PDA

View Full Version : An idea for mission objectives/sync percentage (Ubisoft, I hope you're reading)



AnimusLover
11-23-2016, 03:27 AM
Iíve been thinking about the mission objectives in AC series and how to make them more meaningful than they are in their current state.

I want to preface this by saying that Iím coming off a major high from having played Witcher 3: Blood and Wine and wow, was it great to be in that world again. Aside from being beautiful and immersive with great characters and story there is one thing I think Witcher 3 does better than any other RPG and that is choice. Now, youíre probably wondering how can Witcher 3 possibly relate to the mission objectives in AC. The mission objectives were a great addition to the series at the time, reducing auto fails whilst providing a challenge for completionists out there. However, since it's debut in Brotherhood it's never developed beyond that, it's still very rudimentary. Plus, lately some of the objectives don't even make sense and feel like padding or an excuse to try out new gadgets.

So here's my idea: I think that instead of the sync percentage merely being the difference between whether the player gets rewards and achievement trophies it should take on an RPG element, that is the element of choice.

There should be dialogue options / choice actions that affect your mission outcomes e.g. revealing information to the wrong person may lead to a character warning your target, making your assassination of them difficult because now theyíre heavily guarded. On the other hand, revealing your plans to the right person may lead to them helping you and giving you information about your target that could be useful. Or getting caught during an infiltration means your enemies now recognise your face and bounties will be put on your head. Or going in guns blazing may spook the next target causing him or her make rash choices that expose a weakness the assassin can exploit.

The point is the way you play the missions should now have an impact on the route the story takes. Oh, and you wonít know how the ancestor actually did it - the sync percentage at the end of the mission will be your only indication of this.

This of course will affect the ending of your game. If by the end of the game your story is beneath a certain sync percentage (and thus plot points are not accurate to the memory of the ancestor) technically you would have still completed the main campaign but Sean and Rebecca should say something like, "hmm, not enough data in order to get the info we need. You need to go back in." Thus you won't get the actual modern day ending until you unlock the right memories. You will then have the option of going back in to the animus and playing memories differently which in turn will affect the next sequences so you will have to play them again too OR you can simply leave it all as it is and start a new game if you wish to play the story at a decent sync percentage to get the true ending.

Now, I know some people might say you can't bring in the element of choice as that defeats the entire purpose of the animus but bear in mind that even if the sync percentage is low it simply means that this is what the outcome would have been had the ancestor had made those choices; it's an alternative timeline but it's not "real" time line.

What do you all think? Feel free to drop your own suggestions for this idea or tell me why Iím wrong.

rob1990312
11-23-2016, 03:47 AM
a lot of people hiss if you bring up the withcher 3 in here, i did it months ago and people went crazy
ac could really learn from that game and its rumoured that they will take notes from it and give a similar feel of immersion

ERICATHERINE
11-23-2016, 04:19 AM
From my point of view, the only place where we should be able to choose is in the md. The animus can only make relive memory. Like Warren Vidic said to the subject who relived the memories of Aveline "It's not even acting. You're just reliving her memories". That means everything we do in the animus, the ancester also did or else, we desync. Thing is, if it wasn't for the animus, I would be more than ok, with the idea, but the animus can't let it happen. It can't have multiple choice or at least not in the state it's in, at the moment. ^-^

AnimusLover
11-23-2016, 04:44 PM
From my point of view, the only place where we should be able to choose is in the md. The animus can only make relive memory. Like Warren Vidic said to the subject who relived the memories of Aveline "It's not even acting. You're just reliving her memories". That means everything we do in the animus, the ancester also did or else, we desync. Thing is, if it wasn't for the animus, I would be more than ok, with the idea, but the animus can't let it happen. It can't have multiple choice or at least not in the state it's in, at the moment. ^-^

Yeah, but by that logic then we can't have mission objectives. Optional mission objectives were brought in to counter the restrictive nature of the missions.

BananaBlighter
11-23-2016, 05:49 PM
Yeah, but by that logic then we can't have mission objectives. Optional mission objectives were brought in to counter the restrictive nature of the missions.

No they weren't. If anything they're more restricting, they're there to add challenge.

