PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed Games "will have less narrative focus"



Sorrosyss
11-17-2016, 10:38 PM
Very interesting interview with the Ubisoft CCO. I've collated it from various sources, including the original French version (http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2016/11/15/dans-les-prochains-jeux-video-ubisoft-il-y-aura-de-moins-en-moins-de-narration_5031610_4408996.html).


Speaking with French newspaper Le Monde, and translated by GI.biz, Ubisoft CCO Serge Hascoet said narrative in games should be more of an “anecdote factory,” or a minor part of the game, instead of forcing players to follow a narrative path.

Instead, Ubisoft wants to give players freedom to continue the path of the story, or venture off into other areas of the game before deciding when or if to return. Without narrative restrictions, this allows the player to interact more with the game’s world as is the case with Far Cry Primal and the recently released Watch Dogs 2.

Both games provide the player with a world which seems to be more alive than scripted, and the first title to take full advantage of the studio’s new approach to games will be the next entry in the Assassin’s Creed franchise.

According to Hascoet, the Assassin’s Creed development team has “created a system” which has “meaning” to the player when performing certain actions, and said actions will also affect the game long-term as they “change the world.”

“[Assassin’s Creed] remained a narrative game, because we wanted to meet the Borgias, the Medicis, Leonardo da Vinci, etc. All this is great. But now our business is to meet characters without it being imposed by the game,” said Hascoet.

“When there are cutscenes in a game, it bothers me, because it removes my ability for expression, During these scenes, I’m not doing what I want to do, which is evolve in this world. I don’t want us to write one story, I want there to be tens of thousands of stories, that each character has one, and I can speak to them if I want to know that story.”

"What interests me is to create worlds that are interesting to me as well as to anyone else," he says. “If I have a game set in San Francisco (like Watch Dogs 2), I’d want even my mom to be able to have fun, drive a boat, helicopter, car… There has to be interesting people to meet, too, and that they come across well. Also, the player has to be able to enjoy themselves. We want to give them many methods: private detective, assassin, hacker, hunter… You can try out these professions along with their problems, and to become more powerful.”

"I don't want to be forced to play the story created by somebody else. We still have games like this but I want the player to write his/her own story. They set an objective, they understand the possibilities available to them and they accomplish that mission the way they want to."

"[Wasn't this always the objective of Ubisoft's games?] In my mind yes but in games like Far Cry and Assassin's Creed, for instance, there was a lot of narration going on.

"The next Assassin's Creed will be the first game to adopt this new approach."


It would be very easy to jump to conclusions here. On the face of it, it suggests that the next game may well do away with the traditional linear story sequences and cutscenes, and just leave you with a series of strong independent stories akin to side missions from the other games. I've only played Watch Dogs 2 for a few hours thus far so I can't cite that, but certainly Far Cry Primal had a similar approach, and in my view had a much weaker watered down story as a result - weird dialect aside.

With Ubisoft themselves stating that The Division was their long term template of their future games, you can start to see how this may well be turning out. Being able to play as 'his or her' story might even suggest a character creation tool, something that arguably you could never have had with a distinct and linear narrative surrounding a hero's journey - such as Ezio. With CD Projekt Red and Rockstar both seemingly adding seamless multiplayer to their upcoming open world games, Ubisoft may well be following suit with their flagship series as well.

I'm not so sure this will sit well with many players whom fell in love with the overarching plotline to the franchise. On reflection, this all kind of makes sense following on from the news that the Phoenix Project storyline - our main modern day element since AC4 - will in fact be concluded within the comics. For many, it was seen as a chance to wipe the slate clean and reboot the modern day, but in light of the above it may well be that the meta plot has been stripped from the games permanently, and will remain purely in the domain of the books and comics.

This is all speculation, but it certainly raises some interesting points for discussion.

ze_topazio
11-17-2016, 11:02 PM
That didn't exactly worked perfectly for MGSV, but MGSV managed to get away with it because the gameplay and game design was stellar, let's hope the gameplay and game design of next AC is stellar too.

But hey, good thing they're trying to make the AC worlds feel more alive, despite all the fancy npcs and beautiful cities, the AC world always felt dead, you can't really interact with many things, ride enough vehicles, genuinely influence the random routines of the npcs, etc.., everything you can do is scripted.

Like you said, they could structure the story in a collection of fairly independent side stories, and in the end everything suddenly connects and you realize everything had a point, a bit like Zelda.

Lysette88
11-17-2016, 11:03 PM
Well, it is a bit strange to hear that the meta-story might be stripped totally - my guess is more that it will be reduced to a necessary level, when you have to jump from one point in time to another one, like the WW2 part in Unity and the WW1 part in Syndicate for example. I personally do not like to be pulled out of immersion and be thrown into the Abstergo meta level too often - and if, I do not want to do extended tasks in this mode, because I want to experience the main time period, which is the main game theme. The Abstergo part is distracting from this, especially for people like me, who haven't played a lot of AC games yet (but I am going to).

Now with the AC movie coming up, there has to be a meta-Abstergo part of the movie, or ti will not be understood by people who never played an AC game before or haven't played a lot of them. To me the meta story is confusing for example, because I started to play the series backwards. So to me it will be interesting to see, what I can learn from the movie about the meta-part of the game. Seen from this, it would be contradictory to strip the meta-level from the game totally - why would it be just in the movie and not in future games?

crusader_prophet
11-17-2016, 11:14 PM
This is unsettling news for me. To me the illusion of making my mark in the game-world works better than being a completely rudderless ship with patches of conversations with NPCs here and there. In my opinion, the idea should be to strike a balance between giving the player the freedom to feel their importance of decisions in the game compared to having them run amok in the world with no clear objective. Without narrative focus there is no driver to keep moving. I don't play a game for a real life simulation, I play a game to experience a story that I will never be able to in real life. Just driving a boat for no reason isn't fun for me. If I am engaged in action while driving the boat and there is a narrative cliffhanger on the other side, that is fun for me. I don't want to run around San Francisco hacking random people driven by a bare-bones objective with no narrative impact or motivation. Giving players freedom and the feel of "creating" own story sounds all good, but there has to be a balance as well. If there is no compelling mysteries and nerve wrecking story unfolding on the other side of doing or not doing an activity in the open world, then where is the motivation to run around in a rudderless open world and interact with NPCs?

Pandassin
11-18-2016, 12:58 AM
This new approach sounds... interesting, I'm really curious to see how it works out.

The thing is though, isn't narrative kinda an important thing in this series? I've no idea where Ubi is going with this approach, but I hope they still put a lot of focus on a strong, memorable story as well as the other stuff.

m4r-k7
11-18-2016, 02:20 AM
“When there are cutscenes in a game, it bothers me, because it removes my ability for expression, During these scenes, I’m not doing what I want to do, which is evolve in this world. I don’t want us to write one story, I want there to be tens of thousands of stories, that each character has one, and I can speak to them if I want to know that story.”

This quote particularly scares me. Until we see the next game in action it is hard to understand what he means by this new approach, but saying that a cutscene removes the ability for expression is just ridiculous - how about you put a large amount of effort into the script and overall story arch? I mean since the Ezio games (exlcuding AC 4), the stories have been particularly sub-par, which has not been due to the amount of narrative in the game, but rather it has been the execution of it.

Sigma 1313
11-18-2016, 03:24 AM
To me this is a bit worrisome. I love Assassin's Creed because of the interesting stories of the ancestors and the convoluted plot of the modern day. The moment that I finished Assassin's Creed 1 in 2008 I got online and started researching the glyphs and everything, trying to piece it all together with the newly announced ACII in the Renaissance. The strong narrative is what brought me me in and hooked me since the first game.

D.I.D.
11-18-2016, 03:30 AM
Knowing the way Watch Dogs 2 works, I'm optimistic about this. WD2 has some great missions that are accessed by following leads: finding a person of interest, hacking their phone, eavesdropping on their conversation, following another lead to go and do something else. I'm fine with that in AC, so that we can go and look for particular historic figures if they are of interest to us. The game can easily funnel us back into the main story by having these characters direct us back to a core line when necessary.

A strict division between Main Story and Side Content is mostly unhelpful, both to players and the game.

RinoTheBouncer
11-18-2016, 01:03 PM
Actually this is like a dagger to my heart. I thought that this whole one year gap and the reinvention of the brand will put more focus on the lore and even when they said they might adopt the movie version of the Animus "Claw" into the games. It gave me great hope that the lore and the over-arching narrative will be something big. But that doesn't seem to be the case. You mentioned The Division, that game worked because it was marketed for people who love that type of games and it was an original brand and never really promised any mind-blowing story-telling. From the get go, that game was meant to be the way it turn up.

As for Assassin's Creed, they presented massive cities with Unity and Syndicate and none of those managed to bring that much of a positive feedback, at least in comparison to the previous games. I don't see how player choices will work with Animus Synchronization and how it will be able to tell a cohesive story. I love games that give me the choice to do things my way, but this isn't Heavy Rain or Beyond Two Souls. The latters are two games that I adore, but they're story-driven games that were planned to be the way they were. Assassin's Creed is a game that was all about story-telling, connectivity, exploration and mystery.

I don't wanna sound pessimistic, but I care more for proper story-telling than multiple ways to finish a mission. I didn't get into the Assassin's Creed franchise because of its vast worlds, side missions, gameplay mechanics or weapons, I got into it because it presented an amazing story and some entertaining gameplay to go with it, and even when the gameplay wasn't very fun, the story and the revelations that came after playing made the experience worthwhile.

I hope we've misunderstood the interview, I hope the true meaning is lost in translation, I hope we're wrong and the game will focus more on story-telling. Everyone here knows how much I adore the Assassin's Creed franchise and Ubisoft. Just don't take away the lore. Please... I wanna engage with it, I wanna be part of it, I don't wanna read notes, I don't wanna finish a main story in a comic book, I don't wanna do side missions to understand important plot elements or search for deleted cutscenes that leak online. I wanna have a game that offers me all this in a well-directed visual presentation.

D.I.D.
11-18-2016, 02:12 PM
I really don't understand what so many of you have seen here that makes you think the lore has gone, or that the underpinning of the First Civ story is out, or that the modern day is gone.

A "less focussed narrative" does not mean "narrative no longer matters". Far from it: this system should be much richer in story, and provide different experiences to different players and to the player who plays more than once.

At the moment, we have a theme park experience with too many divisions separating types of realities. We know that the citizens are on a low rung of the ladder of realities, compared to character NPCs who are sitting in a higher reality. The citizens may be fun to listen to and to watch, but we know ultimately that they are the animatronics of the theme park, and nothing they say or do has real consequence. But haven't we always wished that they did? Ubisoft is answering that wish here, and taking away that wall: integrating those realities to make a more cohesive world. Listening to them and interacting with them can now produce clues to lead us to more story, in a way that feels more organic. Or newspapers can be read that get us a hint, or you might see a strange symbol on a wall, and another, and another. The pubs and taverns have been oddly useless so far, but what if we went to social centres to see what we could pick up?

As for the characters, think of Syndicate. Every major character could have various hints ready to go, depending on how much story you've stacked up, and they feed you an appropriate lead for your amount of story. You might complete Karl Marx's request, and he might tell you of whispers he's overheard of an explosives plot against the Queen, and tell you which of the activists told him. Or maybe you were talking with Florence Nightingale at the hospital at that point, and instead she's the one who tells you about the curious case of a delirious patient, poisoned by the flammable chemicals covering his skin, who muttered about the plot while half-conscious. Or maybe your player has not built up so much story yet, so she tells you instead about a man who was brought in unconscious with a bizarrely large amount of money in his bag, and it turns out to be counterfeit cash...

None of this interferes with modern day plot, which can also be cut in. You can have "All Roads Lead To Rome" bottlenecks in the story where every hint you hear is leading you towards a tomb level, and you find a ghostly message in there from the Isu. It ends, and we switch out into the modern day to find out how this encounter relates to Rebecca and Shaun's struggle. We then go back to the historical story after that.

There are many ways this can work, and I don't foresee any problems with it at all. All they mean is that the game will not have these distinctions between major and minor story, and that we will be encouraged to engage with this world in order to progress. That is very positive.

cawatrooper9
11-18-2016, 03:35 PM
Are you kidding me?

Ubisoft, this is a mistake. A horrible mistake.

I get the soft reboots you've been trying to do- that's how you get more fans in this generation. But dropping the story is not the answer. Also, stop with the soft reboots already and just tell a damn story. We're all patiently waiting.

D.I.D.
11-18-2016, 04:17 PM
Are you kidding me?

Ubisoft, this is a mistake. A horrible mistake.

I get the soft reboots you've been trying to do- that's how you get more fans in this generation. But dropping the story is not the answer. Also, stop with the soft reboots already and just tell a damn story. We're all patiently waiting.

Don't be so glum!

This is a solution to a problem - well, more than one.

Ubisoft's open worlds have developed a bad reputation for being maps filled to overflowing with icons. Even here, the fans complain about every new game feeling unconvincing because of a lack of urgency in the plot; that as we meter out progress based on the icons we have yet to clean up, we lose the sense that our assassin cares about the big mission. There is also a disconnect between the theoretical boundlessness of the open world with the absolute linearity of the story thread.

This proposal solves those issues in a radical and satisfying way. The game can drop more breadcrumbs to the end goal while allowing us to truly explore the world and chain our own narrative. The core story is still there, but its discovery and pacing will be much better.

You can have AC1/2's approach to story preserved in aspic forever, but I guarantee you the series will die like that. I guarantee you someone else would have solved this problem instead, and their game would have leapfrogged AC and become the new model for open world games. I am glad to see that AC is going to get there first.

Sigma 1313
11-18-2016, 04:55 PM
Don't be so glum!

This is a solution to a problem - well, more than one.

Ubisoft's open worlds have developed a bad reputation for being maps filled to overflowing with icons. Even here, the fans complain about every new game feeling unconvincing because of a lack of urgency in the plot; that as we meter out progress based on the icons we have yet to clean up, we lose the sense that our assassin cares about the big mission. There is also a disconnect between the theoretical boundlessness of the open world with the absolute linearity of the story thread.

This proposal solves those issues in a radical and satisfying way. The game can drop more breadcrumbs to the end goal while allowing us to truly explore the world and chain our own narrative. The core story is still there, but its discovery and pacing will be much better.

You can have AC1/2's approach to story preserved in aspic forever, but I guarantee you the series will die like that. I guarantee you someone else would have solved this problem instead, and their game would have leapfrogged AC and become the new model for open world games. I am glad to see that AC is going to get there first.

I really hope that it's just to make the world more lively. I agree that the NPCs and world have always felt a bit dead, so something like finding missions by talking to people or overhearing something would definitely be cool, I don't want to see the death of the strong narrative both in the modern day and in the past. After thinking about it a while, I'm cautiously optimistic for now, but I'd love to hear some clarification from Ubi.

Lysette88
11-18-2016, 06:11 PM
IMO the Abstergo-meta level decides about how linear or non-linear the game world is experienced, because it is basically goal-oriented and hints you get will shape what the meta-level wants you to do next. This or it is done like in Unity, where you cannot progress your skills without to progress in the main story. Whereas in Syndicate you have the freedom to progress your character as you want with very little restriction by how far you have progressed in the main story already. Both has pros and cons, for example in Syndicate I got overpowered before I even had done half of the main story, because I engaged in all the side missions and side activities - especially fight clubs, which gave too much money and skill points to the player - think of the fight club in the Strand, that is one skill point and 4000 pounds after every session. This has to be in balance in a way, as much fun as it is to fight in those clubs, something should stop you from doing that too often - like for example less payout or less skill progress - you cannot reasonably gain all the skills you need from just doing one activity over and over again - but this was possible in Syndicate for example and I fell into this trap the first time around. On the other hand, I felt forced to do the main story in Unity, because I wanted a few skills early on and the only way to get to them was by progressing in the main story line.

Then there is another component to it, where I think this is why the world can feel empty - in Syndicate you have a bunch of generic missions - like cargo escorts and hijacking for example - which you can play as often as you want and I did them mainly when I came across them while wandering along the streets of London - an opportunity shows up, eagle view to see if police is around and where and then eventually go for the mission. I liked those, even they have no real story element to them, and they could be done in like 5-10 minutes. There is an endless supply of these kind of missions and one can buy even more by unlocking them with money. Or think of the activities on the Thames River, an endless supply of missions which take just a minute or two each. In Unity for example you can run out of activities - you work on them like on a check list and when you have done them all the world is empty and has no further content in it - this is the old way, which has to be avoided.

Well, to be fair Unity has them in form of the kill criminals and tackle the thief as well, but this is done in seconds, and the world can feel rather empty despite a huge amount of NPCs around, but you cannot do much with them. The check list like approach has to be avoided, where you basically work your way through the check list and that is the game.

ERICATHERINE
11-18-2016, 06:20 PM
I'd love to hear some clarification from Ubi.

This for me too. I can't say which side I'm on for now, because it could mean too many, too different things.

Does this mean there won't be a continuation of the Juno plot?

That we will get md, but in a way more little amount?

Will it be like an historical watch dog? ...

