine quality. It is the reason why the developers from Patrice and Corey May downwards designed the game.


But we don't get to bully people by saying that their entire basis for enjoying a game is invalid.

I am not bullying anyone here. Bullying is what I get when I say positive words about AC3 in a long paragraph and replies mention that and ignore the rest which is what the OP did, mocking anyone for liking the American Revolution settings when he was the one mentioning that.

This post is about defending Unity. And you can only defend Unity by answering criticisms about the game's quality. Most people don't even accept the criticisms of the game on any front aside from glitches, as legitimate, they keep saying "gameplay". But the criticism is legitimate on both a content and technical level. I mean in an open world game, there should be some coherence and vision, right. That coherence is what creates "immersion". In AC2, the game made Borgia into cackling bad guys, inaccurate and unfair yes but there was a coherent vision uniting and tying everything together. A basic aesthetic. That's not there in Unity.

If you want me to be nice to Unity, I will say that I liked certain scenes and moments here and there in the game and I loved the Time Anomalies (and I can't repeat how much I would have preferred if Unity made the game they originally planned instead of the one we ended up with) and I have zero complaints about its approach to MD, that was never my problem with it. I dislike Arno as a protagonist but if the setting was better achieved and he had a better cast of villains and NPCs (seriously, the Unity Templars are the worst, as evil as the Borgia and not half as entertaining), I wouldn't mind so much. I am not a very big fan of Jacob and Evie for instance, but the superb writing and characterization of the villains made up for that.

As it is, Unity has Pierre Bellec and it has Elise, the rest are lame. Napoleon looked like he might be cool, but his Paris Side Stories missions ruined him completely. I mean this isn't much but it's enough to make it better than the total disgrace that is Rogue (which is fanfiction and not a game).

cawatrooper9
02-03-2016, 04:41 PM
I am not bullying anyone here. Bullying is what I get when I say positive words about AC3 in a long paragraph and replies mention that and ignore the rest which is what the OP did, mocking anyone for liking the American Revolution settings when he was the one mentioning that.

This post is about defending Unity. And you can only defend Unity by answering criticisms about the game's quality. Most people don't even accept the criticisms of the game on any front aside from glitches, as legitimate, they keep saying "gameplay". But the criticism is legitimate on both a content and technical level. I mean in an open world game, there should be some coherence and vision, right. That coherence is what creates "immersion". In AC2, the game made Borgia into cackling bad guys, inaccurate and unfair yes but there was a coherent vision uniting and tying everything together. A basic aesthetic. That's not there in Unity.

If you want me to be nice to Unity, I will say that I liked certain scenes and moments here and there in the game and I loved the Time Anomalies (and I can't repeat how much I would have preferred if Unity made the game they originally planned instead of the one we ended up with) and I have zero complaints about its approach to MD, that was never my problem with it. I dislike Arno as a protagonist but if the setting was better achieved and he had a better cast of villains and NPCs (seriously, the Unity Templars are the worst, as evil as the Borgia and not half as entertaining), I wouldn't mind so much. I am not a very big fan of Jacob and Evie for instance, but the superb writing and characterization of the villains made up for that.


I really don't care if you're "nice" to Unity. Again, I think it's one of the weaker games in the franchise, too. And honestly, neither of us is really taking a bold stance here- Unity is pretty widely hated for a variety of reasons, regardless of the claim that "Most people don't even accept the criticisms of the game on any front aside from glitches, as legitimate."

What I take issue with, and what I think I've clarified many times over, is that you're trying to interpret a video game (by nature, a pretty complex piece of media) in a way that would be overly-simplistic for even something as rudimentary as a Saturday morning cartoon. You leave no room for others' interpretations. It's fine to say that the game-play in Unity isn't enough for you, and I totally agree. That's our interpretation. To try to play that off as law, however, is just silly and naive. I expect better of you.

VestigialLlama4
02-03-2016, 05:23 PM
What I take issue with, and what I think I've clarified many times over, is that you're trying to interpret a video game (by nature, a pretty complex piece of media) in a way that would be overly-simplistic for even something as rudimentary as a Saturday morning cartoon. You leave no room for others' interpretations.

What should I do to leave room for other people's interpretations then? The original post:


Honestly, I can't understand why people hated that game. I've only experienced a handful of bugs. Only two have been game stopping but reloading the game, it works.
Visual glitches just make me laugh. I've only seen 2 so far. People who get upset at visual glitches are overreacting.
...
To me, Unity is a great game and a wonderful addition to the AC universe.
I have played every main title, AC, ACII, Brotherhood, Revelations, ACIII, Black Flag, Rogue. Unity is probably my favourite after ACII and BF.

Why people said "it sucks" is beyond my comprehension.

After I replied to him, in a kind non-argumentative fashion. This poster then said:


But if the people are upset over history being rewritten, that's quite silly.
......
For those who think the story sucks, either I'm not at the suck part yet, or they have a ridiculous love for the American Revolution borefest of the previous 3 games.

So I don't think I am the one who has to leave room for other people's interpretations. Or rather acknowledgment of perspectives. This poster says my perspective is "silly" and then says people should go for "ridiculous borefest", I have a problem with people asking a question, getting a response and then ranting and dismissing that response without acknowledging it. I mean when people defend Unity's gameplay, I do reply and argue that by pointing out it's not as new as it is, and it isn't. I don't say people are wrong to look at gameplay. My point is people are wrong to use gameplay to excuse the flaws of the story by deciding all of a sudden that the game is Dark Souls or The Witcher 3.

As I wrote earlier, I should actually be getting credit for being one of the few that has actually looked at the game from a global perspective of its content...main missions/side missions/database/co-op. Nobody in any professional media has given the game a detailed fact-checking of the kind for instance that movies get from this writer (http://www.theguardian.com/profile/alexvontunzelmann). I really like AC and I write from that perspective. I am not one of those who says, "It's a video game of course its false".

I actually don't think even Unity's defenders have engaged with the content to the level I have. Like about the Side Stories COAT OF ARMS, what is people's opinion about that mission and Arno's staid response to a guy who skinned a woman and converted it into a coat. What is people's opinions about this gratuitious violence (since this didn't happen)? What is people's opinion about the mission where you collect heads guillotined for Madame Tussaud and one of the victims, a woman is a sex object you have to take from a guard. The only other person who has paid attention to this is Robert Rath of The Escapist (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/criticalintel/12676-The-Good-and-Bad-of-Assassin-s-Creed-Unity.3)

cawatrooper9
02-03-2016, 05:34 PM
So I don't think I am the one who has to leave room for other people's interpretations. Or rather acknowledgment of perspectives. This poster says my perspective is "silly" and then says people should go for "ridiculous borefest", I have a problem with people asking a question, getting a response and then ranting and dismissing that response without acknowledging it. I mean when people defend Unity's gameplay, I do reply and argue that by pointing out it's not as new as it is, and it isn't. I don't say people are wrong to look at gameplay. My point is people are wrong to use gameplay to excuse the flaws of the story by deciding all of a sudden that the game is Dark Souls or The Witcher 3.

As I wrote earlier, I should actually be getting credit for being one of the few that has actually looked at the game from a global perspective of its content...main missions/side missions/database/co-op. Nobody in any professional media has given the game a detailed fact-checking of the kind for instance that movies get from this writer (http://www.theguardian.com/profile/alexvontunzelmann). I really like AC and I write from that perspective. I am not one of those who says, "It's a video game of course its false".

I actually don't think even Unity's defenders have engaged with the content to the level I have. Like about the Side Stories COAT OF ARMS, what is people's opinion about that mission and Arno's staid response to a guy who skinned a woman and converted it into a coat. What is people's opinions about this gratuitious violence (since this didn't happen)? What is people's opinion about the mission where you collect heads guillotined for Madame Tussaud and one of the victims, a woman is a sex object you have to take from a guard. The only other person who has paid attention to this is Robert Rath of The Escapist (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/criticalintel/12676-The-Good-and-Bad-of-Assassin-s-Creed-Unity.3)

Oh, you mean the original poster who has a sum total of 10 posts to this date? Yeah, pat yourself on the back for that one. Oh wait, looking at your most recent post, it seems that you're actually incessantly doing that already.

Look, his perspective is certainly flawed too. But honestly, your binary attitude is not better- and again, forum member to forum member, I guess I should just expect better of us.

VestigialLlama4
02-03-2016, 05:46 PM
Oh, you mean the original poster who has a sum total of 10 posts to this date?

Well other folks joined in then and said "My argument is invalid" or words to that effect.


Yeah, pat yourself on the back for that one. Oh wait, looking at your most recent post, it seems that you're actually incessantly doing that already.

Guilty as charged. :o


But honestly, your binary attitude is not better- and again, forum member to forum member, I guess I should just expect better of us.

Believe me I am tired of these long posts myself. I actually try to cut this down these days and until this thread I hadn't gotten into an Unity dust-up for ages. It's just that I kind of think its sad that some people a year and so later still think Unity's problems were entirely due to glitches and poor launch, and people go "Hey it's not so bad" and leave it at that, not taking into account the long term damage that game did to the series.

cawatrooper9
02-03-2016, 06:01 PM
Believe me I am tired of these long posts myself. I actually try to cut this down these days and until this thread I hadn't gotten into an Unity dust-up for ages. It's just that I kind of think its sad that some people a year and so later still think Unity's problems were entirely due to glitches and poor launch, and people go "Hey it's not so bad" and leave it at that, not taking into account the long term damage that game did to the series.

I think it's kind of to be expected, really. There was a huge backlash over Unity's graphics when the game was first released. It only stands to reason now, that patches have fixed a lot of those issues, that people will take a step back and think "it really isn't that bad". Honestly, (and I may have just been lucky with my copy), I never really had any significant graphical issues with Unity- so I've always kind of wondered if the criticisms on them weren't just part of a bandwagon hatred, anyway.
The point is, the pendulum swings both ways. The mob hated the game, and now they're coming to accept it for what it is.

You want to make a criticism of Unity from a more cultural and historical perspective. That's great. That's cool. That's what a lot of people on these forums (including myself) like to do. But when others are discussing the possible merits of its gameplay, and you stand with your fingers in your ears shouting about coat of arms and unrealistic portrayals of violence, you're not really contributing the discussion that everyone else is having.

Food for thought.

Anyway, as I've stated many times now, I don't personally care for the game, and see no need to continue defending it. I like you, VL4, and that's why I've (apparently) wasted my time here this morning anyway. It's a shame to see you stoop this low.

BananaBlighter
02-03-2016, 06:20 PM
Believe me I am tired of these long posts myself. I actually try to cut this down these days and until this thread I hadn't gotten into an Unity dust-up for ages. It's just that I kind of think its sad that some people a year and so later still think Unity's problems were entirely due to glitches and poor launch, and people go "Hey it's not so bad" and leave it at that, not taking into account the long term damage that game did to the series.

I understand why these inaccuracies and weird interpretations can put off someone who is fully aware of the history. However everyone I know who plays AC would have no idea about minute details like the characters that come up in side missions. Though just because they're not very knowledgeable about history doesn't mean they can't be immersed in to a historical world. Basic recognition of the events of the French Revolution is enough to convince some that they're playing through history. It's witnessing the world around you, acting in a way which seems appropriate for the time period, that immerses most people in to the the historical setting.

Unity's bad reception wasn't fully due to the bugs and glitches, that's for sure. However, none of the reviewers mentioned what you have, because it just isn't noticed by most. You talk about how you need credit for being the only one to deconstruct Unity like this, but maybe you're the only one because in most people's eyes there was no issue here.

VestigialLlama4
02-03-2016, 07:41 PM
Unity's bad reception wasn't fully due to the bugs and glitches, that's for sure. However, none of the reviewers mentioned what you have, because it just isn't noticed by most.

I did cite one reviewer who mentioned the fetish object of the decapitated head above. Robert Rath for The Escapist.

If Unity is targeting audience in a quick, disposable way, the kind who go "Paris...so pretty"/ "Yay Next Gen" then there is no point in discussing the game further, because we are essentially treating Unity not as a video game but as candy or a plush bedspread and toy for the little darlings. If the game can be enjoyed only on the surface only to fall apart the minute you start immersing yourself, then I don't know what is there to defend or argue with.

I mean fundamentally I guess, Unity is not made for the kind of player I am. Ubisoft used to make earlier games with stuff that pleased different players and while that irritated some players for not being "pure" I actually liked that, and it fit with the games they were making where Assassins are part of a bigger world and immersed in society. Here they selectively made a game for one particular gaming audience over another while not totally altering the presentation to make its preference clearer.


But when others are discussing the possible merits of its gameplay, and you stand with your fingers in your ears shouting...

To me the gameplay is one with level design/world design and overall scope. Yes, taken apart from the world design and story, the combat is probably more satisfying and challenging, there are advantages and reasons to acquire particular gear which feed into the customization. The game also puts more focus on stealth than before, with the stealth mode. But I don't think this is enjoyable or satisfying because the level design doesn't harmonize it. I mean if the game is intended to be pure stealth (as the Assassination Missions and greater number of guards imply) why bother making combat challenging/intuitive and upgradable by gear. And if you are going to upgrade gear why doesn't combat get easier as you level up. I mean shouldn't a lowly mook not give you too much of a fuss at higher level. With stealth, if this is the focus of the game why isn't there more focus on it. The game gives you a narrow set of tools (Phantom Blade, Firecracker) and that's it, you also can't use these tools in very many different ways. There's lockpicks you have to purchase to unlock select doors and entry points. Also if the game has so many crowds how come a lot of the missions are interior or infiltration missions. They've redone the Parkour and made interiors 1:1 but paradoxically the speed is reduced because you slow down when moving outside-inside-outside again.

And again, you have the halfway thinking since they put Eagle Sense on a Counter but what they did was make the Eagle Sense the same Overpowered X-Ray Eagle Sense from Black Flag. I mean would it not have been simpler to bring back the limited Eagle Vision of say, Altair in AC1 or even Ezio in AC2/Connor in AC3. I mean of course what you could do is remove Eagle Vision entirely since it's implied that only a select few Assassins have that ability, but I think branding/marketing would argue against that and it's a feature of stealth games at this point. Aesthetically, having illuminated blobs floating through walls destroys and damages the beautiful interiors and art direction of the city. Aesthetic reasons matter, I mean Rocksteady was offended with people using Detective Mode all the time during Arkham Asylum because gamers used it throughout the game and didn't immerse themselves properly in the art direction they worked on. Which is why they made the Detective vision more complicated in the second game with jamming devices. Floating Blobs made sense in BLACK FLAG because the Caribbean landscape of all these islands makes that okay, but in Paris Unity, I think it's a disastrous choice, you can dial down the HUD as I do, and then when you are doing a mission you have floating blobs all over the place.

Likewise the game has large crowds but crowd behavior doesn't get more complex. I mean yes the animations have improved, the AI is more emergent, but ultimately the crowd is there simply for you to hide or blend in. There's no sense of diverse responses or new dangers. I mean in a Revolutionary situation with a strong populist base, the Assassin can't really count on the crowd to support him. In that time, an Assassin who tried to strike at people would be finked to the police and it wouldn't be Templars/Traitors it would be law-abiding citizens. So the Assassin will be the enemy of the people they protect. I mean this would not only justify the crowd size but introduce new challenges to social stealth but Unity did not go there at all. Likewise, interior stealth uses the formula from Black Flag, Alarm Bells are rallying points, Snipers at high levels, guards with keys. This is stolen from Black Flag and there this worked because it was exterior plantations. In an interior, having a large alarm bell in the middle of the hallway looks plainly silly. And pointless. I mean if Arno gets into combat, beats guys before they reach the alarm bell, you should still expect his foot movements, fights and guard cries to attract attention across the entire house. So noise-levels is missing and much needed in the game. Yes this happens in other stealth games like Thief/Dishonored where guards in one room get attacked and fight without making noise to attract everyone around them inside, but AC is an open-world social stealth game with interiors-exteriors attached, so the illusion gets shattered.