I like the idea of choice, but TBH it kinda completely contradicts the idea of the animus. It works better with optional objectives because if you don't complete it it's just like you missed out part of the memory, hence not achieving 100% sync. However if you can use a completely different approach that creates an almost alternate timeline then that should result in desync. Maybe they can explain it away with a new animus that can create a temporary simulation of an alternate outcome. It would result in less than 100% sync but not desynchronisation.

Anyway, I don't see how what you're asking for is that different to what we already have in the blackbox missions. They contradict the idea of the animus, but for the sake of freedom they've been given a pass, which is OK.

ERICATHERINE
11-23-2016, 07:05 PM
Yeah, but by that logic then we can't have mission objectives. Optional mission objectives were brought in to counter the restrictive nature of the missions.

Every mission objective is, like BananaBlighter said, there because doing them is also what the ancester did. ^-^

SixKeys
11-23-2016, 11:03 PM
I'm not on board with locking the "true" ending behind sync objectives. For one it's just not fun to grind for the sake of grinding, and secondly there are a lot of players who simply don't care about MD. If the devs want to make MD relevant and interesting again, the worst thing they could do is essentially make it possible for players to only complete the historical campaign and then drop the game because they don't care enough to unlock more MD stuff.

I like your ideas about choice, but frankly I would just drop the full sync objectives completely. Having freedom and choice is fun in and of itself - if it's not, you're doing something wrong as a developer. Your suggestion about sync percentages does nothing to solve the biggest problem with full sync: the feeling that the player is not doing something "right" just because they chose to complete the mission in their own way. It would be infuriating to have to do a mission over and over again and never get 100% sync because the game wouldn't tell you what exactly it wants you to do. Some OOs in past games have been ridiculously random. Imagine completing the AC4 mission of Charlestown five or six times, never getting full sync, because you couldn't possibly figure out that the only way to get there is to skin an alligator while you're tailing someone.

Full sync was fun the first two games, but it has overstayed its welcome. It has no place in a series that likes to sell itself on freedom of choice. I don't want to be rewarded because I did a mission the way the developers wanted me to do it, I want to be rewarded for ingenuity and experimentation. I would like to see the whole concept of "this is how the ancestor did it" dropped for good. The way I, the player, do it should be how the ancestor did it.

BananaBlighter
11-23-2016, 11:16 PM
I'm not on board with locking the "true" ending behind sync objectives. For one it's just not fun to grind for the sake of grinding, and secondly there are a lot of players who simply don't care about MD. If the devs want to make MD relevant and interesting again, the worst thing they could do is essentially make it possible for players to only complete the historical campaign and then drop the game because they don't care enough to unlock more MD stuff.

I like your ideas about choice, but frankly I would just drop the full sync objectives completely. Having freedom and choice is fun in and of itself - if it's not, you're doing something wrong as a developer. Your suggestion about sync percentages does nothing to solve the biggest problem with full sync: the feeling that the player is not doing something "right" just because they chose to complete the mission in their own way. It would be infuriating to have to do a mission over and over again and never get 100% sync because the game wouldn't tell you what exactly it wants you to do. Some OOs in past games have been ridiculously random. Imagine completing the AC4 mission of Charlestown five or six times, never getting full sync, because you couldn't possibly figure out that the only way to get there is to skin an alligator while you're tailing someone.

Full sync was fun the first two games, but it has overstayed its welcome. It has no place in a series that likes to sell itself on freedom of choice. I don't want to be rewarded because I did a mission the way the developers wanted me to do it, I want to be rewarded for ingenuity and experimentation. I would like to see the whole concept of "this is how the ancestor did it" dropped for good. The way I, the player, do it should be how the ancestor did it.

TBH even with the blackbox missions I feel this way, despite there being no punishment or reward. That's why I often go for all three if possible, even if I don't actually make use of the advantages they provide. There's always that voice at the back of my head telling me it only makes sense if the ancestor did everything. As you say, the way the player does it should be assumed to be how the ancestor did it. If you present all of the possible ways of doing the mission straight away, this illusion is lost.

What I propose is that they make them more spontaneous, so the opportunities appear when you enter certain areas or find something just by chance. If you choose to ignore it at that point it was simply your ancestor ignoring it at that time. If you don't then as far as the player is concerned there are no other ways you're supposed to tackle the mission. If you get shown all the opportunities at the beginning, it feels wrong to ignore any of them.

Then again, it could be just me who feels forced to complete them all.

Aphex_Tim
11-23-2016, 11:37 PM
Then again, it could be just me who feels forced to complete them all.

