PDA

View Full Version : I think AC1 kind of bad. (rant, not review)



Fatal-Feit
09-30-2016, 03:05 AM
So, something that happens often is that we praise AC1 for being unique with its many accomplished innovations, such being fully playable without the UI. But, I think once the novelty wares off, AC1 is just not a very good game... I replayed the game (went for 100% synch) a few months ago to refresh my memories on the story and gameplay, and something I realized was just how disappointing it was in many aspects.


First of all, the positives:

- Graphics. Game looks really good! It's not one of the best looking AC, but it aged very well. Makes AC2-ACR look like its predecessors, honestly. Seriously, AC1 in 4K/60fps is an absolute beauty. The character models, physics, animations (especially in combat), and even sound effects, it's all great. I'm reminded of why I considered this game to be one of the most next-gen-feeling game I've ever played. I mean, I could just keep admiring the work that went into unsheathing our hidden blade for hours. You don't get that level of quality anymore. Although, the LoD wasn't very good, but the strong atmosphere kept my immersion strong.

- Combat. It's still the best in the series because it relied mainly on being tactical and skilled. I absolutely loved how our enemies could adapt and counter our strategies. The fact that they could feint kind of blew my mind, as I didn't remember that was ever a thing. Also, I really like how environments played a big role, as well.

Although, fist combat sucks (basically punch and defend, rinse and repeat till victory), so those tailing/beat-up missions are bad because of that.

- Story. It's quite good. I love the characters and their interactions with Altair; especially their development together. If there's one thing that I felt was rewarding in AC1, it was seeing Altair grow and change everyone's opinion of him.

- MD. Minimal and punctual. I really enjoyed stealing passcodes, sneaking around the office and stuff. Not really much to say about this other than it ticks everything I want out of MD.


As for the negatives... I think the game truly fails on a lot of things.

- Stealth. This is the biggest issue for me. I thought AC3 had a very linear and infuriating stealth, and AC1 is just slightly behind it. Is there a certain level of freedom? Sure, sometimes! But our options are so limited that we might as well be placed into linear pathways like the Ezio games. And the game also keeps pitting us in combat scenarios. Half of the missions practically revolves around combat. There's really not as much stealth as I expected. The detection system is dead awful. Archers in Kingdom will literally, INSTANTLY, detect you no matter what you do and the level designs doesn't offer any way to bypass them undetected, which makes attempting to stealth in Kingdom nearly impossible sometimes. Also, I'm quite sick of that annoying beeping sound you get when you're being suspected. Walking through the levels on our horse for minutes with that beeping sound in the background is enough to drive anyone insane if they try to play stealthily. There is no way to completely stealth through saving citizens being harassed, sadly. It could have been the perfect side mission for allowing gameplay variety. Side missions where you're requested to kill rooftop guards are suppose to be open, but are actually quite linear, as there's genuinely only one pathway for eliminating all of the archers in order and trying to develop your own route will get you detected. Just like archers, Templars instantly detect you, and it's infuriating when you're doing a mission. I do like that most times there's a certain layout that you can take advantage of to air/assassinate Templars, but it's only viable if you're using a guide most of the time, as they're quite hidden and will probably detect you first before you realize they're there. My complaints are not in order, so I might be forgetting something, but I want to close this with how unsatisfying most of the stealth missions are. Whether it's pickpocketing and eavesdropping or eliminating soldiers for our fellow brothers, it never feels satisfying for me because the level design and mechanics either deliver a very linear pathway, and short task, or assassinations that basically revolves around tossing throwing knives from the rooftop. Assassinating the main targets do feel good sometimes, but the decent ones with an actual open-ended layout, such as eliminating the scared Templar on the ship or the Templar hiding in the castle, are too few and the lead up is not worth the replays.

- Repetition. I think we all know the issue here, but just to quickly recap, AC1 is so repetitive, it feels like one of the the most boring open-world action adventure game I've ever played. Every city shares the same main mission structure, dozens of dull side missions and hundreds of collectibles...

Also, you really need a guide to find all of the flags and Templars. And even then, you need to jot down the locations you've been in, or else you might find yourself running through all of the locations again trying to find the one collectible you may have skipped...

- Parkour. Weird that this is a negative, huh? I actually like the old parkour system a lot, but AC1 feels unrefined. I have a lot of issues with tripping and tumbling while parkouring (reminds me a lot of Black Flag's). And there seems to be an invisible barrier you can't pass when jumping.


Tl;dr: I used to remember AC1 fondly after discussing it on the forums and sub, but my recent replay have really refreshed my mind and now I understand why it was criticized when it came out. This thread is not as well-thought-out and constructive as it could be, but I kind of just wanted to get my feelings out there and rant a bit. :p I'm very interested in hearing and discussing what you guys think, because I know there's a lot of big AC1 fans here.

Namikaze_17
09-30-2016, 04:14 AM
"CURSE HIM! CURSE THE OP AND HIS INFIDEL POST" :p

You know, re-playing AC1 has made me more appreciative of the franchise due to how much has improved since then. From dying in the waters of Acre to cruising in the Thames, it really makes you look back at all the progress in awe.

Repetition: I didn't mind this in concept as the thought of discovering your target through means of pickpocket, interrogation and eavesdropping felt more grounded and like you were actually working your way to find your target. This to me had made the actual assassination more satisfying as there was build-up and preparation towards the target. It did got tedious after awhile of course. Collectibles are just abysmal.

Parkour: I honestly didn't find much problem in this personally as I found it pretty easy to navigate with each building. Syndicate by comparison with how automatic it is, feels more harder to maneuver the more I play it.

Stealth: A bit frustrating since there were hardly any ways to actually assassinate any main target without having to go up straight to them and fight. For example, I tried many tactics to kill Majd Addin, but it all ended in fighting him to the death ( is it even possible to stealthily kill him?)


I agree with you with regarding combat and story, both are really the highlights of the game in my opinion.

cawatrooper9
09-30-2016, 02:33 PM
It actually is possible to kill Majd Addin stealthily. In fact, I got a new respect for the game's stealth on a playthrough when I tried to do all stealth kills- I believe I got everyone that was possible (so excluding Talal, Maria, and Robere. I don't remember how I stealth killed the fat guy at the party, but I believe I did him as well.

As for Majd Addin, you basically have to stealthily climb a building, get on a roof near the stage, wait for him to walk near-ish you, then jump and perform an "air assassination" (I know these are pretty hard to pull off in AC1) on landing. It might feel a little janky, but it's totally possible. And that's kind of why I like AC1- the stealth is hard, and sometimes almost feels like you have to break the game a little to even get it to work. But it's immensely satisfying whenever pulled off successfully.

Farlander1991
09-30-2016, 03:57 PM
As for Majd Addin, you basically have to stealthily climb a building, get on a roof near the stage, wait for him to walk near-ish you, then jump and perform an "air assassination" (I know these are pretty hard to pull off in AC1) on landing. It might feel a little janky, but it's totally possible. And that's kind of why I like AC1- the stealth is hard, and sometimes almost feels like you have to break the game a little to even get it to work. But it's immensely satisfying whenever pulled off successfully.

There's a lot easier way though, via the monks group. They get you through the crowds out onto the podium, and if you time correctly the moment when you unblend, you can kill Majd Addin without him noticing you.

SixKeys
09-30-2016, 05:21 PM
- Stealth. This is the biggest issue for me. I thought AC3 had a very linear and infuriating stealth, and AC1 is just slightly behind it.

Oh no, you did NOT just compare AC1 to AC3.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g8bqvOQiQA8/UXlWYGJ0Q6I/AAAAAAAAAag/ycaCiBigz5w/s400/sassy.gif




The detection system is dead awful. Archers in Kingdom will literally, INSTANTLY, detect you no matter what you do and the level designs doesn't offer any way to bypass them undetected, which makes attempting to stealth in Kingdom nearly impossible sometimes.

Incorrect. While it's true that the archers do have insta-detection upon spotting you, the keyword is "spotting". You can pass by undetected if you time it right. Just wait until they turn around and make a mad dash underneath the wooden structures they're perched upon. You can follow their movements between the board cracks so you'll know when the right time is to dash out again.
AC has always been line-of-sight based and the archers are no exception. Their range is about the same as the snipers in Unity, the only difference is that Unity's snipers still allow you a few seconds before raising the alarm. I used to think the archers were slightly unfair until I realized it's still possible to avoid detection. Difficult? Yes, perhaps unfairly so. But the same argument could be made for Unity's snipers and I don't mind them either.

I will say that running like hell being the only way to avoid detection in a stealth game is rather absurd. The Kingdom area should offer more ways than one to deal with the archers. Just saying it's not impossible.



Also, I'm quite sick of that annoying beeping sound you get when you're being suspected. Walking through the levels on our horse for minutes with that beeping sound in the background is enough to drive anyone insane if they try to play stealthily.

*shrug* Never bothered me. I can see how it could annoy others, though. In HUD-less gameplay there are limited ways of signaling to the player that they're being watched.

If there is a sound I find pretty jarring it's the low-pitched BLOOP BLOOP BLOOP that plays while you're still being chased but in a hiding spot.



There is no way to completely stealth through saving citizens being harassed, sadly. It could have been the perfect side mission for allowing gameplay variety.

It does allow gameplay variety - for the game as a whole. Remember that AC isn't just about stealth, it's about three core pillars: stealth, combat and navigation. The flag hunt missions represent navigation. Assassinations represent stealth. Saving citizens represents combat. Insisting that this particular mission type should be possible with stealth is like saying Ezio should be able to beat up cheating husbands stealthily.



Side missions where you're requested to kill rooftop guards are suppose to be open, but are actually quite linear, as there's genuinely only one pathway for eliminating all of the archers in order and trying to develop your own route will get you detected.