There is just too many possibility and while some could be like the ones D.I.D. talked about, there could surely be a number of bad points. I'm afraid this could be do or die for the ac games. °~°

Lysette88
11-18-2016, 06:23 PM
Nah, it is not do or die, it is just a change in direction and future games will eventually find another audience which will play them. There is room for all IMO, it could have both, strong story and freedom.

With Sydicate I felt that it is more suitable for casual gaming - when you have just 20-30 minutes to play, you can successfully play Syndicate in an entertaining way, there is content which just requires a couple of minutes to do and you can do more than one of them - and that's great. With former games you had to dedicate some time to play or you would not have made any progress, because you did not reach the next check point.

The4orTy67
11-18-2016, 07:50 PM
Hmm this somewhat again adds fuel to the 4Chan post where it said that the protag was going to be very silent and the story itself not really about assassins and templars.
A real pity for longtime fans of the series, but this AC will finally be my jumping on point, seeing as it is going to be a (soft?) reboot.

Sorrosyss
11-18-2016, 09:20 PM
Nah, it is not do or die, it is just a change in direction and future games will eventually find another audience which will play them. There is room for all IMO, it could have both, strong story and freedom.


You make a valid point, and this has been raised in regards to the Modern Day (or meta plot) previously. Any new fan to the franchise would technically have thirteen or so titles of story to catch up with. How easy would it be for Ubisoft to make a summary of the story thus far with each passing sequel?

It's a tricky area, and from the perspective of trying to attract a brand new audience it would make sense to try and remove the main narrative in this fashion. After all, at this point they already have the brand loyalty of existing fans. Their aim will surely be to bring in new fans, especially those exposed to the franchise via the movie. Toning the narrative down would make complete sense in that regard, as much as the lore fan within me hates to agree with it.

Sushiglutton
11-18-2016, 09:54 PM
I really like that they are trying new things. I read the post a few times, still have a hard time picturing exactly what it means. Does the quote below indicate you can wander around the world and stumble upon an NPC and then start some kind of story arc?


I don’t want us to write one story, I want there to be tens of thousands of stories, that each character has one, and I can speak to them if I want to know that story.”

I just don't get how this is possible to do with quality? I mean the Cristina missions in BH were kind of a seperate thing, but that was just one character. In the Homestead they did a bit of this, not succesfully imo. But perhaps he's talking about something comletely different.

It's interesting becaust I have felt like the side content need more narrative meat to feel l´more meaningful. But sounds like they are going in the opposite direction?

Oh well, like I said I'm not really sure what this means, very excited to find out more :)!

LoyalACFan
11-19-2016, 01:12 AM
Hoping the message was lost in translation, but this is VERY upsetting to me, as someone who's interested in writing and storytelling. I've put about ten hours into W_D_2, and while it is a fun game, this same trend that the CCO is discussing as an exciting new approach is quickly emerging as a critical weakness. W_D_2 has fun mechanics to mess around with, but when you try to tell eight million stories at once, you end up telling none at all. Your narrative becomes muddled, you can't allow for any real character development, and everything starts slurring together. Spoilers ahead for W_D_2.

The main "story" is divided up piecemeal across several different "operations," and none of them really seem to have anything to do with one another beyond a vague promise of growing more followers to take down the big bad. One of the first main missions is a sort of detective plot where you have to solve the murders of some gang members, which culminates with Marcus briefly teaming up with Aiden Pearce to bust out of a gangster's underground prison. The whole thing is over in like 30 minutes, and then immediately forgotten as I go take down a totally-not-Scientology cult with a totally-not-Tom-Cruise action star. Then that mission is over in 30 minutes and immediately forgotten as I go take down somebody else. It all quickly becomes extremely disjointed, and while I like Marcus' personality, he feels like a totally static character and I'm not emotionally invested in him or his problems whatsoever.

I get that they want players to have their own stories, but they're going about it in a backwards direction. You can't just script in a million half-assed NPC stories and expect anyone to really engage with that and tell their friends about it. Player stories come from interesting mechanics that allow for experimentation and the occasional epic fail. Let me pick on GTA5 as an example; when I tell people about my own "player stories," I talk about the time I tried to break into the military base on a motorscooter, or the time I went hunting sharks in a speedboat, or the time I got ripped apart by the police while parachuting out of a flaming cargo jet I stole from the airport... I don't tell people about a sidequest I did for some NPC. Because GTA has a lot of those, and most people will never see them, but they're scripted, stale, limited, and the same for everybody. And that's precisely the result that I'm afraid the CCO's idea will deliver way more of.

TL;DR you should just make better and deeper core mechanics if you want people to have stories to tell to their gaming friends, not try to force it with zillions of little scripted side missions.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-19-2016, 01:18 AM
Narrative is the only thing that keeps me coming back.
See you in the bargain bin Ubisoft games.

inferno33222
11-19-2016, 06:36 AM
This is making me come out of lurking a bit, haha.

I think I'll wait until the game comes out, or gets closer to release, to fully judge of course, but I am a little worried by this.

This quote is particularly worrying for me:


“When there are cutscenes in a game, it bothers me, because it removes my ability for expression, During these scenes, I’m not doing what I want to do, which is evolve in this world. I don’t want us to write one story, I want there to be tens of thousands of stories, that each character has one, and I can speak to them if I want to know that story.”

He seems to be saying that he doesn't want a strong story or cutscenes, and would rather have lots of little stories for players. I think Loyal has it right though; cool stories that you tell your friends come from strong gameplay mechanics and systems. His GTA V example hit the nail on the head. A cool story can only come from strong gameplay systems that can interact with each other and are consistent, and this is something Ubisoft has never been good at.

MGS V is probably the best example of a game with strong systems. They need to be consistent to allow a player to plan based on their expectations and still do something unscripted. I forget which review it was, but a reviewer told a story of how he was infiltrating a base in MGS V and moving a body when a guard spotted him. He was carrying the body over his shoulder and the guard was below him, beneath a balcony. Thinking fast, the reviewer threw the body at the guard and it hit him, knocking him out. I can almost guarantee you that would not have worked in an AC game. Ubisoft always seems to focus on scripted events and mechanics that only work under very specific circumstances, rather than building systems with lots of consistency and depth.

Based on their record, I'm not confident that Ubisoft can make a game with strong gameplay mechanics. Besides, renowned games like GTA, RDR, The Witcher, etc all have great stories as well as great mechanics. This interview doesn't make me very excited.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-19-2016, 07:37 AM
This really is heart breaking
Systems alone cant carry a game
I dont want no mans creed

D.I.D.
11-19-2016, 08:16 AM
Thinking about it, AC is already getting left behind on this score.

Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned The Witcher 3. Remember how many of you were praising TW3? "It does story so well. Why can't we have an AC that plays like this?"

Well, one of the great things that TW3 does with story is that not every segment is packaged into a set thing and slapped under a map icon. Lots of things happen only because you were walking past two knights having an interesting discussion, and listening gave you a new story branch. Or you found and read a book, or a notice, or talked to a villager.

There was so much story in TW3 that the vast majority of players never saw it all. The really thorough explorers were rewarded with experiences that only they got to see. Exploration could throw you midway or even right to the end of something that would otherwise be a quest, and the game had adaptive conversation in case you ever ran into the person who would have been the quest-giver. Every player had a handful of quest lines on the boil at any given time, and could hop between them depending on what they felt like doing at that time. Everyone got their money's worth and left with the impression of a great story.

Other open world games are already taking the first steps in this direction. You know very well that AC story hasn't really been delivering 100% for a long time, and it's not simply a matter of writing a better story. It's also about structure, and doing something to remove the sense of having a "grind list" of activities, a "side" list of activities, and a "main" story that causes arguments because it's "only" 8 hours or whatever. The game needs to evolve.

Sushiglutton
11-19-2016, 01:28 PM
Interesting points D.I,D! As soon as the holiday starts I need to start playing the Witcher 3. It's the game everyone talks about and I feel like I don't understand the conversation anymore because I haven't kept up with gaming due to a lack of time. Well I don't just want to play it to be able to talk about it, it's supposedly a great game all around.

I'm a bit of a wanderer when I play OW games. I typically don't enjoy the organzed content too much. I just like drifting around. So I actually think this new approach could fit me very well.

ajl992015
11-19-2016, 02:18 PM
For me I took this as how they do things in Bloodborne where the environment has a huge part to play in story telling and also how you progress. In Bloodborne to progress through the game there are multiple ways to go though the hub world to get there, you learn things from different people in the game and multiple ways to get to a location and sometimes shortcuts to an earlier part of the game as you go through.

In context of AC I'm thinking he means there is no set 'main path' and 'side missions'. They are all blended in where one mission what you do leaves a clue to the main story and slowly guides you back there so your journey to getting to the point to assassinating templar x will be different from mine. For example you could venture off and help the thief's guild for something and they tell you about a secret meeting where templar x is held and gives you additional information to prepare or alternatively you are doing a contract for the order and the target has a letter with details on the templar, again moving you in that direction.

Everything will have purpose and they will only use 'cutscenes' when they need to otherwise they will try to tell their story through the environment and dialogue, like bloodborne which actually works so well. I am way more immersed in bloodborne then I am in any assassins creed game except for revelations for which I think Constantinople was incredibly immersive as a city.

They can bring random events that don't have that stupid highlight but are just there and are for you to notice through visual or sound queues like with bloodborne.

I see this as simply blending everything together, adding sense of discovery like with say fallout 4 where you could come across random locations or areas and the game NEVER tells you but its for you to find but depending on what you come across can effect the main path.

I am replaying the ezio collection and I really think the reason ac is not good now is because of all the whiners who love ac2 and acb so much when in reality they have week stories and some cheesy dialogue. I loved ac2 but replaying it now the story is not as good as later games and some of the voice acting and cutscenes are actually garbage. I am assassinating the targets in tuscany and there is just no build up to these, no emotion when killing these targets unlike later games where they set their target up so well (ac4, ac3, ac1 and even acs did this very well). in ac2 and acb who cares about these villains except for maybe 3 or 4 of them? And even those are such week villains and everyone hates ahmed in acr even though his reasonings are way better then Cesare "GUARDS' borgia.

Ubisoft kept trying to chase 'AC2' when really ac2 was good for the time but now with games like bloodborne, last of us and fallout and other great games for story telling and exploration, the AC2/ACB model does not work and people who think this less 'strict' narrative focus need to just wait and keep an open mind and forget the ac2 days, we can have way better.

The games I mentioned DESTROY ac but we could have games fo that quality again because unlike those games the premise and idea of AC is so special, nothing like it. But there is a lot for AC to learn.

driveinns
11-19-2016, 03:34 PM
I just want the AC games to feel as great as the games I have played up until now! AC is one of my fave franchises, I don't want to lose that. I want a good robust story along with side stuff, I enjoy ALL of the gameplay in many Ubisoft titles. I play Far Cry, Watch_dogs and AC plus the division. So I like their particular style. I just don't want to play the next AC game and feel as though I'm just bogged down in what feels like the side quests from the older games.

I hope this is a good thing and is done well. But having said that I need story. I need good characters and interesting times and great stories, Altair, Ezio, Connor, Edward, Jacob, Evie, aveline and even Arno all gave me these and more! I really don't want to lose that. Please make this good, or go back! :)

Thanks.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-19-2016, 03:40 PM
Thinking about it, AC is already getting left behind on this score.

Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned The Witcher 3. Remember how many of you were praising TW3? "It does story so well. Why can't we have an AC that plays like this?"

Well, one of the great things that TW3 does with story is that not every segment is packaged into a set thing and slapped under a map icon. Lots of things happen only because you were walking past two knights having an interesting discussion, and listening gave you a new story branch. Or you found and read a book, or a notice, or talked to a villager.

There was so much story in TW3 that the vast majority of players never saw it all. The really thorough explorers were rewarded with experiences that only they got to see. Exploration could throw you midway or even right to the end of something that would otherwise be a quest, and the game had adaptive conversation in case you ever ran into the person who would have been the quest-giver. Every player had a handful of quest lines on the boil at any given time, and could hop between them depending on what they felt like doing at that time. Everyone got their money's worth and left with the impression of a great story.

Other open world games are already taking the first steps in this direction. You know very well that AC story hasn't really been delivering 100% for a long time, and it's not simply a matter of writing a better story. It's also about structure, and doing something to remove the sense of having a "grind list" of activities, a "side" list of activities, and a "main" story that causes arguments because it's "only" 8 hours or whatever. The game needs to evolve.

You're right.. The Witcher 3 was praised... As a really great 9
It wasnt a 10 though.. and its weak narrative had a lot to do with that.. at least for me as a critic...
The same with Watch_Dogs 2 ... Everything wrong with the gameplay could've been fixed and it could ever only be a 9.5 without a strong narrative....
If ubisoft is fine with really good 9s.. so be it...
But they need to rip our damn hearts out if they ever want to reach a 10 again...
Noone would complain about an 8 hour campaign if you cry at the end...
If your breath is taken away throughout
Its about quality over quantity and AC has been doing the opposite of this since AC IV
And without narrative Assassins Creed Iv is just a repetive sailing simulator with tailing missions.
Narrative is the reason everyone happily buys a naughtydog 8-12 hour game for $60 and tells you how damn worth it it is.
Theres nothing special about the mechanics in Uncharted 4, or The Last of us...
What is special is how much we love the pratagonist and charcaters we meet... that breathes life into the missions and gives us a reason to see the story out...
If I wanted to make my own story, id write a damn book.
Why dont you ask Mafia 3 how stepping away from narrative went.

LoyalACFan
11-19-2016, 03:56 PM
^ Actually yeah, STDly, Mafia III is another great example of problematic nonlinear storytelling. Because honestly, nonlinear storytelling isn't a thing. If there's no definite narrative arc, there can't really be any character growth. Lincoln Clay is pretty much the same guy from the minute his revenge quest starts all the way to the end. Sure, I sympathized with him, but I wasn't invested in him. That's just the tip of the iceberg concerning Mafia III's issues, though, and I really don't want to do a deep dive on it at the moment.

TBH a lot of recent games are doing something like this. I'm thinking of Syndicate, Mafia III, and WD2 specifically. All three of them just give you a vague goal of "taking back your city" while systematically weakening the bad guy, and turn you loose to tackle the story in any order you want. And the narrative is really weak in all three of them. And yeah, I know Syndicate does have chronological sequences, but you can do Sequence 8 (the only one that features character development) less than halfway through the game, which utterly destroys Jacob's character arc when he goes back to being a meathead thug in the other (technically earlier) sequences if you play Seq. 8 first. And I unlocked it after like Sequence 3 or something.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-19-2016, 04:05 PM
^ Actually yeah, STDly, Mafia III is another great example of problematic nonlinear storytelling. Because honestly, nonlinear storytelling isn't a thing. If there's no definite narrative arc, there can't really be any character growth. Lincoln Clay is pretty much the same guy from the minute his revenge quest starts all the way to the end. Sure, I sympathized with him, but I wasn't invested in him. That's just the tip of the iceberg concerning Mafia III's issues, though, and I really don't want to do a deep dive on it at the moment.

TBH a lot of recent games are doing something like this. I'm thinking of Syndicate, Mafia III, and WD2 specifically. All three of them just give you a vague goal of "taking back your city" while systematically weakening the bad guy, and turn you loose to tackle the story in any order you want. And the narrative is really weak in all three of them. And yeah, I know Syndicate does have chronological sequences, but you can do Sequence 8 (the only one that features character development) less than halfway through the game, which utterly destroys Jacob's character arc when he goes back to being a meathead thug in the other (technically earlier) sequences if you play Seq. 8 first. And I unlocked it after like Sequence 3 or something.

youre 100% right....
I was going to mention syndacite, but i felt i said enough...
Syndicate felt like an open world with a random cutscene thrown in there from time to time
I dont want my missions set in an open world UNLESS during the cutscene the game is loading up triggered events, otherwise im just getting what id get mindlessly running around... And thats how i felt the whole time playing Syndicate...
That youre going to send me to a place that would be no different if i were in story or not.. and it made the campaign and story ultimately feel weak...
Relying on an algorythm isnt enough (see No Mans Sky)
We need a tocuh of hand crafted events, otheriwse were a kid in a sandbox banging action figures together.

joshoolhorst
11-19-2016, 04:21 PM
Or you skip the cutscenes... Just press the B button it is right there... Just right there

But seriously the story is why I love this series so much and keeps the forum active but I am open for change and I do think this series needs a reboot

STDlyMcStudpants
11-19-2016, 04:34 PM
Or you skip the cutscenes... Just press the B button it is right there... Just right there

But seriously the story is why I love this series so much and keeps the forum active but I am open for change and I do think this series needs a reboot

If youre a single player game....Story sells seuquells....
No one thinks.. man i cant wait to press square in a bush some more next novemeber...
No...
We want to become a character with the thoughts and motives of someone in a different time or setting...
Not some guy from 2016 animating a corpse lmfao

D.I.D.
11-19-2016, 05:51 PM
You're right.. The Witcher 3 was praised... As a really great 9
It wasnt a 10 though.. and its weak narrative had a lot to do with that.. at least for me as a critic...
The same with Watch_Dogs 2 ... Everything wrong with the gameplay could've been fixed and it could ever only be a 9.5 without a strong narrative....
If ubisoft is fine with really good 9s.. so be it...
But they need to rip our damn hearts out if they ever want to reach a 10 again...
Noone would complain about an 8 hour campaign if you cry at the end...
If your breath is taken away throughout
Its about quality over quantity and AC has been doing the opposite of this since AC IV
And without narrative Assassins Creed Iv is just a repetive sailing simulator with tailing missions.
Narrative is the reason everyone happily buys a naughtydog 8-12 hour game for $60 and tells you how damn worth it it is.
Theres nothing special about the mechanics in Uncharted 4, or The Last of us...
What is special is how much we love the pratagonist and charcaters we meet... that breathes life into the missions and gives us a reason to see the story out...
If I wanted to make my own story, id write a damn book.
Why dont you ask Mafia 3 how stepping away from narrative went.