Nope. To me as well, these missions felt equally as (subconsciously) restricting as the optional objectives.
What I would like to see in blackbox missions is the options not even being that specific and in-your-face at all. It would make it less cinematic but probably a lot more fun. No specific optional setpieces but simply multiple paths towards your target, utilizing availble game mechanics and the environment, allowing you to be creative in tackling the mission the way you see fit.

This series is selling itself on the freedom you'd have but always seems hell-bent on taking that freedom away from you by desynchronizing you if you make a mistake or by waving these optional objectives in your face. The worst offender in this case has to be AC3. Whenever you would fail one, the game would basically go "YOU DID IT WRONG!" by flashing a big red cross on your screen that wouldn't go away until the end of the mission, but not before rubbing it in one last time at the mission sync screen.
As far as these optional objectives go, I always disliked them but the way Unity handled them was by far the best to me. Most of the time you wouldn't even know there were optional objectives until you completed the mission. And the game never penalized you for failing them.

AnimusLover
11-24-2016, 01:08 AM
No they weren't. If anything they're more restricting, they're there to add challenge.

I meant in the sense that they took away auto fails so if you're detected, for instance, you don't have to restart the entire mission; it just means you failed the mission objective but I understand what you mean.


I like your ideas about choice, but frankly I would just drop the full sync objectives completely. Having freedom and choice is fun in and of itself - if it's not, you're doing something wrong as a developer. Your suggestion about sync percentages does nothing to solve the biggest problem with full sync: the feeling that the player is not doing something "right" just because they chose to complete the mission in their own way. It would be infuriating to have to do a mission over and over again and never get 100% sync because the game wouldn't tell you what exactly it wants you to do. Some OOs in past games have been ridiculously random. Imagine completing the AC4 mission of Charlestown five or six times, never getting full sync, because you couldn't possibly figure out that the only way to get there is to skin an alligator while you're tailing someone.

re BIB yeah, I did consider this but I suppose with the element of choice is that you wouldn't care whether it was 100% because you went with the decision that felt right at the time, your "gut instinct" if you will. That's why I used Witcher 3 as an example because there would be immediate or delayed negative consequences to my choices but I never regret the outcome because my choice was true to who I am. So even when things didn't go as hoped I never felt wrong. In terms of figuring out how the ancestors did it I forgot to mention that there would be clues which come from what you learn about your targets and what the other characters say so it's not simply a guessing game, you'd have to deduce the right path to take through investigation which in itself could be quite fun. But I get what you mean about the nagging feeling that you've done something "wrong".

Like you , I would prefer that optional objectives go but I don't think Ubisoft are going to do away with them any time soon (they even started to creep in to the Watch Dogs 1 DLC) and so was trying to meet the devs halfway.

SixKeys
11-24-2016, 05:37 PM
I meant in the sense that they took away auto fails so if you're detected, for instance, you don't have to restart the entire mission; it just means you failed the mission objective but I understand what you mean.



re BIB yeah, I did consider this but I suppose with the element of choice is that you wouldn't care whether it was 100% because you went with the decision that felt right at the time, your "gut instinct" if you will. That's why I used Witcher 3 as an example because there would be immediate or delayed negative consequences to my choices but I never regret the outcome because my choice was true to who I am. So even when things didn't go as hoped I never felt wrong. In terms of figuring out how the ancestors did it I forgot to mention that there would be clues which come from what you learn about your targets and what the other characters say so it's not simply a guessing game, you'd have to deduce the right path to take through investigation which in itself could be quite fun. But I get what you mean about the nagging feeling that you've done something "wrong".

Like you , I would prefer that optional objectives go but I don't think Ubisoft are going to do away with them any time soon (they even started to creep in to the Watch Dogs 1 DLC) and so was trying to meet the devs halfway.

Why have the 100% sync as a feature at all if the player is meant to be satisfied with their choices?

Instead of working towards an ill-defined "completion" goal merely for the sake of completion, I would prefer something like a reward or achievement system. There wouldn't be a system that counts up your progress towards a certain percentage. Instead you might get an XP boost or a "challenge completed" pop up every now and then for performing certain actions.
I've been playing multiplayer again recently and it's fun to occasionally get a pop-up that congratulates you on killing an enemy while disguised or using a money bomb to reveal your target, stuff like that. Most of the time you're playing, you don't even remember the existence of such challenges until you get one almost by accident. You were just focused on killing your target and using a disguise seemed like the most efficient way to do it. You weren't doing it in the hopes of being rewarded, but when you do, it's a nice little extra.

