PDA

View Full Version : AC Remaster for Consoles and PC



badcompany0007
09-13-2016, 10:53 AM
http://assassinscreedcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/_d_improd_/ultimate_collection_creed-650x359_f_improf_650x359.jpg

i believe that this would be great and would be worth every dollar

they need to do this and i need this in my life ;)

Fatal-Feit
09-13-2016, 12:34 PM
That is some incredible fan creation. I'd buy it in an instant.

ERICATHERINE
09-13-2016, 08:40 PM
Me want this. ^-^

Ubi-Banshee
09-13-2016, 10:06 PM
Wow that's a beautiful design!

SpiritOfNevaeh
09-13-2016, 11:54 PM
OMG. Make. This. HAPPEN!

naumaan
09-14-2016, 05:59 AM
ofcourse I will ... no questions asked

D.I.D.
09-21-2016, 02:44 PM
I voted "no" but purely because I want a complete remake, not a remaster. I don't see the point of jamming richer textures onto the same models and animations. It would be a missed opportunity because once the remaster is done, that's it. You're unlikely to see a proper update of the Ezio games in the next five years - of a remastered AC1, maybe longer.

More than just a remake (of AC1), I'd like it to be a respectful reimagining. Give us as much accuracy to the real places as we can get, including scale. Redesign the missions to reflect the larger scope we've had since Unity. Give us more missions, even, although I would hope they wouldn't go too far with this (some sense of it being expanded while remaining quite tight and ordered in terms of the story).

cawatrooper9
09-21-2016, 02:45 PM
That spine art, though.... :o

SixKeys
09-21-2016, 03:24 PM
I voted "no" but purely because I want a complete remake, not a remaster. I don't see the point of jamming richer textures onto the same models and animations. It would be a missed opportunity because once the remaster is done, that's it. You're unlikely to see a proper update of the Ezio games in the next five years - of a remastered AC1, maybe longer.

More than just a remake (of AC1), I'd like it to be a respectful reimagining. Give us as much accuracy to the real places as we can get, including scale. Redesign the missions to reflect the larger scope we've had since Unity. Give us more missions, even, although I would hope they wouldn't go too far with this (some sense of it being expanded while remaining quite tight and ordered in terms of the story).

Slightly OT, but I find it interesting that you would prefer scaled up versions of the old locations. Whereas every time I go back to replay the old games, I'm reminded how much better I like them than Paris and London in the new games. At some point with 1:1 scale you end up with a lot of boring fluff, no matter how realistic. Whereas in the early games the locations are compact enough that crossing through the city on foot/horse remains interesting whilst still being big enough to feel like a proper playground. AC2's Venice and AC3's Frontier are closest to the large-scale locations we've had in the last two games, and even those feel too big for their own good. Open-world games in general have reached the point where pure size isn't impressive anymore (just look at No Man's Sky). Games with smaller maps full of stuff to do better retain their replayability. IMO AC needs to go back to scaled-down cities.

D.I.D.
09-21-2016, 03:38 PM
Slightly OT, but I find it interesting that you would prefer scaled up versions of the old locations. Whereas every time I go back to replay the old games, I'm reminded how much better I like them than Paris and London in the new games. At some point with 1:1 scale you end up with a lot of boring fluff, no matter how realistic. Whereas in the early games the locations are compact enough that crossing through the city on foot/horse remains interesting whilst still being big enough to feel like a proper playground. AC2's Venice and AC3's Frontier are closest to the large-scale locations we've had in the last two games, and even those feel too big for their own good. Open-world games in general have reached the point where pure size isn't impressive anymore (just look at No Man's Sky). Games with smaller maps full of stuff to do better retain their replayability. IMO AC needs to go back to scaled-down cities.

I can certainly see that point of view. I wouldn't be against them trying it again as long as there was a trade-off in some other area (more secret areas, for example). It's important to me in terms of the games' ambitions to transport your imagination into the past. I want to feel that world as much as possible as it really was, recognisable in some way to the place I'd see if I went there today. AC1's technology didn't allow its locations to feel like believable societies. You can't really believe that people live there, trade there, transport goods there, make things there. I don't think you can remake AC1 to look like it's alive without at least expanding those designs, even if you don't change the scale.