I think what really limits these types of missions is not linear design but the lack of assassination techniques. Air assassinations are only possible under specific circumstances, ledge assassinations didn't exist yet and we can't dump bodies. What ends up happening is that you have to consider things like "which way will the body fall if I throw a knife from this angle"? If the archer is too close to a ledge, the knife will knock them off the roof and drop them onto the street, which may result in detection. On the other hand, AC1 archers can't leave their posts, so even if they spot a body on a nearby rooftop, their alertness will increase but their patrol route remains the same. So even if they see a body, you still have room to alter your approach, you just have to be more careful. It's basically the system saying "I'll let you off with a warning this time, but next time there will be instant consequences".



Just like archers, Templars instantly detect you, and it's infuriating when you're doing a mission. I do like that most times there's a certain layout that you can take advantage of to air/assassinate Templars, but it's only viable if you're using a guide most of the time, as they're quite hidden and will probably detect you first before you realize they're there.

This one's a little hard for me to sympathize with since I've played the game so many times I've memorized most Templar locations visually. "Wait, I remember this junction, there's a dude behind a two-story building somewhere nearby." If I'm detected, I'll just hide, wait for them to stop searching, then return immediately to the same spot and kill them so they won't get the jump on me again. If it happens when I'm already being chased, I check the map for the nearest group of vigilantes to hold off my pursuers. Works on Templars, too.

Their insta-detection may be annoying, but it makes perfect sense. More sense than the archers', certainly. Of course Templars would immediately recognize an assassin during the Crusades and of course they would instantly attack. In a similar way I liked the concept of Jaegers in AC3, just not the way the city would be absolutely swarming with them the instant you reached level 3 notoriety. There should always be at least one enemy type who's not fooled by our appearance for an instant. The most recent games have a dozen different archetypes but all of them are equally clueless when it comes to detecting a guy who always wears the same robes and is wearing more shiny objects than a Christmas tree.



- Repetition. I think we all know the issue here, but just to quickly recap, AC1 is so repetitive, it feels like one of the the most boring open-world action adventure game I've ever played. Every city shares the same main mission structure, dozens of dull side missions and hundreds of collectibles...

I must be one of the few people who were never bothered by the repetition. I don't really see how doing "sit on a bench and eavesdrop" three times is any more repetitive than three variations of "I can't get this thing myself so go fetch it for me" that every open world game is littered with. I don't think the problem is necessarily repetition because every single task we do in any game can be broken down into the same old recycled components. What you're really criticizing is the writing, the presentation of that mechanic. AC1's missions may have felt more repetitive than usual because they all played out the same way. What later games did is mix things up a bit more. Instead of only eavesdropping and getting a "mission accomplished", the story introduces a forced detection and the assassin has to fight his way out. See: Haytham and Ziio in the pub. Fighting a bunch of enemies is just as repetitive as eavesdropping in these games (even more so), but for some reason people don't see it that way. Possibly because people feel more sense of control over a combat situation, so if you first have a "dull" (read: stationary) repetitive mission type and top it off with a repetitive action-y mission type - even if it's equally dull thanks to AC having super-easy combat - people will somehow have a more positive feeling about the mission overall.

Beats me why, exactly, but then I'm not a game designer.



Also, you really need a guide to find all of the flags and Templars. And even then, you need to jot down the locations you've been in, or else you might find yourself running through all of the locations again trying to find the one collectible you may have skipped...

Keep in mind the collectibles were a joke by Patrice to make you realize how pointless collectibles are. If you went after them expecting to be satisfied, you only have yourself to blame. ;) The one counter-argument I can see is if you were an XBox 360 player since that version actually had a trophy for the flags.



- Parkour. Weird that this is a negative, huh? I actually like the old parkour system a lot, but AC1 feels unrefined. I have a lot of issues with tripping and tumbling while parkouring (reminds me a lot of Black Flag's). And there seems to be an invisible barrier you can't pass when jumping.

I can agree with this to some extent. Never had the tumbling and tripping problems, but there are some viewpoints where for some reason it's harder for Alta´r to reach the tip. that's what she said And sometimes invisible barriers like you mentioned, or it not being clear why you can't grab that particular handhold that looks like it should be grabbable.


With all that said, I wouldn't call AC1 bad by any means, but rough and unrefined? Certainly. I view as almost separate from the rest of the series which may be why I'm more forgiving about its flaws. AC2 and onwards really are so different, and the term "progress" feels much more applicable when discussing how the series developed from that point onwards. AC1 though, is different in such fundamental ways though that many things that AC2 fans tend to view as "improvements" feel more like concessions to me. Is it really an "improvement" that you can climb at a superhuman speed in the mroe recent games, or is it a concession to the impatience of most gamers? Is it an improvement that AC2 introduced an economy system and a lot of superfluous busywork with it, or is it a concession to players who think buying a shinier new sword or decorating their virtual homes is more entertaining than Alta´r's ascetic lifestyle?

This is not meant to dump on the direction the later games took, merely to point out that AC1 feels basically like a triple A indie game. It's weird, it's experimental, its gameplay is unrefined, it doesn't always seem to know what exactly it wants to be. But the things that many people think were its weaknesses are what I find to be its strengths.

Righteous Angel
10-01-2016, 03:15 PM
Judging the game now seems a bit foolish to me. You have to appraise it upon release it was the first in the series and for its day was groundbreaking in so many ways. Of course it will suffer by comparison nowadays.

Fatal-Feit
10-01-2016, 05:59 PM
"CURSE HIM! CURSE THE OP AND HIS INFIDEL POST" :p

http://static.tumblr.com/4b4dc5ecfd37c6472bc72ed1d94624bc/wevryzp/V50mtkcas/tumblr_static_jack-sparrow-run.gif


You know, re-playing AC1 has made me more appreciative of the franchise due to how much has improved since then. From dying in the waters of Acre to cruising in the Thames, it really makes you look back at all the progress in awe.

Fo' sho. This replay has made me appreciate AC2 a whole lot more, as the game improves on almost every aspect. Of course, I still admire AC1 for a lot of its accomplishments (especially since it's literally the first game), but they're mostly just novelty and failed to overshadow the negatives for me.


Repetition: I didn't mind this in concept as the thought of discovering your target through means of pickpocket, interrogation and eavesdropping felt more grounded and like you were actually working your way to find your target. This to me had made the actual assassination more satisfying as there was build-up and preparation towards the target. It did got tedious after awhile of course. Collectibles are just abysmal.

Every game is repetitious, but AC1 fails to make it interesting. Even when I exclude the side missions, most of the main missions are monotonous (eavesdropping, pickpocketing, beat-ups) and the main assassinations never felt satisfying, especially with replays, as there's not enough variety in weapons, tools, and mechanics. In concept, it's really neat, but the execution was mediocre. Some side assassinations in AC2 had more beef than the main assassinations in AC1. I.e. the assassinations that revolved around the ships in Acre and Venice.


Incorrect. While it's true that the archers do have insta-detection upon spotting you, the keyword is "spotting". You can pass by undetected if you time it right. Just wait until they turn around and make a mad dash underneath the wooden structures they're perched upon. You can follow their movements between the board cracks so you'll know when the right time is to dash out again.
AC has always been line-of-sight based and the archers are no exception. Their range is about the same as the snipers in Unity, the only difference is that Unity's snipers still allow you a few seconds before raising the alarm. I used to think the archers were slightly unfair until I realized it's still possible to avoid detection. Difficult? Yes, perhaps unfairly so. But the same argument could be made for Unity's snipers and I don't mind them either.

I will say that running like hell being the only way to avoid detection in a stealth game is rather absurd. The Kingdom area should offer more ways than one to deal with the archers. Just saying it's not impossible.

Yeah, my keyword was sometimes (there are parts that you literally cannot bypass undetected), because I spent a while free-roaming and experimenting with the AI and layout of the maps to figure things out. I tried to be fair and put in about 10 more hours into the game for replays and tinkering with the mechanics.

The issue is that the timing is so freaking tight that it's not even fair (or fun) for the players. It usually feels like a gamble. The only mechanic you have to bypass them undetected is running as quick as you can on your horse and hope to your lord and savior that your timing was right. You HAVE to be super familiar with AC1 and know the level designs to a T, for it to feel somewhat fair. At least with Unity, there was an abundance of mechanics and open level design to allow you to kill or blend and navigate around the snipers.


*shrug* Never bothered me. I can see how it could annoy others, though. In HUD-less gameplay there are limited ways of signaling to the player that they're being watched.

If there is a sound I find pretty jarring it's the low-pitched BLOOP BLOOP BLOOP that plays while you're still being chased but in a hiding spot.

Perhaps it's more annoying for me because it'd kill my immersion. I feel like I should get lost in the moment when I'm going through Kingdom because it's pretty open, the environments are beautiful, and the the music is so soothing, but I'd hear that beeping sound and it's like getting punched back to reality for me.


It does allow gameplay variety - for the game as a whole. Remember that AC isn't just about stealth, it's about three core pillars: stealth, combat and navigation. The flag hunt missions represent navigation. Assassinations represent stealth. Saving citizens represents combat. Insisting that this particular mission type should be possible with stealth is like saying Ezio should be able to beat up cheating husbands stealthily.

Good point, but it still sucks because it's one of the most common side mission, next to getting viewpoints and collectibles. It's one of the only side mission that happens naturally and doesn't require you to speak to any NPC. Compared to returning flags and performing assassinations, the game already pits you in a ton of combat scenarios in NPC quests, so protecting random civilians should have allowed some more variety to feel equal--just like hunting Templars,which gives you the option of stealth or combat (although, systemically, that one's unfair, but you get my point). Also, you're saving citizens a dozen times around every street corner, and because combat doesn't provide as much variety in tools, weapons, and mechanics as its sequels, it starts to become a chore. You can only toss a guard at a construction so many times until you're yawning.