The problem, of course, is that even in multiplayer there is a certain number of times you can complete a challenge, for example you will only get rewarded 75 times for wearing a disguise. So at some point it becomes about chasing that elusive completion percentage instead of simply doing stuff for fun. You will force yourself to wear a disguise as often as possible because you want to complete the challenge of doing it 75 times.

So if this system were to carry over to single-player, there shouldn't be a counter or progress bar at all. Challenges should be things you could essentially complete an infinite amount of times, for a small XP or money boost. Unity had a similar system, I believe, although IIRC there was a counter involved which turned it into a grind. Basically, make the challenges as unintrusive as possible. Make the player forget about their existence. Make it a rare, random occurrence to get a pop-up informing you've been rewarded for doing something particularly inventive. Imagine, for example, if instead of having a dedicated achievement for destroying 5,000 objects with a carriage like in Syndicate - an achievement which most players hated for forcing them to grind - it would be a hidden challenge. It would only pop up for the people who care enough about running things over with carriages that they accidentally trigger it. Because they just love running stuff over, they're not doing it to grind, so if they love doing it enough, the game will recognize that and reward their playstyle after a while. Similarly, if you ghost through a level without killing anyone except your target enough times, you would get a pop-up rewarding you for it after a certain amount of missions. You were already ghosting simply because that's your playstyle, but it's nice to be recognized for it.

Tl;dr The games should silently monitor what players actually enjoy doing and randomly reward them for it - not forcing everyone to strive for the same playstyle with clearly labeled progress bars and achievements.

Farlander1991
11-24-2016, 09:08 PM
Honestly, why so many AC fans are for 100% and 100% objectives is beyond me.

I mean, AC1 introduced the whole concept of synchronization, and that cutscenes are the only thing that are 100% true while everything else is Desmond trying to wiggle his way through to get from one point to another. The very beloved AC2 followed suit, pretty much.

But after the introduction of optional objectives in ACB (I have an unconfirmed theory that this was done to balance out the overpowered level of the Brotherhood mechanic with which you can complete any mission with ease), a lot of people are like, 'oh no you can't remove 100% synchronization and optional objectives because Animus and stuff'. And this would be baffling to me even if AC1/2 would have had optional objectives, but because they don't this is confusing me even more.

At any rate, I believe that optional objectives can be put to good use, if they're designed in a way as actual additional objectives (that might change the context of the mission, or that tell something more about the character) rather than forcing a particular style of playthrough or particular specific actions like they tend to do.

BananaBlighter
11-24-2016, 10:39 PM
Tl;dr The games should silently monitor what players actually enjoy doing and randomly reward them for it - not forcing everyone to strive for the same playstyle with clearly labeled progress bars and achievements.

Y'know before Syndicate came out I thought that it would've been cool to have a different set of optional objectives depending on whether you played as Evie or Jacob. For Evie they would be more stealth focused, but for people who don't want to be restricted to that they could play Jacob, who would have more combat orientated objectives. Since there was literally no difference in actual playstyle between the twins, this could've made choosing between the two actually matter. Hopefully that would reduce people feeling like they've been forced to play a certain way while pleasing those that want the objectives for the added challenge.

Then again this only applies to Syndicate, I don't know how it'd work otherwise. I don't know how well you can trust the game to understand your preferred playstyle, at any rate, at least you should be given the option to choose in case it gives you a set of objectives you didn't want. Maybe if the next game's customization is like Unity it could use that to determine which playstyle you're aiming for.

As Farlander said though, the best would be to simply make sure optional objectives don't force a particular playstyle. Maybe stuff like 'loot 3 chests' that have been scattered around the area? To be fair though I can see why designing enough different objectives like that could be hard.

That or just get rid of them, and replace them with something similar to what you proposed. As I said earlier, I think black box opportunities should be more spontaneous and be triggered by certain actions rather than being set out at the start. It's similar to your idea, in that these optional things should only be revealed when you discover them, and then they can give you a reward at that moment, rather than constantly reminding you that if you don't achieve a set of tasks you won't be getting the full reward. I wouldn't mind all missions having events scattered here and there which you can find and take advantage of like in the black box missions, but which the player has to discover themselves.