Maybe there's a compromise to be made where major buildings are very close to full scale while minor buildings with no interior are cut down. AC1's cities are extremely small, though. They're like little villages, and almost everything you see is there for a mission-related reason. I like it when a few of the locations open up, but they don't open up very much to allow you to make a lot of use of the environment. I realise that could be seen as a point in its favour by other admirers of game design for that same conciseness.

Farlander1991
09-21-2016, 04:58 PM
Yeah, but then again, AC1 was built with HUD-less gameplay in mind, and in that sort of thing its smaller scale is not a big issue :)

Though, I love the 1:1 scale of Paris and London, and would definitely love to see Acre in a more faithful scale.

cawatrooper9
09-21-2016, 10:01 PM
AC1's cities felt big to me when I played them, and I think that's the important part- kind of like how Skyrim feels like it's geographically a huge game, but in actuality it's pretty small when compared to many other open world games.

The difference is that we've changed so much in this series. In 2009, Florence and Venice seemed almost too big for their own good, it really kind of turned me off to the game. Now, they're tiny cities, and they feel like it, too. We've gotten used to an entirely different scale, and it's made it so that having smaller cities again would probably feel cheap and jarring.

Which could be why Empire will likely go for a more ancient setting- to introduce more concentrated locations while still feeling realistic.

SixKeys
09-22-2016, 08:27 PM
AC1's cities felt big to me when I played them, and I think that's the important part- kind of like how Skyrim feels like it's geographically a huge game, but in actuality it's pretty small when compared to many other open world games.

The difference is that we've changed so much in this series. In 2009, Florence and Venice seemed almost too big for their own good, it really kind of turned me off to the game. Now, they're tiny cities, and they feel like it, too. We've gotten used to an entirely different scale, and it's made it so that having smaller cities again would probably feel cheap and jarring.

Which could be why Empire will likely go for a more ancient setting- to introduce more concentrated locations while still feeling realistic.

I know where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. The old games' cities still feel just fine to me. Venice still feels too big whereas something like Florence is just the right size. I know the buildings aren't 1:1 scale, but that honestly doesn't cross my mind when I play the games because the illusion of scale is so well done. I'll happily take smaller locations if it means more variety. London and Paris feel very samey, we don't get that big contrast in colors and atmosphere that we used to. That variety is what made the world of the early games feel bigger than they really were.

cawatrooper9
09-22-2016, 10:03 PM
I know where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. The old games' cities still feel just fine to me. Venice still feels too big whereas something like Florence is just the right size. I know the buildings aren't 1:1 scale, but that honestly doesn't cross my mind when I play the games because the illusion of scale is so well done. I'll happily take smaller locations if it means more variety. London and Paris feel very samey, we don't get that big contrast in colors and atmosphere that we used to. That variety is what made the world of the early games feel bigger than they really were.

I mean, Venice and Florence are fine for what they are, to be sure. But if we had London that small? I feel like that would be awfully jarring.

Look at the map of Florence:

http://guides.gamepressure.com/assassinscreedii/gfx/word/454798906.jpg

The Santa Maria takes up a pretty big chunk of the middle of the city. Including the roads around it, that's a large portion taken right out of the center of the city (side note- switch out the Santa Maria with Notre Dame and the structure of the entire city of Florence seems pretty similar to that small middle island in Unity).

Imagine that's the Palace of Westminster, now. Even without a 1:1 scale, such a large complex would feel as if the city was nothing more than a ring around a monument.

I just don't think that we can have our cake and eat it too when it comes to more modern settings. Any more modern city will likely feel ridiculous when scaled down. Again, that's why I see the move to older time periods as being advantageous.