SO those are my issues with the gameplay or rather the design.

cawatrooper9
02-03-2016, 08:29 PM
To me the gameplay is one with level design/world design and overall scope. Yes, taken apart from the world design and story, the combat is probably more satisfying and challenging, there are advantages and reasons to acquire particular gear which feed into the customization. The game also puts more focus on stealth than before, with the stealth mode. But I don't think this is enjoyable or satisfying because the level design doesn't harmonize it. I mean if the game is intended to be pure stealth (as the Assassination Missions and greater number of guards imply) why bother making combat challenging/intuitive and upgradable by gear. And if you are going to upgrade gear why doesn't combat get easier as you level up. I mean shouldn't a lowly mook not give you too much of a fuss at higher level. With stealth, if this is the focus of the game why isn't there more focus on it. The game gives you a narrow set of tools (Phantom Blade, Firecracker) and that's it, you also can't use these tools in very many different ways. There's lockpicks you have to purchase to unlock select doors and entry points. Also if the game has so many crowds how come a lot of the missions are interior or infiltration missions. They've redone the Parkour and made interiors 1:1 but paradoxically the speed is reduced because you slow down when moving outside-inside-outside again.

And again, you have the halfway thinking since they put Eagle Sense on a Counter but what they did was make the Eagle Sense the same Overpowered X-Ray Eagle Sense from Black Flag. I mean would it not have been simpler to bring back the limited Eagle Vision of say, Altair in AC1 or even Ezio in AC2/Connor in AC3. I mean of course what you could do is remove Eagle Vision entirely since it's implied that only a select few Assassins have that ability, but I think branding/marketing would argue against that and it's a feature of stealth games at this point. Aesthetically, having illuminated blobs floating through walls destroys and damages the beautiful interiors and art direction of the city. Aesthetic reasons matter, I mean Rocksteady was offended with people using Detective Mode all the time during Arkham Asylum because gamers used it throughout the game and didn't immerse themselves properly in the art direction they worked on. Which is why they made the Detective vision more complicated in the second game with jamming devices. Floating Blobs made sense in BLACK FLAG because the Caribbean landscape of all these islands makes that okay, but in Paris Unity, I think it's a disastrous choice, you can dial down the HUD as I do, and then when you are doing a mission you have floating blobs all over the place.

Likewise the game has large crowds but crowd behavior doesn't get more complex. I mean yes the animations have improved, the AI is more emergent, but ultimately the crowd is there simply for you to hide or blend in. There's no sense of diverse responses or new dangers. I mean in a Revolutionary situation with a strong populist base, the Assassin can't really count on the crowd to support him. In that time, an Assassin who tried to strike at people would be finked to the police and it wouldn't be Templars/Traitors it would be law-abiding citizens. So the Assassin will be the enemy of the people they protect. I mean this would not only justify the crowd size but introduce new challenges to social stealth but Unity did not go there at all. Likewise, interior stealth uses the formula from Black Flag, Alarm Bells are rallying points, Snipers at high levels, guards with keys. This is stolen from Black Flag and there this worked because it was exterior plantations. In an interior, having a large alarm bell in the middle of the hallway looks plainly silly. And pointless. I mean if Arno gets into combat, beats guys before they reach the alarm bell, you should still expect his foot movements, fights and guard cries to attract attention across the entire house. So noise-levels is missing and much needed in the game. Yes this happens in other stealth games like Thief/Dishonored where guards in one room get attacked and fight without making noise to attract everyone around them inside, but AC is an open-world social stealth game with interiors-exteriors attached, so the illusion gets shattered.

SO those are my issues with the gameplay or rather the design.

And I totally agree with almost all of them, to be sure.

I would be interested in hearing a Unity supporter's rebuttal to this. Of course, I'm sure some people actually like these things that you've listed that we see as flaws.

VestigialLlama4
02-03-2016, 10:06 PM
I would be interested in hearing a Unity supporter's rebuttal to this. Of course, I'm sure some people actually like these things that you've listed that we see as flaws.

For years people have made complaints about how AC's gameplay has never fulfilled its potential, which is true. The combat, social stealth, and the whole concept of the Assassin, his targets and crowd only ever coalesced in AC1. But the game was criticized for not having a proper open world and stuff to do, with repetitive and filler side activities (which to me, personally speaking, never felt repetitive) and in terms of collectibles, the wretched flags (honestly it would be better for the game to have no collectibles).. For AC2, Ubisoft made the combat easier and introduced new stealth tools, you had fewer Assassination missions and a lot of scripted missions but the thrust of the game was now historical tourism which was in the background of AC1, albeit still an accurate and well researched background (unlike Unity's). So in a way the problems that are plaguing Ubisoft now, i.e. in their development philosophy is basically AC1 Versus AC2. It comes to an ideology, i.e. what people think the games should be. and what people think makes for a good game. AC1 has the Assassin fantasy because it's an actual historical era where they existed whereas AC2 is historical fiction with Assassins as Metaphor, AC1 is social stealth/parkour/minimalist without "bloat"...AC2 is open world immersion with each building having its database entry, each nook and cranny having some glyph or tomb. Neither is inherently bad, each suited the particular setting and intention of the game and together it demonstrates the versatility of the concept. I will say that in 2016, 9 years later, AC1 is the game that has dated far less than AC2. AC1 was successful commercially but it didn't satisfy some critics. So out came AC2 which got them prestige and fame, their new mascot and it led to Brotherhood and Revelations which is far less stealthy than before, had more open world goodness and the gameplay remained in the simpler crude state as in AC.

People forget that when AC3 came out, the developers cited AC1 as an inspiration just like Amancio did with Unity. You have grayer Templars, the Frontier was like the Kingdom and as Patrice Desilets told us recently, the whole hunting mechanic and trading wolf skins economy was planned for AC1's Kingdom from the start but was deemed too ambitious. AC3 tried to combine the best aspects of AC1 (more mature story and serious tone/diverse gameplay) with AC2 (Greater historical immersion/wider open world). It was far and away the most ambitious game since AC1, having weather system/the greatest diversity in side missions/more tools in stealth/newer enemy archetypes. Paradoxically the main mission offered you very few chances to use those tools and aside from a middle section between Connor's arrival and when he meets Haytham, the story is heavily scripted, and the side missions which allowed you to use those tools, like the Forts in the fortress couldn't be repeated or provide a systemic loop. BLACK FLAG provided that loop, it streamlined AC3 and it invented the Stealth Room as seen in the Plantation missions (Snipers/Alarm Bells/Guards with Keys/Reinforcements) which would be reused in Unity and Syndicate. Black Flag was genuinely stealthier than AC3 and even AC2 and ACB-ACR as per Farlander. Combat in Black Flag is easier than AC3 however, having easier enemies (no Jaegers). So both AC3-Black Flag between them combine the rich historical immersion of the Ezio games with diverse stealth and gameplay as in AC1. Both AC3 and Black Flag are very accuate historically and quite subversive in spirit, yet it had more stealth, better systems...so in essence, Ubisoft was on the path to balancing AC1 and AC2 and then Unity ruined everything.

UNITY, the mentality is basically to do a fresh start for the games for HD, a reboot in all but name and rather than learn from all the iterations that came with those mistakes, they deciced to throw the baby with the bathwater.So instead of historical immersion...you have fakery in every corner. Instead of Italianate Accents, we have posh BBC presumably because Ubisoft were afraid of people making Pepe le Pew jokes online. Instead we make Pisspot jokes. They said they will go back to AC1 and the whole Assassin-Brotherhood-Cult thing forgetting that it isn't the Crusades where that kind of aesthetic made sense (and forgetting that the whole message of AC1 was to get out of that cult thing and have Altair reform the order so that they involve themselves with the people). Also cut down bloat from side missions in AC2-AC3, and look we have endless collectibles just like the Flags of AC1. Instead of improving and extending the stealth tools that came with AC3 they decided that not one thing from that game, not its weather system, not the Homestead and Side Mission Parallel Narrative (which aligns perfectly and smoothly with the sequences you are in, which is how the Co-Op missions and Side Missions should have been) in Unity, not its whistling needs retaining. They took the stealth room from Black Flag and the developers refused to credit Ashraf Ismail for it, and so everyone treats it as if it was something Unity came with, because they advertised it. They said they are avoiding the gump factor in AC3, which was after all following the gump factor of AC2 and repeated by the Gump elements in Black Flag as well.

Basically the developers for Unity, were being more influenced by online perceptions and receptions than objective assessments of their own products. It was governed by ideology and not reality, by a desire to cater to a certain, restricted definition of what makes a good AC game. In terms of production realities, I guess it was inspired by the Next-Gen toolkit being difficult and new, so I guess that was the big reason for their choices but ultimately they chose wrong.

Bipolar Matt
02-03-2016, 10:13 PM
I'm an AC die hard and I'll play any console title they put out. But it is interesting to read other people's points of view, whether I agree with them or not.

SixKeys
02-03-2016, 10:36 PM
Believe me I am tired of these long posts myself. I actually try to cut this down these days and until this thread I hadn't gotten into an Unity dust-up for ages. It's just that I kind of think its sad that some people a year and so later still think Unity's problems were entirely due to glitches and poor launch, and people go "Hey it's not so bad" and leave it at that, not taking into account the long term damage that game did to the series.

The irony, coming from someone who's a staunch defender of AC3. :rolleyes:

VestigialLlama4
02-03-2016, 11:04 PM
The irony, coming from someone who's a staunch defender of AC3. :rolleyes:

What long term damage did AC3 do the franchise?

As a result of Unity, certain stories just no longer make any sense. I mean the French Revolution influenced every major national movement and the rise of democracy. So basically in any later game set in the 19th and early 20th Century, anyone who cites the French Revolution is a Templar stooge and the Assassins no longer support democracy. The fact that the Nazis and Marechal Petain of Vichy France hated the French Revolution and abhored Jewish liberation (which comes from the fact that the Jacobins gave them equal citizenship and began the process of deghettoization) means that the Assassins come off looking like racists. In terms of internal Lore. Unity flat out contradicts Initiates, Letters from Eseosa, where the Haitian Revolutionaries led by Assassins find support from Robespierre and later get betrayed by Napoleon. Their hero Toussaint gets captured and killed by Napoleon. The fact that Arno stands beside Napoleon at the end of Unity and doesn't kill him means that fundamentally he's a traitor to the Haitian Assassins, a racist and a pro-slavery activist. Ubisoft's only options are to pretend Unity didn't happen or ignore making connections between Unity and later games, which compromises the lore. Before Unity, you could say that the connections between all the games, occassionally contradictory at least had some consistenc and it made sense. Now with Unity-Rogue that's just gone, you have retcons, gimmicks and stuff written separately from each other, without editorial oversight and gaping plotholes and incoherencies.

So from a franchise perspective, that Unity did long term damage is just indisputable. You can no longer pretend that there is a Lore where the history and myth gets tied up. Now each game is a one-shot and nothing else. The only stuff that really matters and not subject to retcon is stuff we see in main game cutscenes and everything else, (side missions/collectibles etc.) just doesn't matter. That's optional, or stuff-nobody-plays and so doesn't-count which is why later writers will disregard it.

From a gameplay perspective, AC3 had fewer bugs most of it was patched. Since it was a hugely ambitious game, it supplied a host of assets which Unity did not do. Unity's flashy sword combat was replaced in Syndicate with hand-to-hand combat, an entirely new system.

BananaBlighter
02-03-2016, 11:27 PM
And I totally agree with almost all of them, to be sure.

I would be interested in hearing a Unity supporter's rebuttal to this. Of course, I'm sure some people actually like these things that you've listed that we see as flaws.

I'm not a Unity supporter or anything, and it's not very high on my ranking of ACs. However I don't agree with everything VL4 talks about so I'm going to address it anyway.


I did cite one reviewer who mentioned the fetish object of the decapitated head above. Robert Rath for The Escapist.

If Unity is targeting audience in a quick, disposable way, the kind who go "Paris...so pretty"/ "Yay Next Gen" then there is no point in discussing the game further, because we are essentially treating Unity not as a video game but as candy or a plush bedspread and toy for the little darlings. If the game can be enjoyed only on the surface only to fall apart the minute you start immersing yourself, then I don't know what is there to defend or argue with.

I mean fundamentally I guess, Unity is not made for the kind of player I am. Ubisoft used to make earlier games with stuff that pleased different players and while that irritated some players for not being "pure" I actually liked that, and it fit with the games they were making where Assassins are part of a bigger world and immersed in society. Here they selectively made a game for one particular gaming audience over another while not totally altering the presentation to make its preference clearer.

Well one reviewer isn't much really. I agree, what you mention does hurt Unity's quality, I'm just saying that for most gamers this isn't the reason it was received so badly. Though I do still think you're taking it a bit extremely.

You can immerse yourself without having to know and recognize the name of every minor historical character that appears. It's a nice treat for those who do, but IMO it does little more than remind the player of where and when they're playing, not put them into the scene. All these things you criticize Unity of seem like they could've been applied to a movie, and then you say that because of it, Unity can't be considered a game.

IMO what truly does immerse the player isn't just little reminders of the setting they're in but rather how plausibly the open world round them acts, and especially reacts to their actions. As you bring up later, Unity has crowds with nice little animations and all, but there is little interaction with the player.


To me the gameplay is one with level design/world design and overall scope. Yes, taken apart from the world design and story, the combat is probably more satisfying and challenging, there are advantages and reasons to acquire particular gear which feed into the customization.

Yes, gameplay has to complement the world and mission design.

I didn't find Unity's combat satisfying, my favourite was AC3's by far. Unity's system was far too simplistic. To make something challenging you don't have to remove features. I also don't like that it forces you in to stealth. Both options, combat and stealth, should be equally challenging (though with customization tailored towards your playstyle this would change) and the player should then choose their approach.

One of the only things I think Unity does really well is the customization. The majority of what the skill tree unlocks are useful abilities and tools (except for the health class), though I would've preferred it if these had been given some context like AC1. In general, I don't like skill trees because of this, but at least it's not as bad as Syndicate's. Ideally I would have a set of side missions that each reward you with a new and unique ability/tool by the end of, giving the upgrade context. It could still function very similarly to a skill tree though, with some missions only appearing after certain sequences, and others after those before them have been completed. The story was pretty forgettable, so instead to drive your progression on was the customization. There was a great variety of gear, which each had different stat boosts. Problem with Syndicate was that stat boosts were located in the skill tree or in tool upgrades, and hence were permanent, as well as being too all-round. By that I mean that, in Unity, you couldn't be OP in every aspect, you had to pick and choose gear to create the perfect balance of stats that would suit your playstyle (sorta; I'll explain later). Really in AC the focus should be more on the story rather than stuff like this, but I still had great fun with it, and that's not to say we can't have both.


The game also puts more focus on stealth than before, with the stealth mode. But I don't think this is enjoyable or satisfying because the level design doesn't harmonize it. I mean if the game is intended to be pure stealth (as the Assassination Missions and greater number of guards imply) why bother making combat challenging/intuitive and upgradable by gear. And if you are going to upgrade gear why doesn't combat get easier as you level up. I mean shouldn't a lowly mook not give you too much of a fuss at higher level.

Well honestly I don't know what you mean by the level design not harmonizing stealth. As far as I'm concerned most missions were pretty well thought out stealth sequences. Actually it gets to the point where, as you point out, you are forced in to stealth. You cannot approach a mission with the intention of flying through with your sword. However stat boosts to fighting help you recover from mistakes by shortening the length of the average fight and hence reducing the chances of large battles forming if you are detected. Not that this really helps because Unity's combat system is far too slow. My upgrades never went for the combat approach however there was still a lot involved in balancing other aspects of the customization such as the ammo I could carry and the aesthetics.

I don't think combat should get easier at higher levels. I don't think your stats should vary too much as you level up either. One big issue I have with Syndicate's progression system is that there is too much of a difference between low and high levels. I don't even want a leveling system at all. All they do is create the illusion of progression. As you level up, your stats increase, but so do your enemies' - making absolutely no difference. Problem is now you can't fight lower levels with any satisfaction and you can't fight higher levels without any pain, so in the end it has only limited you to the areas of the map you can explore. Rather it should be that as you progress, the variety in enemy types increases, and to deal with them you need to gain specific abilities to fight them. Unity has no permanent leveling system. The star rating is based on your gear, and so is fully adjustable, though I would've preferred there to be not so much of a difference between the stats of one-star and five-star enemies (not as bad as Syndicate though). I liked how in AC1, the enemy could do nearly anything you could do, and as you slowly progressed, the combat never changed difficulty much, but just increased in variety (though this is only due to the fact that AC1 wasn't really open world). The only example I can can think of where Unity's progression acts similarly to this is with those funny-hat enemies. They appear much more late in game, but to effectively fight them you need the staggering strike skill. It's the abilities that should determine how gameplay progresses. Stats should be there only for balancing, not increasing. Unity half achieves this ideal.