Subjective. I don't think any AC is a 10, and neither does the journalistic world. Then again, I don't really rate games like that. If it was my job to rate games on a scale, there are lots of games which would be simultaneously as low 7/10 and also personal all-time greats.

The Witcher 3 is one of those, for me (that is, a "Best of All Time", not a 7!). That said, I'll admit that I spent many hours at the beginning wondering if I'd ever like the game, let alone love it, and then it suddenly clicked and the thing ate my life. Mafia III's problem is not a neglected narrative. The story, cutscenes, acting and dramatic animation were the best things in it, and I was often keeping going to get to the next one. The problem was repetitive gameplay tasks. The narrative was given a ton of love and care, but the game had been compromised for whatever reason: development time, costs, or something of that nature.

I think you're all making far too much of your own (negative) interpretation of the phrases in this interview rather than thinking about what it means in terms of the big picture, or with a view to AC's place in the wider world of games. Again, Witcher 3: does that story-filled world mean that the story is simply a cloud of little stories? No -- it's considered a great story because there's an extremely robust spine inside it all. Does "building your own story" mean you simply write it? Of course not -- it simply means that the precise details of your story will build depending on your exploration, and you and I could compare different notes afterwards. We'll still agree on the major points we saw.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-19-2016, 06:24 PM
Mafia III's problem is not a neglected narrative. The story, cutscenes, acting and dramatic animation were the best things in it, and I was often keeping going to get to the next one. The problem was repetitive gameplay tasks. The narrative was given a ton of love and care, but the game had been compromised for whatever reason: development time, costs, or something of that nature.

I think you're all making far too much of your own (negative) interpretation of the phrases in this interview rather than thinking about what it means in terms of the big picture, or with a view to AC's place in the wider world of games. Again, Witcher 3: does that story-filled world mean that the story is simply a cloud of little stories? No -- it's considered a great story because there's an extremely robust spine inside it all. Does "building your own story" mean you simply write it? Of course not -- it simply means that the precise details of your story will build depending on your exploration, and you and I could compare different notes afterwards. We'll still agree on the major points we saw.

What if I told you that the repetitive gameplay tasks were repetitive gameplay tasks because those tasks lacked narritive?
:rolleyes:
Again Ill point to uncharted
All you do is climb and shoot.. but the naritive makes it more than just that.

So this new AC is what, just gonna be a bunch of pigeon missions from AC Brotherhood?
Thanks, but no thanks

Theres nothing to interpret from 'We dont want to tell you a story, make up your own' other than just that.
Ubisoft doesnt see value in emotional investment and want every game to be Lets Play bait
They want youtubers to do crazy things in the game to sell it... rather than rely on actual long lasting substance because thats WAY harder to do.
It shows greed to me.
We'll wait and see... I hope Im wrong... but from the sounds of it.. I wont be.

ALSO, how much Koolaid have you drank to defend the death of narritive?
This is ridiculous lol
Why Witcher 3 was so great was that EVERY mission had narrative... even the side missions...

When in most games whats the difference between main missions and side missions?
Side missions lack narritive..

So thats what Empire is gonna be,
Assassins Creed Side Mission

D.I.D.
11-19-2016, 07:15 PM
What if I told you that the repetitive gameplay tasks were repetitive gameplay tasks because those tasks lacked narritive?
:rolleyes:

Seriously? Have you played Mafia III? It is a punishing slog through the exact same tasks, many times over. Maybe I didn't explain well enough, so I'll make this plain; the acting, modelling, animation and script in Mafia III are the best I have ever seen in a video game. They *still* couldn't lift or disguise the game's vast shortcomings.

It's certainly true that Mafia III would have been unbearable without its story elements. I'm not suggesting for a moment that story is not valuable. You seem to think I'm setting up a "gameplay over story" argument here, and I'm not.



So this new AC is what, just gonna be a bunch of pigeon missions from AC Brotherhood?
Thanks, but no thanks

I don't even know why you'd think that. You're pathologically insistent on this being a disaster, but story is story. If it turns out bad, that's not because of the delivery system; it will be down to the writing. The current delivery system has insurmountable flaws.


Theres nothing to interpret from 'We dont want to tell you a story, make up your own' other than just that.
Ubisoft doesnt see value in emotional investment and want every game to be Lets Play bait

Yes, there is. It's a transcription of a verbal, face-to-face conversation. If the guy was writing down his answers and had time to think them through, you'd get a better form of communication. Instead, you've got a few ambiguous statements that require some sensible interpretation. You obviously can't just "make up your own story" in the sense of "invent your own story", and AC isn't a crazy physics game capable of doing a Just Cause-style game. The makers obviously care about story.

But look at what's been happening. They must have been spending a fortune on cutscenes, especially since Unity, when Witcher proves that gently enhanced cutscenes are as good as the megabucks ones for delivering emotion. We also know that whole storylines have been axed late in development, along with their lavish cutscenes, and that's bad from them and us. Let's see the maximum amount of good quality work surviving, rather than an overworked core story which then gets bulked out with a bunch of busywork.


ALSO, how much Koolaid have you drank to defend the death of narritive?
This is ridiculous lol

My thoughts exactly. Wake me up when the creative director says, "We're killing off narrative!"



Why Witcher 3 was so great was that EVERY mission had narrative... even the side missions...

Keep going! You're ALMOST there ;)

STDlyMcStudpants
11-19-2016, 07:38 PM
My thoughts exactly. Wake me up when the creative director says, "We're killing off narrative!"


"narrative in games should be more of an “anecdote factory,” or a minor part of the game"
Wake up.
Hes saying set the scene and have at it.
Its your duty as a player to tell us what this Assassins motives are in this world....
Get powerful, talk to people, and do things for them.
Raise your hand if you play assassins creed games because of the gameplay alone so i can cut them off for lying.
I dont want the be the town b**** solving problems.
I want a purpose in the world.

SixKeys
11-19-2016, 09:24 PM
Thinking about it, AC is already getting left behind on this score.

Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned The Witcher 3. Remember how many of you were praising TW3? "It does story so well. Why can't we have an AC that plays like this?"

Well, one of the great things that TW3 does with story is that not every segment is packaged into a set thing and slapped under a map icon. Lots of things happen only because you were walking past two knights having an interesting discussion, and listening gave you a new story branch. Or you found and read a book, or a notice, or talked to a villager.

There was so much story in TW3 that the vast majority of players never saw it all. The really thorough explorers were rewarded with experiences that only they got to see. Exploration could throw you midway or even right to the end of something that would otherwise be a quest, and the game had adaptive conversation in case you ever ran into the person who would have been the quest-giver. Every player had a handful of quest lines on the boil at any given time, and could hop between them depending on what they felt like doing at that time. Everyone got their money's worth and left with the impression of a great story.

Other open world games are already taking the first steps in this direction. You know very well that AC story hasn't really been delivering 100% for a long time, and it's not simply a matter of writing a better story. It's also about structure, and doing something to remove the sense of having a "grind list" of activities, a "side" list of activities, and a "main" story that causes arguments because it's "only" 8 hours or whatever. The game needs to evolve.

Haven't played TW3, but this is what I think - or hope - they are going for. Earlier rumors about Empire hinted that the devs wanted to bring AC closer to TW3 in terms of open-world design. If I'm reading this correctly, the interview seems to be confirming this. That instead of creating glaring markers for every mission they want the player to stumble into missions as if by accident simply by exploring and interacting with the world. If so, then that could be very interesting indeed.

Not sure what to make of his comments about narrative focus, but with regards to cutting down (no pun intended) cut scenes, I don't really have a problem with that. Perhaps people are forgetting that AC1 had very few real cut scenes. Almost everything was in-game graphics and Altaďr was able to move around while talking to people. It kinda sounds like that's maybe what the interview is referring to - not presenting the game as a movie, like AC2 undeniably does with its cut scenes, but presenting the game as what it is: a game, an interactive experience. That doesn't sound too bad.

Sorrosyss
11-19-2016, 10:07 PM
Well its been a day or two now, and most of the top gaming media has covered the topic - with no further comments from Ubisoft. As such, for those wondering if this might have been a mistranslation - it seems they are quite happy with this being the official line.

http://i.imgur.com/Wy1FOXv.png

ERICATHERINE
11-19-2016, 10:45 PM
I wonder. Remember when, in ac revelations, we had to walk at an allie's side for the duration of a conversation? I wonder if those could take the place of the cutscenes. ^-^

The4orTy67
11-20-2016, 12:02 AM
Hmm I wonder how Ubisoft will mess up WD and FC then.

SpiritOfNevaeh
11-20-2016, 01:03 AM
Oh man, when I play a game it's usually for the story - which is the one of the main reasons I don't mind be sucky at tactical gameplay elements like stealth o|-<

I'm cautious yet interested... and optimistic?

D.I.D.
11-20-2016, 01:13 AM
"narrative in games should be more of an “anecdote factory,” or a minor part of the game"


That is not a quote! That is conjecture written by a journalist. The Ubi rep did not say story would become a minor part of the game. In fact, he wanted to talk about were revolutions in the delivery of story -- why even bother doing that and coming up with systems if you don't care about story anymore?

Whatever is being done has already been done, and that's what the game is now. No amount of complaint is going to change that, so you might as well wait and see what it is.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-20-2016, 01:40 AM
That is not a quote! That is conjecture written by a journalist. The Ubi rep did not say story would become a minor part of the game. In fact, he wanted to talk about were revolutions in the delivery of story -- why even bother doing that and coming up with systems if you don't care about story anymore?

Whatever is being done has already been done, and that's what the game is now. No amount of complaint is going to change that, so you might as well wait and see what it is.
It is a quote translated...
Do you know what anecdote means?
the depiction of a minor narrative
An example of this is a painting...
Meaning were gonna get an opening scene to set the tone.. and thats about it
No love interests.. no revenge story... nothing but a world for us to 'get more powerful' or deal with npc problems.
We're the Dragon born
And a wait and see approach doesnt work for a studio that starts their next game halfway through a cycle...
We have to talk about this now JUST INCASE it means the worst...
If it doesnt.. then great... were worrying for nothing... but if it does mean the worse, they will take notice and not mess up the 2nd in this trilogy

ERICATHERINE
11-20-2016, 01:41 AM
Oh man, when I play a game it's usually for the story - which is the one of the main reasons I don't mind be sucky at tactical gameplay elements like stealth o|-<

I'm cautious yet interested... and optimistic?

I just saw that in 6 comments, you'll have wrote your 5000th comment. How do you feel about it?

RVSage
11-20-2016, 02:34 AM
I guess, I agree with DID for the most part.

Consider this , the whole world or setting has a story to tell. At no point they are actually asserting narrative is not an important aspect

The message, the way I interpret is, The side stories do not stand out anymore separately from the main narrative rather are impacted by decisions players make in the game's main story line.

If people remember during an interview about syndicate, One of the developers mentioned the following (roughly)


We initially planned Jacob's action to have a effect on the real world, like him attacking/killing the banker, would reduce the income in-game for player, until Evie sorted his mess. There would be more robberies, more attacks on poor, there could be more NPCs asking for money, number of public transport vehicles may reduce

They eventually did not do this with the game.



To me this adds a great level of immersion, especially in an open world environment

You have your main story, but your actions have consequences , for instance , doing a mission 100% sync vs partial sync, may affect your game world and make future missions harder/different

This makes the narrative little bit more dynamic and less hand holding overall. You can say the game may have multiple endings like Witcher 3 or Far Cry 4. And they make take it even a step further than in Quantum Break.

Even if the overall narrative is similar, yet there are distinct experiences to be had a player

For instance,

A stealth player can experience a different world

Than a all guns blazing guy

Based on this interview looks like Syndicate and Unity were baby steps in this direction

I for one will love this dynamic yet similar narrative.

D.I.D.
11-20-2016, 03:50 AM
It is a quote translated...
Do you know what anecdote means?
the depiction of a minor narrative
An example of this is a painting...
Meaning were gonna get an opening scene to set the tone.. and thats about it
No love interests.. no revendge story... nothing but a world for us to 'get more powerful' or deal with npc problems.
We're the Dragon born
And a wait and see approach doesnt work for a studio that starts their next game halfway through a cycle...
We have to talk about this now JUST INCASE it means the worst...
If it doesnt.. then great... were worrying for nothing... but if it does mean the worse, they will take notice and not mess up the 2nd in this trilogy

The quote is "anecdote factory". The phrase about story becoming a minor part of the game is not a quote, and is an assertion of a journalist.

Do I know what "anecdote" means? Why patronise me like this, especially when you think "anecdote" means "minor narrative"? It doesn't. An anecdote is an encapsulated story, specifically one that is entertaining enough to be worthy of telling to other people. The use of "anecdote" that you're talking about is an abstract one, only used when discussing the history of art. Perhaps you found it around the end of the dictionary definition? You tried to be clever and fell flat on your face, which is a common by-product of insulting other people's intelligence.

[edit] Well, look at that: yes you did https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=anecdote

- Has to Google the word "anecdote" to understand it
- Completely misunderstands what he sees when he gets there

SpiritOfNevaeh
11-20-2016, 04:10 AM
I just saw that in 6 comments, you'll have wrote your 5000th comment. How do you feel about it?

Feels like a big achievement for me on any forums since 1) this is the only forum I've ever been truly interested/involved in and 2) usually don't talk much :p

ERICATHERINE
11-20-2016, 04:12 AM
Well... That escalated quickly.


Feels like a big achievement for me on any forums since 1) this is the only forum I've ever been truly interested/involved in and 2) usually don't talk much :p

^-^

SixKeys
11-20-2016, 07:05 PM
People keep bringing up AC2 as a counter to this new approach. "AC2 was one of the best games in the series and it had a strong narrative focus, so this is a bad idea." But AC2 is exceptional in many ways. Somehow the narrative in AC2 managed to grab a lot of people. That suggests the writing itself was strong, in this particular game. It does not mean that a strong narrative focus in and of itself makes a good game.

AC3 had a strong narrative focus but the gameplay was weak, making it one of the less popular entries in the series. Revelations had a strong narrative focus but weak gameplay. Again, it's one of the least popular games in the series.

Contrast this with some of the more popular ones like ACB, Syndicate or even AC4 which had a heavy emphasis on player freedom over narrative restrictions. ACB's story was extremely simple - literally it can be summed up with "weaken Cesare's grip on Rome". The real fun happens in the side content, "crafting" your own assassin recruits, helping the people of Rome, restoring the city, and even the VR training challenges. Content that is mostly optional and only tangentially related to the main story.

AC4 had both a strong narrative and good gameplay, but it's comparable to ACB and Syndicate in its design philosophy. The reason Edward worked so well as a protagonist is because he, as an outsider, wasn't bound by the usual narrative restrictions. It didn't feel out-of-character for Edward to suddenly drop the main quest for a while in favor of treasure-hunting or whaling. He's a pirate, he's not bound by the assassins' code. Again, the real fun happens in the side content, when the player is allowed to craft their own adventure. All you really need is just a framework wherein the stuff you do makes sense on some level. Edward is a pirate and he's pretty selfish. It makes sense for the player to constantly get sidetracked because it makes sense for Edward. Essentially we are always being selfish when we decide to abandon the main quest for something less important but fun. In AC4, ACB and Syndicate, the narratives are structured in such a way that we are essentially given an excuse to be selfish. "Go on, go treasure-hunting. It's what Edward would do. Go on, go street-racing with Jacob. You need the money for a good cause. Go on, you can waste some time in Bartolomeo's fight club. It'll help you earn the Mercenaries' respect." These games work so well because the stories allow for player freedom. They give you an excuse that makes you not feel guilty when you halt the quest to save the world for something fun and nonessential. You're essentially crafting your own story, and that's not really possible in a game where the narrative takes precedence over gameplay *cough*AC3*cough*.

If this new approach means we can expect more games like ACB, AC4 and Syndicate, sign me up.

Sushiglutton
11-20-2016, 09:38 PM
Has been thinking some about what this can mean. I don't think it's like AC4/Brotherhood/Syndicate, because then why would they talk about it as something new? The problem with those games is that the side stuff is generic, meaning it completely lacks unique narrative content even though it feeds into an overall (loose) plot.