I think what really limits these types of missions is not linear design but the lack of assassination techniques. Air assassinations are only possible under specific circumstances, ledge assassinations didn't exist yet and we can't dump bodies. What ends up happening is that you have to consider things like "which way will the body fall if I throw a knife from this angle"? If the archer is too close to a ledge, the knife will knock them off the roof and drop them onto the street, which may result in detection. On the other hand, AC1 archers can't leave their posts, so even if they spot a body on a nearby rooftop, their alertness will increase but their patrol route remains the same. So even if they see a body, you still have room to alter your approach, you just have to be more careful. It's basically the system saying "I'll let you off with a warning this time, but next time there will be instant consequences".

I've only tried experimenting with a few of these missions, so I don't know if all of them are limited like this, but the lack of mechanics and tools does make these missions rather mundane and predictable for me, which is why I tried creating alternate routes, which never seemed to work for me--but again, I didn't experiment with all of them. It reminded me of UC4 where stealth is super tight (played in hard mode, never tried easy or normal) so you only needed a few minutes to read the enemy pathways to understand how to completely stealth through the area (''oh, kill that guy, then swing to kill that guy, then climb to kill those guy, got it''), and creating alternate patterns just made it harder or gets you detected, which made the game's stealth rather lame.


This one's a little hard for me to sympathize with since I've played the game so many times I've memorized most Templar locations visually. "Wait, I remember this junction, there's a dude behind a two-story building somewhere nearby." If I'm detected, I'll just hide, wait for them to stop searching, then return immediately to the same spot and kill them so they won't get the jump on me again. If it happens when I'm already being chased, I check the map for the nearest group of vigilantes to hold off my pursuers. Works on Templars, too.

Their insta-detection may be annoying, but it makes perfect sense. More sense than the archers', certainly. Of course Templars would immediately recognize an assassin during the Crusades and of course they would instantly attack. In a similar way I liked the concept of Jaegers in AC3, just not the way the city would be absolutely swarming with them the instant you reached level 3 notoriety. There should always be at least one enemy type who's not fooled by our appearance for an instant. The most recent games have a dozen different archetypes but all of them are equally clueless when it comes to detecting a guy who always wears the same robes and is wearing more shiny objects than a Christmas tree.

I mean, it might make sense, logically, but it doesn't make it good. If video games were all trying to be realistic like that, then most games would suck due to each system overlapping each other. It's all about the illusion of realism. In this case, the Templars' insta detection might make sense, but it's still a bad design and creates issues for players, and not in the ''we created enemies that hunt players down as they play the game'' a la Dark Souls kind of way.


I must be one of the few people who were never bothered by the repetition. I don't really see how doing "sit on a bench and eavesdrop" three times is any more repetitive than three variations of "I can't get this thing myself so go fetch it for me" that every open world game is littered with. I don't think the problem is necessarily repetition because every single task we do in any game can be broken down into the same old recycled components. What you're really criticizing is the writing, the presentation of that mechanic. AC1's missions may have felt more repetitive than usual because they all played out the same way. What later games did is mix things up a bit more. Instead of only eavesdropping and getting a "mission accomplished", the story introduces a forced detection and the assassin has to fight his way out. See: Haytham and Ziio in the pub. Fighting a bunch of enemies is just as repetitive as eavesdropping in these games (even more so), but for some reason people don't see it that way. Possibly because people feel more sense of control over a combat situation, so if you first have a "dull" (read: stationary) repetitive mission type and top it off with a repetitive action-y mission type - even if it's equally dull thanks to AC having super-easy combat - people will somehow have a more positive feeling about the mission overall.

Beats me why, exactly, but then I'm not a game designer.

I'm not a game designer either, but from my perspective, yes, you're right that every game is repetitive. Usually when someone criticizes a game for being repetitive, it's not exactly doing something over and over again that's the issue, it's what you said; it's how it's presented. Like I said to Nami, every game is repetitious, but AC1 fails to add flavor to anything. Every side or main mission (even how the story is presented) feels monotonous, the main assassinations are unsatisfying (although, the strong narrative does help carry the game), and the lack of genuine challenge (not those tower archers BS :p) certainly doesn't help.

I have absolutely no issue with repetition in games; my favorite games are designed to be more repetitive than AC1. But what they do is provide more to the experience than just toss the same thing at you. For example, in SotC, the game basically revolves around killing a colossi, spawn at the temple, follow the light and travel to the next colossi location and kill it, rinse and repeat until all of them are dead. The reason why this is more fun than AC1 is because it's always changing the experience. Just like Altair, we notice Wander change and progress as you kill more colossus, but the challenge of traveling and finding them is always different due to new environment and platforming challenges. And the colossi is hugely different from the last, requiring a new mindset for its puzzle and way of using your tools and mechanic to defeat it. The game is more dated and has fewer mechanics than AC1, but it always feel new and fresh because the designers continues to add a different flavor and challenge every time.

I think the main thing is that AC1 just feels like busywork. Doing everything from eavesdropping to delivering flags, to saving citizens and eliminating the main target, it's all a checkbox kind of thing. In concept, it's interesting, but I never actually have that much fun doing it. Most of the time, I'm just trudging through the game hoping something new and interesting happens.

Also, the reason why I'm not using other AC games to compare is because I think they're pretty flawed when it comes to repetition too, just not as much. I'd hate to praise them here and then rant about them in another thread, hehe.


Keep in mind the collectibles were a joke by Patrice to make you realize how pointless collectibles are. If you went after them expecting to be satisfied, you only have yourself to blame. ;) The one counter-argument I can see is if you were an XBox 360 player since that version actually had a trophy for the flags.


Eh, I think that's honestly complete BS from their end. Considering their previous games and sequels, I don't buy that excuse for even a second, especially if you consider that fact it's attached to 100% synch.

But regardless, I completely disagree. The player should never be blamed for playing the game. If they have terrible collectibles, jokes or not, it's still a part of the game that's tied to 100% completion, so the game should be fully, justifyingly criticized for it. Now, if it was the other way around, and it's just a achievement, such as smashing 5000 (I think?) objects with your carriage in ACS, then sure, I don't think the game should be criticized for that, because it's not really connected to the main experience.


I can agree with this to some extent. Never had the tumbling and tripping problems, but there are some viewpoints where for some reason it's harder for Alta´r to reach the tip. that's what she said And sometimes invisible barriers like you mentioned, or it not being clear why you can't grab that particular handhold that looks like it should be grabbable.

I would jump onto an object, like boxes or fences, and Altair would trip at its edge and fall down. Sometimes it happens when jumping across rooftops too. It really annoying and makes parkour feel unreliable. It got me caught by guards a few times when I'm trying to escape.


With all that said, I wouldn't call AC1 bad by any means, but rough and unrefined? Certainly. I view as almost separate from the rest of the series which may be why I'm more forgiving about its flaws. AC2 and onwards really are so different, and the term "progress" feels much more applicable when discussing how the series developed from that point onwards. AC1 though, is different in such fundamental ways though that many things that AC2 fans tend to view as "improvements" feel more like concessions to me. Is it really an "improvement" that you can climb at a superhuman speed in the mroe recent games, or is it a concession to the impatience of most gamers? Is it an improvement that AC2 introduced an economy system and a lot of superfluous busywork with it, or is it a concession to players who think buying a shinier new sword or decorating their virtual homes is more entertaining than Alta´r's ascetic lifestyle?

This is not meant to dump on the direction the later games took, merely to point out that AC1 feels basically like a triple A indie game. It's weird, it's experimental, its gameplay is unrefined, it doesn't always seem to know what exactly it wants to be. But the things that many people think were its weaknesses are what I find to be its strengths.

Maybe mediocre is the better word, in my opinion (not that it changes much...). Because, while AC1 can be praised for being different, it doesn't mean they were executed well. Don't get me wrong, I admire all of its accomplishments, but once the novelty wares off, you're left with a subpar game in many aspects. AC1 knows what it wants to be, and it ticks all of the boxes, but it doesn't execute them well. I hardly had fun playing the game; playing it felt like a chore. I have to go soon, so I can't really discuss AC2 versus AC1 right now.



Judging the game now seems a bit foolish to me. You have to appraise it upon release it was the first in the series and for its day was groundbreaking in so many ways. Of course it will suffer by comparison nowadays.

How is it foolish? Because it's old? Just like a movie or book, you can always judge a game, no matter the year. Games are timeless, and some of the best games are the old ones, not because of nostalgia, but because they are genuinely better designed. It's one thing to acknowledge an aging game, but it's another thing to say they're immune to criticisms today.

SixKeys
10-02-2016, 01:26 AM
Good point, but it still sucks because it's one of the most common side mission, next to getting viewpoints and collectibles. It's one of the only side mission that happens naturally and doesn't require you to speak to any NPC. Compared to returning flags and performing assassinations, the game already pits you in a ton of combat scenarios in NPC quests, so protecting random civilians should have allowed some more variety to feel equal--just like hunting Templars,which gives you the option of stealth or combat (although, systemically, that one's unfair, but you get my point). Also, you're saving citizens a dozen times around every street corner, and because combat doesn't provide as much variety in tools, weapons, and mechanics as its sequels, it starts to become a chore. You can only toss a guard at a construction so many times until you're yawning.