With stealth, if this is the focus of the game why isn't there more focus on it. The game gives you a narrow set of tools (Phantom Blade, Firecracker) and that's it, you also can't use these tools in very many different ways. There's lockpicks you have to purchase to unlock select doors and entry points. Also if the game has so many crowds how come a lot of the missions are interior or infiltration missions. They've redone the Parkour and made interiors 1:1 but paradoxically the speed is reduced because you slow down when moving outside-inside-outside again.

I wouldn't say the game gives you a narrow set of tools. I think it's balanced a lot better than Syndicate (yeah I'm pretty much only comparing this to Syndicate for some reason). I mean, at least in terms of stealth its more than something like say, Black Flag. You have the phantom blade, which has very limited range and ammo, hence it should be used very sparingly (unlike Syndicate's throwing knife, where you could carry 30 and have quite far reaching range; allowing you to clear many missions by solely using throwing knives). If you're careful, you can use the pistol/rifle for that extra range, even in stealth situations. I do this especially for outdoor stealth missions where it can be pulled off without being detected more easily (I agree, thee aren't enough of these levels, and they're my favourite; most videos I've seen have people playing the heist 'It belongs in a Museum', which is nearly fully situated indoors. I much rather prefer 'Ancient History' which has a decent balance). Back to the tools, yes. Then you have the firecracker (or cherry bomb) for diverting enemies' attention, allowing you to sneak behind them. I never used the money pouch much since social stealth is practically obsolete (how sad :( ), until I realised that if used carefully, it also a very short-range whistle. The smoke bomb allows you to take out gatherings of enemies without entering combat, though it has a short timer (unlike syndicate where it lasts about 3x as long) so it can be risky at times. Of course you have the berserk blade for creating massive diversions to almost fully clear a path for yourself, however it again is risky as you can never fully predict its outcome, and has severely limited ammo. Lastly there's the poison gas but I never used this apart from in combination with the berserk blade to finish off fights more quickly. I liked that for each tool, the customization allowed you to balance the amount of ammo you carried. I think you're exaggerating a bit by limiting the variety to phantom-blades and firecrackers.

I actually quite liked the lockpick mechanic. The minigame could've been better, but the essence of it was good. Not only did you need to have the appropriate skill but also enough lockpicks (again, you could carry more with specific belts), to successfully get past certain doors. However these doors only served to help you overcome certain obstacles, and never felt restricting.

If I understand what you mean by constantly moving "outside-inside-outside", then I have to disagree and quite like the fact that it keeps you on your toes. You may enter the building one way and then realise that to pass an obstacle you must take a different, longer route. This is what I like about AC stealth, the parkour integrates with it well, and is the primary tool for overcoming obstructions. I'm glad that despite the focus on interiors, they managed to somehow keep that aspect, even if I'd still prefer outdoor, rooftop based stealth.


And again, you have the halfway thinking since they put Eagle Sense on a Counter but what they did was make the Eagle Sense the same Overpowered X-Ray Eagle Sense from Black Flag. I mean would it not have been simpler to bring back the limited Eagle Vision of say, Altair in AC1 or even Ezio in AC2/Connor in AC3. I mean of course what you could do is remove Eagle Vision entirely since it's implied that only a select few Assassins have that ability, but I think branding/marketing would argue against that and it's a feature of stealth games at this point. Aesthetically, having illuminated blobs floating through walls destroys and damages the beautiful interiors and art direction of the city. Aesthetic reasons matter, I mean Rocksteady was offended with people using Detective Mode all the time during Arkham Asylum because gamers used it throughout the game and didn't immerse themselves properly in the art direction they worked on. Which is why they made the Detective vision more complicated in the second game with jamming devices. Floating Blobs made sense in BLACK FLAG because the Caribbean landscape of all these islands makes that okay, but in Paris Unity, I think it's a disastrous choice, you can dial down the HUD as I do, and then when you are doing a mission you have floating blobs all over the place.

Yes, OP eagle vision has now become a feature of many stealth games. I actually quite liked it in Black Flag, where you had to manually mark enemies and only they wold appear through walls. However in Unity they put a timer and cooldown on it which doesn't make much sense if it's all about deep concentration. In Syndicate it becomes more like BF's system until you get a skill to see through walls automatically. The original eagle vision was only useful in social stealth, spotting a target amongst a crowd. Now it has become a tool for planning in traditional stealth, and if that's the way we're going now, I'd like us to have Black Flag's sort of system back. Oh yeah, and to make it less ugly there has to be a cap on the number of guards you can mark, let's say about 3, and make marking more manual.


Likewise the game has large crowds but crowd behavior doesn't get more complex. I mean yes the animations have improved, the AI is more emergent, but ultimately the crowd is there simply for you to hide or blend in. There's no sense of diverse responses or new dangers. I mean in a Revolutionary situation with a strong populist base, the Assassin can't really count on the crowd to support him. In that time, an Assassin who tried to strike at people would be finked to the police and it wouldn't be Templars/Traitors it would be law-abiding citizens. So the Assassin will be the enemy of the people they protect. I mean this would not only justify the crowd size but introduce new challenges to social stealth but Unity did not go there at all. Likewise, interior stealth uses the formula from Black Flag, Alarm Bells are rallying points, Snipers at high levels, guards with keys. This is stolen from Black Flag and there this worked because it was exterior plantations. In an interior, having a large alarm bell in the middle of the hallway looks plainly silly. And pointless. I mean if Arno gets into combat, beats guys before they reach the alarm bell, you should still expect his foot movements, fights and guard cries to attract attention across the entire house. So noise-levels is missing and much needed in the game. Yes this happens in other stealth games like Thief/Dishonored where guards in one room get attacked and fight without making noise to attract everyone around them inside, but AC is an open-world social stealth game with interiors-exteriors attached, so the illusion gets shattered.

Unity is even more lacking than the first games in this (that is, crowd interactivity), when it should be the other way round, and it's sad that we've altogether abandoned social stealth now. It forms a large part of immersion, but in the recent games (not just Unity) we are merely observing (Syndicate is a bit better here, and I'll let it off since NPC activities are much more varied and entertaining), whereas before we could be sneaked up on and stabbed, or could enter fights with civilians for stealing. In the last two games hardly any missions make use of social stealth either.

After all of of this the first thing I realise is how flawed Syndicate is, more than Unity, at least in what you've pointed out. Though for some reason there's something about Syndicate that makes me prefer it so much more. Fundamentally, London is much more fun to explore that Paris, and I somehow can cope with how easy of a game it is.


SO those are my issues with the gameplay or rather the design.

I agree with a lot of what you say but have slight issues with some of it. A lot here is purely subjective; all players have preferences on how to play the game and hence how the game should work. Unity's gameplay has given me quite a bit of fun, predominantly in the stealth and customization department. That's it. When I open up Unity I instantly go to play a heist, whereas when go to play Syndicate or Black Flag, I spend my time exploring and experiencing the open world.

EDIT: Wow I don't think I've ever written that much in one post.

SixKeys
02-03-2016, 11:56 PM
If Unity is targeting audience in a quick, disposable way, the kind who go "Paris...so pretty"/ "Yay Next Gen" then there is no point in discussing the game further, because we are essentially treating Unity not as a video game but as candy or a plush bedspread and toy for the little darlings. If the game can be enjoyed only on the surface only to fall apart the minute you start immersing yourself, then I don't know what is there to defend or argue with.

I resent your implication that "ooh, Paris so pretty!" is a bad reason to enjoy a game. My first experience with AC1 - the one that made me a fan - was almost entirely based on "ooh, Middle East so pretty!". :p

AC is about virtual tourism. What DO you do as a tourist if not explore and marvel at the sights? To me, AC is a wholly emotional experience, like a painting. I don't care about the story as much as I care about the colors, details, textures and quality of animation. I'm perfectly happy just walking around for hours without engaging in combat, just admiring the artistry that went into the game. I watch how NPCs interact and make up stories about them in my head. I climb a viewpoint and just sit there, motionless, for several minutes, watching the sunrise. I stop in the middle of a mission to look at a particularly nice detail, like a vine of flowers curling around a balcony, or the way light bounces off the window glass. In AC4, I sat inside a bush for ages while a tropic storm raged, just watching the leaves move in the wind because it was so impressive. AC is like a living painting that I can explore. It was intended to be played like a simulator. What is so wrong about that? If you have a problem with people who play games for that reason, you must hate games like Flower or Journey.



To me the gameplay is one with level design/world design and overall scope. Yes, taken apart from the world design and story, the combat is probably more satisfying and challenging, there are advantages and reasons to acquire particular gear which feed into the customization. The game also puts more focus on stealth than before, with the stealth mode. But I don't think this is enjoyable or satisfying because the level design doesn't harmonize it. I mean if the game is intended to be pure stealth (as the Assassination Missions and greater number of guards imply) why bother making combat challenging/intuitive and upgradable by gear. And if you are going to upgrade gear why doesn't combat get easier as you level up. I mean shouldn't a lowly mook not give you too much of a fuss at higher level.

I've always maintained that upgrades in most games work assbackwards. The game is supposed to become more challenging as you progress, not less. Upgrades completely kill the purpose of challenge. In horror games, when all you have is a weak little knife, you feel extremely vulnerable and the game makes you feel true anxiety and terror as the threat of dying is very real. As soon as the player finds their first gun, however, they immediately become more relaxed and reckless. Upgrades break the intended purpose of the game, essentially. Game designers see this all the time, yet they can't bring themselves to strip the player of powerful weapons because players have come to expect upgrades. But think back on the early games of the 80s and 90s. Space Invaders has the enemies getting faster and faster with each level while your defense station stays the same. The first level of Super Mario Bros. introduced every upgrade available in the game, just to show them off, and that was all you ever found. There was no fire flower 2.0 that was more powerful than vanilla fire. The levels got more difficult but Mario didn't get any more powerful than he was at the start.
THAT'S how a game should work. When you get to the end and you truly feel accomplished. What's the point of a game that gets easier towards the end boss?

To bring this back to AC, enemies should evolve along with you. Where's the challenge if you can slaughter every rookie in your way just by pointing a finger at them? Why are the villains so stupid as to still keep sending rookies after the assassin when they've already seen he can't be taken down by amateurs? Enemies should also get upgrades and XP from their encounters with you. From what I've heard, this is what Shadow of Mordor does right. What AC has always done is create a few archetypes but they barely utilize the really high-ranking ones, like they're scared players will stop playing if the game gets properly difficult. How many Papal guards did we ever see in ACB? Five? Seven? And that's including the DLC. If AC3 did have the right idea in some aspect, it was having lots and lots of Jaegers in the game and having them be actually tough to fight. Unfortunately the broken detection system ensured that the biggest challenge for the player was to ever get to a state where they were not being chased by a Jaeger. At full notoriety, there are lines of Jaegers marching literally 50 feet apart, looking for you. It was ridiculous. They had the right idea, but the execution was botched.



With stealth, if this is the focus of the game why isn't there more focus on it. The game gives you a narrow set of tools (Phantom Blade, Firecracker) and that's it, you also can't use these tools in very many different ways. There's lockpicks you have to purchase to unlock select doors and entry points.

And this is different from previous games....how? Feel free to list all the myriad ways that your four weapons could be used in AC1, because I've only found one intended use for each. What else did Connor use bait and traps for aside from hunting animals? The only game that truly gave the players freedom to experiment with different weapons was ACR with its custom bombs.



And again, you have the halfway thinking since they put Eagle Sense on a Counter but what they did was make the Eagle Sense the same Overpowered X-Ray Eagle Sense from Black Flag. I mean would it not have been simpler to bring back the limited Eagle Vision of say, Altair in AC1 or even Ezio in AC2/Connor in AC3. I mean of course what you could do is remove Eagle Vision entirely since it's implied that only a select few Assassins have that ability, but I think branding/marketing would argue against that and it's a feature of stealth games at this point. Aesthetically, having illuminated blobs floating through walls destroys and damages the beautiful interiors and art direction of the city. Aesthetic reasons matter, I mean Rocksteady was offended with people using Detective Mode all the time during Arkham Asylum because gamers used it throughout the game and didn't immerse themselves properly in the art direction they worked on. Which is why they made the Detective vision more complicated in the second game with jamming devices. Floating Blobs made sense in BLACK FLAG because the Caribbean landscape of all these islands makes that okay, but in Paris Unity, I think it's a disastrous choice, you can dial down the HUD as I do, and then when you are doing a mission you have floating blobs all over the place.

EV wasn't perfect in Unity, sure. The best it has ever been was probably AC2 where it wasn't OP and you could use it while running. I was once strongly against Black Flag's version of EV, but I got used to it pretty fast and now I think it's really useful in planning your route. Unity took a step in the right direction by limiting its use - if they wanted to improve it further, I think Joel's ability to sense enemies through walls in TLoU would be (almost) perfect. It's a lot less specific and more limited and makes more sense realistically as he can't literally see enemies through walls, he just hears their movements. So enemies that stand still can surprise him.

SixKeys
02-04-2016, 12:19 AM
What long term damage did AC3 do the franchise?

Just off the top of my head:

1) Introduced an utterly unwieldy parkour system that has been the template for every game since

2) Killed modern day by making Desmond's end so dumb and unsatisfying as if to ensure people would never want another 3rd person protagonist.

3) Was responsible for the lore becoming so convoluted that not even the devs know what to do with it anymore. It pulled the worst deus ex machina in the series (and that's saying a lot) by having Minerva pop up out of nowhere at the end to tell the audience: "oh, all that stuff you've been trying to figure out for years how it all fits together? "Your son, the Sun", all that good stuff? Alternate realities that never happened. I totally saw it through my magic crystal ball. Yet somehow even though I had this device which allowed me to see hundreds of years into the future, I chose this particular moment to appear to warn you about Juno instead of, oh I don't know, back when I first talked to you through Ezio".
It introduced the idea of Sages which has added nothing but confusion into the mix, since we still don't know how exactly Sages are born, how their genetic memories work, why some become aware of their past earlier, how they all tie into Juno's plans for world domination etc.. Introduced the idea of Juno becoming a literal ghost in the machine, a plotpoint that after four games still hasn't progressed an inch.

4) This is just a personal pet peeve, but after AC3 ended Connor's tale on a melancholy note, everyone thinks an assassin's story is incomplete if we don't explicitly witness them dying or passing on their genes.

qmagnet
02-04-2016, 12:28 AM
So I don't think I am the one who has to leave room for other people's interpretations. Or rather acknowledgment of perspectives. This poster says my perspective is "silly" and then says people should go for "ridiculous borefest", I have a problem with people asking a question, getting a response and then ranting and dismissing that response without acknowledging it.

Wow. I am very sorry if I've offended you. Until this point I thought we were all having a friendly conversation. This is all likely my fault as I had typed something in friendly difference, but it was read as a negative bitterness.

From various web searches and discussions, I was, and still am under the impression that AC3 and Connor were collectively viewed as boring. Although I find this as well, I never meant to tell someone they are wrong if they enjoy it. For that, I am sorry.
As for my experience, I was excited to play Connor when AC3 was about to release. But shortly into the game, I found, like many people, he just wasn't interesting to me. Neither him, nor the story was enjoyable. It became the first AC game I never bothered to do all the challenges and such.

Had I enjoyed AC3, I would have made the same post - except geared towards why people didn't like AC3. But I can see why they would not enjoy it.
Unity was also a game that had a lot of negativity around it, but contrary, I didn't agree with that. That is why I made the post.