ERICATHERINE
09-22-2016, 10:58 PM
http://guides.gamepressure.com/assassinscreedii/gfx/word/454798906.jpg

You forgot the "dlc" part of Firenze. ^-^

TJ_Wylde
09-23-2016, 06:09 AM
The only thing i didn't like about the OT is that i couldn't vote for "helll yeah" haha. I love this idea. And you actually made me think. I might make a box like that myself for myself. I have all the AC collector's editions so it would be awesome to have something nice and fitting the theme to keep all the games in. So i might steal a bit of your design for myself if you don't mind ;).

As for the ring. Just do a search for assassin's creed ring on aliexpress. They really make everything in China and the rings are of a descent quality for some fan stuff :D

Dieinthedark
09-27-2016, 08:30 PM
I posted this in the thread about parkour improvements but the discussion on the size of the city is relevant.

I think that there is a problem with the reliance on parkour in AC. Hear me out, every game since ACR has touted some way to improve/increase free running speed and to make it more fluid. But eventually there comes a limit. You can't streamline it any faster unless the game is spitting out four or so automated routes drawn on screen matching the colors of the face buttons and you just hold a button and run a precalculated path. The path could have exits and such with other face buttons but eventually, the only way to get past a certain speed/fluidity is to remove player control in some degree. And to me that just doesn't make sense; you don't want to remove player control in any degree if you're playing a game. Otherwise you start to lose the interactivity of a game and stops being....well...a game.

Additionally, there's another problem. The reason that parkour keeps getting faster and more fluid is because the devs want us to feel empowered to quickly navigate a city. Let's just compare the ever popular AC2 to Unity (because I refuse to play to Syndicate). Specifically let's compare the map sizes.
http://guides.gamepressure.com/assassinscreedii/gfx/word/450747234.jpg
http://shinigaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/acunity2.jpg

Big difference right? But what do we as the player gain by having a city this big? We get a sense of scale, it makes the city seem more believable perhaps but as far as gameplay, there are no opportunities that a bigger city allows. It's just more space to do stuff, more area to run around, and more areas to explore. But when has AC been about exploring? That borders more closely to an RPG game which AC is definitely not. Sure we can find collectibles and get trophies or gamerscore and in game currency but currency has always been in surplus in any AC game. So there's no real need to explore a big city; certainly you can and you can appreciate it and get lost in the design of the game/city but there isn't a gameplay reason that you NEED to.

Now you could argue its so that you can learn the city to be able to navigate it more quickly. But I pose a question; how many of us ever felt like if somebody handed you a controller and you just picked up Unity in the middle of Paris, and without opening your map, could navigate to a specific point, how many of us could do that? I know I certainly could not. The starting levels of Unity were highly trafficked but I never felt like I learned the layout of the city.

Pose that same scenario to your choice of map in AC2, or even AC1; someone hands you the controller and asks you to navigate (without the map) to a specific point. Personally I'd say that's pretty doable.

So what does this have to do with parkour? Well, I would argue that it doesn't need to be faster or more fluid, so long as you have level design that doesn't dictate that you need it. If the maps are comparatively small to what we've been given with Unity/Syndicate, more on the scale of Istanbul or Florence, then all you really need is a functioning parkour system. Not faster, not smarter, not automated, just functional. Personally, I miss the days of AC1 when you could see that you need to climb a specific viewpoint and it became a puzzle of, that looks like a handhold, how can I get there? Slow and methodical. Assassin's should rule the rooftops, facing occasional guards or pursuing agiles. That should be the only measurement for how fast/fluid the parkour is.

ERICATHERINE
09-28-2016, 12:20 AM
I posted this in the thread about parkour improvements but the discussion on the size of the city is relevant.

I think that there is a problem with the reliance on parkour in AC. Hear me out, every game since ACR has touted some way to improve/increase free running speed and to make it more fluid. But eventually there comes a limit. You can't streamline it any faster unless the game is spitting out four or so automated routes drawn on screen matching the colors of the face buttons and you just hold a button and run a precalculated path. The path could have exits and such with other face buttons but eventually, the only way to get past a certain speed/fluidity is to remove player control in some degree. And to me that just doesn't make sense; you don't want to remove player control in any degree if you're playing a game. Otherwise you start to lose the interactivity of a game and stops being....well...a game.