I'm thinking that there will be more specific story threads tied to various locations/characters. The difference is that you can discover these stories in a non-linear way and they will be told in a more subtle way. Just as an example (A Fistful of Dollars inspired :) ):


Let's say there's a village somewhere along the Nile. The devs have written a story for this village and some of its inhabitants. Let's say there are two rivaling gangs fighting for control of the village. The gangs have colorful leaders with a backstory. The villagers are opressed. There's a bartender, a coffin maker and so on. There's no marker on the map to start the quest. Let's say you come from the north. You'll meet a farmer who begs you to find his mule that has been stolen by one of the gangs. This is one possible entry point to the overarching plott of the village. Let's say you come from the south. Now you won't meet anyone outside the village. Instead you ride to the bar and speak to the bartender who tells you about the situation in the village. He tasks you with say fighting some bandits that's been harassing him, this is another possible entry point.


All these mini-missions are part of the same narrative. After a while they culminate in an assassination mission of one of the bosses say (you can choose which one, which explains how you can affect the world).


Main point is that there is a written story, but it's not sequenced as before.


Sorry, very tired, perhaps not making sense :). What do you think?

STDlyMcStudpants
11-20-2016, 10:10 PM
The quote is "anecdote factory". The phrase about story becoming a minor part of the game is not a quote, and is an assertion of a journalist.

Do I know what "anecdote" means? Why patronise me like this, especially when you think "anecdote" means "minor narrative"? It doesn't. An anecdote is an encapsulated story, specifically one that is entertaining enough to be worthy of telling to other people. The use of "anecdote" that you're talking about is an abstract one, only used when discussing the history of art. Perhaps you found it around the end of the dictionary definition? You tried to be clever and fell flat on your face, which is a common by-product of insulting other people's intelligence.

[edit] Well, look at that: yes you did https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=anecdote

- Has to Google the word "anecdote" to understand it
- Completely misunderstands what he sees when he gets there

So both the journalist and I are wrong, but you are right.. LOL
I copied a pasted the definition of course.. im not going to ask you if you know what something means and then pull it out of the air...
Im going to pull facts.
New word for you to look up,,, Encapsulated... ITS THE SAME THING
It literally means the same thing both I and this journalist are concluding...
Anecdote Factory
Encpasulated Factory
A bunch of little stories...
Aka being a side quester.

BananaBlighter
11-20-2016, 10:33 PM
All I think it means is that we'll have side content with more focused stories, which eventually feeds in to the main narrative. I don't know how I feel about it. I don't think it means we'll get a worse story, for me that depends more on the writing. We'll see how it goes.


Has been thinking some about what this can mean. I don't think it's like AC4/Brotherhood/Syndicate, because then why would they talk about it as something new? The problem with those games is that the side stuff is generic, meaning it completely lacks unique narrative content even though it feeds into an overall (loose) plot.


I'm thinking that there will be more specific story threads tied to various locations/characters. The difference is that you can discover these stories in a non-linear way and they will be told in a more subtle way. Just as an example (A Fistful of Dollars inspired :) ):


Let's say there's a village somewhere along the Nile. The devs have written a story for this village and some of its inhabitants. Let's say there are two rivaling gangs fighting for control of the village. The gangs have colorful leaders with a backstory. The villagers are opressed. There's a bartender, a coffin maker and so on. There's no marker on the map to start the quest. Let's say you come from the north. You'll meet a farmer who begs you to find his mule that has been stolen by one of the gangs. This is one possible entry point to the overarching plott of the village. Let's say you come from the south. Now you won't meet anyone outside the village. Instead you ride to the bar and speak to the bartender who tells you about the situation in the village. He tasks you with say fighting some bandits that's been harassing him, this is another possible entry point.


All these mini-missions are part of the same narrative. After a while they culminate in an assassination mission of one of the bosses say (you can choose which one, which explains how you can affect the world).


Main point is that there is a written story, but it's not sequenced as before.


Sorry, very tired, perhaps not making sense :). What do you think?

I like this idea!

Megas_Doux
11-20-2016, 10:37 PM
Ubisoft is struggling and has been struggling in the story/main character department for a while and this doesn't seem to be the answer for it.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-20-2016, 10:53 PM
People keep bringing up AC2 as a counter to this new approach. "AC2 was one of the best games in the series and it had a strong narrative focus, so this is a bad idea." But AC2 is exceptional in many ways. Somehow the narrative in AC2 managed to grab a lot of people. That suggests the writing itself was strong, in this particular game. It does not mean that a strong narrative focus in and of itself makes a good game.

AC3 had a strong narrative focus but the gameplay was weak, making it one of the less popular entries in the series. Revelations had a strong narrative focus but weak gameplay. Again, it's one of the least popular games in the series.

Contrast this with some of the more popular ones like ACB, Syndicate or even AC4 which had a heavy emphasis on player freedom over narrative restrictions. ACB's story was extremely simple - literally it can be summed up with "weaken Cesare's grip on Rome". The real fun happens in the side content, "crafting" your own assassin recruits, helping the people of Rome, restoring the city, and even the VR training challenges. Content that is mostly optional and only tangentially related to the main story.

AC4 had both a strong narrative and good gameplay, but it's comparable to ACB and Syndicate in its design philosophy. The reason Edward worked so well as a protagonist is because he, as an outsider, wasn't bound by the usual narrative restrictions. It didn't feel out-of-character for Edward to suddenly drop the main quest for a while in favor of treasure-hunting or whaling. He's a pirate, he's not bound by the assassins' code. Again, the real fun happens in the side content, when the player is allowed to craft their own adventure. All you really need is just a framework wherein the stuff you do makes sense on some level. Edward is a pirate and he's pretty selfish. It makes sense for the player to constantly get sidetracked because it makes sense for Edward. Essentially we are always being selfish when we decide to abandon the main quest for something less important but fun. In AC4, ACB and Syndicate, the narratives are structured in such a way that we are essentially given an excuse to be selfish. "Go on, go treasure-hunting. It's what Edward would do. Go on, go street-racing with Jacob. You need the money for a good cause. Go on, you can waste some time in Bartolomeo's fight club. It'll help you earn the Mercenaries' respect." These games work so well because the stories allow for player freedom. They give you an excuse that makes you not feel guilty when you halt the quest to save the world for something fun and nonessential. You're essentially crafting your own story, and that's not really possible in a game where the narrative takes precedence over gameplay *cough*AC3*cough*.

If this new approach means we can expect more games like ACB, AC4 and Syndicate, sign me up.

What do you consider 'popular' this is subjective..
AC3 is probably the best selling game in the series
ACS, and AC4 to ME are the least enjoyably games in the series
I LOVE brotherhood for the very idea being suggested i probably loved running around collecting feathers and upgrading and fixing broken structures more than the campaign... but to me
Syndicate is trash
AC4 without narritive is trash
AC3, ACR, and AC2 are the 3 best games in the series
AC1 is so repetitive that it needs narritve to be bearable
Out of the 9 Major released AC games the top 5 ranked by critics consist of AC2 (high narrative) > ACB (blanced narrative) > AC4 (low narrative) > AC3 (high narrative) > AC1 (High Narrative)
(This ranking was metacritic average across all platforms)

You may think AC3 is unpopular because it got the over hyped game of the year hate award in 2012
But its a solid experience and accoriding to critics (whos opinion i value more than angry keyboard warriors) its the 4th best game in the series...

BY THE WAY!
AC3 has MORE positive reviews on metecritic than AC2 does...
It just happened that positivity was the vocal minority even though positive feedback was the statistic majority for every system but PC

What critics and general gamers DO agree on however is that Syndicate is the weakest in the series 2nd only to Unity (and in the angry gamer camp its the 3rd worst only bested by ac3 and unity)

SixKeys
11-20-2016, 11:37 PM
What do you consider 'popular' this is subjective..
AC3 is probably the best selling game in the series
ACS, and AC4 to ME are the least enjoyably games in the series
I LOVE brotherhood for the very idea being suggested... but to me
Syndicate is trash
AC4 without narritive is trash
AC3, ACR, and AC2 are the 3 best games in the series
AC1 is so repetitive that it needs narritve to be bearable
Out of the 9 Major released AC games the top 5 ranked by critics consist of AC2 (high narrative) > ACB (blanced narrative) > AC4 (low narrative) > AC3 (high narrative) > AC1 (High Narrative)
(This ranking was metacritic average across all platforms)

You may think AC3 is unpopular because it got the over hyped game of the year hate award in 2012
But its a solid experience and accoriding to critics (whos opinion i value more than angry keyboard warriors) its the 4th best game in the series...

By the way what critics and general gamers DO agree on is that Syndicate is the weakest in the series 2nd only to Unity (and in the angry gamer camp its the 3rd worst only bested by ac3 and unity)

I'm not talking about sales numbers, I'm going purely by critics' reviews and comments on various gaming sites/forums/Twitter etc. Also not talking about AC fans' opinions because of course we as fans have different expectations and wishes from new entries than the general public who aren't as invested in the series. I am talking about those people. Go on any random gaming site, filled with gamers who are not particularly invested in the series on as deep a level as we are, and you'll consistently find that AC2, ACB and AC4 are rated the highest and Unity, AC3, AC1 and Revelations are rated the lowest. (For some reason Rogue seems to be a lot more popular among non-AC-fans than AC fans, which just goes to show you the different levels of expectations we're talking about.)

As for Syndicate, we must not have read the same reviews because the general consensus I saw from critics was that it was at worst "meh", but a generally agreeable bounce-back from Unity.

You seem to find it somehow offensive how I label something as "popular" or "not-popular". Popularity is not a measure of quality, let's be clear on that. Popularity is merely a measure of what the general public likes. I love AC1, but I'm not going to pretend it's popular. If I could have had my way, AC2 would have been more like AC1. But that's just me. Clearly the general public wants more games like AC2. AC2 is popular by any measure. That doesn't mean it's objectively the best, just the most popular. So of course it makes sense that Ubisoft would use AC2, not AC1, as a basis for the series going forward. The problem is that they've been chasing that elusive "feeling" of AC2 ever since. It's like trying to catch lightning in a bottle. AC2 was seven years ago. Gaming has changed since then. Trying to chase what made a game popular seven years ago is not the way forward. As much grief as I give AC3, I always say I at least respect its creators for trying to do something different instead of going for another AC2 clone. That's what Ubi should be doing. Syndicate may have been a step upwards from Unity, but only because expectations were low. They've been low for a while now regarding the franchise as a whole, thanks to the annual release cycle. So whatever Empire ends up being, it needs to do things differently. It needs to be a radical overhaul of the formula that the general gaming public has gotten so sick of. Us fans will keep consuming whatever Ubi throws at us, let's not fool ourselves about that. But if the series wants to appeal to more than a steadily decreasing niche audience, it needs to adapt to modern gaming standards. It needs to try new things, new approaches. It needs to look at what's popular, just like AC2 did seven years ago - it appealed to what was popular at the time (GTA and other such games) instead of following in the footsteps of the arguably more indie-like, experimental, oddball AC1.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not saying that looking at what's popular right now is necessarily a key to success. Many, many factors go into creating a successful game, obviously, and the gaming world is fickle. And certainly only following trends instead of pursuing any sort of artistic vision is a bad idea. But you need both. You need a vision and you need to consider what kinds of games people actually want to buy. AC1 had artistic vision but it was perhaps too obscure to carry an entire franchise. AC2 had some artistic vision, but also made a lot of compromises as an appeal to popularity (easier combat, charming protagonist, black-and-white morality etc.).

ERICATHERINE
11-21-2016, 12:51 AM
What do you think?

It makes me think of the fire emblem awakening side mission where we can get Yarne as a partner (Yarne is the child of a character with that come from the future. For those who know the game, but not the character he is the child taguel. ). In this mission we have to save a village and choosing one of the following 3 options.

We can choose to

- battle the armored guys by teaming up with the horse guys.

- battle the horse guy by teaming up with the armored guys.

- or battle both of the group to liberate the village and get more xp.

Here is a video of that mission. ^-^


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5yDbeYuTA

STDlyMcStudpants
11-21-2016, 07:42 AM
I'm not talking about sales numbers, I'm going purely by critics' reviews and comments on various gaming sites/forums/Twitter etc. Also not talking about AC fans' opinions because of course we as fans have different expectations and wishes from new entries than the general public who aren't as invested in the series. I am talking about those people. Go on any random gaming site, filled with gamers who are not particularly invested in the series on as deep a level as we are, and you'll consistently find that AC2, ACB and AC4 are rated the highest and Unity, AC3, AC1 and Revelations are rated the lowest. (For some reason Rogue seems to be a lot more popular among non-AC-fans than AC fans, which just goes to show you the different levels of expectations we're talking about.)

As for Syndicate, we must not have read the same reviews because the general consensus I saw from critics was that it was at worst "meh", but a generally agreeable bounce-back from Unity.

You seem to find it somehow offensive how I label something as "popular" or "not-popular". Popularity is not a measure of quality, let's be clear on that. Popularity is merely a measure of what the general public likes. I love AC1, but I'm not going to pretend it's popular. If I could have had my way, AC2 would have been more like AC1. But that's just me. Clearly the general public wants more games like AC2. AC2 is popular by any measure. That doesn't mean it's objectively the best, just the most popular. So of course it makes sense that Ubisoft would use AC2, not AC1, as a basis for the series going forward. The problem is that they've been chasing that elusive "feeling" of AC2 ever since. It's like trying to catch lightning in a bottle. AC2 was seven years ago. Gaming has changed since then. Trying to chase what made a game popular seven years ago is not the way forward. As much grief as I give AC3, I always say I at least respect its creators for trying to do something different instead of going for another AC2 clone. That's what Ubi should be doing. Syndicate may have been a step upwards from Unity, but only because expectations were low. They've been low for a while now regarding the franchise as a whole, thanks to the annual release cycle. So whatever Empire ends up being, it needs to do things differently. It needs to be a radical overhaul of the formula that the general gaming public has gotten so sick of. Us fans will keep consuming whatever Ubi throws at us, let's not fool ourselves about that. But if the series wants to appeal to more than a steadily decreasing niche audience, it needs to adapt to modern gaming standards. It needs to try new things, new approaches. It needs to look at what's popular, just like AC2 did seven years ago - it appealed to what was popular at the time (GTA and other such games) instead of following in the footsteps of the arguably more indie-like, experimental, oddball AC1.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not saying that looking at what's popular right now is necessarily a key to success. Many, many factors go into creating a successful game, obviously, and the gaming world is fickle. And certainly only following trends instead of pursuing any sort of artistic vision is a bad idea. But you need both. You need a vision and you need to consider what kinds of games people actually want to buy. AC1 had artistic vision but it was perhaps too obscure to carry an entire franchise. AC2 had some artistic vision, but also made a lot of compromises as an appeal to popularity (easier combat, charming protagonist, black-and-white morality etc.).

I understand that yes.. general and die hard fans are going to have different likes and dislikes.. thats why AC4 is so popular and as you stated rogue...
AC4 is a GREAT game.. not a great assassins creed game (to me)
My point was that people LOVED Assassins creed 3... those people just arent the ones in forums talking about it
People dont sing praises...
People come to forums for 1 of 2 things
1: To speculate
2: To complain
Im only saying that just becase the people that loved AC3 arent louder or as loud doesnt mean that people didnt love that game.. again i point to metecritic..
There are more positive reviews for AC3 than there are AC2...
And also 'Meh' is bad on the scale of Assassins Creed games, because a vast mojority are solid and far from meh...
Syndicate is the most 'Meh' of the bunch...
It got a lot of 7s... while AC3 was in the mid to upper 8s for the most part.. just a notch below the AC2 ACB zone
I find unity to be underated myself lol

Farlander1991
11-21-2016, 10:01 AM
@STDly, you keep using points like sales and metacritic for your points... but if you're gonna use them, at least check for validation.

First, Metacritic.
Assassin's Creed II has range of metacritic score from 86 to 91 (depending on platform) with user score ranging from 6.8 to 8.8 (and I should note that user score 6.8 is on PC, caused mostly be people hating on the online connection being always required which was later fixed)
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag has range of metacritic score from 83 to 88 (depending on platform) with user score ranging from 7.4 to 7.9
Assassin's Creed III has range of metacritic score from 80 to 85 (depending on platform) with user score ranging from 6.2 to 7.1

When it comes to 'who's got more positive reviews', you say AC3 has more positive reviews than AC2. This is not true.
AC3, across 4 platforms, has 131 positive critic reviews out of 149. Also 2058 positive user ratings, 1235 mixed, and 889 negative.
AC2 across 3 platforms has 169 positive critic reviews out of 174. Also 3208 positive user ratings, 397 mixed, and 458 negative (most of negatives are from PC version online connectivity, but even that doesn't ruin the ratio for AC2)
So 88% of AC3 critic reviews that you value are positive, and 97% of AC2 critic reviews are positive. And 49% of AC3 user ratings are positive, while 79% of AC2 user ratings are positive (both have approx. the same amount of ratings on metacritic)

So when it comes to metacritic, AC2 is more beloved than AC3 both critically and user-wise.