Fair point. I might be wrong, but it feels like the save citizen missions were a late addition, possibly a result of playtesters complaining about the lack of ways to engage with the world. Patrice said that they sprinkled a lot of these potential combat situations in the Kingdom, like walking past a wooden platform where a captain has his back turned to you because he's addressing his soldiers. It was up to the player to decide whether to engage or ignore. What ended up happening was that most players ignored those situations because they just didn't think they were supposed to. So when they made AC2, they turned these kinds of scenarios into assassination contracts and wrapped them up in little mini-stories that explicitly told players to go and engage. It's kind of what happened with AC3's assassination contracts and courier deliveries. Players weren't given a reason why they should do these things, so they found those little scenarios (like a guy circling a barn) entirely pointless. If you look at how they were handled in AC4, after hearing player feedback, the scenarios really aren't much more engaging visually. You can still have a guy randomly circling a barn. The scenario in itself is rather boring. But if you explicitly tell the player "this guy's name is Marco de Riviera and he's a really evil Templar who burned down an orphanage, go kill him", players will happily engage.

Kind of went off on a tangent there, sorry. Point being, the citizen missions in AC1 felt like an inbetween state between those entirely pointless scenarios you encounter in the Kingdom vs. AC2-style assassination contracts which give you extensive background, creating a whole story around this scenario. That makes me think they may have been a late addition, when devs were starting to learn what kind of content players wanted to engage with.



I'm not a game designer either, but from my perspective, yes, you're right that every game is repetitive. Usually when someone criticizes a game for being repetitive, it's not exactly doing something over and over again that's the issue, it's what you said; it's how it's presented. Like I said to Nami, every game is repetitious, but AC1 fails to add flavor to anything. Every side or main mission (even how the story is presented) feels monotonous, the main assassinations are unsatisfying (although, the strong narrative does help carry the game), and the lack of genuine challenge (not those tower archers BS :p) certainly doesn't help.

On side missions I can agree, but main missions? I really think the problem is that we're just used to how much the games have evolved. AC1's main missions are still fine, they just have limited options due to technical limitations which is hardly unusual in a 10-year-old game. I think Talal's assassination is the only one that literally has no stealth option (excluding Robert and Al Mualim), every other assassination has at least two different ways to complete the mission. That's still pretty impressive in a game this old. Of course if you're gonna compare it to something like Unity where you can complete a mission in perhaps 5 different ways, it's gonna feel lacklustre. But that's just a testament to how much games have evolved, not proof that AC1's assassinations were always monotonous. Perhaps most importantly, Unity and Syndicate show you all the different options at the beginning of each mission. "You could steal keys from this guy. Or you could sneak in through this unguarded back door. Or you can create a distraction with the crowd" etc. If you play AC1's missions for the first time, without foreknowledge of every option, it's not going to feel any more monotonous than an assassination mission in any other AC. You're going to spend a lot of time thinking and observing, then try different things, play with the system. It's only upon replaying that you start to notice the patterns and realizing there are only a couple of different ways for the scenario to play out. Of course it's going to feel monotonous upon multiple replays, after you've exhausted every available option once.



Eh, I think that's honestly complete BS from their end. Considering their previous games and sequels, I don't buy that excuse for even a second, especially if you consider that fact it's attached to 100% synch.

100% synch used to not be important plotwise, though. At no point does Lucy or Vidic say it's essential for Desmond to reach 100% synchronization with Alta´r. All they cared about was getting that final sequence to play out in a stable manner.
They probably shouldn't have included completion percentages in the game at all, that's a game-y feature and it was important to Patrice to have those game-y elements at a minimum. If it was complete BS, Patrice wouldn't have said as recently as last year (or possibly 2014) that he refuses to apologize for the flags since he meant for them to be pointless. If it was just a BS excuse, he could easily say that now he's no longer attached to the franchise.



But regardless, I completely disagree. The player should never be blamed for playing the game. If tey have terrible collectibles, jokes or not, it's still a part of the game that's tied to 100% completion, so the game should be fully, justifyingly criticized for it. Now, if it was the other way around, and it's just a achievement, such as smashing 5000 (I think?) objects with your carriage in ACS, then sure, I don't think the game should be criticized for that, because it's not really connected to the main experience.

The reason I disagree with this is because starting with AC2, the games made it canon that 100% was essential. AC1 actually allows you to kill NPCs without losing synch after you're done with the main story. That's how little full synch matters in the first game. It's literally all about getting to that final sequence and after that you're free to do whatever you want in the Animus. AC2 introduced the concept of ultimate armor, though, and Rebecca explicitly states that unless Desmond completes all the tombs and collects Alta´r's armor, he cannot gain full synchronization with Ezio. That';s a pretty explicit way of telling the player "you have to engage with this side content or else you're doing something wrong". It's the in-game characters directly telling the players that full synchronization is essential, nudging you to engage with everything that contributes towards completion rate. AC1 never tells you "Alta´r definitely killed all 60 of these random Templars around the world, so if you refuse to kill them, we're walling off this content until you do". The Cristina memories in ACB are an even more explicit example of gatekeeping content.



I would jump onto an object, like boxes or fences, and Altair would trip at its edge and fall down. Sometimes it happens when jumping across rooftops too. It really annoying and makes parkour feel unreliable. It got me caught by guards a few times when I'm trying to escape.

Never had that in AC1, but it is a problem I did have in AC Revelations which is why I dislike the parkour in that game. But I digress.



Maybe mediocre is the better word, in my opinion (not that it changes much...). Because, while AC1 can be praised for being different, it doesn't mean they were executed well. Don't get me wrong, I admire all of its accomplishments, but once the novelty wares off, you're left with a subpar game in many aspects. AC1 knows what it wants to be, and it ticks all of the boxes, but it doesn't execute them well. I hardly had fun playing the game; playing it felt like a chore. I have to go soon, so I can't really discuss AC2 versus AC1 right now.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree, I guess. Playing AC1 feels like coming home to me. I don't even have to do anything special, I can just roam around the cities or Kingdom for hours and enjoy myself immensely. Depends on what your main draw is in a game, I suppose. The sequels set up a different kind of template, things we now expect from an AC game. If you're used to having a lot of "fun" content in AC games, I can understand why going back to AC1 would feel disappointing. OTOH, if you expect a realistic assassin simulator and you go into AC2 or Syndicate, you're gonna be equally disappointed. I was initially disappointed with AC2 because I recognized it wasn't going for that experience anymore. It was more expansive yet more superficial. It had a ton of side content but worse escape system and combat, two essential mechanics. Like it was trying its hardest to say "we know all that assassin stuff is boring, so here, be Batman instead". I did eventually warm up to AC2, after I accepted it wasn't as much a direct sequel to the slow-paced, atmospheric experience I fell in love with in AC1, but more like its rowdy teenage cousin. Then the rest of the franchise followed suit and I just got used to it.



How is it foolish? Because it's old? Just like a movie or book, you can always judge a game, no matter the year. Games are timeless, and some of the best games are the old ones, not because of nostalgia, but because they are genuinely better designed. It's one thing to acknowledge an aging game, but it's another thing to say they're immune to criticisms today.

I'm playing PoP: Sands of Time for the first time and boy, do I have a lot of complaints. People always praise SoT as this classic game that's supposedly perfect judging by the praise it gets, but without nostalgia goggles on, there is a lot to criticize. However, I do try to temper my complaints by constantly reminding myself that it was made in 2003. It's really hard to look at an old game objectively when there's so much we take for granted these days that wasn't technically possible back then, or that was so revolutionary that the game's tutorials now seem excessively hand-holdey but were absolutely necessary at the time. Some of AC1's design choices are objectively bad, I'm sure, but there are also many things that resulted from technical limitations and such. I'm actually surprised you didn't mention AC1's camera as I think it's one of the most frustrating things about the game. Most of the time it's fine, but if you're in haybale that's next to a wall and you try to look around to see if the coast is clear, you can't turn 360 the camera degrees. PoP:SoT has similar camera issues and that was developed by largely the same team. I see some shared problems between the two games and sometimes struggle with whether SoT is bad because of these problems or if it's making the best of the available technology at the time. Being so accustomed to AC1 it's harder for me to see it that way as I still think it holds up amazingly well - much MUCH better than SoT - but I'm sure someone who's equally accustomed to SoT would find it hard to sympathize with my complaints about it.

Megas_Doux
10-02-2016, 11:27 PM
http://data.whicdn.com/images/41739810/original.jpg

Don't get me wrong, Fatal. I mean, you DO have some valid points. Thing is that I hold AC I so dear and high thanks of its originality I cannot but tolerate its many faults.

Namikaze_17
10-03-2016, 01:40 AM
Every game is repetitious, but AC1 fails to make it interesting. Even when I exclude the side missions, most of the main missions are monotonous (eavesdropping, pickpocketing, beat-ups) and the main assassinations never felt satisfying, especially with replays, as there's not enough variety in weapons, tools, and mechanics. In concept, it's really neat, but the execution was mediocre. Some side assassinations in AC2 had more beef than the main assassinations in AC1. I.e. the assassinations that revolved around the ships in Acre and Venice.

Hmm, maybe I'm speaking from the perspective of the information the eavesdrops provide you with that makes the main assassination itself feel more satisfying such as Majd Addin forcefully taking a man's son, or Garnier being rumored to keep his prisoners hostage. Yeah that's more arguing story & gameplay, but I can't help but be like Mega as well and be tolerant of the gameplay itself since it was only experimental at the time. I know that sounds like an excuse but »\_(シ)_/»
As for the AC2, I'll try getting to that in my next replay.


It actually is possible to kill Majd Addin stealthily. In fact, I got a new respect for the game's stealth on a playthrough when I tried to do all stealth kills- I believe I got everyone that was possible (so excluding Talal, Maria, and Robere. I don't remember how I stealth killed the fat guy at the party, but I believe I did him as well.