Additionally, there's another problem. The reason that parkour keeps getting faster and more fluid is because the devs want us to feel empowered to quickly navigate a city. Let's just compare the ever popular AC2 to Unity (because I refuse to play to Syndicate). Specifically let's compare the map sizes.
http://guides.gamepressure.com/assassinscreedii/gfx/word/450747234.jpg
http://shinigaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/acunity2.jpg

Big difference right? But what do we as the player gain by having a city this big? We get a sense of scale, it makes the city seem more believable perhaps but as far as gameplay, there are no opportunities that a bigger city allows. It's just more space to do stuff, more area to run around, and more areas to explore. But when has AC been about exploring? That borders more closely to an RPG game which AC is definitely not. Sure we can find collectibles and get trophies or gamerscore and in game currency but currency has always been in surplus in any AC game. So there's no real need to explore a big city; certainly you can and you can appreciate it and get lost in the design of the game/city but there isn't a gameplay reason that you NEED to.

Now you could argue its so that you can learn the city to be able to navigate it more quickly. But I pose a question; how many of us ever felt like if somebody handed you a controller and you just picked up Unity in the middle of Paris, and without opening your map, could navigate to a specific point, how many of us could do that? I know I certainly could not. The starting levels of Unity were highly trafficked but I never felt like I learned the layout of the city.

Pose that same scenario to your choice of map in AC2, or even AC1; someone hands you the controller and asks you to navigate (without the map) to a specific point. Personally I'd say that's pretty doable.

So what does this have to do with parkour? Well, I would argue that it doesn't need to be faster or more fluid, so long as you have level design that doesn't dictate that you need it. If the maps are comparatively small to what we've been given with Unity/Syndicate, more on the scale of Istanbul or Florence, then all you really need is a functioning parkour system. Not faster, not smarter, not automated, just functional. Personally, I miss the days of AC1 when you could see that you need to climb a specific viewpoint and it became a puzzle of, that looks like a handhold, how can I get there? Slow and methodical. Assassin's should rule the rooftops, facing occasional guards or pursuing agiles. That should be the only measurement for how fast/fluid the parkour is.

It seems you forgot the dlc part of the map of Firenze as well. ^-^

D.I.D.
09-28-2016, 12:36 AM
^^^ I disagree with a lot of this. I think bigger cities did improve the gameplay.

Unit's bigger buildings gave us more interiors, which improved the gameplay. Bigger buildings would eat up large amounts of the old games' map sizes, effectively making the map beyond those buildings smaller, so they necessitated a bigger city all round.

This improved gameplay in other ways too, because the greater size allowed for the subterranean tunnels. If you'd added a tunnel system into a map the size of Firenze's, it could not have been very interesting or useful. Unit's tunnel system was excellent, especially if you took the time to learn it well.

All of this came together in the big assassination missions most of all. The pre-mission suggestions of diversions Arno could exploit were perhaps a little too much like hand-holding, but on many occasions I was able to find my own ways in that involved similar cunning. With a smaller scale, I could not have done many of these things because they relied on exploiting the areas beyond the guards' range of vision. It was possible to get in underneath many of the major assassination locations if you knew the tunnel that could get you in.

I do think the games were always about exploration. It's easy to forget that, because we got to know those locales very quickly, but surely you remember the *first* time you saw all these places, and how great it was wandering new streets? Perhaps I am too familiar with London but I am not especially well acquainted with Paris, and I can certainly find my way around Unity and Syndicate's world's with no help.

Remember also that key phrase from the promotion of the early Assassin's Creed games: "historical tourism". Not only does this allude to the ever-present exploration, it is also a justification for the maps as we now see them. When we go to a new city, for me it is time travel. I want the game to give me the closest experience it can to walking the streets of 16th century Istanbul or wherever we happen to be. If a city is huge and has landmarks spread across it, I want as much of that city as possible.

Dieinthedark
09-28-2016, 12:48 AM
It really doesn't matter, I just wanted to give forum members a visual map :p

SixKeys
09-28-2016, 10:15 PM
^^^ I disagree with a lot of this. I think bigger cities did improve the gameplay.