And, when it comes to sales, you can go to VGChartz to check for sales. It shows only retail ones as digital sales are not publicly tracked. You may notice that there both AC3 and AC4 currently lie at 13 million copies. And it's not a good sign for AC3. Because AC3 was a game with a huge boom of sales at the beginning (and it was indeed the game that sold the most and fastest during its first few months), but then the sales dropdown was huge. AC4, released a year later, had not as big sales at the beginning (it sold much less in the first few months), but now has caught up with sales to AC3. Which means, that with the tail it has, in a few years it will vastly outrun AC3 in retail. AC2 has 11 million sales, which is less than both AC3 and AC4, but AC2 also had a much more healthy sales tail than AC3.

Look, all I'm saying is... if you love AC3 that's great. I think it's very flawed, but there's a lot of great things about it. But if you're gonna use data as your arguments, make sure that the data actually supports your arguments. Because current data doesn't.

D.I.D.
11-21-2016, 01:11 PM
So both the journalist and I are wrong, but you are right.. LOLI copied a pasted the definition of course.. im not going to ask you if you know what something means and then pull it out of the air... Im going to pull facts.New word for you to look up,,, Encapsulated... ITS THE SAME THING It literally means the same thing both I and this journalist are concluding... Anecdote Factory Encpasulated FactoryA bunch of little stories... Aka being a side quester.

I hope for your sake that English is not your first language, or otherwise you are embarrassing yourself painfully here. You pulled a minor, abstract meaning from the end of a dictionary definition, you didn't understand what it meant, and you are still digging this hole. "Anecdote", in the sense of art, is any kind of allusion via the form to another event or place removed from it. So, Picasso's Guernica is an anecdote, or the Last Supper is an anecdote, but then again you can apply the term to a conceptual painting which evokes a specific landscape via crazy slabs of colour. It is a technical term when used in this way. You can't use this abstract definition to break down this interview - you have to go for the primary definitions.

Yes, I've decided I'm right. So have you, with regard to your own interpretation. The difference is that I have something constructive to say and my guesses relate to broader trends in the whole industry, whereas you just want to run through the thread with your head in your wings while shouting that the sky is falling. Claiming that ambiguous statements mean the makers have given up on story is not useful, and nor is it likely to be true. Occam's razor, please: you can't make a 30 hour AC game that way, and it would be absurd to add the complexity of hundreds of sub-stories if they were simply pigeon mission-style assignments. The simplest answer to why these changes are being made is that an improvement is being sought, at which point it makes sense to make the *tiny* leap to understanding what that improvement would be. It's a tiny leap which is already observable in existent games, and transferred to AC's world size that means something rather exciting. It's actually a much bigger leap to assume that a massively successful story-based game series is jettisoning story. It's a massive leap to hear this news and somehow decide that it means the Isu story is totally gone, as some people have.

@Sixkeys - great points. As you say, the great thing about Brotherhood and Black Flag as that they both found ways for the time for the characters' meandering paths to appear purposeful and believeable. Other entries have suffered because the stories' major nodes had to be dosed into fixed points in an increasingly diluted game, but a segmented story can drop in those nodes wherever it suits the pace.

@Sushiglutton - This is what I'd expect, yes: multiple potential exit states from any segment, which can chain to create the illusion of a consequential reality (no more an illusion than any pure linear story, of course!). We've seen Life is Strange create its story in this way, and Dishonored 2 and Deus Ex: MD are two recent examples of games that have shown signs of this kind of granular story too. Big multiple-season TV shows are known to do this too, creating alternative story frameworks in case the audience figures out the big secret of the show during its run. No matter which version carries to the end, the story will be coherent and good.

I'd argue that this move is less an exploratory possibility than it is an inevitability. Games have to move into this management of branches and bottlenecks, otherwise their games end up turning off the player. It's always been annoying when a game fails to reflect a choice that you made (for instance, having an NPC criticise you for your violence when you actually discovered a ghost path through a level), and conversely it's always been a joy when you see that your cunning has been predicted by the designers and they communicate that back to you via the NPCs (Undertale, for example). Some nervousness about the risk of a diluted story is understandable, but the outcome needn't be that way. It means more investment (in every sense: in money, in time, in staff numbers) in story. And besides, there must have been times in almost every big game when fixed-progression stories were compromised to allow all gameplay events to fit within them.

Speaking of TV shows, I'm sure a lot of games designers must be looking at Westworld and seeing the same thing that games players are ;)

RinoTheBouncer
11-21-2016, 02:33 PM
You're right.. The Witcher 3 was praised... As a really great 9
It wasnt a 10 though.. and its weak narrative had a lot to do with that.. at least for me as a critic...
The same with Watch_Dogs 2 ... Everything wrong with the gameplay could've been fixed and it could ever only be a 9.5 without a strong narrative....
If ubisoft is fine with really good 9s.. so be it...
But they need to rip our damn hearts out if they ever want to reach a 10 again...
Noone would complain about an 8 hour campaign if you cry at the end...
If your breath is taken away throughout
Its about quality over quantity and AC has been doing the opposite of this since AC IV
And without narrative Assassins Creed Iv is just a repetive sailing simulator with tailing missions.
Narrative is the reason everyone happily buys a naughtydog 8-12 hour game for $60 and tells you how damn worth it it is.
Theres nothing special about the mechanics in Uncharted 4, or The Last of us...
What is special is how much we love the pratagonist and charcaters we meet... that breathes life into the missions and gives us a reason to see the story out...
If I wanted to make my own story, id write a damn book.
Why dont you ask Mafia 3 how stepping away from narrative went.

Perfectly said.

I honestly don't mind playing just 10-14 hours of Assassin's Creed, if not a little less, provided that the story is something as strong, as epic and as influential as The Last of Us and Uncharted. Something with a protagonist that obliges you to care about them, with their personality, acting, backstory, plot and everything the stand for, say and do, a game that is well-directed from the most important and most visible, to the most subtle ones.

I honestly don't care about side missions. Once they're called "side" missions, I automatically feel "yeah, whatever. If they were important, they'd be main missions". The only game that broke that stereotype for me was Mass Effect, where in ME2, the side missions (Loyalty Missions) are totally in differentiable from main ones, with a lot of story, cutscenes, and new locations and characters to explore and encounter and a lot of effects on the narrative and ending.

I think even an linear Assassin's Creed game that plays as perfectly as The Last of Us, with a great story, divided between modern day and history, inter-connected with other games, delivers a significant progress the over-arching narrative, presents characters that we actually care about and have enough screen time to know them, feel them and care for them, along with cutscenes, speeches and moment that are impossible to forget, would be the perfect game for me.

I don't want a world that is big for nothing. I don't want side missions that are nothing more then "Press X on said character" > Head to said location > kill with no cutscenes, no build up, no strategy, just the plot-less version of the main game missions and pushed in large quantities that nobody really finds any benefit in finishing and often get way too repetitive to justify playing them all. I also don't want a game that is more concerned shoving in tons of mechanics that you'll probably use just once or twice, or missions that are expanded in length, not by reasonable, high quality objectives, but rather repetitive ones. I don't want a game where I just play and finish and never look back at, because neither the content is memorable enough nor there's any story left to anticipate in the sequels, knowing confidently that whatever loose ends the game had will forever stay there, never to be looked at again or only watered down in a comic release or on a website or as an easter egg in another game or a novel.

I just want a game that assures me that the characters matter, that the story matters, that the ending will open doors to the next game and the next game will deliver satisfactory answers, rather than just extends the waiting period even more or give answers that most fans have come up with better expectations or explanations and theories for.

marvelfannumber
11-21-2016, 03:18 PM
Frankly, this interview seems pretty vague so it's hard to judge exactly what the guy is saying.

However the way I interpreted it iss that the game will try to be less linear and try to involve the player more in the world. If this is what they're trying to do, I frankly am completely fine with it. AC has since the very first game struggled with side objectives and the gameplay narrative has always been painfully linear, the worlds have also felt quite dead for a while now.

Even if doing this would sacrifice story for the 2017/2018 game, it could improve the gameplay alot which they could continue expanding upon in the next game WHILE adding an interesting story.

joelsantos24
11-21-2016, 04:48 PM
Frankly, this interview seems pretty vague so it's hard to judge exactly what the guy is saying.

However the way I interpreted it iss that the game will try to be less linear and try to involve the player more in the world. If this is what they're trying to do, I frankly am completely fine with it. AC has since the very first game struggled with side objectives and the gameplay narrative has always been painfully linear, the worlds have also felt quite dead for a while now.

Even if doing this would sacrifice story for the 2017/2018 game, it could improve the gameplay alot which they could continue expanding upon in the next game WHILE adding an interesting story.
I quite disagree.

I'm all for making the games less linear and turning the gameplay experience more interactive and variable. That being said, improving the gameplay shouldn't come at the expense of the story and storyline. We're playing a game, but we're also being told a story, and this story must be engaging. If they mean to make the meta-story and the general backbone of the game/experiene less convoluted, great. But sacrificing it significantly to introduce more interactivity, it'll break the immersion. We want to be more part of the story, not have less of it.

crusader_prophet
11-21-2016, 05:50 PM
What do you think?

I think you are talking Witcher 3 style open world which is absolutely fine with me.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-21-2016, 09:13 PM
After playing Far Cry Primal this weekend (a game sited in this interview as an example) im even more nervous...
This is a perfect example of my fear..
"Set the scene and have at it"
All Far Cry Primal is.. is an oppening scene.... and then an open world for you to go 'get more powerful' in
The story doesnt matter here.. its just a tool used to introduce new mechanics.
Please Baby Jesus dont let this happen to assassins creed.
Dont get me wrong... I loved the fronteir, hunting, and building the homestead in assassins creed 3..
But i loved it because it wasnt shoved down our thoats... there was balance between that and going out to make the world overall a better place with the story....
My heart is crumbling...

joelsantos24
11-21-2016, 10:01 PM
After playing Far Cry Primal this weekend (a game sited in this interview as an example) im even more nervous...
This is a perfect example of my fear..
"Set the scene and have at it"
All Far Cry Primal is.. is an oppening scene.... and then an open world for you to go 'get more powerful' in
The story doesnt matter here.. its just a tool used to introduce new mechanics.
Please Baby Jesus dont let this happen to assassins creed.
Dont get me wrong... I loved the fronteir, hunting, and building the homestead in assassins creed 3..
But i loved it because it wasnt shoved down our thoats... there was balance between that and going out to make the world overall a better place with the story....
My heart is crumbling...
Exactly my concern.

In the latest AC games, with so many secondary missions and collectibles, which was perfectly fine by me, for many fans the main story or missions felt almost incidental, at best. This interview comes to show that they intend to make the story even more incidental or even a pretext, in order to introduce us to the gameplay mechanics. Like I said before, you don't need to sacrifice the narrative to highlight the gameplay experience.

cawatrooper9
11-21-2016, 11:02 PM
Playing WD2, I could kind of see this. WD2 is incredibly immersive (gameplay-wise, I'd even venture that it's the new gold standard for 3rd person open world titles) but it's story was basically the same as Syndicates admittedly lackluster story. Like Syndicate, the gameplay was fun and the characters were good, but the story basically boils down to "take down big bad guy by whittling away at smaller bad guys." There really isn't a ton more to it- not to say that there aren't commendable moments, but it's extremely formulaic.

I'd love for AC to be influenced by WD2- almost every mission in the game was far more open than any single one of Unity or Syndicate's "Black Box" missions- but there's no reason that a strong story cannot also be told in that method.

joelsantos24
11-22-2016, 12:59 AM
Playing WD2, I could kind of see this. WD2 is incredibly immersive (gameplay-wise, I'd even venture that it's the new gold standard for 3rd person open world titles) but it's story was basically the same as Syndicates admittedly lackluster story. Like Syndicate, the gameplay was fun and the characters were good, but the story basically boils down to "take down big bad guy by whittling away at smaller bad guys." There really isn't a ton more to it- not to say that there aren't commendable moments, but it's extremely formulaic.

I'd love for AC to be influenced by WD2- almost every mission in the game was far more open than any single one of Unity or Syndicate's "Black Box" missions- but there's no reason that a strong story cannot also be told in that method.
But the Black Box missions were one of the communities greatest desires. A dedicated mission for a high-profile assassination. You want something even more open and free than Unity's Black Box missions? They give you a target and the rest is put to you. Obviously, you still have the MOD missions/objectives, which you can choose to accomplish or not, but it's entirely up to you.

Don't even dare mention the Black Box missions, those are perfect.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-22-2016, 01:47 AM
But the Black Box missions were one of the communities greatest desires. A dedicated mission for a high-profile assassination. You want something even more open and free than Unity's Black Box missions? They give you a target and the rest is put to you. Obviously, you still have the MOD missions/objectives, which you can choose to accomplish or not, but it's entirely up to you.

Don't even dare mention the Black Box missions, those are perfect.

TBH, I think the comminty is whats ruined the series...
Ubisoft listens to us...
Assassins Creed Unity was the game of the community...
Stealth focused.. open ended missions.. added co op... skill tree... challenging combat.. the ability to crouch behind objects
And it got ripped apart....
There was nothing wrong with the formula of the first 5 games....
AC4 I get.. .flesh out the ship stuff... give them something to hold them over while we work on a real game...
Now im not saying we need to scrap those missions...
But i think we need a variety...
I want open ended missions AND i want scripted missions for my targets....
Its been so long since AC2 and ACB...
But they had a handful of open ended missions right? like a couple?
Its bad when every single one of your missions are the same thing...
Have an open target yes... but only give us one or 2 per game... not every target...
I want every missions to feel unquique....

Lysette88
11-22-2016, 03:45 AM
I think how one experiences an AC game depends as well on how much of a goal it is to reach 100% synchronization. Some see this as a challenge to reach 100% sync and do not have a problem with that they actually just play like an actor on a stage - they have a given role with it and put an own stamp on this by a given but basically linear role. There is no pun intended, saying this, I just want to point out different perspectives on how to play an AC game. Then there is the other kind of players, like me, who give a damn about 100% synchronization. There is a situation to be solved and I will find my own way to deal with the situation. I like to feel like being in charge, define my own role - not replay a given role like an actor does it.

And I think, that is what the new direction of Ubisoft will be all about. To give more options on how to accomplish things and offer players more creative ways to approach and deal with a given situation - there will still be synchronization percentages for those who like this kind of more story-driven and guided approach, which grants achievement trophies and such, but I think Ubisoft wants to appeal as well more to players like me, who feel encased and throttled down in their activity, when they have to replay a given content instead to put their own mark onto the game world. If I encounter too much story, I am just stop playing - I do not want to replay a character like I would read a book or watch a stage play - I want to be the one choosing my characters fate in his/her very own way. And if Ubisoft could do that, and appeal to both players perspectives, this would be a really brave and very good move. It might not work for everyone on the first try though. I think that Syndicate showed already a bit of this - and the old crowd is not that fond of the game, but for players like me Syndicate is THE AC game - I really love the freedom and having actual choice ingame.

SixKeys
11-22-2016, 05:03 AM
Playing WD2, I could kind of see this. WD2 is incredibly immersive (gameplay-wise, I'd even venture that it's the new gold standard for 3rd person open world titles) but it's story was basically the same as Syndicates admittedly lackluster story. Like Syndicate, the gameplay was fun and the characters were good, but the story basically boils down to "take down big bad guy by whittling away at smaller bad guys." There really isn't a ton more to it- not to say that there aren't commendable moments, but it's extremely formulaic.

Sorry, but isn't that basically every single AC ever?

ERICATHERINE
11-22-2016, 06:34 AM
Sorry, but isn't that basically every single AC ever?

So, you passed the rank of 11000 comments. Do you want to say a word, about it? ^-^

BananaBlighter
11-22-2016, 06:06 PM
Sorry, but isn't that basically every single AC ever?

Exactly. At the end of the day you're just taking down Templars one by one to eventually reach the Grandmaster. I don't see how the story becomes better when the path you follow to reach that final goal is a little more complicated, it's still the same plot (for example AC1 vs AC2, or ACS vs ACU).

What does make the stories stand out IMO are the characters and the themes or ideas. So for example, I actually really liked AC1's story, but ACS's not so much. Even though they had a similar structure, the overall tone of ACS just ruined it for me.

SixKeys
11-22-2016, 08:03 PM
So, you passed the rank of 11000 comments. Do you want to say a word, about it? ^-^

Not really.


Exactly. At the end of the day you're just taking down Templars one by one to eventually reach the Grandmaster. I don't see how the story becomes better when the path you follow to reach that final goal is a little more complicated, it's still the same plot (for example AC1 vs AC2, or ACS vs ACU).

What does make the stories stand out IMO are the characters and the themes or ideas. So for example, I actually really liked AC1's story, but ACS's not so much. Even though they had a similar structure, the overall tone of ACS just ruined it for me.

Then your problem isn't with the actual stories but the tone, or perhaps you're simply starting to notice the pattern more than you used to. Which is fine, as long as people don't pretend like the stories used to be somehow better when in fact they have all been variations on a theme. "Oh, AC2 was the best story ever! Syndicate is **** because all you're doing is whittling away at smaller bad guys to get to the big bad guy!" Ummm, hate to break this to ya, but......