As for Majd Addin, you basically have to stealthily climb a building, get on a roof near the stage, wait for him to walk near-ish you, then jump and perform an "air assassination" (I know these are pretty hard to pull off in AC1) on landing. It might feel a little janky, but it's totally possible. And that's kind of why I like AC1- the stealth is hard, and sometimes almost feels like you have to break the game a little to even get it to work. But it's immensely satisfying whenever pulled off successfully.

Haha, I actually tried both methods the other day and only Farlander's suggestion worked for me. Not saying that yours is impossible, but you do indeed HAVE to actually break the rules with a bit of luck on the side. Both still took me a couple tries though; Farlander's being more with timing and avoiding that shirtless (drunk?) guy.

And I dunno if I'd use hard... sometimes the situations lean themselves to be wildly unpredictable & frustrating that it can be a bit bothersome sometimes.

Fatal-Feit
10-03-2016, 01:42 AM
Fair point. I might be wrong, but it feels like the save citizen missions were a late addition, possibly a result of playtesters complaining about the lack of ways to engage with the world. Patrice said that they sprinkled a lot of these potential combat situations in the Kingdom, like walking past a wooden platform where a captain has his back turned to you because he's addressing his soldiers. It was up to the player to decide whether to engage or ignore. What ended up happening was that most players ignored those situations because they just didn't think they were supposed to. So when they made AC2, they turned these kinds of scenarios into assassination contracts and wrapped them up in little mini-stories that explicitly told players to go and engage. It's kind of what happened with AC3's assassination contracts and courier deliveries. Players weren't given a reason why they should do these things, so they found those little scenarios (like a guy circling a barn) entirely pointless. If you look at how they were handled in AC4, after hearing player feedback, the scenarios really aren't much more engaging visually. You can still have a guy randomly circling a barn. The scenario in itself is rather boring. But if you explicitly tell the player "this guy's name is Marco de Riviera and he's a really evil Templar who burned down an orphanage, go kill him", players will happily engage.

Kind of went off on a tangent there, sorry. Point being, the citizen missions in AC1 felt like an inbetween state between those entirely pointless scenarios you encounter in the Kingdom vs. AC2-style assassination contracts which give you extensive background, creating a whole story around this scenario. That makes me think they may have been a late addition, when devs were starting to learn what kind of content players wanted to engage with.

No need to apologize; say everything you want, I'll read it all. While narrative/story does play a big role in enticing content and adding value to them (because a good game understands that narrative and gameplay are not separate), it's not the only reason why people preferred AC2/4's contracts to AC1/3's said side missions. They also offer far more interesting level designs, mechanics (playable, in AC3's case), and progression, including drastically better pacing. You only had to beat up a few hubbies in AC2. In AC1, you literally kill the same group of guards dozens and dozens of times in every city.

That isn't to say there isn't some really drab missions in AC2/4 that you can compare, but those are very few. I've been replaying AC4 on the PS4, and I've just left Havana the other day after doing some side content there. All of the contract missions had their own distinct layout and objectives. Ignoring the narrative, one guy hid in a party, so I hired oolalas to get me up close and assassinated him. Another one had a guy hiding in the bushes where soldiers were executing other pirates(?). This forced me to try and take out the guards first, before chasing him. And another mission had an officer that hid in a party. I took him out while he was dancing with a rifle that I stole from a sniper. You can still get a bit creative with AC3, but the level designs don't really offer a lot. Plus its stealth mechanics is kind of broken.


On side missions I can agree, but main missions? I really think the problem is that we're just used to how much the games have evolved. AC1's main missions are still fine, they just have limited options due to technical limitations which is hardly unusual in a 10-year-old game. I think Talal's assassination is the only one that literally has no stealth option (excluding Robert and Al Mualim), every other assassination has at least two different ways to complete the mission. That's still pretty impressive in a game this old. Of course if you're gonna compare it to something like Unity where you can complete a mission in perhaps 5 different ways, it's gonna feel lacklustre. But that's just a testament to how much games have evolved, not proof that AC1's assassinations were always monotonous. Perhaps most importantly, Unity and Syndicate show you all the different options at the beginning of each mission. "You could steal keys from this guy. Or you could sneak in through this unguarded back door. Or you can create a distraction with the crowd" etc. If you play AC1's missions for the first time, without foreknowledge of every option, it's not going to feel any more monotonous than an assassination mission in any other AC. You're going to spend a lot of time thinking and observing, then try different things, play with the system. It's only upon replaying that you start to notice the patterns and realizing there are only a couple of different ways for the scenario to play out. Of course it's going to feel monotonous upon multiple replays, after you've exhausted every available option once.

While it does unavoidably effect my opinion of AC1, my opinion of the game is not simply based on comparing it to its sequels. I've played AC1 many times before, yeah, but I understood the kind of game I was getting into and I prepared for it.

Technical limitations is fine and dandy, but it doesn't excuse mediocre gameplay. They can give us an excuse, but if they don't provide anything else to make up for it, then I'm still going to criticize it. It's like how SW:BF removed SP mode because they said that nobody plays it as much, statistically, yet they didn't provide anything to make up for it. Every games faces limitations but the good ones are always found a way to make the experience better, despite compromises.

AC1 doesn't do enough to make up for its faults and limitations. I became bored of the game, not because I've played it so many times, but because it did not deliver an experience that kept me hooked. City after city, district after district, the only distinction was the type of hue for me. Gameplay did have its moments of introducing something new, like a portion with water and crazies that'll knock you into it, but those were so few and didn't really turn my experience upside down and make me gitty. It still felt like a chore. Not my best analogy, but it's like when your assigned something new at your work place for the day. It's interesting and kind of different, but it's still work and you wish you were home. After sequence 4, the only reason why I kept playing was to see Altair continue to evolve, and I normally don't stop caring about the gameplay for a game since that's usually the main aspect I care about. Also, I've replayed games far older than AC1 a lot more times and I don't get as bored with them as I have with AC1. SotC, being an example for reasons I've already spoke about, and that game's more dated with way more limited gameplay mechanics. With AC1, its gameplay mechanics and level designs are pretty subpar as a whole. Everything interesting about it, like its open design, isn't executed excellently by any stretch.


100% synch used to not be important plotwise, though. At no point does Lucy or Vidic say it's essential for Desmond to reach 100% synchronization with Alta´r. All they cared about was getting that final sequence to play out in a stable manner.
They probably shouldn't have included completion percentages in the game at all, that's a game-y feature and it was important to Patrice to have those game-y elements at a minimum. If it was complete BS, Patrice wouldn't have said as recently as last year (or possibly 2014) that he refuses to apologize for the flags since he meant for them to be pointless. If it was just a BS excuse, he could easily say that now he's no longer attached to the franchise.



The reason I disagree with this is because starting with AC2, the games made it canon that 100% was essential. AC1 actually allows you to kill NPCs without losing synch after you're done with the main story. That's how little full synch matters in the first game. It's literally all about getting to that final sequence and after that you're free to do whatever you want in the Animus. AC2 introduced the concept of ultimate armor, though, and Rebecca explicitly states that unless Desmond completes all the tombs and collects Alta´r's armor, he cannot gain full synchronization with Ezio. That';s a pretty explicit way of telling the player "you have to engage with this side content or else you're doing something wrong". It's the in-game characters directly telling the players that full synchronization is essential, nudging you to engage with everything that contributes towards completion rate. AC1 never tells you "Alta´r definitely killed all 60 of these random Templars around the world, so if you refuse to kill them, we're walling off this content until you do". The Cristina memories in ACB are an even more explicit example of gatekeeping content.



It's still part of the game, part of the system--one that doesn't make it apparent that it's a joke. The story may not have motivated you, but it doesn't have to, it's not an requirement. Many, many gameplay aspects in video games aren't addressed in its narrative, and yet they're a major goal for the players by design. AC1 has a full completion mechanic that's advertised all the time and collecting all of the flags is part of the objective, therefore, players will strive for it. It's just like trying to farm for the highest DPS equipment in an RPG, or improve your combo in DMC. Everyone criticizes RPGs with bad RNG mechanics and DmC for having a poor combo system, so AC1 can be criticized for having a terrible 100% completion mechanic as well.

Patrice might have designed it as a joke, but that's his fault. He screwed up because his game is now worse because of it.


Never had that in AC1, but it is a problem I did have in AC Revelations which is why I dislike the parkour in that game. But I digress.

Every game prior to Unity had this issue, but I feel it's at its worse in AC1 and BF for me. I instantly noticed an improvement in AC2. BF still has the worse parkour, though. :p


We're just gonna have to agree to disagree, I guess. Playing AC1 feels like coming home to me. I don't even have to do anything special, I can just roam around the cities or Kingdom for hours and enjoy myself immensely. Depends on what your main draw is in a game, I suppose. The sequels set up a different kind of template, things we now expect from an AC game. If you're used to having a lot of "fun" content in AC games, I can understand why going back to AC1 would feel disappointing. OTOH, if you expect a realistic assassin simulator and you go into AC2 or Syndicate, you're gonna be equally disappointed. I was initially disappointed with AC2 because I recognized it wasn't going for that experience anymore. It was more expansive yet more superficial. It had a ton of side content but worse escape system and combat, two essential mechanics. Like it was trying its hardest to say "we know all that assassin stuff is boring, so here, be Batman instead". I did eventually warm up to AC2, after I accepted it wasn't as much a direct sequel to the slow-paced, atmospheric experience I fell in love with in AC1, but more like its rowdy teenage cousin. Then the rest of the franchise followed suit and I just got used to it.

Fair enough, I can understand that. I can free-roam Unity for hours and still be immensely entertained, despite its flawed and unwieldy gameplay.