Unit's bigger buildings gave us more interiors, which improved the gameplay. Bigger buildings would eat up large amounts of the old games' map sizes, effectively making the map beyond those buildings smaller, so they necessitated a bigger city all round.

This improved gameplay in other ways too, because the greater size allowed for the subterranean tunnels. If you'd added a tunnel system into a map the size of Firenze's, it could not have been very interesting or useful. Unit's tunnel system was excellent, especially if you took the time to learn it well.

All of this came together in the big assassination missions most of all. The pre-mission suggestions of diversions Arno could exploit were perhaps a little too much like hand-holding, but on many occasions I was able to find my own ways in that involved similar cunning. With a smaller scale, I could not have done many of these things because they relied on exploiting the areas beyond the guards' range of vision. It was possible to get in underneath many of the major assassination locations if you knew the tunnel that could get you in.

I do think the games were always about exploration. It's easy to forget that, because we got to know those locales very quickly, but surely you remember the *first* time you saw all these places, and how great it was wandering new streets? Perhaps I am too familiar with London but I am not especially well acquainted with Paris, and I can certainly find my way around Unity and Syndicate's world's with no help.

Remember also that key phrase from the promotion of the early Assassin's Creed games: "historical tourism". Not only does this allude to the ever-present exploration, it is also a justification for the maps as we now see them. When we go to a new city, for me it is time travel. I want the game to give me the closest experience it can to walking the streets of 16th century Istanbul or wherever we happen to be. If a city is huge and has landmarks spread across it, I want as much of that city as possible.

I agree that interiors and tunnels are great, but the old games had those too. The difference is seamlessness, which honestly I find kind of pointless. Is it nice to not have loading screens between area transitions? Sure, but hardly essential. We still have loading screens when going from Paris to Versailles or the time rifts, so what has really changed besides scale? Using ACB as an example since I'm replaying it now, there are missions that take place in sewers and palaces just like in Unity. You just can't open a door and walk seamlessly into them which, honestly, isn't something I miss at all. If anything, the seamlessness between every area in Unity and Syndicate is more immersion-breaking since you can just randomly walk into people's houses and nobody minds. I don't see the problem with having a smaller basic map like Rome and smaller, separate maps like the Romulus tombs, Leonardo's machines or Viana.

Farlander1991
09-29-2016, 09:03 AM
The difference is seamlessness, which honestly I find kind of pointless.

Is it, though? Here are the benefits of seamless interiors that you can already see in games like Unity and Syndicate (and some of the previous games as well where they've used seamless interiors like in Castello Sant'angelo):

1. It allows to have a bigger variety of mission locations and situations in the open-world itself (i.e. factory missions in Syndicate, for example). Without seamless interiors design space is mostly limited to outside environments and interiors have to be special locations with separate maps.

2. It allows players to use more strategies on the street missions as well by adding more layers of navigation. I.e. the Blighter HQ missions in Syndicate for example. Not having interiors wouldn't make those missions impossible or obsolete of course, but having them provides more possibilities.

3. It allows possibility to create more interesting Assassination or infiltration missions. Infiltrating Castel Sant'angelo in ACB, some of the Unity assassinations, Syndicate bank assassination, in all cases where navigating from an outside environment into an inside environment is part of the goal and the challenge.

4. And while it hasn't been used as such yet, it can make tomb-like navigation levels more interesting, by giving the possibility to switch between exteriors and interiors. Actually, it has been used like that once - the Basilico San Pietro tomb level in Brotherhood (which personally is one of my favourite, if not the favourite, tomb levels overall), but that works with the loading screen because the location is on the very edge of the open-world map. Let's say we take Il Duomo that's in the middle of the city. Imagine if the tomb level wasn't just the inside, but would have us switch between interior and exterior as we go through it. While the level works being fully inside, this mix would've made it even more impressive.

So I don't agree that the difference in seamlesness is pointless, it is quite not pointless especially when used to its full potential (though, to be honest, I think it's been used to about 50-60% of its potential so far).