BananaBlighter
11-22-2016, 10:34 PM
Then your problem isn't with the actual stories but the tone, or perhaps you're simply starting to notice the pattern more than you used to. Which is fine, as long as people don't pretend like the stories used to be somehow better when in fact they have all been variations on a theme. "Oh, AC2 was the best story ever! Syndicate is **** because all you're doing is whittling away at smaller bad guys to get to the big bad guy!" Ummm, hate to break this to ya, but......

Well tone was a bit of a generalisation. The way I see it, a lot of the story's problems were a result of the focus on keeping the tone lighthearted. For example the cringey dialogue as the writers tried so desperately to add humour.

It also failed to tackle the Assassin vs Templar conflict in any meaningful way. The thing is, they clearly had hints in there. After killing each target, the city goes in to chaos as the part of industry which the target controlled crumbles. It goes to show how the city needs the Templars because they bring order. However it was never really explored, or even acknowledged because Evie pretended like it was all to do with Jacob's recklessness when really it was more to do with the absence of that specific Templar. The only reason it was portrayed that way was so that she would have an excuse to get angry with him at the end. If it weren't for the lighthearted tone then maybe we could have seen more depth to this aspect of the story, but unfortunately Syndicate was meant to appeal to those who don't want to deal with anything serious.

Take Black Flag however. I really enjoyed AC4's story, not because of the plot (running around looking for money, then medicine, then observatory, then get stuck in prison, then join assassins...) but because of the relationships between characters and ideas which each of these events presented.

As an outsider, Edward got a taste of both ideologies from an unbiased perspective (not my daddy was an assassin so assassin's are goodies). Nassau was the perfect example of what could become of society if it was given the freedom the Assassin's have always wanted. There was also still an element of mystery as Edward slowly uncovered the truth about the observatory. The success of all these things had nothing to do with all the silly errands we were doing and places we were going.

Also want to point how it pisses me off when people say Black Flag wasn't an Assassin's Creed game. Yes, maybe Edward didn't become an assassin until the end, but it was exactly that that allowed the story to explore the themes and ideas of AC in great depth.

Finally I'd like to say that in some ways I really liked the fact that AC1 had the structure it did. It took me a while to get used to, especially with the repetitive side content, but eventually I got addicted to the cycle of gaining intel, assassinating the target, and slowly getting one step close to understanding Al Mualim's motives. There was no sidetracking but instead a clear focus on being an assassin. Not saying sidetracking is bad, there was plenty of it in AC4, but it has to be relevant to the themes and behind all of that there has to be good script and characters.

SixKeys
11-22-2016, 11:55 PM
Well tone was a bit of a generalisation. The way I see it, a lot of the story's problems were a result of the focus on keeping the tone lighthearted. For example the cringey dialogue as the writers tried so desperately to add humour.

That's really a matter of taste. AC2 and ACB were probably the most light-hearted entries (with, incidentally, some of the most cringeworthy dialogue) in the whole series, yet they are also among the most popular entries. So clearly the tone cannot be the issue.



It also failed to tackle the Assassin vs Templar conflict in any meaningful way.

As did AC2 and ACB. I don't know how you personally rate those games, just pointing out that, again, these two extremely popular and beloved games are also some of the shallowest in terms of plot, characterization, morality and dialogue.



The thing is, they clearly had hints in there. After killing each target, the city goes in to chaos as the part of industry which the target controlled crumbles. It goes to show how the city needs the Templars because they bring order. However it was never really explored, or even acknowledged because Evie pretended like it was all to do with Jacob's recklessness when really it was more to do with the absence of that specific Templar. The only reason it was portrayed that way was so that she would have an excuse to get angry with him at the end. If it weren't for the lighthearted tone then maybe we could have seen more depth to this aspect of the story, but unfortunately Syndicate was meant to appeal to those who don't want to deal with anything serious.

This I can agree with, to an extent. However, we know there was a lot cut out due to time constraints. Someone mentioned earlier the interview with (I think) Jeffrey Yohalem who mentioned that the sibling rivalry was originally meant to be a lot more involved with gameplay. E.g. Jacob kills a banker without thinking about the consequences, leading to player income drastically dropping and crime increasing all over the city as his recklessness causes the city to be thrown into chaos. Then Evie would constantly have to clean up his messes, making it perfectly logical that sooner or later there would be a blowout between them. As things turned out, the rift in their relationship does seemingly come out of nowhere, which is jarring. However, I would argue it's not due to the light-hearted tone but the incohesiveness caused by the rushed production. I'm not saying it's an excuse - the product stands or falls as what it is, not what it was supposed to be. But considering the series has had other light-hearted, superficial stories before which were extremely popular with fans, I really don't see why Syndicate being light-hearted would suddenly be a deal-breaker.



Take Black Flag however. I really enjoyed AC4's story, not because of the plot (running around looking for money, then medicine, then observatory, then get stuck in prison, then join assassins...) but because of the relationships between characters and ideas which each of these events presented.

Whereas I found Black Flag's characters forgettable and never grew attached to any of them. I will say Edward's personal journey and the observations about the Creed along the way were well presented.


Nassau was the perfect example of what could become of society if it was given the freedom the Assassin's have always wanted.

Not true. Nassau was an example of pure anarchy which is not what the assassins represent. Assassins represent freedom with responsibility. The reason Edward was drawn towards the Creed in the end was precisely because he saw what happened with Nassau and realized that to balance complete freedom one needs to embrace personal responsibility. That is the Creed in a nutshell.



Finally I'd like to say that in some ways I really liked the fact that AC1 had the structure it did. It took me a while to get used to, especially with the repetitive side content, but eventually I got addicted to the cycle of gaining intel, assassinating the target, and slowly getting one step close to understanding Al Mualim's motives. There was no sidetracking but instead a clear focus on being an assassin. Not saying sidetracking is bad, there was plenty of it in AC4, but it has to be relevant to the themes and behind all of that there has to be good script and characters.

Right, but what makes for good script and characters is highly subjective. Not to beat on a dead horse, but AC2 being the golden boy of the series, the writing and characters are extremely simplistic. Its side missions (delivering letters, beating up husbands, racing thieves and even exploring tombs) are more random and disconnected from the main quest than in any other game since. Ezio doesn't become a real assassin until about 3/4 into the game. The dialogue has cringey moments with him flirting with courtesans just hours after witnessing the execution of his family. But clearly Syndicate is the real offender in bringing down the quality of the series with its light-heartedness. :rolleyes:

ERICATHERINE
11-22-2016, 11:58 PM
There was no sidetracking ...

Actually, if you think about it, the "rescue the citizen" were side tracking. You didn't need to do them to progress. ^-^

Edit. Those missions were in ac 1

BananaBlighter
11-23-2016, 12:06 AM
That's really a matter of taste. AC2 and ACB were probably the most light-hearted entries (with, incidentally, some of the most cringeworthy dialogue) in the whole series, yet they are also among the most popular entries. So clearly the tone cannot be the issue.
As did AC2 and ACB. I don't know how you personally rate those games, just pointing out that, again, these two extremely popular and beloved games are also some of the shallowest in terms of plot, characterization, morality and dialogue.

BTW I also dislike AC2's story for the same reasons.


This I can agree with, to an extent. However, we know there was a lot cut out due to time constraints. Someone mentioned earlier the interview with (I think) Jeffrey Yohalem who mentioned that the sibling rivalry was originally meant to be a lot more involved with gameplay. E.g. Jacob kills a banker without thinking about the consequences, leading to player income drastically dropping and crime increasing all over the city as his recklessness causes the city to be thrown into chaos. Then Evie would constantly have to clean up his messes, making it perfectly logical that sooner or later there would be a blowout between them. As things turned out, the rift in their relationship does seemingly come out of nowhere, which is jarring. However, I would argue it's not due to the light-hearted tone but the incohesiveness caused by the rushed production. I'm not saying it's an excuse - the product stands or falls as what it is, not what it was supposed to be. But considering the series has had other light-hearted, superficial stories before which were extremely popular with fans, I really don't see why Syndicate being light-hearted would suddenly be a deal-breaker.

Again, I also have problems with those games but just used Syndicate as an example as it's more recent and my memory of it is better.


Whereas I found Black Flag's characters forgettable and never grew attached to any of them. I will say Edward's personal journey and the observations about the Creed along the way were well presented.

Ah well, to each their own.


Not true. Nassau was an example of pure anarchy which is not what the assassins represent. Assassins represent freedom with responsibility. The reason Edward was drawn towards the Creed in the end was precisely because he saw what happened with Nassau and realized that to balance complete freedom one needs to embrace personal responsibility. That is the Creed in a nutshell.

I agree but it depends on your interpretation of the creed's teachings. Th example of Nassau challenged the idea of absolute freedom, which I guess is how Templars would see the creed.


Right, but what makes for good script and characters is highly subjective. Not to beat on a dead horse, but AC2 being the golden boy of the series, the writing and characters are extremely simplistic. Its side missions (delivering letters, beating up husbands, racing thieves and even exploring tombs) are more random and disconnected from the main quest than in any other game since. Ezio doesn't become a real assassin until about 3/4 into the game. The dialogue has cringey moments with him flirting with courtesans just hours after witnessing the execution of his family. But clearly Syndicate is the real offender in bringing down the quality of the series with its light-heartedness. :rolleyes:

Oh yes I agree with all your criticisms of AC2 too. IMO it's really overrated.

Sorrosyss
11-24-2016, 11:18 AM
Was thinking about this earlier, in terms of how they might actually implement the story to Egypt. If they really are to use Witcher 3 as an influence, with very detailed side quests, then you've got to think about what kind of universal theme would go across Egypt in the 'Ancient' time frame.

In my mind, I can see them going down the route of slavery. Yes, we covered it before with Freedom Cry, but the big leak stated that the new protagonist was a former slave so that kind of fits. If you were to then go around the country, freeing slaves, and upsetting the Pharoahs and other elite, it would still fit the freedom principle that underpins the invisible war. Then you put a few Isu tombs under the Pyramids, throw in the Ankh as a Piece of Eden to link the Modern Day - et voila.

That doesn't sound too bad on paper. As others have said, the historical plot to most of the games really have boiled down to taking out Templar Lieutenants before the Big Bad. If removing the linear narrative spices it up a bit, that might even be a good thing. After all, in my mind it has always been the Modern Day and the Isu that directs the story. I hope that part doesn't change at least.

D.I.D.
11-24-2016, 12:10 PM
Was thinking about this earlier, in terms of how they might actually implement the story to Egypt. If they really are to use Witcher 3 as an influence, with very detailed side quests, then you've got to think about what kind of universal theme would go across Egypt in the 'Ancient' time frame.

In my mind, I can see them going down the route of slavery. Yes, we covered it before with Freedom Cry, but the big leak stated that the new protagonist was a former slave so that kind of fits. If you were to then go around the country, freeing slaves, and upsetting the Pharoahs and other elite, it would still fit the freedom principle that underpins the invisible war. Then you put a few Isu tombs under the Pyramids, throw in the Ankh as a Piece of Eden to link the Modern Day - et voila.

That doesn't sound too bad on paper. As others have said, the historical plot to most of the games really have boiled down to taking out Templar Lieutenants before the Big Bad. If removing the linear narrative spices it up a bit, that might even be a good thing. After all, in my mind it has always been the Modern Day and the Isu that directs the story. I hope that part doesn't change at least.

A disillusioned soldier or guard might make an interesting new Assassin: someone with lots of martial training who has knowledge of the workings of power inside the Pharoah's buildings. That character would come ready built with lots of contacts at different levels of society too: religious, royal, military, administrative.

It would be nice to have a character who is free to wander in so many different environments.

Galactus123
11-24-2016, 12:26 PM
Then it means that I won't be playing them. The story is very important to me.

Lysette88
11-24-2016, 02:33 PM
The idea of that it would be just about deserts, pyramids and small towns is wrong. Ancient egypt's cities were actually quite huge compared to cities in the medieval or Renaissance. I found a graph on wiki which shows the estimated population of Thebes, which is about 500nm south up the nile from it's delta, where Luxor is nowadays. At it's peak in the ancient times it did not have much less inhabitants than at the present time. These cities were far from being small and for most of the time even bigger than cities like Florence in the Renaissance - so there is room for AC like game play and eventually new ways to play the game.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Thebes_historical_population.png

Well, I have to attribute the author, wiki says so here it is
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Thebes_historical_population.png

joelsantos24
11-24-2016, 02:37 PM
TBH, I think the comminty is whats ruined the series...
Ubisoft listens to us...
Assassins Creed Unity was the game of the community...
Stealth focused.. open ended missions.. added co op... skill tree... challenging combat.. the ability to crouch behind objects
And it got ripped apart....
There was nothing wrong with the formula of the first 5 games....
AC4 I get.. .flesh out the ship stuff... give them something to hold them over while we work on a real game...
Now im not saying we need to scrap those missions...
But i think we need a variety...
I want open ended missions AND i want scripted missions for my targets....
Its been so long since AC2 and ACB...
But they had a handful of open ended missions right? like a couple?
Its bad when every single one of your missions are the same thing...
Have an open target yes... but only give us one or 2 per game... not every target...
I want every missions to feel unquique....
I have no issues with scripted missions, as long as they're engaging and thrilling. And Unity is absolutely fantastic, by the way. I know I was blessed with having had an amazing experience with the game, with little or very few (irrelevant) bugs or glitches. And those were the only reason Unity was so fiercely criticized, mind you. It was made abundantly clear, in many ways, that the game simply wasn't ready to be released. So, let's not confuse things and make it sound like it was the game's features that destroyed it. Also, could the story have been more engaging? Certainly.

About the formula of the first 5 games? Yes, it was wrong, the formula was broken, or rather, it was incomplete Those games were absolutely about social stealth only, but an Assassin's work is fundamentally predicated on stealth, both social and physical, by definition. The first 5 games are fundamentally crippled, therefore, since there's no physical stealth, as there are no courtesans or other groups of people inside buildings or restricted areas, in order to carry you or enable you to even have some kind of stealthy approach upon infiltrating those areas. Most of the times, in AC, you're infiltrating complex structures, with a multitude of hostiles around. How can you finish a mission of that kind, without having forcefully to fight your way through several groups of guards? You can't. That's why I always say that the first AC games were mostly about being a warrior, more than about being an Assassin.

Sushiglutton
11-24-2016, 02:38 PM
Is there any chance he meant "less focused narrative", rather than "less focus on narrative"? I think the former fits much better given what people are saying about the Witcher 3.

Lysette88
11-24-2016, 02:53 PM
Is there any chance he meant "less focused narrative", rather than "less focus on narrative"? I think the former fits much better given what people are saying about the Witcher 3.

To me it means, there will be more freedom in how to approach the story and less guided. When you think about AC2 for example compared to AC Syndicate or Unity, AC2 opens up the game world in a very bound way to progression in the story line. If you do not progress in the storyline, you won't be able to explore as you wish. Whereas Unity and Syndicate open up the whole game world for you right from the start and you can go and explore without to be forced to do the storyline in order to have access to the whole game world. This means to me less focus on narrative, not that there is less narrative in the first place, but that it is more of a guide line through the game world, without the restrictive hand-holding in which the former AC games presented and opened up the game world.

Sushiglutton
11-24-2016, 02:58 PM
To me it means, there will be more freedom in how to approach the story and less guided. When you think about AC2 for example compared to AC Syndicate or Unity, AC2 opens up the game world in a very bound way to progression in the story line. If you do not progress in the storyline, you won't be able to explore as you wish. Whereas Unity and Syndicate open up the whole game world for you right from the start and you can go and explore without to be forced to do the storyline in order to have access to the whole game world. This means to me less focus on narrative, not that there is less narrative in the first place, but that it is more of a guide line through the game world, without the restrictive hand-holding in which the former AC games presented and opened up the game world.

Yeah, that's my thinking too. The amount of story won't be less (will probably be more lines of dialogue in total for example). It's the way that it's structured that will be less focused/restricted. Like you said, you'll be able to explore and find the stories in different orders.

Lysette88
11-24-2016, 03:08 PM
The interesting part in Unity for example is, how the game world is changing when you progress in the storyline. I started early with exploration instead to progress in the story line, so I have seen a lot of the game world before it got really nasty in the city. When the story was progressing, because I did more storyline missions, I could experience in which way the atmosphere in the city changed, how it got more and more into chaos when it approached the reign of terror. I would not have experienced that in the same way without to have seen the city in a less desperate state before. The whole insanity of the events in the wake of the revolution was more present playing it like that.

Lysette88
11-24-2016, 03:19 PM
Syndicate offered a similar experience as well. If you progress relatively slow in the storyline and focus on raising the gang first, you will find, that after you start with the gang the situation in the city is calming down a bit at first, but the more present your Rooks are in the city, the more it is pushing the city out of balance and you see more gang fights in the streets and it gets more violent in the city overall. But when you start to free the boroughs one by one, it gets back into balance and you can really experience the effects of your efforts with the gang and how it effects the city. I find things like this even more interesting than the actual storyline (which was not really that exciting to be honest), I had a lot more fun to see how my Rooks effected the situation in different boroughs.

crusader_prophet
11-24-2016, 07:51 PM
Is there any chance he meant "less focused narrative", rather than "less focus on narrative"? I think the former fits much better given what people are saying about the Witcher 3.