I hopped onto AC1 expecting exactly what we praised it for, but came out of the experience underwhelmed. When it comes to entertainment, I don't think I have a peculiar taste. With video games, I'm a fan of every genre and platform (even board games) and so I mostly try to expect the best of what the game is trying to accomplish, not what I want it to be. I'll still criticize some games for a change in direction, if it's for the worse, but for the most part, I'll settle with a good gaming experience more than forcing a game to tick my boxes. I don't hop onto R6S and expect a narrative driven game, ya know?


I'm playing PoP: Sands of Time for the first time and boy, do I have a lot of complaints. People always praise SoT as this classic game that's supposedly perfect judging by the praise it gets, but without nostalgia goggles on, there is a lot to criticize. However, I do try to temper my complaints by constantly reminding myself that it was made in 2003. It's really hard to look at an old game objectively when there's so much we take for granted these days that wasn't technically possible back then, or that was so revolutionary that the game's tutorials now seem excessively hand-holdey but were absolutely necessary at the time. Some of AC1's design choices are objectively bad, I'm sure, but there are also many things that resulted from technical limitations and such. I'm actually surprised you didn't mention AC1's camera as I think it's one of the most frustrating things about the game. Most of the time it's fine, but if you're in haybale that's next to a wall and you try to look around to see if the coast is clear, you can't turn 360 the camera degrees. PoP:SoT has similar camera issues and that was developed by largely the same team. I see some shared problems between the two games and sometimes struggle with whether SoT is bad because of these problems or if it's making the best of the available technology at the time. Being so accustomed to AC1 it's harder for me to see it that way as I still think it holds up amazingly well - much MUCH better than SoT - but I'm sure someone who's equally accustomed to SoT would find it hard to sympathize with my complaints about it.

There's a lot of things I wanted to complain about, but I just couldn't remember nor had the time to rant about. Another thing I wanted to criticize was the unskippable cutscenes that made replays a nightmare. A stealth game that's suppose to be about being open and advertises its many alternative pathways should also be accessible for experimentation and AC1 fails in that aspect.

I think it's fair to acknowledge technical limitations, but I don't consider it a fair excuse and simply give games a slap on the wrist if I'm criticizing them. I think it's okay to think a game is worse today than it was back then. Especially since you can still make the argument that some games back then are more advance than games today. AC1's combat system compared to ACU/S, as an example. Video games are always facing technical limitations; it's what they do to overcome them that matters.

Farlander1991
10-03-2016, 05:46 AM
I know that I talk about HUD-less AC1 a lot (https://stanislavcostiuc.com/2016/03/02/hud-less-design-of-assassins-creed-1/), but have you tried to actually play it fully HUD-less from beginning to end?

The reason I'm asking is because AC1 was designed to be played fully HUD-less (and I suspect HUD itself was a very late addition), and a lot of the design choices work differently because of that (except some of the missions introduced in PC version - there they didn't think about HUD-less gameplay, which is why some of the new missions work HUD-less and some don't at all). The cyclic structure of AC1 may seem repetitive with the HUD, but when you play without icons - it's incredibly important to actually know where you have to go or what you have to do.

In my post I've linked to I elaborate on a lot of points about why AC1 works HUD-less and may not be as great an experience when played without a HUD, so I'll just add some of the few points that I didn't mention there.

Let's say we take an assassination side-mission. One of the missions in Acre tasks you to kill a guard. His route is incredibly boring from a design stand-point - he just walks on one street and then around a square. That's a five-second mission when you've got an icon to kill him. But when you have no mini-map or icon, how do you actually get to him? Well, here's the thing, the informant himself says that the guard is after him and he's afraid he's gonna find him soon. And that's the hint. You just wait out, and sure enough, the guard comes to that square where the informant is.

This is why HUD-less is so important for AC1. A different logical approach is used in all things - ranging from how to find the missions themselves, to how to complete a lot of them. With introduction of mini-map and icons and everything, the content becomes a lot more accessible, but the HUD also breaks most of the content because it wasn't designed like that.

SixKeys
10-03-2016, 07:27 PM
That isn't to say there isn't some really drab missions in AC2/4 that you can compare, but those are very few. I've been replaying AC4 on the PS4, and I've just left Havana the other day after doing some side content there. All of the contract missions had their own distinct layout and objectives. Ignoring the narrative, one guy hid in a party, so I hired oolalas to get me up close and assassinated him. Another one had a guy hiding in the bushes where soldiers were executing other pirates(?). This forced me to try and take out the guards first, before chasing him. And another mission had an officer that hid in a party. I took him out while he was dancing with a rifle that I stole from a sniper. You can still get a bit creative with AC3, but the level designs don't really offer a lot. Plus its stealth mechanics is kind of broken.

A few contract missions stick in my mind as just being these super generic scenarios that only work because they thought to provide some dialogue. The problem is that after a while that dialogue starts repeating (or stops completely) and then it's easy to see through the smoke and mirrors. For example there's one contract with a Spanish captain or whatever and the framing is that he's using slaves to dig for a hidden treasure. When you get there, he'll talk for a while about his evil plans, but that dialogue starts repeating after a while. So you end up seeing through the illusion which is that it's really just 3 NPCs in a small area (the captain and his two bodyguards), one of them is circling around, the other are stuck in the same positions and the one guy keeps parroting the same lines over and over. "Ha-ha, keep digging, maggots! Soon I will have my gold! Ha-ha! Keep digging, maggots! Soon I will have my gold! Ha-ha!" etc. How is that really any different from AC3's guy-circling-a-barn scenarios?

I'm not saying these missions are bad, just that they're only engaging as long as you have reason to buy into the illusion. Once you look at the scenario from a distance, you realize just how simplistic it really is. You start seeing breadcrumb paths the developers have clearly laid out for you as the easiest or most satisfying option. You realize there are only a few ways to make the mission at all satisfying to complete and that is to create arbitrary difficulty for yourself instead of using every option in your arsenal. (You could just shoot a bullet or berserk dart from 50 yards away and collect the reward, or you could create some actual challenge by creeping closer and assassinating him from a bush.) When you look at these scenarios objectively, you see they're really not very different from the ones in AC1's Kingdom area. The only thing that's changed is the amount of framing.



AC1 doesn't do enough to make up for its faults and limitations. I became bored of the game, not because I've played it so many times, but because it did not deliver an experience that kept me hooked. City after city, district after district, the only distinction was the type of hue for me. Gameplay did have its moments of introducing something new, like a portion with water and crazies that'll knock you into it, but those were so few and didn't really turn my experience upside down and make me gitty. It still felt like a chore. Not my best analogy, but it's like when your assigned something new at your work place for the day. It's interesting and kind of different, but it's still work and you wish you were home. After sequence 4, the only reason why I kept playing was to see Altair continue to evolve, and I normally don't stop caring about the gameplay for a game since that's usually the main aspect I care about. Also, I've replayed games far older than AC1 a lot more times and I don't get as bored with them as I have with AC1. SotC, being an example for reasons I've already spoke about, and that game's more dated with way more limited gameplay mechanics. With AC1, its gameplay mechanics and level designs are pretty subpar as a whole. Everything interesting about it, like its open design, isn't executed excellently by any stretch.

SotC is on my list of games to play. I'll be curious to see how well it lives up to the hype once I start playing it.

I'm usually all about gameplay too, which is why I find it amusing that you say watching Alta´r evolve as a character was your main impetus to keep going because honestly I think his character is very two-dimensional. He's really not a very compelling main character, the only reason he's my favorite is pure nostalgia. It's the atmosphere that keeps me invested, personally, and the atmosphere makes the gameplay for me. I can spend hours studying small details like how they achieved such realistic-looking fabric on Alta´r's robes with such limited technology (it looks better than in ACR), wondering which poor dude had to sell his soul to Satan to achieve that realistic lighting, paying attention to the way sounds fade in and out depending on distance etc. AC1 is the only game where the historical tourism alone is enough for me. In all the other ones the atmosphere can only keep me going for so long before I get bored and start looking for excitement. At the risk of exaggerating a bit, AC1 is basically my walking simulator, and my expectations for walking simulators are quite different than my expectations for GTA, which is what all the sequels can be compared to.



Patrice might have designed it as a joke, but that's his fault. He screwed up because his game is now worse because of it.

Meh. I don't see how it makes the game worse. Maybe not better, but hardly worse. At this point it comes down to that someone made a joke and it's subjective whether you thought the joke was funny or not.



There's a lot of things I wanted to complain about, but I just couldn't remember nor had the time to rant about. Another thing I wanted to criticize was the unskippable cutscenes that made replays a nightmare. A stealth game that's suppose to be about being open and advertises its many alternative pathways should also be accessible for experimentation and AC1 fails in that aspect.

AC1 is accessible for experimentation, just check out all the videos on HiddenBlade.com. The problem is that just like with the Kingdom "engage if you want, ignore if you don't" scenarios, only two or three options are really obvious. The rest have a lot to do with player creativity. My favorite is being able to air-assassinate William from the tall tower behind him (same one you climb in the Alta´r/Maria dream in AC2). It requires great precision and can be so satisfying to pull off, but the game doesn't explicitly tell you "DID YOU KNOW: You can assassinate William from this tower" like how Unity and Syndicate would do it, so it won't even occur to most players to try stuff.

I might even argue that AC1 encourages more experimentation than some of its sequels due to your limited toolbox. Replaying ACB right now, it's so easy to just go with the easiest and most obvious choices in certain assassination scenarios. The brotherhood mechanic makes it so tempting to solve any outnumbered situation with a quick arrow storm. Or if I'm being chased on horseback, instead of stopping to fight, I can just call my recruits to take care of my pursuers. Many of the full synch mission constraints straight-up discourage creativity by telling you exactly which weapon to use against your target. There's one Templar agent who's randomly shooting innocent people and I always want to kill him with the hidden gun because it just feels like poetic justice. But the full synch requires you to use the hidden blade. Ezio has an arsenal of options ten times bigger than Alta´r but you're not encouraged to experiment with all of it. AC1's weapons all have a specific purpose and you have more reason to experiment with them.