The points you brought up about me are a bit out of context. I still don't understand why people hate the game. To hate a game, the gameplay should be broken. It's not. It may have been on release. But not anymore. It's very fun. I had seen negative reactions to Unity based on visual glitches. I don't think that matters. You may. But that doesn't break the gameplay. So that's why I feel hating a game because of visual bugs, is silly to me.

My other point about people being upset over historical inaccuracy is in context to the fact that every AC game is historically inaccurate. I asked if it was that much different than the other game and you said yes but you didn't actually explain how, unless you explained in the spoiler segments, which I have yet to read after I'm done the story of Unity. Leonardo da Vinci wasn't a gay gun inventor friend of Assassins, but that's how Ubisoft chose to write him. Rashid ad-Din Sinan wasn't some double agent Templar/Assassin who turned on his group, but that's how Ubisoft chose to write him.

My other, other point about loving AC3 because of the love of the American Revolutions is in context to comparing Unity to AC3. Apart from the historical appreciation of Washington and the rest, I can't see a reason anyone would enjoy AC3. Nothing about that game was fun to me. Having said that, I don't condemn you if you enjoyed AC3. If you think I do, it's not my intent. That is the beauty of differences.

This whole time, you seem to have implied that Unity is a terrible game because it's not true to history. It may be a disservice, but lies can't make a game terrible.
I mean, there aren't even ratings for games based on historical accuracy, or at least I've never heard of one. Games are ranked by graphics, controls, sound, level design. So to say a game sucks is because it's a pack of lies, doesn't make sense to a lot of gamers.


I can see there are a lot of passionate AC fans here. Again I apologize if I've come across as demeaning.



Well we all know that most Europeans are a pack of Eurotrash ingrates who are ignorant of how their forefathers were mostly Nazi collaborators and they needed the Americans and Soviets to bail them out. In the case of America, literally, since their post-war prosperity owes more to the Marshall Plan than any ingenuity on their part. So that's why they think American history is boring because theirs is obviously so much better...Americans were racist and Europeans weren't (except for Jews, Gypsies and these days, Greek people) and after all only Americans care about American history, it can't possibly interest anybody else unlike European history which is always super interesting.

That's pretty much what's behind all these American-history-is-boring comments, which are then repeated and rehashed by American "liberal" commenters who don't want to deal with their history either. I mean yeah American history had slavery but so did the Spanish, the French, the Dutch (which abolished slavery after the Americans did) and the English (who like to tell people about the time they abolished the slave trade rather the two centuries they profitted off it) and yet not one of these countries has made as many works dealing with the darker side of their history the way America has. Ironically, these same Europeans will like Westerns which allows them to be entertained by American cliches that fit their stereotype...live off vicarious violence while enjoying works which ironically comment on it, like Red Dead Redemption made by a Scottish development team that would never make a game about the number of Scottish Highlanders who profitted off slavery, or collaborated with the British while hypocritically talking up Scottish pride or how its soldiers loyally plundered the empire while playing its bagpipes. None of this is mentioned when they start talking about "independence"...

Now here's something that, as a new forum poster, is pretty concerning. I'm not entirely sure what you have against Europe, but this seems pretty bitter. I'll tell you I'm not American, and I'm not European either. In fact, I'm from Canada. Same country that has developed our beloved AC series. I don't find American history boring, I found the AC3 story boring. So when you say "That's pretty much what's behind all these American-history-is-boring comments", this is a pretty huge generalization that simply isn't true. Fact is, people don't like the game because they don't like what Ubisoft did, not because they think they are better than Americans.

You seem to be on edge. Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong. As one AC fan to another, I sincerely hope to get along with everyone here.

SixKeys
02-04-2016, 12:46 AM
I'm from Finland, which, depending on who you ask, isn't always considered technically part of Europe. (I personally do since we're part of the EU, but more and more countries that are definitely outside Europe have tried getting into the EU, so I don't even know anymore.) Finnish history is largely boring because it's only a few hundred years old - at least the stuff that happened after Christianity was imported here and all the ancient customs disappeared, including much of the historical knowledge.
American history is boring to me for the exact same reason. Interestingly enough, I see some parallels between American and Finnish attitudes despite how different our cultures are, and I think those parallels can be traced to the same circumstances. I probably shouldn't get more into it here though, lest the thread turn more political than it already has.

Tl;dr Cultures that have millennia of history are more fascinating than ones that have only been around for a relatively short period of time.

Ureh
02-04-2016, 01:14 AM
What long term damage did AC3 do the franchise?

I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of answers to this question, some of which will clash with each other... you know, different opinions, preferences, and perspectives. That sort of thing.

A good portion of the online vocal "minority" said that the stealth in AC3 was broken. Guards respawning if you went too far from the premises, guards being able to spot you on rooftops and even through entire buildings, the bow not working as a stealth weapon should (wish there was free aim), assassin recruits not being nearly as stealthy as their ACB/R counterparts, etc. They must've known about these issues because the combat seemed to be the "correct way" to play the game. As a result the enemy AI was mitigated in AC4 and R and stealth revolved around overpowered ranged weapons and hiding in bushes. This sort of flip flopping of the gameplay

AC3 was probably the first game in the series to be really glitchy right on release day, it's still not fully optimised (especially on pc). They tried to solve this with AC4 but I think this part of AC3 drove quite a few people away. Now it seems all of the games are launched without getting their entire facelift. Can AC3 be held responsible for this "trend"? Maybe, maybe not.

Absence of courtesans seemed to drive people nuts for some reason. They made sure to bring them back in AC4 and I seem to remember the interviews pointing out that they would have noticable presence in Unity. Maybe not seen as long term damage to some people, but when your devs have to make sure that people know the game has those kinds of npcs... I dunno.

Lots of the online communities seem to hate Connor and his backstory. I'm pretty sure everyone has read the complaints about him. The reaction from a lot of the player base had influenced and will likely continue to affect what kind of protagonists are introduced to us.

The change in parkour controls and Boston/New York city layouts seemed to annoy quite a few people. I dunno... I guess it was optimised for last-gen consoles as a result Connor kept hopping all over the place and sometimes you're forced to descend to the streets just so you can get onto the next rooftops. I get the feeling that these complaints led to AC4, ACR, and Unity having freerunning system and city layouts that require less concentration from the player. ACU tried to find a middle ground between the older hold-three-buttons style and just-one-button style, but it must've been unpopular in the surveys and reviews because they seemed to focus on the rope launcher in Syndicate. But this is all started with the new parkour system in AC3.

Some people might say that the naval portion of the game was long term damage because it encouraged two additional games with heavy naval gameplay. It was well received by a good chunk of journalists and fans but I've read enough comments to know that not everyone believed that naval was appropriate path for the AC series. I did enjoy sailing ships for awhile but some of the more purist fans probably didn't appreciate it at all.

Others might say that the multiplayer portion of AC3 was the final nail in the coffin for AC multiplayer as a whole. Some of the complaints are that controls and stealth were simplified, they would explain that it's not as challenging anymore which is what drew them into ACB/R mp.

One of the most common things I read is that AC3's present day was also one of the last nails in the coffin, the way that it was presented and concluded by Ubi, and how it was received by fans was a precedent for all subsequent games. This one's a really broad topic so I'm not going to say anymore.

AC3 has a bunch of really good stuff too (I'll never forget how cool and awesome it was to capture the forts in snow storms!) but some of its strengths were criticised or ignored and the reception of its downsides certainly seemed to affect the whole series. Some of those reasons have merit, I think, others are ridiculous.

I'm not saying I'm 100% correct and all of this is true or whatever. It could be that as soon as I wake up tomorrow I'll be like... "What?! Why did I say this? or that? or isat? Makes no sense..." It's likely someone can come up with a better answer than I ever could. or maybe this is such a huge topic that no answer will ever satisfy the question. I'll try to respond to the rest of your post tomorrow.

Xstantin
02-04-2016, 04:25 AM
From a gameplay perspective, AC3 had fewer bugs most of it was patched. Since it was a hugely ambitious game, it supplied a host of assets which Unity did not do. Unity's flashy sword combat was replaced in Syndicate with hand-to-hand combat, an entirely new system.

It's funny how it works, ACIII can be forgiven cause it was a hugely ambitious game :rolleyes: not like Unity wasn't, but that's been discussed several times already.

SixKeys
02-04-2016, 04:49 AM
It's funny how it works, ACIII can be forgiven cause it was a hugely ambitious game :rolleyes: not like Unity wasn't, but that's been discussed several times already.

VL is an expert apologist. He ranted about Unity being a filthy casual game because it was advertised with Lorde music, but when I pointed out that AC3 trailers used Puff Diddy, he went "that's totally different".

VestigialLlama4
02-04-2016, 07:32 AM
Wow. I am very sorry if I've offended you. Until this point I thought we were all having a friendly conversation. This is all likely my fault as I had typed something in friendly difference, but it was read as a negative bitterness.

You asked for why Unity has a negative reputation, because you said all the bugs and patches have fixed the game. Your assumption was that the game without those bugs was A-OK, well I have argued that the game was trash from Day 1 and I gave a link. You refused to read that because of spoilers...not even the section with Co-Op and Side missions, most of them do not have any spoilers regarding the main campaign...the Co-Op mission is entirely separate and has no game spoilers. Instead you decide to insult me and say that my complaints are baseless without even reading or considering anything I actually said. That is at the very least, rude. Why start a thread by asking a question and then dismissing an answer just because you didn't like it? And by the way this criticism of the game is not just me alone. If you don't want to take my word for it. See this video...it's non-spoilers and discusses the history with an actual historian (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r47yZIYBUzc). It's a relatively short video.


My other point about people being upset over historical inaccuracy is in context to the fact that every AC game is historically inaccurate. I asked if it was that much different than the other game and you said yes but you didn't actually explain how...

Maybe this got lost in the long discussions. Let me rephrase what I posted earlier:

I am merely asking Ubisoft to live up to its own standards which has always been "slightly more accurate" than other stories in that era. So for AC1 and Crusades, everyone knows Robin Hood stories/Kingdom of Heaven and AC1 is a more accurate depiction of that era. Revelations likewise showed Ottoman Turkey more respectfully than other Western fictions. AC3 is truer to history than Mel Gibson's Patriot, and Black Flag is truer to history than Pirates of the Caribbean. The reasonable expectation for UNITY was, "Be more accurate than Scarlet Pimpernel and A Tale of Two Cities". These are low standards and perfectly doable. Instead Unity makes those two stories, written in the counter-revolutionary English tradition, look like pro-Revolutionary propaganda. I am not asking for objectivity.There's no black-and-white approach. UNITY-defenders will cite some inaccuracy in earlier games and say that Ubisoft has the right to fake stuff entirely, their extreme standards are Academic Paper(Accurate) and Dan Brown(Inaccurate).Just because earlier AC games took license in some areas, the parts of the game which are accurate don't get washed away or brushed off. To do so is to insult the developers like Patrice Desilets and others, writers like Corey May and Darby McDevitt who put so much time and effort in researching the areas they represented. Their work contributed to the success of the AC games, and without that success Unity would not be made, so it's not unreasonable to take Unity to task for its failure to live up to the previous games.


From various web searches and discussions, I was, and still am under the impression that AC3 and Connor were collectively viewed as boring. Although I find this as well, I never meant to tell someone they are wrong if they enjoy it. For that, I am sorry.

I'll accept your apology. I won't accept that you "never meant to tell someone they are wrong". You are the one who brought up AC3 in this discussion for no reason and started to call the game "a borefest" and said that "American revolution" is more boring for no reason. Which is why I made that jokey rant against Eurocentrism.

VestigialLlama4
02-04-2016, 08:10 AM
It's funny how it works, ACIII can be forgiven cause it was a hugely ambitious game :rolleyes:

Well it was a hugely ambitious game and most people don't appreciate that. It took AC outside of cities and buildings to the natural world and built a newly traversal or weather system, there was also this attempt to represent musket/flintlock combat which had never been done before. AC3 also had the largest number of unique character models for NPCs (American Revs, Connor's Village, Homestead, Templars, Assassin Recruits). This is to say nothing of the huge range of side missions. The Frontiersman missions essentially invented the Paris Side Stories and the Murder Mysteries, what with Connor searching for clues in given areas and then investigating to unearth stuff and confirm and debunk certain legends and ideas. The Captain Kidd mission THE MAD DOCTOR'S CASTLE where Connor unearths a murder mystery in reverse by following clues around the house can be considered the first murder mystery since it had Connor recreating events using Eagle vision as flashbacks. This is quite separate from Naval which it also introduced.

Basically, every game since AC3 one way or another has sprung itself from its ideas. And it will still have an influence, I mean if they are going to do an Ancient World setting which would be rural and have a greater role for weather, then AC3 will be the important point of reference since it showed that it could be done. It is in many ways the last true AC game and it's unlikely you will ever see any title that dreams and dares that big again. The first AAA title since Grand Theft Auto with a non-white hero...and since then there hasn't been many either and I am quite sure anytime someone proposes to do a character like that, they will say "We don't want another Connor because players don't want that". It doesn't matter that the game is still the best selling title of the series, even if it was because of the marketing that still meant that people bought the game because Connor was on the boxart and Ubisoft took the comparatively smaller online contingent rather than the people who actually bought the product and liked it.


VL is an expert apologist. He ranted about Unity being a filthy casual game because it was advertised with Lorde music, but when I pointed out that AC3 trailers used Puff Diddy, he went "that's totally different".

That's not what I said. We were discussing the promotion of Unity versus AC3. SixKeys who hates AC3 as irrationally as I hate Unity rationally (at least with me, I don't bring my out of date PC copy as a reason to write off the game for people whose copies were fine and dandy) said that the marketing of UNITY didn't promote the history as much as AC3 did. I pointed out the video with Lorde showing people storm the Bastille...and apparently that's not all big. Especially sing the song became a success because of that trailer (which by the way is the only historically accurate moment in all the game, the Governor who tried to light the gunpowder then got lynched by the mob...all that happened as we see it).


2) Killed modern day by making Desmond's end so dumb and unsatisfying as if to ensure people would never want another 3rd person protagonist.

3) Was responsible for the lore becoming so convoluted that not even the devs know what to do with it anymore.

Desmond's story as Assassin_M pointed out had already gotten out of hand since AC2 introduced the Solar Flare and dropped the Satellite. AC3 merely brought earlier threads to a proper close and I don't think it could have done a better job given what came before. At the least it didn't spin wheels further, (for that see Brotherhood, the game that introduced Juno, and Revelations, game that made Lucy a traitor). And yes, Ubisoft didn't want another MD protagonist because that kind of serial myth storytelling gets unsatisfying as any TV show will tell you and the games had obviously become a historical fiction series. So Black Flag ditched that with a brand new MD which was funny, filled with puzzles and more world building than any MD game did before. The point of AC3 was to bring things to a close and give Ubisoft a blank slate...now that blank slate thinking has made them so accustomed you are not going to have Lore anymore with Unity destroying the illusion of continuity.


It introduced the idea of Sages which has added nothing but confusion into the mix, since we still don't know how exactly Sages are born, how their genetic memories work, why some become aware of their past earlier, how they all tie into Juno's plans for world domination etc.. Introduced the idea of Juno becoming a literal ghost in the machine, a plotpoint that after four games still hasn't progressed an inch.

Are we talking about AC3 or Black Flag, because Sages--Juno becoming part of the Gray was entirely darby Mcdevitt's idea in Black Flag. AC3 actually brought things to a close, it didn't spin any new wheels.


4) This is just a personal pet peeve, but after AC3 ended Connor's tale on a melancholy note, everyone thinks an assassin's story is incomplete if we don't explicitly witness them dying or passing on their genes.

Ubisoft have themselves to blame for first putting in Forsaken and then saying Forsaken is canon...then making the pirate hero of Black Flag Edward Kenway when he had no reason to be. Then adding in Haytham references...all of which will quite rightly make people see that Connor is being treated like the member of the untouchable caste. I mean the joke of Rogue, the game that is supposed to end the New World era is that it ties up all loose ends from Achilles to Connor's ship Aquila, but not Connor himself. If Ubisoft want people to see their games and stories as closed then they need to drop or abandon even the supporting characters around that protagonist because they are "supporting" characters to a specific "Protagonist". Spin more threads in that pond and people will wonder about the guy on the boxart who people paid money to play and they have a right to wonder.