If that is the case I'll be okay with it. Losing linearity towards narrative is absolutely fine. Approaching missions and experiencing story organically in a Far Cry 4/Primal esque open world that is filled with anecdotal spontaneous events is the way to go. But it shouldn't come at a price of sacrificing the quality, rhythm, enigma and quantity of the narrative curve. If anyone has seen The DaVinci Code movie, where the cliffhangers just keep coming one after another like series of waves is how I imagine the narrative progression of AC games because it has similar enigmatic appeal and theme. But I also understand maintaining similar off the edge adrenaline isn't possible in open world games unlike movies or linear set-piece games. However, I still think similar framework of the storytelling could work with a slightly different approach.

For example, to even make use of a landmark building that the artists painstakingly built in the game can have involvement in narrative. Imagine the protagonist passing by the landmark and the player stops for ~30sec to admire the architecture. It will trigger an in-game footage where an NPC (probably the engineer/architect) approaches the protagonist and says "impressive, isn't it" and then goes on about what it took for him to come up with the design, convincing the Pharaoh and etc etc. It can even trigger short side mission for the player to go through and tie in with the main storyline. such as the architect remembers him in a later part of the storyline and offers him help to get the keys to a door needed to access some weapon to assassinate a target. This delivery style can particularly create lasting impression in a player's mind and will remember years later that "I remember when I was just idling in-game, this NPC came over and I went through this mission". To me such delivery style is considered organic. Connecting player's behavior in real life with in-game narrative approach.

And then not repeating the same approach across the entire game so it doesn't become a chore or another checkmark in the game. Keep that approach unique to that location. Invent such unique approaches and fill up the open world with them so once again a side mission isn't as irrelevant and chore as it has become now. This approach also increases the importance of side content because if the player hadn't stopped to admire the building, he/she would never experience the content in the game. And it also opens up admiration and conversations in the player community. Someone comes in the forums and tells us hey guys I found this yesterday while I was just idling in game in front of this building. It will also encourage players to venture and explore the world with a purpose and not just pick up a collectible with no meaning.

SixKeys
11-24-2016, 08:12 PM
For example, to even make use of a landmark building that the artists painstakingly built in the game can have involvement in narrative. Imagine the protagonist passing by the landmark and the player stops for ~30sec to admire the architecture. It will trigger an in-game footage where an NPC (probably the engineer/architect) approaches the protagonist and says "impressive, isn't it" and then goes on about what it took for him to come up with the design, convincing the Pharaoh and etc etc. It can even trigger short side mission for the player to go through and tie in with the main storyline. such as the architect remembers him in a later part of the storyline and offers him help to get the keys to a door needed to access some weapon to assassinate a target. This delivery style can particularly create lasting impression in a player's mind and will remember years later that "I remember when I was just idling in-game, this NPC came over and I went through this mission". To me such delivery style is considered organic. Connecting player's behavior in real life with in-game narrative approach.

This reminds me of one of my favorite random moments in Syndicate. I tackled a pick-pocket and right after doing so, a priest walked by and started to lecture the thief with "shame on you, you must turn from your wicked ways" etc. It was probably just a coincidence that the NPC happened to be a priest (maybe they're all programmed to say stuff like that when they witness a crime) but it was just so perfect, I loved it. It created this mini-story in my mind where Jacob caught the thief and after getting lectured by a passing priest, the thief goes on to change their life around. I am absolutely in favor of anything that could create similar gameplay experiences in the future.

Lysette88
11-25-2016, 02:32 AM
Oh, this reminds me of an NPC comment in Syndicate, when I emptied a chest in his house, he said "This was all we had, now you took it away. I hope, your hands will fall off" - oh my, did I feel guilty now, I looked around in his home and found, that he had a wife, children and an elderly parent living with him and I could not give it back to them - those were "just" NPCs, but I really felt bad in real life about what I did to them in game.

This is actually what I love in Syndicate a lot, and I listened to a lot of comments NPCs make and events they have - like friends, who did not see each other for a long time, meeting at Trafalgar Square (this is anyway a location with a lot of interesting NPC conversations) or the couples in parks, even some of the short conversations on board of a passenger train are interesting. Covent Garden had as well quite interesting NPCs and I loved to watch people at St. James's Park. Or those partly awesome music groups playing in parks and along the shore of the Thames River. This is all detail, which does not have a lot to do with storyline, if at all, but this is what makes the game interesting to explore and experience.

Ah, and I remember the old man, sitting on a low brick wall in Southwark telling a fairytale to a bunch of children - the story was not complete of course, but it was long enough, that when just walking past this group, one could really think, he would tell the full story to those children. Then did you watch children play?- This is quite amazing what Ubisoft did with those, their play actually makes sense and a boy playing ball against a wall has quite some different animations doing that, it feels so lifelike. I really appreciate the effort Ubisoft put into that and if things like this will continue to enrich a game, I would be quite happy.

At the same time I am really sad, that I cannot understand what random NPCs say in Unity - or I have to guess, what they might say. What makes Syndicate so interesting is that I can actually listen to NPC, which are not part of the storyline. But unfortunately I do not speak french to understand them in Unity.

Ziiimmie
11-28-2016, 03:41 AM
honestly, i dont mind this as long as its done properly

FeakFrost
12-30-2016, 08:01 AM
They have nothing to lose at this point, they already f*cked, just look at the recent games, they're nonsense lets be honest (but Black Flag is not one of them), its like fillers but in a video game form, the story doesn't do sh*t but to stay as mediocre as they can, letting the story go to the NPC's or the world rather than a single narrative is a great way to improve fun long lasting experience, just look at Skyrim for example, it is pretty much that, the world is built by us the players, the choices is ours, and the end result is always sticks to the decisions you've made earlier, and that is a good thing.

At this point Ubi should just focus on building great world, npcs and things we can interact, Black Flag is one of great example of how the next game should be, focus less on linear narrative but the exploration is the key, the game is great because of that, they still put out their decency with the story but that "flaws" is gone once you really enjoyed the other side of it which is exploration. That being said i don't really care anymore about them f*cking up, they already done the damage since they killed off Desmond, a fresh start into RPG style game is what they needed then go right ahead, you can done no harm anymore

ERICATHERINE
12-30-2016, 08:45 AM
just look at the recent games, they're nonsense lets be honest

I'll be honest and say, "speak for yourself. The last games are great, from my and many other person's point of view. " From my point of view alone, rogue and syndicate are better than black flag. As for unity, I think it's way better than the repetitive ac 1 or even ac liberation hd, which I think is way better than that same ac 1. Nothing is perfect in this world, you know. On the other hand we can still appreciate those games if we want. I'm curious about why you said they are "nonsense", though. Also if you don't like the newest ac games, there is nothing forcing you to play them. I don't like skirym, but I don't go on some sort of skirym forum to say I want the company of that game to change it for it to be like ac for me to play it. Ac is ac and skirym is skirym. These games don't need to transform themself. Sure, I'll still play ac empire if it look like the witcher, but it will not be the same thing.

crusader_prophet
12-30-2016, 04:00 PM
I'll be honest and say, "speak for yourself. The last games are great, from my and many other person's point of view. " From my point of view alone, rogue and syndicate are better than black flag. As for unity, I think it's way better than the repetitive ac 1 or even ac liberation hd, which I think is way better than that same ac 1. Nothing is perfect in this world, you know. On the other hand we can still appreciate those games if we want. I'm curious about why you said they are "nonsense", though. Also if you don't like the newest ac games, there is nothing forcing you to play them. I don't like skirym, but I don't go on some sort of skirym forum to say I want the company of that game to change it for it to be like ac for me to play it. Ac is ac and skirym is skirym. These games don't need to transform themself. Sure, I'll still play ac empire if it look like the witcher, but it will not be the same thing.

I am pretty sure he intended to only speak for himself. You need to calm down and stop being childish. He is entitled to his opinion on forums, and for better his opinion actually aligns with the majority of the opinion based on the recent reception of the games. So he can go to any forums he wants and express his opinion. You need to stop getting hurt easily just because his opinion does not align with yours. The mature thing to do will be to be open to criticism. To me Unity and Syndicate are the worst in the series. AC1 is one of the best entries in the series. There...that is my opinion.

ERICATHERINE
12-30-2016, 10:37 PM
I am pretty sure he intended to only speak for himself. You need to calm down and stop being childish. He is entitled to his opinion on forums, and for better his opinion actually aligns with the majority of the opinion based on the recent reception of the games. So he can go to any forums he wants and express his opinion. You need to stop getting hurt easily just because his opinion does not align with yours. The mature thing to do will be to be open to criticism. To me Unity and Syndicate are the worst in the series. AC1 is one of the best entries in the series. There...that is my opinion.

I know everyone can have their opinion. The thing is, for the first sentence, I was simply saying he shiuld speak for himself, because the way he wrote his comment was just like if he spoke on behalf of everyone. Then the the 2 next sentence of my comment was about my opinion. The 2 next comment was for calming himself down, since, the way I readed it, it seemed like he was upset about the games and the way they are made. The 2 next sentences were made just for conversation. The rest of my comment was me sharing my opinion with him.

So, don't worry, I wasn't upset or anything like that. Writing what you mean in a way somebody can misunderstand could happen to you too, if you didn't slept from about 15 hour to 1 day and 13 hours later. ^-^

cawatrooper9
12-30-2016, 11:19 PM
I'd agree that Unity and Syndicate absolutely were "fillers", but I wouldn't necessarily call them "nonsense". To me, they almost feel like spinoffs- on their own, they're decent enough games, but they don't really fill that AC sized hole in my heart I've had since 2013. That's why, if Ubisoft truly has confidence in their next game, I think whatever comes next should earn the title of Assassins Creed V.

pacmanate
12-31-2016, 12:01 AM
I would call Unity non-sense for sure. That ending of "Welp, his DNA isn't here, oh well, the last ****** hours of gametime were useless, thanks for ur money" was so irritating. There was no pay off at all for playing Unity, it progressed nothing, nothing worthy of being in a game anyway.

Syndicate was a try hard of Brotherhood, it felt like a Brotherhood II. Evie's parts were great, her storyline of tracking the PoE was interesting as it blended taking down Templars and getting an artifact. Jacobs was just taking down Templars, just a kill this kill that story layout. But that ending again in Syndicate, my God. Whoever designed the run to boss, stab 4 times, get pushed back, run, stab 4 times and repeat x5 needs to be fired.

The last 2 games were poor entries to the AC franchise.

1. The Modern Day story clearly has no direction since AC3. We have gone from floating tablets to CGI cutscenes? Juno has been stuck in The Grey for 3 years becauseeee....? She doesn't have enough "power"? She is "weak"? Why is her condition or what she can do not fleshed out at all? From becoming someone who was supposed to enslave the world, shes gone from massive threat to malware.
2. Why are the Pieces of Eden just shoe horned in? Like they HAVE to be in AC cause its AC? The SoE in Unity was thrown in at the end and the Shroud (despite events leading up to it), was implemented into the story very poorly, with a poor boss battle level design at the end.
3. Where has the Mystery gone? I haven't felt any mystery in AC games since AC3 and a massive part of that has definitely got to be due down to the time periods. The more modern we get, the less mystery I feel surrounds everything. Definitely just my opinion, but I want the games to go back in time again. I want glyphs, tombs, messages from TWCB, I want that atmosphere back that the Desmond Saga gave me (minus AC4, despite it being a good game).

RA503
12-31-2016, 01:26 AM
The series still have a plenty of mysteries left :

Who is The Lady EVE mentioned in the ending of Dead Kings DLC ...

Who is the supposed ''Desmond Son'' that is mentioned in Syndicate...

Who is the Father of Understanding ...

Sigma 1313
12-31-2016, 03:04 AM
I would call Unity non-sense for sure. That ending of "Welp, his DNA isn't here, oh well, the last ****** hours of gametime were useless, thanks for ur money" was so irritating. There was no pay off at all for playing Unity, it progressed nothing, nothing worthy of being in a game anyway.

Syndicate was a try hard of Brotherhood, it felt like a Brotherhood II. Evie's parts were great, her storyline of tracking the PoE was interesting as it blended taking down Templars and getting an artifact. Jacobs was just taking down Templars, just a kill this kill that story layout. But that ending again in Syndicate, my God. Whoever designed the run to boss, stab 4 times, get pushed back, run, stab 4 times and repeat x5 needs to be fired.

The last 2 games were poor entries to the AC franchise.

1. The Modern Day story clearly has no direction since AC3. We have gone from floating tablets to CGI cutscenes? Juno has been stuck in The Grey for 3 years becauseeee....? She doesn't have enough "power"? She is "weak"? Why is her condition or what she can do not fleshed out at all? From becoming someone who was supposed to enslave the world, shes gone from massive threat to malware.
2. Why are the Pieces of Eden just shoe horned in? Like they HAVE to be in AC cause its AC? The SoE in Unity was thrown in at the end and the Shroud (despite events leading up to it), was implemented into the story very poorly, with a poor boss battle level design at the end.
3. Where has the Mystery gone? I haven't felt any mystery in AC games since AC3 and a massive part of that has definitely got to be due down to the time periods. The more modern we get, the less mystery I feel surrounds everything. Definitely just my opinion, but I want the games to go back in time again. I want glyphs, tombs, messages from TWCB, I want that atmosphere back that the Desmond Saga gave me (minus AC4, despite it being a good game).

I completely agree, and honestly think we should see the next game jump several years in the future, with humanity enslaved by Juno, and you playing as Desmond's son, discovering the animus again, and reliving the memories of his ancestors in an attempt to find the Gate and Eve to stop Juno. Maybe even bring back his father who was trapped in the gray. Jumping like that and doing a soft reboot would allow them the freedom they need to make AC really interesting again.

PowerMinotau
12-31-2016, 10:29 AM
First and foremost, I love this series. I have played every main game since AC1.

It's concerning for me because it seems like Ubi is planning on deviating from the "core" mechanics of the game play. Each new game they ignore the present more and more. Bottom line is that I feel they'll disregard what makes Assassin Creed... Well, Assassin Creed.


Know why the Ezio saga worked? We saw Ezio Auditore grow as an assassin and as a person. We saw the tragedies he faced, the successes he experienced. The heartbreaks. We basically witnessed his entire life. From birth to death. We saw him go from being a brash playboy to an experienced mentor of the Italian Assassin Order. It made sense.

The assassins after him? They're victims of his legacy.

Think about it... any playable assassin that came directly after Ezio would get the short stick. Conner, for me at least, his character personality and approach to life was a welcome change. Yet, less fun because we were used to Ezio's personality to where it was a jarring shift. If AC4 followed afterwards instead of AC3 then Edward Kenway likely would've suffer from criticism of being too much like Ezio. The Fry twins personality brought a combo of all previous Assassin's traits.

We just need to stick with one Assassin for three games. Grow with them, mature with them and by the third game they'll loved. Conner whole life was accelerated in one game. Made things feel rushed and especially compared to the three games with had with Ezio. Kenway worked cause not knowing his entire life added to the allure and mystery of being a pirate and seeing him slowing understanding the creed and seeing his pirate life fall apart made sense. I wish we had memories of the Fry Twins as kids with their father as an assassin. Seeing his influence on the twins and seeing the twin banter grow naturally to where we'd feel more connected to them.

Oh, I almost forgotten Arno. Poor bloke as Ubi messed up his game for him. Weird how he didn't try to find his father's killer and aim for revenge. Strange how his love life was the main focus and not his involvement of one of the most fascinating times in human history. Unity is an example of what not to do in terms of storytelling and character development. I suppose, I should include Shay because he's the best character since Ezio.

We related to Shay's struggle. To his criticism of the creed. His character development was superb. I wish he was the main antagonist in unity...

Point is developing the main character and not rushing it is where I think has been the downfall or an issue of many past games.

Finally, the agonizing knowledge that Ubi is doing less and less of the present day storyline. Killing off Desmond was the stupidest move they could've done. Imagine playing as him in those syndicate cut scenes or playing out those scenes more fleshed out. I want the past and present to have equal storytelling and if that makes the game much longer then I am fine with that.

I just feel that depending how the next game is will determine if I stick with the series or abandon ship. I like the cut scenes, I like the present day scenes, and I love the story line despite how mess it can be (that's only because there's never enough focus on it). I don't want to play some nameless character with no clear cut main story line with the present day story erased. IF, that's the case then I'm gone.

I really hope it's not. I really hope we all misunderstood what he said or something major was missed in translation. If not then it's been a good run with our hidden blades.

The4orTy67
12-31-2016, 01:58 PM
After playing a bit of Syndicate, I really hope Empire is a full on reboot.

pacmanate
12-31-2016, 02:39 PM
The series still have a plenty of mysteries left :

Who is The Lady EVE mentioned in the ending of Dead Kings DLC ...