I think it's fair to acknowledge technical limitations, but I don't consider it a fair excuse and simply give games a slap on the wrist if I'm criticizing them. I think it's okay to think a game is worse today than it was back then. Especially since you can still make the argument that some games back then are more advance than games today. AC1's combat system compared to ACU/S, as an example. Video games are always facing technical limitations; it's what they do to overcome them that matters.

Of course it's reasonable to acknowledge that games have evolved and the stuff of yesteryear might not hold up forever. I just happen to disagree with most of your criticisms of AC1. There are many things about the game that I can criticize (such as the camera and climbing snags), but I'm much more forgiving of some of the stuff you mentioned because they simply don't bother me.

Things that I find bothersome in AC1 include (but aren't necessarily limited to):

-The uselessness of Eagle Vision, especially with HUD-less design in mind. They really dropped the ball on this one. You can't use it while moving, so it's really not an efficient means to find your target while roaming through the city without a map. It's also very blurry and headache-inducing so you can't keep it on for very long.

-Upgrades not making sense or being so minimal as to be barely noticeable. How does Alta´r simply forget how catch-back while falling works after being demoted? regaining that skill is kind of explained by him later getting a different set of gloves that I guess have better hold, but it's so subtle it just seems like Al Mualim magically restored Alta´r's natural ability to grab stuff while falling. You also technically get an upgraded sword every time you finish a mission but again it's so subtly presented it just seems like your sword suddenly does more damage without an explanation. Al Mualim also warns Alta´r that soldiers in the Kingdom are bound to be more suspicious of his actions. What this means in practice is that there are a few more captains around and potentially more patrols here and there, but that's all it is: an increase in manpower. As far as I can tell, there is zero difference in their detection rate, so unlike the game tells you, you don't actually need to be more careful to avoid raising suspicion.

-Galloping on a horse causing insta-detection. Really? I'm the only person in the entire Kingdom who would like to get to my destination sooner rather than later?

-The detection system is a little confusing. For some reason the yellow eye is the default state, the game tells you it means you're being observed. Being observed to me is the same as having already attracted the authorities' attention, even when I haven't done anything yet. The default state should be incognito (white triangle), yellow should be suspicion and red should be alerted.


BTW, not a flaw but something I find interesting is that AC1 is the only game with a "fast-forwarding to a more recent memory" function. Every time Alta´r rests, the Animus skips the events of that night until the next day when the more "interesting" memory happens. If the Animus can skip through all kinds of irrelevant, uninteresting stuff, why does stuff like Ezio beating up cheating husbands or delivering letters count towards full synchronization? What is so interesting about those memories that the Animus doesn't simply skip them? "After assassinating Jacopo he also went and delivered a letter to this random farmer, but we're kind of in a hurry, Desmond, so let's just fast-forward you to this more relevant memory three days later." :p

Farlander1991
10-03-2016, 08:00 PM
Meh. I don't see how it makes the game worse. Maybe not better, but hardly worse. At this point it comes down to that someone made a joke and it's subjective whether you thought the joke was funny or not.

AC is not Stanley's Parable, though, the whole point of which is to satirize video game conventions. If that game had 400 flags that give you absolutely nothing... I wouldn't mind at all.

My problem with flags is that it's bad design, and the 'oh but it's MEANT to be bad' in a game like AC is a ****ty excuse (especially considering that in the very next game Patrice has led the hundreds of collectibles trope is played straight in a traditional video game way). If you think something is bad, either: a) don't put it in, or b) implement it in a way that's not bad. AC does neither with flags.

SixKeys
10-03-2016, 08:38 PM
AC is not Stanley's Parable, though, the whole point of which is to satirize video game conventions. If that game had 400 flags that give you absolutely nothing... I wouldn't mind at all.

My problem with flags is that it's bad design, and the 'oh but it's MEANT to be bad' in a game like AC is a ****ty excuse (especially considering that in the very next game Patrice has led the hundreds of collectibles trope is played straight in a traditional video game way). If you think something is bad, either: a) don't put it in, or b) implement it in a way that's not bad. AC does neither with flags.

Games can have jokes without being straight-up satirical. AC3 had a joke about the flying machine where it made you think you were going to use it just like before and then you crash immediately. You don't immediately realize what happened because the controls simply don't work when you expect them to because it's a callback to an earlier game where that same mechanic DID work, then it cuts to white and suddenly you're in water and the flying machine is nowhere to be seen. Was it a dream? A glitch? Oh, it was supposed to be a joke. Is it a funny joke when it's based on the completely reasonable expectation that a mechanic you used in a previous game should work in this one? Or is it a failed one? That's where subjectivity comes in.

Farlander1991
10-03-2016, 09:03 PM
Games can have jokes without being straight-up satirical. AC3 had a joke about the flying machine where it made you think you were going to use it just like before and then you crash immediately. You don't immediately realize what happened because the controls simply don't work when you expect them to because it's a callback to an earlier game where that same mechanic DID work, then it cuts to white and suddenly you're in water and the flying machine is nowhere to be seen. Was it a dream? A glitch? Oh, it was supposed to be a joke. Is it a funny joke when it's based on the completely reasonable expectation that a mechanic you used in a previous game should work in this one? Or is it a failed one? That's where subjectivity comes in.

I'm not saying games can't have jokes. The difference between your AC3 example and the AC1 flags situation, is that there's a set-up and pay-off (which is the basic structure of a joke). AC1 flags are just there. The joke isn't even meta, it's beyond meta as it's only in the mind of the creator and is not represented in any way in the game proper. To even understand that there IS a joke in the first place, you must know authorial intent, which with AC1 is just not the case if you don't read the particular Patrice interview where he said it (and who other than hardcore fans is going to do that anyway?)

Anyway, the other big difference is that the AC3 situation is quite clearly an easter egg/joke/whatever you'd like to call it. Whether you like it or not is subjective, yes. AC1 flag situation is intentional bad design spread over a whole game under a pretense that there's a joke in there somewhere.

If someone from AC3 team leads would come up and say that the AC3 detection system is a joke regarding AC1/AC2 and a lot of stealth games in general regarding the stupidity of guards, so they made them omnipotent to prove a point that a little stupidity in stealth games is needed for them to be fun, would you be alright with it? Because, while a bit grander in scope, that's the equivalent of AC1 situation, that there's a whole mechanic or set of systems that takes a good chunk of the game and causes frustration and resentment, but it's ok, cause it's a joke to prove a point!

Patrice can say whatever he wants about this being a joke, but it's intentional bad design that doesn't even try to make a joke, and the intentions of it being bad doesn't make it better. It's still bad.

SixKeys
10-03-2016, 11:12 PM
If someone from AC3 team leads would come up and say that the AC3 detection system is a joke regarding AC1/AC2 and a lot of stealth games in general regarding the stupidity of guards, so they made them omnipotent to prove a point that a little stupidity in stealth games is needed for them to be fun, would you be alright with it? Because, while a bit grander in scope, that's the equivalent of AC1 situation, that there's a whole mechanic or set of systems that takes a good chunk of the game and causes frustration and resentment, but it's ok, cause it's a joke to prove a point!

The difference is that collectibles are NOT a core gameplay mechanic. AC's genre is never listed anywhere as "Stealth-collectible game" or "action-collectible". Something like Sonic or Mario are games where collectibles have some meaning, since the entire point of those games is to get a high score. There are games where you literally cannot advance to the next level unless you collect every last one of a type of collectible (ironically, AC2 is one such game, with the Codex pages). AC1 is a game where the entire experience is very clearly designed around immersion and atmosphere. The fact that it was designed to be HUD-less should be a clue that collectibles that are well-hidden in a vast open world were an afterthought, a game-y mechanic in a game that prided itself on attempting to break the typical game mold (by having "the Animus did it" as an explanation for things like dying etc.).

A game that comes to mind as being similar in this sense is Braid. That game doesn't come out and say it's a joke, exactly, but it does make collectibles an extremely obscure exercise. There's one star that requires a player to stand in one spot for two hours straight. I don't care how "deep" the reward is once you get all of the stars, I cannot imagine that as anything other than a pisstake by the creator. He must have been laughing all the way to the bank thinking about all the players who sat there for two hours staring at a pixelated cloud slowly roll from one end of the screen to the other, just for one collectible. That is a joke, no matter which way you cut it. He just wasn't as straightforward about it as Patrice, hence people praise the collectibles in Braid as "really deep, man". Perhaps Patrice's mistake was being honest. He should have just said the flags were a metaphor for the neverending struggle in Alta´r's life or some such nonsense. Gamers would no doubt still be praising this feature and coming up with new theories about what it all means.

Farlander1991
10-03-2016, 11:45 PM
Don't get me started on Braid :p :D I like the game as a game (the levels are very well-done, art is beautiful, it's a great game), but if there ever would be a prize for 'the most amount of most pretentious ******** ever', it would take it.

You and I seem to have very different takes on what a 'joke' is (also, having read a bunch of interviews with Jonathan Blow, the creator of Braid, I think the phrase 'That is a joke, no matter which way you cut it' is VERY questionable in terms of how he positioned this as).