VestigialLlama4
02-04-2016, 08:44 AM
However I don't agree with everything VL4 talks about so I'm going to address it anyway.

Nor do I expect everyone to agree with me, I just want people to discuss Unity in depth and talk about the game in full rather than defend it or attack it in simple terms. That's all.


I don't think combat should get easier at higher levels. I don't think your stats should vary too much as you level up either.

What I mean is that the common footsoldier or mooks shouldn't logically give you the same trouble you would have on higher levels. Right from 2D levels, the idea was the final level would have tougher enemies and harder combat. We see this in earlier games like Revelations where at first its easy and then come the Janissarries, the advanced Byzantines. In Unity even after you upgrade gear, the sans-culotte thugs are hard. It's just arbitrary levelling. If this were Shadow of the Colossus where the hero has simple gear and tools and doesn't advance then it's okay. Or if this was like AC3 where you had no armour and regenerative health, that justified the guards still being tough at high levels as at low levels.


After all of of this the first thing I realise is how flawed Syndicate is, more than Unity, at least in what you've pointed out. Though for some reason there's something about Syndicate that makes me prefer it so much more. Fundamentally, London is much more fun to explore that Paris, and I somehow can cope with how easy of a game it is.

I think Syndicate knows its strengths and focuses on it. It's not an ambitious big idea game and it doesn't distract you. My one problem with the game is the Rope Launcher which to me destroys Parkour and Climbing and I think that will be a real problem for later games. UNITY is a game that doesn't really fully satisfy any single thing. And I think the developers of Syndicate fundamentally liked the London setting more than they did Revolutionary Paris. I should insert snarky joke here about that but I actually believe that developers should make games in settings that interest and excites them.


I resent your implication that "ooh, Paris so pretty!" is a bad reason to enjoy a game. My first experience with AC1 - the one that made me a fan - was almost entirely based on "ooh, Middle East so pretty!". :p

Touché.


When you get to the end and you truly feel accomplished. What's the point of a game that gets easier towards the end boss?

Well the earlier games made things harder by making the opponents and the levels harder, they didn't offend you by making the same bad guys or low level goombas as hard as Bowser. This is also how Batman Arkham does things. Unity did not do things this way.


And this is different from previous games....how?

The earlier games didn't advertise a special stealth button that's why. The way they hyped it up, it was like they were making Dishonored. I mean what's the bloody point of patting yourself on the bat for having a crouch button when all the earlier games worked fine without it. How did it all of a sudden make things stealthier?


EV wasn't perfect in Unity, sure. The best it has ever been was probably AC2 where it wasn't OP and you could use it while running. I was once strongly against Black Flag's version of EV, but I got used to it pretty fast and now I think it's really useful in planning your route. Unity took a step in the right direction by limiting its use - if they wanted to improve it further, I think Joel's ability to sense enemies through walls in TLoU would be (almost) perfect. It's a lot less specific and more limited and makes more sense realistically as he can't literally see enemies through walls, he just hears their movements. So enemies that stand still can surprise him.

Well what about the whole destruction of level design aesthetic with floating blobs around neo-classical halls?

qmagnet
02-04-2016, 01:55 PM
Why start a thread by asking a question and then dismissing an answer just because you didn't like it?

No. I never asked any questions in my OP.

You hate Unity. We get it.



Historical accuracy is a fair and legitimate complaint to make about Assassin's Creed games.
I have another thread here where I discuss the illogical aspect of Unity. Ever consider that Abstergo rewrote the sequence to suit their agenda? That is one theory. That would explain the historical inaccuracies.[/QUOTE]



I'll accept your apology. I won't accept that you "never meant to tell someone they are wrong". You are the one who brought up AC3 in this discussion for no reason and started to call the game "a borefest" and said that "American revolution" is more boring for no reason. Which is why I made that jokey rant against Eurocentrism.

Okay I guess. AC3 sucks. Don't care what you say about that.
Man, that horse is pretty high. How'd you get up there?

VestigialLlama4
02-04-2016, 02:20 PM
No. I never asked any questions in my OP.

NO, then let me jog your memory...Italics and Bold are Mine...


I've now put about 20 or so hours into Unity.

Honestly, I can't understand why people hated that game. I've only experienced a handful of bugs. Only two have been game stopping but reloading the game, it works.
Visual glitches just make me laugh. I've only seen 2 so far. People who get upset at visual glitches are overreacting.

The missions are fun. The side quests are fun. The customization of gear is wonderful.
I was getting tired of boats from 3 AC games so it's nice to be in just a city.
And Unity is definitely absolutely beautiful, from the clothing animations, to the cutscenes, to the small 180 parkour jumps from hopping down to a lower platform.
I haven't even played coop yet.

To me, Unity is a great game and a wonderful addition to the AC universe.
I have played every main title, AC, ACII, Brotherhood, Revelations, ACIII, Black Flag, Rogue. Unity is probably my favourite after ACII and BF.


Why people said "it sucks" is beyond my comprehension.

When you use the word "Why" and put that in your post title, it means you are asking a question.


Ever consider that Abstergo rewrote the sequence to suit their agenda? That is one theory. That would explain the historical inaccuracies.

The way Unity is structured is that the Assassins CONTACT you and give you access to special memories to decode for THEM. "Abstergo rewriting history" was the Watsonian Explanation for the Assassins interacting with history, the Animus shows us the real history. That's been the case since the first game, it has nothing to do with the Animus Content which the games repeatedly tell you is more or less the real thing filtered and modified as per the limitations of the Animus hardware.

BananaBlighter
02-04-2016, 02:49 PM
What I mean is that the common footsoldier or mooks shouldn't logically give you the same trouble you would have on higher levels. Right from 2D levels, the idea was the final level would have tougher enemies and harder combat. We see this in earlier games like Revelations where at first its easy and then come the Janissarries, the advanced Byzantines. In Unity even after you upgrade gear, the sans-culotte thugs are hard. It's just arbitrary levelling. If this were Shadow of the Colossus where the hero has simple gear and tools and doesn't advance then it's okay. Or if this was like AC3 where you had no armour and regenerative health, that justified the guards still being tough at high levels as at low levels.

That's true, and it's once again due to the leveling system. As I said before, difficulty should be increased by introducing new enemy types, and then accommodate for this by giving the player new useful abilities that they can use to defeat them. IMO stats are for balancing, nor for increasing, however Unity does both of these and I don't like the way they've done the latter, because if you increase your overall stats and then so does your enemy, what is the difference? Skills and tools are what should drive progression, and at least that was present in Unity to some extent. Like the Janissaries in Revelations, in Unity we later got the funny-hat enemies. They would attack with a flurry of fast swipes, and most of the time I fail to counter many of these. However to effectively take them out you need to stun them, either by perfect parrying, or by using the 'staggering strike' ability. Other skills allow you to trip up enemies and ground execute them, which slightly increased the combat system's variety (I still think fighting in Unity is quite dull) but also made fighting certain enemy types a bit easier, like those brutes with the spears.

I guess it's only now that I appreciate Unity for this kind of thing, because after playing Syndicate I see how annoyingly simplistic and flawed its progression and gameplay can be, and sometimes wish it was never altered from Unity.


I think Syndicate knows its strengths and focuses on it. It's not an ambitious big idea game and it doesn't distract you. My one problem with the game is the Rope Launcher which to me destroys Parkour and Climbing and I think that will be a real problem for later games. UNITY is a game that doesn't really fully satisfy any single thing. And I think the developers of Syndicate fundamentally liked the London setting more than they did Revolutionary Paris. I should insert snarky joke here about that but I actually believe that developers should make games in settings that interest and excites them.

Before Syndicate was released the developers were clearly very proud of their recreation of London, and in the game it turned out to be a pretty great piece of art. Probably my favourite city to date, because it felt so lively and varied. However this view is probably very biased because it's also where I live.

I don't mind the rope launcher. The buildings were too tall in London to manually climb, and it was a great way to escape enemies (though a bit OP in this regard). In terms of the zipline, I only ever use it to cross streets, but even then if I can find another way round, I'll always take that. I think they could balance it by making it a bit slower. That way, players would always opt for the traditional parkour route since running would be faster. The rope launcher should only be used when absolutely necessary.

You say that Unity didn't fully satisfy you in any one thing, and here agree to an extent. My two favourite gameplay aspects are the customization and the stealth. In both of these there are flaws, however I can say that for pretty much any aspect of all the games. Really I am quite satisfied with the experience I had in Unity with these two, so I don't believe it's totally worthless.

cawatrooper9
02-04-2016, 03:24 PM
Wow. I am very sorry if I've offended you. Until this point I thought we were all having a friendly conversation. This is all likely my fault as I had typed something in friendly difference, but it was read as a negative bitterness.

You have absolutely nothing to apologize for. Sometimes, people on the internet can have a hard time accepting that other people can have differing opinions, especially when those opinions are generally viewed as unpopular (like enjoying Unity). This certainly seems to be a case of that.




When you use the word "Why" and put that in your post title, it means you are asking a question.

To be fair, that's more of a statement, really. I don't think OP meant for this to escalate into what it has. They merely mused on how, to them, Unity was much better than they were expecting based on previous reviews.


Seriously, I can't believe this is still going on.

VestigialLlama4
02-04-2016, 04:08 PM
You say that Unity didn't fully satisfy you in any one thing, and here agree to an extent. My two favourite gameplay aspects are the customization and the stealth. In both of these there are flaws, however I can say that for pretty much any aspect of all the games. Really I am quite satisfied with the experience I had in Unity with these two, so I don't believe it's totally worthless.

Totally worthless would be ROGUE and Unity is not Rogue.

Anyway, just because Unity is a bad game it is still a bad game done by Ubisoft, so even then there's stuff there that's entertaining. The Paris recreations are nice, taken as it is, the crowd AI is quite fun to observe I think, I mean it's that kind of empty open world fun that developers like to pat themselves on their back for but it's there. The Notre Dame Assassination mission is pretty cool and time anomalies are great.

Among the characters I like Pierre Bellec best. I think he should have had a bigger role, maybe as big as Germain or bigger than him. Ideally he should have been the protagonist of Unity but ubisoft clearly never had any intention of making that game. So the next best thing was that he should have been the main villain.

Mr.Black24
02-04-2016, 05:18 PM
1) Introduced an utterly unwieldy parkour system that has been the template for every game since I don't know how console players moved in AC3, but PC only had to hold the right mouse button, point to where we want Connor/Desmond to move, and it few fluidly. Now we have to hold the dumb shift button again. It be killing my pinkie. If they only combined that, with the parkour down system, then it would be perfect!


2) Killed modern day by making Desmond's end so dumb and unsatisfying as if to ensure people would never want another 3rd person protagonist.

Lol, well one thing for sure, Unity and Syndicate got people wanting a 3rd person protagonist. If anything, it got people realizing how Desmond's part really was big to the series and want a character in the center back. Hell people having been saying they miss Desmond and are even begging for him to come back cuz how awful MD has been. Some might argue that it was bad since AC2, flawed? Yeah. But compared to the state that it is right now? Way better than it is now.

But to be fair, you only care about the tourism, which is ok too. I'm more of a story kind of guy.


3) Was responsible for the lore becoming so convoluted that not even the devs know what to do with it anymore. It pulled the worst deus ex machina in the series (and that's saying a lot) by having Minerva pop up out of nowhere at the end to tell the audience: "oh, all that stuff you've been trying to figure out for years how it all fits together? "Your son, the Sun", all that good stuff? Alternate realities that never happened. I totally saw it through my magic crystal ball. Yet somehow even though I had this device which allowed me to see hundreds of years into the future, I chose this particular moment to appear to warn you about Juno instead of, oh I don't know, back when I first talked to you through Ezio".
It introduced the idea of Sages which has added nothing but confusion into the mix, since we still don't know how exactly Sages are born, how their genetic memories work, why some become aware of their past earlier, how they all tie into Juno's plans for world domination etc.. Introduced the idea of Juno becoming a literal ghost in the machine, a plotpoint that after four games still hasn't progressed an inch.
I agree with you on that one. I thought it'd be cool at first, thinking we are going to fight her, but now its just dragging on, and on, and on ,and on, and on, and on..........


4) This is just a personal pet peeve, but after AC3 ended Connor's tale on a melancholy note, everyone thinks an assassin's story is incomplete if we don't explicitly witness them dying or passing on their genes.



Ubisoft have themselves to blame for first putting in Forsaken and then saying Forsaken is canon...then making the pirate hero of Black Flag Edward Kenway when he had no reason to be. Then adding in Haytham references...all of which will quite rightly make people see that Connor is being treated like the member of the untouchable caste. I mean the joke of Rogue, the game that is supposed to end the New World era is that it ties up all loose ends from Achilles to Connor's ship Aquila, but not Connor himself. If Ubisoft want people to see their games and stories as closed then they need to drop or abandon even the supporting characters around that protagonist because they are "supporting" characters to a specific "Protagonist". Spin more threads in that pond and people will wonder about the guy on the boxart who people paid money to play and they have a right to wonder.

^ This, I mean its very noticable when you have two of the Kenway family members to have their stories closed up, and the Saga closed up to some guy who isn't a Kenway. Then throughout the rest of the series, avoidance of the mentioning of Connor has always been number one throughout games and outside media, and when it is mentioned, its just a fake wave of the hand sentence saying that he died alone and stuff, and even though that detail is an Abstergo lie, we're back to square one again.

Not to mention that some folks like yourselves keep saying that Connor's tale is done. But like we could have same for another fan favorite, Edward Kenway. There wasn't much of a reason to bring him in right? He was just the father of Haytham and an Assassin who was killed protecting his home and family. We knew what we had to know, there was no lead or hint that mentioned him as a pirate or opening the fact that THEY HAD TO DO IT.

Well the devs at Ubisoft wanted to tell a family saga, and CREATED a role for Edward. And guess what? YOU LOVED HIM! Everyone did, including myself and I am glad to have him into the fold.
Who in the hell says they can't make another continuation for Connor? Especially now we got them damm Precursor Trees, Shay running around causing trouble, Arno is still here, along with Aveline, you got a 4 way cross path on the way how each of their stories ended. THERE IS A ROLE RIGHT THERE! A chance right there, but nope lets just drop everything! Granted a dev expressed his want to return back to them, so I'm glad there is at least one who wants to finish what they helped started.

qmagnet
02-04-2016, 09:46 PM
When you use the word "Why" and put that in your post title, it means you are asking a question.
No. A question mark means I am asking a question.
I was already aware of plenty of negative feedback surrounding the game. I don't really need you to prove to me that Unity is bad. Because I like it very much.


To be fair, that's more of a statement, really. I don't think OP meant for this to escalate into what it has. They merely mused on how, to them, Unity was much better than they were expecting based on previous reviews.
Yep.


The way Unity is structured is that the Assassins CONTACT you and give you access to special memories to decode for THEM. "Abstergo rewriting history" was the Watsonian Explanation for the Assassins interacting with history, the Animus shows us the real history. That's been the case since the first game, it has nothing to do with the Animus Content which the games repeatedly tell you is more or less the real thing filtered and modified as per the limitations of the Animus hardware.
I encourage to give your thoughts to my other thread then. Why does the prologue Templar die? How can he die if it's a genetic memory?

VestigialLlama4
02-04-2016, 10:07 PM
I encourage to give your thoughts to my other thread then. Why does the prologue Templar die? How can he die if it's a genetic memory?

My response to such questions these days is "Don't do ubisoft's job for them." If something is unexplained by Ubisoft wait for them to give an explanation and then decide if its fits or doesn't fit. As it stands just take the game on face value.

The fact is the Jacques de Molay prologue is not explained properly, if Darby McDevitt had written the game there would be answers because he likes to tie things together and all other professional writing discipline that is not otherwise shared by other writers at Ubisoft.

SixKeys
02-04-2016, 10:07 PM
That's not what I said. We were discussing the promotion of Unity versus AC3. SixKeys who hates AC3 as irrationally as I hate Unity rationally (at least with me, I don't bring my out of date PC copy as a reason to write off the game for people whose copies were fine and dandy)

Wait, out of date? What are you talking about? I still experience the exact same bugs every time I fire up the game, and I have all the patches.