Who is the supposed ''Desmond Son'' that is mentioned in Syndicate...

Who is the Father of Understanding ...

Those aren't mysteries, those are unresolved cliffhangers. The series has a lot of "mysteries" that WERE interesting in the past, and then completely abandoned. The problem with AC now is you get more and more questions and hardly any resolution.


I completely agree, and honestly think we should see the next game jump several years in the future, with humanity enslaved by Juno, and you playing as Desmond's son, discovering the animus again, and reliving the memories of his ancestors in an attempt to find the Gate and Eve to stop Juno. Maybe even bring back his father who was trapped in the gray. Jumping like that and doing a soft reboot would allow them the freedom they need to make AC really interesting again.

This would definitely work and already seems more interesting to play. My reasoning:

1. Brings back a Modern Day character and more of a purpose to why we are reliving memories. If Ubisoft can make us feel for this MD character then we as players won't feel like we are being dragged out of the action in the Animus. I remember people saying in AC1 that Desmond sectons were boring, they pulled you out of the Animus and you had to listen to a convo for ages. Instead of Ubisoft fleshing out Desmond and making us care for him/about him, they gave him pretty much no character development. Desmond and the Modern Day Character failure is all on Ubisoft for not caring for that Character. It's no wonder a large majority of the fanbase didn't care for Modern Day.
2. This idea brings back a threat, a race against time. Something I really felt from AC1-AC3. I couldn't wait for the next AC game in that period because each cliffhanger actually got picked up in the next game. Every game since AC3 has just felt like a standalone adventure that hasn't really progressed anything at all.
3. More interesting environments/maybe even tech. If Juno launches us into a crappy future, maybe she brings around an acceleration in technology. It would be cool to have advanced tech for the Modern Day and juxtapose this to going far FAR back in time in the Animus.

legendvinu
01-01-2017, 06:43 AM
Very interesting interview with the Ubisoft CCO. I've collated it from various sources, including the original French version (http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2016/11/15/dans-les-prochains-jeux-video-ubisoft-il-y-aura-de-moins-en-moins-de-narration_5031610_4408996.html).




It would be very easy to jump to conclusions here. On the face of it, it suggests that the next game may well do away with the traditional linear story sequences and cutscenes, and just leave you with a series of strong independent stories akin to side missions from the other games. I've only played Watch Dogs 2 for a few hours thus far so I can't cite that, but certainly Far Cry Primal had a similar approach, and in my view had a much weaker watered down story as a result - weird dialect aside.

With Ubisoft themselves stating that The Division was their long term template of their future games, you can start to see how this may well be turning out. Being able to play as 'his or her' story might even suggest a character creation tool, something that arguably you could never have had with a distinct and linear narrative surrounding a hero's journey - such as Ezio. With CD Projekt Red and Rockstar both seemingly adding seamless multiplayer to their upcoming open world games, Ubisoft may well be following suit with their flagship series as well.

I'm not so sure this will sit well with many players whom fell in love with the overarching plotline to the franchise. On reflection, this all kind of makes sense following on from the news that the Phoenix Project storyline - our main modern day element since AC4 - will in fact be concluded within the comics. For many, it was seen as a chance to wipe the slate clean and reboot the modern day, but in light of the above it may well be that the meta plot has been stripped from the games permanently, and will remain purely in the domain of the books and comics.

This is all speculation, but it certainly raises some interesting points for discussion.

IMO the game will have cutscenes my idea is the player will have freedom to choose his style like four or five options to which we can answer I assume that it keeps the character less narrative and provides the players opinion to approach any way choosing from one of these what i really hate is they introduced the black box mission different ways to assassinate but now it will be removed I think so.
Free roam to talk to characters?? just go to a person and start a new conversation? it has many advantages as well as disadvantages the world will react to us in game is advantage but what if some one sees us?? :eek:
From all what I can get is there will be no leap of faith entirely new game play with lot of disturbance and can help anyone to help them and get coins in game.
Hope the new details wont spoil the series I get it it's the time line where there is no Assassin's and templar order so it's a good change like the black flag freedom cry.
Assassin's I am also sure we will get our modern day gameplay.

"I don't want to be forced to play the story created by somebody else."

I don't understand I haven't felt like that before I am free to do anything from day one of assassin's creed franchise.

free flow combat pisses me off but these are my views waiting for it some looks awsome and others feel sad to me. "why they learn from other games???" " why can't You believe in Yourself when every one does."-vinu to UBI team



The series still have a plenty of mysteries left :

Who is The Lady EVE mentioned in the ending of Dead Kings DLC ...

Who is the supposed ''Desmond Son'' that is mentioned in Syndicate...

Who is the Father of Understanding ...

Lady EVE is those who came before

Desmond Son is a Sage I got this news from various sources and I hope to see him in empire I don't know may be he can be future hero like Desmond. May be Assassin's may kidnap from the templars like Desmond.

with the help of a friend

This is my wild idea on who I think it could be, and is kind of a mix between a theory and fan fiction. During the war between the First Civilization and Humans one of the members of the First Civilization sided with the human rebels and helped Adam and Eve steal the POE, this member would later be known as Lucifer or Prometheus. After the war was over and the First Civ were gradually dying out, Prometheus passed on his knowledge and ideology onto to Cain, he used this knowledge to kill Abel, obtain the POE and form the Templar Order. Prometheus was then known as The Father of Understanding among Templars for generations to come. During this time the Assassins saw Prometheus as a threat to their beliefs, and with the help of First Civ such as Jupiter, the Assassins then killed Prometheus.
In mythology, both Lucifer and Prometheus went against the main deity to give knowledge (POE) to humans, and so could originally be the same member of the First Civilization but over time different cultures interpreted him differently. Both figures are seen as enlightners to humans so it is fitting for them to be the Father of Understanding. Promtheus was also totured daily, as his liver would be eaten by an Eagle. Historically eagles were a symbol of Zeus, but in the series we also know that it is a symbol of the Assassins. This leads me to speculate that it was an Assassin who totured or killed Prometheus, this would also confirm a connection between Jupiter and the Assassins as they both share the same symbol.
The same way Hera was known for her jealous and vengeful nature against Zeus's lovers and offspring, but also against mortals who crossed her, which makes sense for the way Juno acts in the AC universe. Prometheus is best known as the deity in Greek mythology who was the creator of mankind and its greatest benefactor, who gifted mankind with fire stolen from Mount Olympus. It would make sense for Promrtheus as a member of the FC to be on the side of hummanity, and could possibly go against Juno.
Who do you guys think is the Father of Understanding? Do you still think it's the Templars being figurative and poetic? Do you think it's a member of the First Civ such as Juno, Aita or Consus? Do you think it's someone like Adam or Cain?

Abelzorus-Prime

He could be right.

RA503
01-01-2017, 07:30 PM
We need do Check if this istatement was made before No Man Sky fail,maybe they change minds after that ...

Dead1y-Derri
01-01-2017, 09:52 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about AC games having less narrative focus or a less linear narrative. I feel like the last two games have been going down this path in the AC universe. I do believe that Black Flag (and Rogue) were the last AC games that had a lot of narrative drive. The story in Black Flag was very interesting and you felt like you were being told a story, it had multiple characters that you could easily connect with and the content in the game, while semi repetitive in some areas.....I really enjoyed.

Its odd because I had strong hopes for future AC games after playing Black Flag but Unity seemed to adopt a less narrative focused story and thus I felt I had no connection to the characters within AC unity. I also feel this had an effect on the gaemplay because even the assassination missions were very weak, even though they were more approachable and free form than ever before. To me it just created a much more weaker story and thus a weaker experience.

Syndicate tried in my opinion to do the best of both worlds. It tried to have an interesting narrative through Evie and Jacob but still open in the sense you could go off and make your own path. Again I felt though that they had interesting characters and I felt that if they modeled this after AC2 (watch the character develop over several in game years and build a story around them) then it could have been a really interesting game but alas they kept less narrative focused and it just resulted in a weak story.

I feel like they tried this approach with Far Cry Primal. I loved the Far Cry series but I lost interest in Far Cry Primal because I didn't feel the narrative was there. It could have just been because of the setting and how different it was to other FC games but I'll be honest and say I didn't find it that thrilling to play. Again it just resulted in a weaker story.

I also can't help but feel that the people who dislike the modern day scene disliked being taken away from the action. There was nothing inherently wrong with the modern day scene within AC but people just weren't invested in it enough. I enjoyed playing as Desmond and if you read all the emails and had all the optional conversations....you did learn a lot. I do think they could have built him up better and made him a bit more interesting but I still liked the modern day aspect.

I think they should bring back a modern day character. While I don't mind walking around abstergo offices, I'll admit it wasn't as fun as playing as Desmond but then again I really enjoyed walking around in Black Flag and Rogue. I haven't enjoyed the last few games modern scene where you're just showing clips and snips of what people are doing. I think that was the first time I kind of got tired with the modern stuff because it was always creating more questions than actually giving us answers.

Just my thoughts.

crusader_prophet
01-02-2017, 10:02 PM
I do believe that Black Flag (and Rouge) were the last AC games that had a lot of narrative drive.

I thought I was the only one who liked Rogue's narrative. I think I liked the lone wolf dimension of Shay's character. That much about his story is left for speculation, but the game only gave us the pivotal moments of his life. I think what drew me towards his character are the possibilities of inner demons and inner conflicts for betraying his brotherhood that he might had during his life. What kind of impact that had in shifting his personality over the years. How much he woke up at night sweating from nightmares incited from what he had done by murdering the entire North American assassin's brotherhood. How much his actions haunted him yet he remained calm and put on a strong face in front of the templars. It's that mystery and room for speculation that drew me towards his character and makes me like Rogue's narrative.


The story in Black Flag was very interesting and you felt like you were being told a story, it had multiple characters that you could easily connect with and the content in the game, while semi repetitive in some areas.....I really enjoyed.

Its odd because I had strong hopes for future AC games after playing Black Flag but Unity seemed to adopt a less narrative focused story and thus I felt I had no connection to the characters within AC unity. I also feel this had an effect on the gaemplay because even the assassination missions were very weak, even though they were more approachable and free form than ever before. To me it just created a much more weaker story and thus a weaker experience.

Unity's strength is its absolutely gorgeous, detailed and live world the developers built. But they failed to make use of it with an engaging story, narrative and characters. I still love to just hang out in Unity's Paris and watch from atop a tower because it is incredibly beautiful and a detailed piece of art. But that's it. The concepts for a great narrative are there - co-op multiple assassins, assassin boy in love with templar girl, philosophical struggle, a brutal and revolutionary setting multiple historical political figures, good amount of side content - the pieces of a brilliant game are there, just not integrated, tethered and crafted into a sensible product. Too ambitious with too little time. It was as ambitious as Witcher 3. Only difference Witcher 3 had way more development time and hence was successful in realization of those ambitions.


I feel like they tried this approach with Far Cry Primal. I loved the Far Cry series but I lost interest in Far Cry Primal because I didn't feel the narrative was there. It could have just been because of the setting and how different it was to other FC games but I'll be honest and say I didn't find it that thrilling to play. Again it just resulted in a weaker story.

I completely echo your thoughts. Starting Far Cry 4 they went into this mode of creating a vast open world with anecdotal events happening throughout it with no particular objective and just to make it look alive. It's the same 4 or 5 events happening and becomes a chore and boring quickly. To be honest it comes off as fluff and cheap and filler things by the developer and comes off as lack of direction and creativity. Such a world has no meaning to me. I don't want to go around an open world just to keep saving citizens from an eagle or a bully for the millionth time and have an increment in my karma level. Its not story to me. Such an open world has no character. It has no soul. It's not even fun. It has no element of surprise. It has no mystery. When I played Mass Effect games, Normandy the ship had a character and appealed to me even though it never spoke to me and I just hung out when not in mission. I cared for it.


I also can't help but feel that the people who dislike the modern day scene disliked being taken away from the action. There was nothing inherently wrong with the modern day scene within AC but people just weren't invested in it enough. I enjoyed playing as Desmond and if you read all the emails and had all the optional conversations....you did learn a lot. I do think they could have built him up better and made him a bit more interesting but I still liked the modern day aspect.

I think they should bring back a modern day character. While I don't mind walking around abstergo offices, I'll admit it wasn't as fun as playing as Desmond but then again I really enjoyed walking around in Black Flag and Rouge. I haven't enjoyed the last few games modern scene where you're just showing clips and snips of what people are doing. I think that was the first time I kind of got tired with the modern stuff because it was always creating more questions than actually giving us answers.

Modern day needs much of an overhaul and for that they need talented, creative and visionary (all at the same time in single developer) writers/concept developers. Just a good writer is not enough, they need people who wake up in the middle of night with a brilliant idea and want to give it shape and form the next day they are in office. One can write well, but creativity and vision does not come with being talented at writing. They need visionary writers and engineers devoted to the franchise. Mediocrity is not an option anymore.

Dead1y-Derri
01-02-2017, 11:20 PM
I thought I was the only one who liked Rogue's narrative. I think I liked the lone wolf dimension of Shay's character. That much about his story is left for speculation, but the game only gave us the pivotal moments of his life. I think what drew me towards his character are the possibilities of inner demons and inner conflicts for betraying his brotherhood that he might had during his life. What kind of impact that had in shifting his personality over the years. How much he woke up at night sweating from nightmares incited from what he had done by murdering the entire North American assassin's brotherhood. How much his actions haunted him yet he remained calm and put on a strong face in front of the templars. It's that mystery and room for speculation that drew me towards his character and makes me like Rogue's narrative.

I agree with what you've said. I liked the style of AC Rogue. I think many AC fans weren't a fan of his narrative as it wasn't as fleshed out as previous games. They kept the game shorter and more on point than previous games such as Black Flag and thus only gave key points and highlights. The story wasn't paced well but it kept a really focused and enjoyable narrative that Unity and Syndicate have not.



Unity's strength is its absolutely gorgeous, detailed and live world the developers built. But they failed to make use of it with an engaging story, narrative and characters. I still love to just hang out in Unity's Paris and watch from atop a tower because it is incredibly beautiful and a detailed piece of art. But that's it. The concepts for a great narrative are there - co-op multiple assassins, assassin boy in love with templar girl, philosophical struggle, a brutal and revolutionary setting multiple historical political figures, good amount of side content - the pieces of a brilliant game are there, just not integrated, tethered and crafted into a sensible product. Too ambitious with too little time. It was as ambitious as Witcher 3. Only difference Witcher 3 had way more development time and hence was successful in realization of those ambitions.

I agree with what you've stated. Both Unity and Syndicate were technically impressive games but they failed to make the most of both games. Specifically the story, narrative and characters. They had great potential within Syndicate....characters like Alexander Graham Bell for instance, kind of harped back to the Ezio series with Leonardo helping build tools for Ezio but it never quite panned out like that because they didn't explore him very well.

The story suffered from poor pacing as well.

Again both games were technically impressive but fell short on so many other areas.


I completely echo your thoughts. Starting Far Cry 4 they went into this mode of creating a vast open world with anecdotal events happening throughout it with no particular objective and just to make it look alive. It's the same 4 or 5 events happening and becomes a chore and boring quickly. To be honest it comes off as fluff and cheap and filler things by the developer and comes off as lack of direction and creativity. Such a world has no meaning to me. I don't want to go around an open world just to keep saving citizens from an eagle or a bully for the millionth time and have an increment in my karma level. Its not story to me. Such an open world has no character. It has no soul. It's not even fun. It has no element of surprise. It has no mystery. When I played Mass Effect games, Normandy the ship had a character and appealed to me even though it never spoke to me and I just hung out when not in mission. I cared for it.

I liked Far Cry 4 because they still kept a good campaign and had great side campaigns and some cool characters. However it was a good example of filling an open world game with a lot of fluff that gave an artificial sense of a lively world but in fact didn't offer much at all. It became a lot more evident with FC Primal though, the game had so much fluff and filler which combined with a poor narrative and a lot of repetitive gameplay made the game so much less enjoyable and like you said, not even fun for the most part.

It started off well, being attacked by the sabertooth tiger and going through a dark cave, scaring off wolves but then the rest of the game didn't live up, mostly due to the lack narrative.



Modern day needs much of an overhaul and for that they need talented, creative and visionary (all at the same time in single developer) writers/concept developers. Just a good writer is not enough, they need people who wake up in the middle of night with a brilliant idea and want to give it shape and form the next day they are in office. One can write well, but creativity and vision does not come with being talented at writing. They need visionary writers and engineers devoted to the franchise. Mediocrity is not an option anymore.

I do agree that it needs much more of an overhaul and I think it needs to start bringing more answers and clearly give them to the player. It is great creating mystery but if you don't feed the player enough information in return when creating mysteries. You end up with players becoming tired and not keeping up with the story. They more or less glaze over the modern day aspect if it is not delivered in a way the player is going to understand.

Its great having hidden meaning, creating illusion and creating mysteries but you've also got to solve those at some point and deliver it in a way the player is going to understand.

If only a fraction of playbase picks up on something, I think that's where you know the story isn't going to resonate with a much wider audience which I felt the last 3 games have been guilty of doing.