At any rate, you said it yourself, "AC1 is a game where the entire experience is very clearly designed around immersion and atmosphere." Placing a bunch of flags with nothing to it all over the world breaks that immersion, and is quite ******** and no amount of 'oh it's a joke/it's supposed to be like that' should give it ANY excuse. On another hand, we're talking about a game which has a whole mission type dedicated to collecting flags (with ******** reasons to why those flags have been placed there and why Altair needs to collect them). But while we're at it, I don't consider that good design either :p

Anyway. I still believe that collectibles either shouldn't have been in the game or Patrice and co. should've found a way to incorporate them right (doesn't necessarily mean the traditional way AC2 does it, just what actually fits the game). But if they REALLY wanted to prove a point, then a) the flags shouldn't have had flag-related achievements (which only X360 has, granted, but the only reason PS3 and PC don't have it is because at the time they didn't have achievement systems at the time), b) if you collect all flags there should've been a dialog with Lucy about it or something. "Hey, Lucy, so I've collected all these flags in the Animus... what they're for?" - "Wait, you want to say the flags are still there? That was just in for test purposes. Why did you bother gathering them all?", make the player actually think and contemplate on the absurdity of the situation and what he has done.

And one might argue 'oh but then the joke is ruined, then it's not subtle, players wouldn't get to that though themselves, blah blah blah'. Yeah, that's true. But then it would also be straightforward and honest. Because, right now it's not straightforward - it's just simply bad design that exists in an otherwise interestingly designed game, and regarding being honest, for all we know Patrice might go all George Lucas on us (who after release of Empire Strikes Back claimed that Vader was always meant to be Luke's father, even though if you look at all the drafts of the first Star Wars movie you'd see that it's simply not true - Anakin and Vader were always supposed to be two different people and Obi-Wan's story was supposed to be the truth), thinking up of reasons post-factum. We don't know. And it doesn't matter, really. What matters is what's in the game, not what's outside of it.

SixKeys
10-04-2016, 02:25 AM
Anyway. I still believe that collectibles either shouldn't have been in the game or Patrice and co. should've found a way to incorporate them right (doesn't necessarily mean the traditional way AC2 does it, just what actually fits the game). But if they REALLY wanted to prove a point, then a) the flags shouldn't have had flag-related achievements (which only X360 has, granted, but the only reason PS3 and PC don't have it is because at the time they didn't have achievement systems at the time), b) if you collect all flags there should've been a dialog with Lucy about it or something. "Hey, Lucy, so I've collected all these flags in the Animus... what they're for?" - "Wait, you want to say the flags are still there? That was just in for test purposes. Why did you bother gathering them all?", make the player actually think and contemplate on the absurdity of the situation and what he has done.

I can agree with this, actually. The best that can be said about the flags is that they could have been better implemented or left out compeletely, as you say. It's entirely fair to criticize the inclusion of the flags. What I don't understand is the level of vitriol people throw at the flags even years after learning it was meant as a joke. Like, okay, it may have been a s****y joke but all you have to do is ignore it. I think the AC3 flying machine "joke" was absolutely terrible, it just doesn't work due to the way it was presented, but I don't bring it up every time I talk about the game. The game has much bigger issues than one failed joke. The way people talk about AC1's flags you'd think Patrice personally came into their house and punched their mother in the face with a flag. :p

Farlander1991
10-04-2016, 07:11 AM
I can agree with this, actually. The best that can be said about the flags is that they could have been better implemented or left out compeletely, as you say. It's entirely fair to criticize the inclusion of the flags. What I don't understand is the level of vitriol people throw at the flags even years after learning it was meant as a joke. Like, okay, it may have been a s****y joke but all you have to do is ignore it. I think the AC3 flying machine "joke" was absolutely terrible, it just doesn't work due to the way it was presented, but I don't bring it up every time I talk about the game. The game has much bigger issues than one failed joke. The way people talk about AC1's flags you'd think Patrice personally came into their house and punched their mother in the face with a flag. :p

Lol :D Well, for most people it's not a joke, because they haven't seen heard the particular piece of information required to know that 'it's a joke'. It's just ****ty design to them :p But even if they do learn that it was meant to be a joke, you can't possibly compare the AC3 joke and the AC1 so called 'joke'.

Let me tell a story, which I'm pretty sure I share with a lot of people, of a wee bit 16-17 years old lad playing AC1 for the first time (and enjoying it greatly). Knowing that in games where collectibles are present, the general rule of thumb is - get collectibles = get something really cool for your trouble, I've spent hours and hours collecting all the 420 flags. My mind was running with thoughts, 'what could be worth all these flags? Is it a new set of missions? New playable areas? Something new and secret in the present day? Some hidden Animus section?', and the more I collected the more I thought about what it could possibly unlock, because I couldn't fathom that getting all of them wouldn't result in anything, I was participating in the traditional at the time (and now as well, I suppose) convention of putting time into the game to get something of value for me in return.

I didn't particularly like collecting flags (especially considering it was hard and annoying as hell in AC1), but that was the only thing left to do and I liked the game, so I did it. And then I finally collected all of them. And the result was of what could be worth all that trouble, all the hours put into this, is.... all checkmarks are ticked. I didn't even get an achievement (as I was playing on PC), but even if I did, that's a crappy consolation to the whole ordeal. So you'll excuse me that after Patrice comes out and says that 'flags are a joke', my and many others reaction to that it 'Patrice... you're a great guy, but when it comes to flags... **** you.' :p I think that's pretty understandable :p

The AC3 joke is just a minute of your time. Two, if you count running to the conversation location. The AC1 flags are a huge chunk of the game (which is why I've compared it to stealth detection, and yes, that'a an exaggerated comparison, the two are not of the same importance value, but it shows my overall point). And you know, AC1 tries to hide a lot of its game mechanics or 'gamyness', but it's a pretty conventional game. There's health, checkpoints, character upgrade progression, location unlocking, and while we're at it, rewards for other 'collectibles' - map uncovering for view points, and additional gameplay elements for saving citizens. All that is very conventional. So the expectation that the game sets is that, since flags are in there in the first place, they're conventional as well. But they're not. They're absolutely pointless. The game tricks you, and that's why there's vitrol.

And, personally, now that I'm a much more experienced designer than I was back then (when I was just learning the ropes with modding and reading material and whatnot) and have my thoughts regarding what makes good or bad collectibles (https://stanislavcostiuc.com/2016/08/23/assassins-creed-rogue-and-good-open-world-collectibles/), I really don't like AC1 flags because they've set a trend in the AC series, of incorporating ****tons of collectibles. The joke failed, so what Patrice did in AC2 was to make all the ****tons of collectibles 'useful' by transforming them into chests and feathers placed all over around the map. And the way AC2 does it is really... not good at all. But technically it still follows conventions (and a lot of open-world games do it like this). So people are fine with it, and when compared to AC1 flags, 'oh yeah, it's much better than AC1 flags'. So putting tons of collectibles became a 'standard' in the series, and that's really sad to me because if not for that ****ty joke, if something proper would have actually be done with the flags, this 'standard' could've been avoided, replaced by a much more better design. But we have what we have now. At least Patrice got his joke, right? :p

Fatal-Feit
10-04-2016, 09:57 PM
A bit too busy to reply to your post SixKeys, but I'll get to it later this week. I want just to mention that in regards to the flags in AC1, they are literally scattered all over the map and ignoring them is harder for me than you think. When you complete a sequence, free-roam or whatever, the game constantly reminds you of their presence because it's tied to 100% completion and they are so frequently spread all over the map. During my first time in Acre, I tried to ignore the flags and take my time with the other content so I won't feel fatigued from the get-go. Straight up, glancing around the locations, I can already see multiple flags all around the rooftops. I admire AC1 for its beauty, but the flags are a turn-off when I try to take screenshots or admire the scenery, so I'm always compelled to grab them and then do my business. When I parkour to reach a mission and/or escape a chase, I sometimes just run right into them and the screen goes bright with the achievement sound acting like it's a big accomplishment, kind of taking me out of those moments. If these flags were a joke, they should have done a better job of making them hidden instead of keeping their presence so exposed all the time, because by sequence 3, they are beating a dead horse and it just becomes annoying. And additionally, collecting flags adds to your maximum health bars from what I could tell, so they're more than just a tick in the number box in the menu. They might not be pointing a gun to my head, but they sure are constantly reminding me that this feature exists and that I should complete it.

RinoTheBouncer
10-06-2016, 11:35 AM
Actually I think Assassin's Creed one is a masterpiece. It does have it's flaws with the stealth and parkour, like you said, the tumbling and tripping kinda felt unrefined, and the game was very repetitive, yes. But I speaking of linearity, I'd rather have a linear AC game with such atmosphere and story-telling on focus on what truly matters, than a game that is big for nothing with more side missions than main ones and the side missions being more of a quantity than a quality.

cawatrooper9
10-06-2016, 08:13 PM
Saying that the flags in AC1 were intended as a joke seems an awful lot like backtracking, to me. Have you ever seen someone say something just absolutely awful while in a fit of passion, then try to say that they were only joking. That's kind of how I'm seeing this...

SixKeys
10-06-2016, 11:20 PM
Saying that the flags in AC1 were intended as a joke seems an awful lot like backtracking, to me. Have you ever seen someone say something just absolutely awful while in a fit of passion, then try to say that they were only joking. That's kind of how I'm seeing this...

Again, if it was just an excuse, Patrice wouldn't have still defended it recently now that he's no longer working at Ubi. He's been straightforward about many other things he considers flawed about the first game, why would he lie about this one thing?

cawatrooper9
10-07-2016, 05:11 PM
Again, if it was just an excuse, Patrice wouldn't have still defended it recently now that he's no longer working at Ubi. He's been straightforward about many other things he considers flawed about the first game, why would he lie about this one thing?

I don't know, I cannot say why he does or does not do things. Perhaps he feels personally more responsible for this decision, for whatever reason, and feels compelled still to be defensive about it. I just really, really feel like this is a lame excuse, that's all.