Also ironic, considering that most people's problems with Unity can be tied to its buggy launch. Apparently it works fine for most people now. (Haven't played it in months, so I wouldn't know.)

And yes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with judging a game based on the performance you experienced during your playthrough. I've heard from people who have had game-breaking glitches with every single game in the series, of course it sours their experience. It makes the game feel sloppy and unfinished, at worst unplayable. Why was it okay for people to complain about Unity's buggy launch, given the game was clearly unfinished, but AC3 should get away with the same crime?

The game being buggy as hell 3 years after launch is just one of my many complaints. My main problems are with the story, characterization, side activities, modern day, parkour and mission design. For some reason you always choose to ignore all these when I point them out though, opting instead to blame racism, so no point going in-depth again.



said that the marketing of UNITY didn't promote the history as much as AC3 did. I pointed out the video with Lorde showing people storm the Bastille...and apparently that's not all big. Especially sing the song became a success because of that trailer (which by the way is the only historically accurate moment in all the game, the Governor who tried to light the gunpowder then got lynched by the mob...all that happened as we see it).

Actually, what you said was:


Its the least Puff Daddy sounding song (and actually the singer Skylar whose refrain is in the song), technicalities, this largely doesn't matter to SixKeys.

(songs by popular artists are only okay when it's AC3!)

and


Excuse me, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ohFulrJKhI

This ISN'T overselling the story? Arno and Assassins storming the Bastille, throwing victims to the people to do with as they pleased, the famous song by rising pop-star about Everyone Wants to Rule the World? Yes, I can see the French Revolution being a minor inconsequential squint-and-you'll-miss-it thing in the background here.

So did Unity's trailers promote history or not? Make up your mind already.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1220028-How-big-of-a-disaster-will-Syndicate-be/page2


Desmond's story as Assassin_M pointed out had already gotten out of hand since AC2 introduced the Solar Flare and dropped the Satellite. AC3 merely brought earlier threads to a proper close and I don't think it could have done a better job given what came before.

Disagree. There is a hell of a lot that could have been done better, including Daniel Cross, the confrontation with Vidic, mentioning Lucy and what happened with her in more than a drive-by footnote, Desmond's relationship with William, the satellite plot (which wasn't actually dropped until AC3 (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Eye-Abstergo#cite_note-AC3-3) offhandedly mentioned "oh, BTW, don't worry about that anymore"), Desmond's final moments, Minerva's gamble etc. etc. Yes, AC3 had the misfortune to be the finale of a saga that had been getting crazier and crazier, but it made plenty of bad choices all on its own to address those plot threads.



Are we talking about AC3 or Black Flag, because Sages--Juno becoming part of the Gray was entirely darby Mcdevitt's idea in Black Flag. AC3 actually brought things to a close, it didn't spin any new wheels.

How is it that I apparently paid more attention to a game I hate than someone who loves it? AC3 introduced Juno's lover, Aita, and showed us their plan to have his genes transferred on via a human "vessel". The Gray didn't have a specific name until AC4, but Juno hacked Shaun's computer in AC3, entered the network and wrote messages to Desmond via e-mail to test her powers. The game attempted to tie up loose ends, yet ended on another cliffhanger with Juno being unleashed, leaving the audience to think the next game would deal with her rise to power. That's a pretty big wheel to spin.



Ubisoft have themselves to blame for first putting in Forsaken and then saying Forsaken is canon...then making the pirate hero of Black Flag Edward Kenway when he had no reason to be.

Not going to get into that since I don't give a toss about the books and don't know all the stuff that's in them. The games should stand or fall on their own.



Well the earlier games made things harder by making the opponents and the levels harder, they didn't offend you by making the same bad guys or low level goombas as hard as Bowser. This is also how Batman Arkham does things. Unity did not do things this way.

AC2 marked the start of dumbed-down combat, where instead of encountering tougher enemies in greater numbers as you progressed like in AC1 (Al Mualim warned you about this every time after you had performed a high-profile assassination), AC2 split every enemy type into their own categories: Agiles, Brutes and Spearmen. Each one had a specific weakness you could exploit, whereas in AC1 high-level guards could perform the same counter attacks you did. AC2 also invented the concept of unequippable upgrades. If you bought high-level gear early in the game, you were squashing guards like bugs left and right since you only encountered the same three or four basic archetypes throughout the rest of the game. And unlike Unity, there was no option to remove armor and switch to weaker gear to make the game more challenging.



The earlier games didn't advertise a special stealth button that's why. The way they hyped it up, it was like they were making Dishonored. I mean what's the bloody point of patting yourself on the bat for having a crouch button when all the earlier games worked fine without it. How did it all of a sudden make things stealthier?

I thought we were talking about weapons and tools? You said Unity only gave you a limited arsenal of tools that could only be used one way. How is that different from previous games? Connor's bow was basically the same as the Phantom Blade. It only had one function, with the added flaw of being a "silent" weapon that alerted every guard in the vicinity.



Well what about the whole destruction of level design aesthetic with floating blobs around neo-classical halls?

If floating blobs are a problem for you, blame AC4, not Unity. I do wish the devs gave us the option to turn EV off, or downgrade it to the Ezio games' level. My ideal version of EV would be: aesthetic of AC2, ability to use it while running, cooldown period, option to turn off x-ray blobs, and ability to see guard paths like in ACR.

Ureh
02-04-2016, 11:35 PM
Could be wrong but the Sage story might've been referenced as early as AC2. Page 11 of Altair's Codex:


Attis. Dionysus. Horus. Krishna. Mithra. Jesus (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Jesus_Christ). Similar stories color their lives. Too similar, I think. Divine birthright. Persecution. Disciples. Miraculous acts. Resurrection...
How is it possible?
Perhaps it isn't... Merely a single story told over the ages? Borrowed then changed to fit the times? Evolving as our tools and language do? Is this tale born of fact or fiction? A bit of both? Could these figures be the same person – their life extended and transformed by a Piece of Eden?
Al Mualim spoke of Jesus as a real person – a mortal who had mastered the arts of manipulation. But what if he was wrong? If these men are real – and if they have walked amongst us many times before – does it mean they'll come again? Perhaps they are here now? So many questions, and every day, even more...

cawatrooper9
02-04-2016, 11:55 PM
Disagree. There is a hell of a lot that could have been done better, including Daniel Cross, the confrontation with Vidic, mentioning Lucy and what happened with her in more than a drive-by footnote, Desmond's relationship with William, the satellite plot (which wasn't actually dropped until AC3 (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Eye-Abstergo#cite_note-AC3-3) offhandedly mentioned "oh, BTW, don't worry about that anymore"), Desmond's final moments, Minerva's gamble etc. etc. Yes, AC3 had the misfortune to be the finale of a saga that had been getting crazier and crazier, but it made plenty of bad choices all on its own to address those plot threads.


I absolutely agree. For as unwieldy as the series was getting, they should have focused specifically on tying up loose ends. Instead, they just created more non-sequitors, like Cross. A former Assassin, turned against his brothers and allied with the modern day Templars? Sounds like a perfect foil for Desmond!

Too bad he was basically just nothing more than a few cutscenes and mediocre "boss fights".




Attis. Dionysus. Horus. Krishna. Mithra. Jesus. Similar stories color their lives. Too similar, I think. Divine birthright. Persecution. Disciples. Miraculous acts. Resurrection...
How is it possible?
Perhaps it isn't... Merely a single story told over the ages? Borrowed then changed to fit the times? Evolving as our tools and language do? Is this tale born of fact or fiction? A bit of both? Could these figures be the same person – their life extended and transformed by a Piece of Eden?
Al Mualim spoke of Jesus as a real person – a mortal who had mastered the arts of manipulation. But what if he was wrong? If these men are real – and if they have walked amongst us many times before – does it mean they'll come again? Perhaps they are here now? So many questions, and every day, even more...

That's pretty cool, I didn't know it was referenced so soon.

It almost sounds like Altari's referencing mythic structure (like the monomyth) but the bit that says "Could these figures be the same person – their life extended and transformed by a Piece of Eden?" really sells me on it.

SixKeys
02-05-2016, 04:01 AM
I'm 99% certain the concept of Sages didn't exist as early as AC2. The devs have pretty much admitted that up until ACR or so, they were just winging it with the lore. The series was designed as a trilogy, after all, and the lore only became more complicated because they had to stretch it over several new games.

Mr.Black24
02-05-2016, 05:27 AM
I absolutely agree. For as unwieldy as the series was getting, they should have focused specifically on tying up loose ends. Instead, they just created more non-sequitors, like Cross. A former Assassin, turned against his brothers and allied with the modern day Templars? Sounds like a perfect foil for Desmond!

Too bad he was basically just nothing more than a few cutscenes and mediocre "boss fights". Just like Connor cut off speech, they had to cut out Daniel's death speech:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP1b2s4YsiE

Its because things like these is why I blame yearly cycles. I'm still trying to learn how yearly cycles DON'T affect game creation progress, as many argue.

VestigialLlama4
02-05-2016, 10:03 AM
Instead, they just created more non-sequitors, like Cross.

Again, blaming AC3 for Daniel Cross is grossly unfair since that guy existed in a comic book that had nothing to do with the game. It was only after the positive reception of the first one they put out a sequel and hyped up his appearance in the third game. Bear in mind that the MD was an expensive undertaking something they had to build separate assets for just for small throwaway missions and they still tied up loose ends...they did this just "for the fans" and all they get is complaints.


And yes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with judging a game based on the performance you experienced during your playthrough. I've heard from people who have had game-breaking glitches with every single game in the series, of course it sours their experience. It makes the game feel sloppy and unfinished, at worst unplayable. Why was it okay for people to complain about Unity's buggy launch, given the game was clearly unfinished, but AC3 should get away with the same crime?

Well firstly I never blamed Unity's problems on the glitches. Secondly, AC3 works perfectly fine for most other else, the problems for AC3 was comparatively smaller and affected far fewer people than Unity. You may not want that to be true but this is indeed true. After all, AC3 made money of its Story DLC where Unity did not and it was because of that DLC that you even have Syndicate after all (the same studio and developers worked on both).

Yes its sad that your copy was bad and you were entitled to a refund but that's as far as it goes. There was nothing preventing you to call Ubisoft, get a refund, get a Used Game copy...not that I think you should if you don't want to play the game. But the fact is you can't honestly expect this to qualify as criticism four years later. By this attitude no one should ever get over a bad impression and books like Moby-****, movies like Wizard of Oz should be condemned because the original audiences didn't like it so much.


My main problems are with the story, characterization, side activities, modern day, parkour and mission design. For some reason you always choose to ignore all these when I point them out though, opting instead to blame racism, so no point going in-depth again.

I honestly don't remember ever debating the game's side missions and stuff with you. It was mostly about Connor's VA performance, about whether he was too violent to be nice, and the game's main missions being too linear, which is true but not excessively so compared to the games preceding it.


Yes, AC3 had the misfortune to be the finale of a saga that had been getting crazier and crazier, but it made plenty of bad choices all on its own to address those plot threads.

If giving a proper conclusion, however unsatisfying it is, is a bad choice, then that's as far as it goes. It's still far better than pointlessly spinning wheels and adding complications where it's not necessary which is what the MD did since AC2. All AC3 did was clear the slate. That was its intention. Daniel Cross was cooked up by Transmedia and forced onto AC3's Modern Day, that comic was not written for AC3, it was done independently. The Lucy-Is-Templar Retcon was lazily inserted into the REVELATIONS Lost Archive DLC. The Satellite Plot in AC1 was cast side in AC2 and ACB, and if AC3 didn't mention it, people will still wonder if the Templars will launch it or not.


AC3 introduced Juno's lover, Aita, and showed us their plan to have his genes transferred on via a human "vessel".

Aita and the Sages was entirely Darby McDevitt's idea for Black Flag as he has said repeatedly. All AC3 said was that Juno had a husband, she tried to convert him but it failed and she had to mercy kill him. From there Darby added the Sage Plot and Reincarnation. It was definitely not Corey May's plot and idea at all. And it was something that only came up in Black Flag. The point of AC3 was to wrap up all the stuff from AC1 and that's all. The idea was that black flag and the next games would start a new thread and concept. The point of all those Juno Conversations was to make it clear that Desmond's Sacrifice was the last best hope, that there was no other way, it was also to give backstory to Juno and explain some of her motivations. Aita's appearance in AC3 definitely wasn't predicting the Sage plot since it came as a total surprise when Black Flag came out


I thought we were talking about weapons and tools? You said Unity only gave you a limited arsenal of tools that could only be used one way. How is that different from previous games?

As I said, the previous games didn't bang its drum as loudly as UNITY did about "Stealth bruh!". UNITY was supposed to be the STEALTH game, so it invites more criticism if all that can be said is that "previous games...yada yada yada". AC3 promised Treerunning, Natural landscapes, and a vast open world and historical immersion. That it delivered. it also said we would be able to blend in anwhere, we'd get a rope dart and we can whistle. That it delivered. UNITY has no excuse.


If floating blobs are a problem for you, blame AC4, not Unity.

As I said before, "Floating Blobs made sense in BLACK FLAG because the Caribbean landscape of all these islands makes that okay, but in Paris Unity, I think it's a disastrous choice." In Black Flag you had fewer crowds and fewer enemies, most of it was these small islands, so it didn't stick out too much. The naval gameplay doesn't even use Eagle Vision. Doing that in a city like Paris with neoclassical and medieval architecture is just silly.

Xstantin
02-05-2016, 04:07 PM
As I said before, "Floating Blobs made sense in BLACK FLAG because the Caribbean landscape of all these islands makes that okay, but in Paris Unity, I think it's a disastrous choice." In Black Flag you had fewer crowds and fewer enemies, most of it was these small islands, so it didn't stick out too much. The naval gameplay doesn't even use Eagle Vision. Doing that in a city like Paris with neoclassical and medieval architecture is just silly.
Floating blobs never made sense anywhere, it looked just as silly in Black Flag. I don't think architecture has anything to do with it anyway.

Jessigirl2013
02-05-2016, 07:18 PM
The reason why Unity sucks is best explained here:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/954025-ACU-History-A-list-of-demonstrable-lies-and-inaccuracies-**SPOILERS**

I agree that the inaccuracies didn't help, But we all know that the primary reason Unity flopped the way it did was because of the gamebreaking bugs and how badly UBI handled it.:rolleyes:

Its an AC game I'd rather forget, and as UBI hasn't referenced it in Syndicate I think they do too.:rolleyes:

Jessigirl2013
02-05-2016, 07:21 PM
Just like Connor cut off speech, they had to cut out Daniel's death speech:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP1b2s4YsiE

Its because things like these is why I blame yearly cycles. I'm still trying to learn how yearly cycles DON'T affect game creation progress, as many argue.

WHAT! THIS WAS CUT? WHY!:eek:

The way they handled the whole denial cross thing was awful,
They didn't really explore his character at all, and them make us kill him. I was like .... game noooooo, this character just got interesting and you want me to kill him!

Edit - I know the spelling error, but it made me laugh so ill keep it in.

cawatrooper9
02-05-2016, 07:46 PM
Again, blaming AC3 for Daniel Cross is grossly unfair since that guy existed in a comic book that had nothing to do with the game. It was only after the positive reception of the first one they put out a sequel and hyped up his appearance in the third game. Bear in mind that the MD was an expensive undertaking something they had to build separate assets for just for small throwaway missions and they still tied up loose ends...they did this just "for the fans" and all they get is complaints.


True, Cross did exist out of the game, but they did not have to bring him into ACIII. They made a judgment call, and they ended up regretting it. I don't really see how that's "grossly unfair", especially since Cross had been handled relatively well in media outside of ACIII. Six is right, your apologist arguments for this game are nothing if not fascinating. :p

qmagnet
02-05-2016, 08:26 PM
So I've finally finished the main story. I enjoyed it very much.
I didn't really appreciate the Assassin's council. They seemed to be very lazy and blamed Arno when he was the only doing anything to stop the Templar.

But after finishing it, I am very happy with Unity. Even if that aggravates VL4 because it's "a historical lie". Doesn't matter to me.
Gonna finish up to 100% and hopefully move on to Syndicate if the price drops.

Ureh
02-05-2016, 10:07 PM
I'm 99% certain the concept of Sages didn't exist as early as AC2. The devs have pretty much admitted that up until ACR or so, they were just winging it with the lore. The series was designed as a trilogy, after all, and the lore only became more complicated because they had to stretch it over several new games.

Yes I believe that's right. Back in AC2 the idea probably wasn't called the "Sage" and it probably never meant to involve figures like Aita, Black Bart, Germain, Jacques, John, etc. But the idea that there is this individual who may be "immortal" and that it has something to do with the FirstCiv and their artifacts, sounds like it was adapted to the Sage/Phoenix story as the series grew.

SixKeys
02-05-2016, 10:23 PM
Again, blaming AC3 for Daniel Cross is grossly unfair since that guy existed in a comic book that had nothing to do with the game. It was only after the positive reception of the first one they put out a sequel and hyped up his appearance in the third game. Bear in mind that the MD was an expensive undertaking something they had to build separate assets for just for small throwaway missions and they still tied up loose ends...they did this just "for the fans" and all they get is complaints.

You're acting like AC3 writers had no say in the matter. Like their hand was forced to write Cross into the story. (If they had no choice in what to write, do you think Ubi would have greenlit the game having a strong Native American focus?) And not only that, but forced to write him the way they did.
Cross was actually an interesting enemy, he could have made for a great counterpart to Desmond. In fact, I expected the final confrontation to get into "we're not so different, you and I" territory, where Desmond has to face what living with the Bleeding effect could, perhaps inevitably would, ultimately do to him - it happened to S16, it happened to Cross. And that would strengthen his resolve to sacrifice his life to save the world. Because the only thing left to look forward to was madness and he wanted his life to matter.

But noooo, that might actually be interesting. Instead they make you fight Cross with your fists and he goes down like a regular grunt. The freaking security guards are a bigger challenge than the guy who single-handedly took down the leader of the assassins. Okay, well, maybe he was just having a bad moment. Next time I'm sure he'll--- oh, he just runs away. And we have to chase him. And he doesn't even put up a fight. That is a terrible way to write that character into a game, no matter how you try to defend it.



Yes its sad that your copy was bad and you were entitled to a refund but that's as far as it goes. There was nothing preventing you to call Ubisoft, get a refund, get a Used Game copy...not that I think you should if you don't want to play the game. But the fact is you can't honestly expect this to qualify as criticism four years later. By this attitude no one should ever get over a bad impression and books like Moby-****, movies like Wizard of Oz should be condemned because the original audiences didn't like it so much.

Wow. Woooow.
Is this what passes for acceptable game development now? "Well, of course it's broken on release, that's just how these things work, stop complaining and get a new copy." Are we just resigned to our fate as customers who pay $60 on release for a broken product and we're supposed to accept that as standard practice?

Two things to consider:

1) There is no Ubisoft customer service number to call in Finland
2) I play on PC so used copies are a no-go, and so are refunds unless you've only played for 2 hours

There's a huge difference between someone "not liking it so much" and someone sitting in the theater when the projector chews up several scenes. And it's like that for the entire duration. When you complain to the manager that they should make sure there's always someone in the booth to make sure things are running smoothly or that they should take better care of their projectors, he just shrugs and says: "We don't do that here, too much work. Some projectors run just fine. At least 50% of them. Look at that other guy coming from theater #5. HE seems to have enjoyed it. You should just buy another ticket and come back tomorrow on the off-chance that you'll end up in a theater with a working projector".

I've never told people who complained about Unity simply because it was too buggy for them that they were wrong to judge the game on that basis. That they should just imaaaagine it ran perfectly and base their experience on that. That's absurd.
Your emotional investment can depend entirely on whether a cut scene runs as it's supposed to, or whether there are faces missing or characters floating up in the air. The suspenseful scene in prison when Connor sat down to play chess with the prisoner? Was made laughable by the fact that there were NPCs walking through Connor like he was a ghost. It completely takes you out of the experience for a while and reminds you you're watching a game. The emotional scene where he limps towards the pub to kill Charles Lee? Made ridiculous by a floating horse-drawn carriage outside, its owner just sitting there nochalantly staring into the sky. I get that this stuff happens occasionally in every game, and it's a crapshoot which percentage of players experience those glitches at all. But if my overall impression of the game is "wow, this looks like ****" or laughing at unintentionally funny scenes, how else am I supposed to describe my experience besides disappointing?

And guess what? The people who didn't like Moby D!ck or Wizard of Oz back then (or even now).....Were entirely entitled to their opinion. ANY entertainment medium is a subjective experience. There are so-called "classics" that just don't hold up as well as others. There are movies that "everyone" is supposed to like that some people just don't. And that's okay. Your problem is that you seem to think there exists an objective truth that all art should adhere to, objective rules that everyone should follow, and if they judge a movie or game by different criteria, they are automatically wrong. It's a very narrow definition of art.



I honestly don't remember ever debating the game's side missions and stuff with you. It was mostly about Connor's VA performance, about whether he was too violent to be nice, and the game's main missions being too linear, which is true but not excessively so compared to the games preceding it.

I disagree on the violence claim, though I do think there is some ludonarrative dissonance between how Connor is written as a character vs. some of his actions in gameplay. But I recognize that's most likely a lack of proper communication between different departments. It's nowhere near my biggest problem with the game in general. But even small things start to pile up when the rest of the game already frustrates you on a fundamental level. If you already think The Wizard of Oz is boring and badly acted, and then you spot a microphone hanging low in one scene, it just irritates you all the more: "they just really didn't care, did they?". If, however, you like the movie overall, you're much more likely to let it slide.



If giving a proper conclusion, however unsatisfying it is, is a bad choice, then that's as far as it goes. It's still far better than pointlessly spinning wheels and adding complications where it's not necessary which is what the MD did since AC2. All AC3 did was clear the slate. That was its intention. Daniel Cross was cooked up by Transmedia and forced onto AC3's Modern Day, that comic was not written for AC3, it was done independently. The Lucy-Is-Templar Retcon was lazily inserted into the REVELATIONS Lost Archive DLC. The Satellite Plot in AC1 was cast side in AC2 and ACB, and if AC3 didn't mention it, people will still wonder if the Templars will launch it or not.

The lore in general was badly handled over several titles, yes, I don't place the blame entirely on AC3. The biggest disappointment was that we thought there was an actual plan that they had planned well in advance, but that turned out not to be the case, and the way AC3 tied up all those loose ends (or didn't) was final proof of that. The things AC3 was supposed to clear up, it did poorly or didn't address at all (Erudito etc.).



Aita and the Sages was entirely Darby McDevitt's idea for Black Flag as he has said repeatedly. All AC3 said was that Juno had a husband, she tried to convert him but it failed and she had to mercy kill him. From there Darby added the Sage Plot and Reincarnation. It was definitely not Corey May's plot and idea at all. And it was something that only came up in Black Flag.

The concept of Sage may not have been mentioned (Aita's was, though) but they were clearly setting up for something. Even if what they ended up doing with Aita was Darby's idea, the character and what happened to him and how it affected Juno was already introduced in AC3. Of course those things are relevant going forward.


The point of AC3 was to wrap up all the stuff from AC1 and that's all.

If that was the intention, it FAILED spectacularly. AC1 claimed the US was in shambles and its inhabitants were mass emigrating to Mexican borders. It claimed the last movie studio in the world closed in 2012. It claimed that Africa's population had dwindled down to only 10% due to an epidemic. It talked about Lucy's friend Leila Marino who died under mysterious circumstances. NONE of which was addressed in AC3.

You can say all that stuff was already retconned by the time AC2 happened. Okay, but if it was, it was never mentioned anywhere in AC2-ACR. We were just left to assume all those e-mails were BS because the writers didn't have a solid plan. In which case, couldn't ALL of AC1 be BS? The satellite launch, the Denver incident, the glyphs Desmond saw at the end? Half of those we never got an explanation for either, BTW, like Quetzalcoatl and Yona Guni or the Chinese text. Desmond never bothered to ask S16 what that was all about. Guess he was too busy being in a coma. Well, there's still AC3, they have to wrap all this stuff up by then, right? Orrrrr they could just have Shaun talking about irrelevant, sarcastic-Brit nonsense in his e-mails to Desmond because everyone loves Shaun, Shaun-so-funny, lol. :rolleyes:



As I said, the previous games didn't bang its drum as loudly as UNITY did about "Stealth bruh!". UNITY was supposed to be the STEALTH game, so it invites more criticism if all that can be said is that "previous games...yada yada yada".

That's a legit criticism, though Unity never claimed stealth was the sole focus, just that it'd have more focus on stealth than before which was true. It was still entirely possible to finish the game through other means, stealth was just made more rewarding than it previously had been.



AC3 promised Treerunning, Natural landscapes, and a vast open world and historical immersion. That it delivered. it also said we would be able to blend in anwhere, we'd get a rope dart and we can whistle. That it delivered. UNITY has no excuse.

It also promised we'd get to experience the Great Fire of New York, frozen lakes that would open up new pathways to areas that were previously inaccessible, random encounters, open world naval exploration, canoes, and it delivered all that too.

Oh, wait.



As I said before, "Floating Blobs made sense in BLACK FLAG because the Caribbean landscape of all these islands makes that okay, but in Paris Unity, I think it's a disastrous choice." In Black Flag you had fewer crowds and fewer enemies, most of it was these small islands, so it didn't stick out too much. The naval gameplay doesn't even use Eagle Vision. Doing that in a city like Paris with neoclassical and medieval architecture is just silly.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. How do floating blobs make more sense in a Caribbean environment vs. indoors? It stuck out just as much, was just as ugly, just as nonsensical* and people complained just as loudly when it was introduced. But Ubisoft were determined to carry it over, so by now we're just used to it.


* In fact, it can be claimed it makes less sense in AC4 than in Unity. What is Eagle Vision based on, exactly? I always took it to mean heightened awareness, not literal x-ray vision. Like the ancestor having extra sensitive hearing, so they can pinpoint an enemy's location just by listening to their footsteps. It makes sense inside a building where you have walls echoing every sound. In Black Flag, you're in open air, on a big plantation, with the sound of wind and waves and rustling leaves messing with your perception. How the hell is Edward able to figure out which way an enemy is facing 200 yards away?

VestigialLlama4
02-06-2016, 07:03 AM
You're acting like AC3 writers had no say in the matter. Like their hand was forced to write Cross into the story.

For the Modern Day certainly. Transmedia told them, we are building Cross up as Desmond's Big Bad and we want you to work them in. AC3 developers scratched their heads and wondered about playable MD missions since those are small parts of the game and they had to spend a lot of money for creating assets for such a meagre thing. Darby McDevitt said that the expenses for AC3 MD made the game more expensive to produce than it needed, which in turn fed the excessive marketing to recoup the costs and so on.


He could have made for a great counterpart to Desmond. In fact, I expected the final confrontation to get into "we're not so different, you and I" territory, where Desmond has to face what living with the Bleeding effect could, perhaps inevitably would, ultimately do to him - it happened to S16, it happened to Cross. And that would strengthen his resolve to sacrifice his life to save the world. Because the only thing left to look forward to was madness and he wanted his life to matter.

Except Desmond already got over the Bleeding Effect at the end of Revelations. Why retread waters, that is the same thinking as spinning-wheels endlessly? And the whole cheesy "not so different" thing well it becomes cliche if you take it too far. I also disagree that "the only thing left to look forward to was madness"...that to me takes away from the heroism of Desmond's sacrifice. The point of AC3 was tragedy. Desmond had solved his problems, he got revenge on Vidic, he and Shaun are on good terms, he and his Dad shared a hug, his bleeding effect is gone...and then he finds out he has to sacrifice himself, that is heroic, that is tragic and painful because the hero's loss registers powerfully. It also makes Subject 16's story more painful, that after going mad, after being betrayed and giving up a potential resurrection for Desmond's mission, it turns out he was part of a con. On the one hand, he succeeded his mission to avert the solar flare but on the other hand not the way they planned.


That is a terrible way to write that character into a game, no matter how you try to defend it.

I agree that its weak, I also can't see how they could have made it better given that MD is ultimately in the grand scheme of things, just a minor part of AC3's development. Just a minor part of any AC game's development. To do proper AC Modern Day is hard...and they strained themselves by making the Abstergo Guards use pistols like flintlocks because coding modern weapons for a tiny part of the game is hard and given that they spent a lot of money to provide some MD missions solely so Desmond can feel like a playable Assassin before he dies. The disappointment with AC's modern day has to be laid at the feet at earlier games rather than AC3.


The biggest disappointment was that we thought there was an actual plan that they had planned well in advance, but that turned out not to be the case, and the way AC3 tied up all those loose ends (or didn't) was final proof of that.

If you consider things objectively, nearly everything was cleared up. We learned why Desmond Stabbed Lucy. We learned about why the Grand Temple is humanity's only way to stop the Solar Flare. We learned about the Satellite Launch being averted. The illusion that Daniel Cross was anything other than a disappointment was finally laid to rest. I am just waiting for them to throw the towel with Otso Berg, aka Daniel Cross 2:Electric Boogaloo. I mean the idea of a good MD Templar Villain has always been a self-defeating joke. That's why they brought in Juno because she has real menace.


Even if what they ended up doing with Aita was Darby's idea, the character and what happened to him and how it affected Juno was already introduced in AC3. Of course those things are relevant going forward.

It's only relevant because you want to blame the Sage plotline on AC3 and are reaching for straws. Nobody expected Aita to be of any importance until Black Flag came out. There was almost no speculation about him, not of any sufficient length and amount at any rate. The Sage plotline was a total shock. And if that plotline is weakened...the blame for that should go to UNITY which poisoned that well thoroughly by making the Sage a Templar Grandmaster when the cool thing about the idea in Black Flag was that he was unaffiliated. It ruined things so bad that Syndicate made the Sage into a tiny side mission and didn't even go the obvious route and made the Sage Jack the Ripper because they realize that Unity killed people's interest in that by messing things badly.


If that was the intention, it FAILED spectacularly. AC1 claimed the US was in shambles and its inhabitants were mass emigrating to Mexican borders. It claimed the last movie studio in the world closed in 2012. It claimed that Africa's population had dwindled down to only 10% due to an epidemic. It talked about Lucy's friend Leila Marino who died under mysterious circumstances. NONE of which was addressed in AC3.

Those are abstergo emails, Lucy is a Templar-Assassin double agent. Vidic knew Desmond was reading their stuff...bingo, Fixed that For You. All that stuff was lies meant to make Desmond afraid of how mighty Abstergo's control of the truth was with fake stuff about Africa's population depopulating. It was all Lies. Leila Marino everything since Lucy was a Plant. Once you say Lucy is a plant, then every word she tells Desmond has to be taken with a grain of salt. Of course in real-life the reason Lucy was killed and made into a Templar was that Kristen Bell annoyed the marketers (as Patrice Desilets confirmed) and she was asking for money (quite rightly) and they wanted to cut costs. And of course Ubisoft is not free of the casual sexism of the gaming industry to create shocks by fridging women and then making that woman a traitor so the hero doesn't have to mourn her.


It also promised we'd get to experience the Great Fire of New York, frozen lakes that would open up new pathways to areas that were previously inaccessible, random encounters, open world naval exploration, canoes, and it delivered all that too.

Yeah punish a game because it only delivered 90% of what it promised, and punish them when the marketing tells you up front that these things were removed before the game. Punish them and not punish Unity for selling us a rotten bill of goods, for outright lying to the public about its historical content, and failing to achieve even the things it promised. I find your lack of fairness...well funny at this point. As I said there are rational reasons for disliking Unity, and my reasons for disliking Unity are entirely rational. The bugs at launch and glitches, I don't mention that because ultimately that stuff will be fixed in a later release. There are rational reasons for disliking AC3 too, such as the linear missions, your level of interest in American history or if you think that setting fits an AvT game. But everything else, your PC copy, over-zealous marketing that despite everything was more honest than Unity's, MD disappointment, future MD disappointment and stuff, well that's not really being fair.

I can't see how you expect people to respect Unity's open world construction of Paris while giving no quarter to AC3's incredible vision and ambition. I mean people ask all the time for different protagonists, for unusual settings, for more ambitious stories and open world and the one time a game delivers that, even if its a little weak, we aren't going to show even the slightest respect. Well that's sad.


Sorry, but that's ridiculous. How do floating blobs make more sense in a Caribbean environment vs. indoors? It stuck out just as much, was just as ugly, just as nonsensical* and people complained just as loudly when it was introduced. But Ubisoft were determined to carry it over, so by now we're just used to it.

You are right. They should never have had X-Ray Floating Blobs even in Black Flag, yes. I am just saying it was more tolerable in an environment where most of the action is on naval (and you don't use Eagle Vision on the open seas) then a game on dry land with awesome period architecture. There has to be an aesthetic balance.

Jessigirl2013
02-06-2016, 03:51 PM
Yes I believe that's right. Back in AC2 the idea probably wasn't called the "Sage" and it probably never meant to involve figures like Aita, Black Bart, Germain, Jacques, John, etc. But the idea that there is this individual who may be "immortal" and that it has something to do with the FirstCiv and their artifacts, sounds like it was adapted to the Sage/Phoenix story as the series grew.

I agree, I was annoyed when playing BF because it felt like it was shoehorned into the lore when I still felt they hadn't explained the ACIII ending.


You're acting like AC3 writers had no say in the matter. Like their hand was forced to write Cross into the story. (If they had no choice in what to write, do you think Ubi would have greenlit the game having a strong Native American focus?) And not only that, but forced to write him the way they did.
Cross was actually an interesting enemy, he could have made for a great counterpart to Desmond. In fact, I expected the final confrontation to get into "we're not so different, you and I" territory, where Desmond has to face what living with the Bleeding effect could, perhaps inevitably would, ultimately do to him - it happened to S16, it happened to Cross. And that would strengthen his resolve to sacrifice his life to save the world. Because the only thing left to look forward to was madness and he wanted his life to matter.

But noooo, that might actually be interesting. Instead they make you fight Cross with your fists and he goes down like a regular grunt. The freaking security guards are a bigger challenge than the guy who single-handedly took down the leader of the assassins. Okay, well, maybe he was just having a bad moment. Next time I'm sure he'll--- oh, he just runs away. And we have to chase him. And he doesn't even put up a fight. That is a terrible way to write that character into a game, no matter how you try to defend it.



Wow. Woooow.
Is this what passes for acceptable game development now? "Well, of course it's broken on release, that's just how these things work, stop complaining and get a new copy." Are we just resigned to our fate as customers who pay $60 on release for a broken product and we're supposed to accept that as standard practice?

Two things to consider:

1) There is no Ubisoft customer service number to call in Finland
2) I play on PC so used copies are a no-go, and so are refunds unless you've only played for 2 hours

There's a huge difference between someone "not liking it so much" and someone sitting in the theater when the projector chews up several scenes. And it's like that for the entire duration. When you complain to the manager that they should make sure there's always someone in the booth to make sure things are running smoothly or that they should take better care of their projectors, he just shrugs and says: "We don't do that here, too much work. Some projectors run just fine. At least 50% of them. Look at that other guy coming from theater #5. HE seems to have enjoyed it. You should just buy another ticket and come back tomorrow on the off-chance that you'll end up in a theater with a working projector".

I've never told people who complained about Unity simply because it was too buggy for them that they were wrong to judge the game on that basis. That they should just imaaaagine it ran perfectly and base their experience on that. That's absurd.
Your emotional investment can depend entirely on whether a cut scene runs as it's supposed to, or whether there are faces missing or characters floating up in the air. The suspenseful scene in prison when Connor sat down to play chess with the prisoner? Was made laughable by the fact that there were NPCs walking through Connor like he was a ghost. It completely takes you out of the experience for a while and reminds you you're watching a game. The emotional scene where he limps towards the pub to kill Charles Lee? Made ridiculous by a floating horse-drawn carriage outside, its owner just sitting there nochalantly staring into the sky. I get that this stuff happens occasionally in every game, and it's a crapshoot which percentage of players experience those glitches at all. But if my overall impression of the game is "wow, this looks like ****" or laughing at unintentionally funny scenes, how else am I supposed to describe my experience besides disappointing?

And guess what? The people who didn't like Moby D!ck or Wizard of Oz back then (or even now).....Were entirely entitled to their opinion. ANY entertainment medium is a subjective experience. There are so-called "classics" that just don't hold up as well as others. There are movies that "everyone" is supposed to like that some people just don't. And that's okay. Your problem is that you seem to think there exists an objective truth that all art should adhere to, objective rules that everyone should follow, and if they judge a movie or game by different criteria, they are automatically wrong. It's a very narrow definition of art.



I disagree on the violence claim, though I do think there is some ludonarrative dissonance between how Connor is written as a character vs. some of his actions in gameplay. But I recognize that's most likely a lack of proper communication between different departments. It's nowhere near my biggest problem with the game in general. But even small things start to pile up when the rest of the game already frustrates you on a fundamental level. If you already think The Wizard of Oz is boring and badly acted, and then you spot a microphone hanging low in one scene, it just irritates you all the more: "they just really didn't care, did they?". If, however, you like the movie overall, you're much more likely to let it slide.



The lore in general was badly handled over several titles, yes, I don't place the blame entirely on AC3. The biggest disappointment was that we thought there was an actual plan that they had planned well in advance, but that turned out not to be the case, and the way AC3 tied up all those loose ends (or didn't) was final proof of that. The things AC3 was supposed to clear up, it did poorly or didn't address at all (Erudito etc.).



The concept of Sage may not have been mentioned (Aita's was, though) but they were clearly setting up for something. Even if what they ended up doing with Aita was Darby's idea, the character and what happened to him and how it affected Juno was already introduced in AC3. Of course those things are relevant going forward.



If that was the intention, it FAILED spectacularly. AC1 claimed the US was in shambles and its inhabitants were mass emigrating to Mexican borders. It claimed the last movie studio in the world closed in 2012. It claimed that Africa's population had dwindled down to only 10% due to an epidemic. It talked about Lucy's friend Leila Marino who died under mysterious circumstances. NONE of which was addressed in AC3.

You can say all that stuff was already retconned by the time AC2 happened. Okay, but if it was, it was never mentioned anywhere in AC2-ACR. We were just left to assume all those e-mails were BS because the writers didn't have a solid plan. In which case, couldn't ALL of AC1 be BS? The satellite launch, the Denver incident, the glyphs Desmond saw at the end? Half of those we never got an explanation for either, BTW, like Quetzalcoatl and Yona Guni or the Chinese text. Desmond never bothered to ask S16 what that was all about. Guess he was too busy being in a coma. Well, there's still AC3, they have to wrap all this stuff up by then, right? Orrrrr they could just have Shaun talking about irrelevant, sarcastic-Brit nonsense in his e-mails to Desmond because everyone loves Shaun, Shaun-so-funny, lol. :rolleyes:



That's a legit criticism, though Unity never claimed stealth was the sole focus, just that it'd have more focus on stealth than before which was true. It was still entirely possible to finish the game through other means, stealth was just made more rewarding than it previously had been.



It also promised we'd get to experience the Great Fire of New York, frozen lakes that would open up new pathways to areas that were previously inaccessible, random encounters, open world naval exploration, canoes, and it delivered all that too.

Oh, wait.



Sorry, but that's ridiculous. How do floating blobs make more sense in a Caribbean environment vs. indoors? It stuck out just as much, was just as ugly, just as nonsensical* and people complained just as loudly when it was introduced. But Ubisoft were determined to carry it over, so by now we're just used to it.


* In fact, it can be claimed it makes less sense in AC4 than in Unity. What is Eagle Vision based on, exactly? I always took it to mean heightened awareness, not literal x-ray vision. Like the ancestor having extra sensitive hearing, so they can pinpoint an enemy's location just by listening to their footsteps. It makes sense inside a building where you have walls echoing every sound. In Black Flag, you're in open air, on a big plantation, with the sound of wind and waves and rustling leaves messing with your perception. How the hell is Edward able to figure out which way an enemy is facing 200 yards away?
This.:cool:

SixKeys
02-07-2016, 01:11 AM
Except Desmond already got over the Bleeding Effect at the end of Revelations.

Except that time he fainted in the Grand Temple and entered Haytham's memories, you mean? Within the first 10 minutes of AC3?



If you consider things objectively, nearly everything was cleared up. We learned why Desmond Stabbed Lucy. We learned about why the Grand Temple is humanity's only way to stop the Solar Flare. We learned about the Satellite Launch being averted. The illusion that Daniel Cross was anything other than a disappointment was finally laid to rest. I am just waiting for them to throw the towel with Otso Berg, aka Daniel Cross 2:Electric Boogaloo. I mean the idea of a good MD Templar Villain has always been a self-defeating joke. That's why they brought in Juno because she has real menace.

I disagree about Juno being a real menace and so, it seems, do the writers, considering they have done bugger-all with her in the last three games.

I already pointed out that none of the set-up in AC1 was addressed (except the satellite), so no, it's not an "objective" truth that everything was cleared up at all. Your blaming those e-mails on Lucy is pure conjecture. We can make up any kind of wild fanon theory, but that's all it is: guesswork. The real objective truth is that AC1 brought up several claims about the outside world being a mess and then never addressed them again.

Even the "it was Lucy" theory doesn't make sense if you think about it. All of AC1 takes place within two weeks of September in 2012. Why would Lucy write e-mails trying to convince Desmond that in the two days since he was kidnapped, the entire world's gone to ****? What, all of Africa's population died overnight?

Daniel Cross becoming a disappointment was solely AC3's achievement. In the comics he was badass.



It's only relevant because you want to blame the Sage plotline on AC3 and are reaching for straws. Nobody expected Aita to be of any importance until Black Flag came out.

Um, yes they did. After AC3 there were threads here wondering what connection Aita may have had to Desmond, like was he Desmond's ancestor or something. Again, you assume your own opinion reflects that of everyone else.



Yeah punish a game because it only delivered 90% of what it promised, and punish them when the marketing tells you up front that these things were removed before the game. Punish them and not punish Unity for selling us a rotten bill of goods, for outright lying to the public about its historical content, and failing to achieve even the things it promised. I find your lack of fairness...well funny at this point.

How am *I* being unfair?? I never said Unity doesn't deserve to be called out for those things. I'm asking why you think it's acceptable for AC3 to get away with the same mistakes. Unity isn't allowed to promise things it ultimately doesn't deliver, but AC3 is. Unity isn't allowed to be marketed with popular artists, AC3 is. Unity isn't allowed to get away with massive plotholes, AC3 is. I don't understand your logic, beyond blind fanboyism.

I've already stated outright that my reason for liking Unity more than AC3 is entirely based on gameplay and visuals. That's it. That's all I need. Satisfy my needs on those fronts and I can forgive the rest. Trying to get me to talk about the historical bias or the crappy love story or how Arno is an Ezio clone etc. is pointless, since those do not matter to me. I'm not denying they exist, I'm saying they don't affect my enjoyment of the gameplay at a level that takes me out of the experience. AC3 did not satisfy me on either a gameplay or visual level, hence I was less forgiving about everything else.

The moments in AC3 when treerunning works smoothly and I'm wading across a snowy landscape, looking at the mountains beyond, or exploring the ruins of the Grand Temple and looking at all the detail - those are good moments I remember, moments that I think back on fondly as some of my favorite parts of the game. Had I experienced more of that, more than just a few times in the span of the 90+ hours I spent in the game, I would have been more willing to let a lot of other stuff slide.

Farlander1991
02-07-2016, 01:39 AM
Even the "it was Lucy" theory doesn't make sense if you think about it. All of AC1 takes place within two weeks of September in 2012. Why would Lucy write e-mails trying to convince Desmond that in the two days since he was kidnapped, the entire world's gone to ****? What, all of Africa's population died overnight?


The official retcon for AC1 e-mails is that they're ******** from Erudito that the group used to test their ability to break into Abstergo's systems.

Mr.Black24
02-07-2016, 02:18 AM
Except that time he fainted in the Grand Temple and entered Haytham's memories, you mean? Within the first 10 minutes of AC3?


That was induced by Juno. William and Desmond had a small argument, saying that why didn't William try to stop it, with Willam countering that "Juno was trying to communicate with you, so I didn't want to risk severing the connection."

SixKeys
02-07-2016, 05:35 AM
The official retcon for AC1 e-mails is that they're ******** from Erudito that the group used to test their ability to break into Abstergo's systems.

I know, but that retcon wasn't revealed until AC4, so AC3 still failed to address them. And it's such a cheap retcon too, it makes no freaking sense. Why would they write stuff that's obviously made up nonsense? But I guess they had to come up with something.


That was induced by Juno. William and Desmond had a small argument, saying that why didn't William try to stop it, with Willam countering that "Juno was trying to communicate with you, so I didn't want to risk severing the connection."

I stand corrected then.

Jessigirl2013
02-07-2016, 11:17 AM
Daniel Cross becoming a disappointment was solely AC3's achievement. In the comics he was badass.

Still don't understand why they didn't put the character development from the comics into the games.:confused:

Wonder if they will ever address it?

VestigialLlama4
02-07-2016, 07:50 PM
The real objective truth is that AC1 brought up several claims about the outside world being a mess and then never addressed them again.

Well when AC1 came out, they still planned on making a full MD game at some point...but then the game was out and reviews had issues with Altair but they had even more issues with Desmond and MD and most people liked the historical section. So that inspired more focus on history at which point the MD plans were chucked out the window, starting from AC2 onwards (with Solar Flare introduced instead of Satellite).


Even the "it was Lucy" theory doesn't make sense if you think about it. All of AC1 takes place within two weeks of September in 2012. Why would Lucy write e-mails trying to convince Desmond that in the two days since he was kidnapped, the entire world's gone to ****? What, all of Africa's population died overnight?

Compared to how moronic Templars are generally, what with their third-rate video in Black Flag's MD, I can totally buy they'd invest in this dumb scheme.


Daniel Cross becoming a disappointment was solely AC3's achievement. In the comics he was badass.

Well comics and games are totally different mediums. In a comic, it was possible to make Daniel Cross a somewhat empathetic figure, if only in the fanfiction manner of giving him the saddest backstory ever and hoping it compensates for characterization (which Daniel Cross had far less of than Desmond and S16, Shaun and Rebecca). In the game, Daniel Cross would have to form a relationship with Desmond, or have prior history with Desmond, that somehow conjures some deeper interest with him than beyond "Slightly More than Average Templar Thug" Archetype in the brief missions they have. They economically put all they could into that, more than that you would need a full modern day AC. And a full MD AC is no different from Deus Ex, it would be cyberpunk. The games have a far bigger audience than the comics. Most people who bought AC3 didn't know who the hell Daniel Cross was. If you bought the comics, well you were transmedia...transmedia exists to promote the games, the games exist to ignore transmedia, it's a basic S&M relationship.

Ideally, if they hadn't killed of Lucy, she could have played a similar role to Daniel Cross. In that there's a history between Desmond and Lucy. But then Ubisoft wanted to cut corners and not pay Kristen Bell's salary and besides MD was not as important so they removed that character, from a business decision why spend money for a such a prominent celebrity voice artist for a small part of the game.


Um, yes they did. After AC3 there were threads here wondering what connection Aita may have had to Desmond, like was he Desmond's ancestor or something. Again, you assume your own opinion reflects that of everyone else.

Well I speak to people in real life, and read a bunch of other sites in expectations of the game. Nobody cared about Aita, heck when Black Flag came out, people scratched their heads wondering who the Sage was and what Aita was.

It is true I care very little about the First Civilization or the Modern Day Lore in general. To me the historical settings are the real interest and I care far more what events and historical characters might come and what role they would play then I do about Juno Abstergo and the MD Assassins. So maybe if there were titles saying "First Civ theory" I might have passed it. To me its clear that those elements were always MacGuffins and exist to forge bridges between games so as to give an overal immersion in different eras but fundamentally those aren't what the games are about. It's about the historical fiction.