SixKeys
11-25-2016, 05:04 AM
Honestly, why so many AC fans are for 100% and 100% objectives is beyond me.

I mean, AC1 introduced the whole concept of synchronization, and that cutscenes are the only thing that are 100% true while everything else is Desmond trying to wiggle his way through to get from one point to another. The very beloved AC2 followed suit, pretty much.

But after the introduction of optional objectives in ACB (I have an unconfirmed theory that this was done to balance out the overpowered level of the Brotherhood mechanic with which you can complete any mission with ease), a lot of people are like, 'oh no you can't remove 100% synchronization and optional objectives because Animus and stuff'. And this would be baffling to me even if AC1/2 would have had optional objectives, but because they don't this is confusing me even more.

At any rate, I believe that optional objectives can be put to good use, if they're designed in a way as actual additional objectives (that might change the context of the mission, or that tell something more about the character) rather than forcing a particular style of playthrough or particular specific actions like they tend to do.

While I totally agree with your point, I can kind of understand the logic behind it. People view it as going backwards or retconning when you scrap a system that has been in the games for a while. People also complained about the assassin recruits being gone even in games where their existence would have made no sense. People have this idea that once a feature has been introduced, it should never be removed, even if it works to the detriment of the games. It's probably because of the idea of the Animus/Helix being supposedly "upgraded" with each new instalment - AC2 had the Animus 2.0, ACB's was supposed to be a slightly more sophisticated version etc. They would basically need an in-universe explanation for why 100% sync no longer matters or why it works differently. It doesn't have to be a complicated reason, though, it wouldn't be the first time stuff has been retconned.

crusader_prophet
11-25-2016, 05:27 PM
I had posted this a while back regarding sync on this thread.
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1388165-Lets-re-examine-the-AC-Franchise-and-help-out-the-devs!?p=11787178#post11787178


AC1 was the only game where the sync feature was immersive to me, it tied directly to the concept of Animus. As the franchise moved along, I expected it to evolve by becoming more integrated to gameplay and narrative delivery, instead it has become more of a checklist of laundry items and less of an element of storytelling. The sync mechanic is supposed to be a dynamic feature in the game which changes based on actions inside the Animus. It is supposed to reflect a player's level of synchronization with his/her ability to accurately recreate/retrace the ancestor's memories. There should be threshold level that should be maintained to achieve a certain narrative outcome. Sync should have the capability to affect a narrative's outcome in a single mission and in the entire game.

For a very basic example,



if a player's sync level is below threshold because I didn't complete certain pre-requisites (such as go talk to someone, or go for a scouting mission, talk to armor/weapons NPC etc) then he/she will not be able to access certain conversations, pathways to assassination, knowledge of specific target's location, defenses etc during a mission and there will be high probability to fail the mission, the target getting away and increased awareness among the Templars of the assassin's motives and moves, risking NPCs fate in the story etc. In the next, attempt it will be more difficult to reach the target and progress the story because lack of my actions should have consequences in the world.
If a player's sync level is just above the threshold because he/she completed bare minimum pre-reqs, giving just enough data points to Animus to re-create the Ancestor's memory and figure out a target's location and required additional info to perform a successful assassination. However, this will end with lesser rewards such as Animus simulation not being able to converge and figure out what additional info the target had about a PoE and recent Templar plot, where was a valuable treasure chest located to acquire better gear/items etc. This will impact the present day storyline as well.
If a player's sync level is high because of my actions i.e. complete enough pre-reqs, gather intelligence, remained incognito prior mission, didn't leave a plethora of bodies on the streets etc., there will be a high probability to execute a successful assassination, locate additional resources and plot items from templars, gain popularity in modern day, unlock multiple ways to assassinate, additional death scene conversations etc. This does not mean that I can go on rampage killing during the mission and also not that I can just stick to a single cover and stay there and take my time. AI should be smart to scout even covers so I have to be in motion. If my style is to go on rampage during a mission, then in the next mission - the templars have fortified their defenses because the game reacted to my style of playing.

In summary, sync should not just a mere checklist of items by introducing optional challenges. It makes the game less immersive with bare minimum motivation and incentive. Synchronization should be reflective of a player's actions in the Animus and have an impact on story-telling and gameplay.

LoyalACFan
11-25-2016, 05:51 PM
IMO if they're going to stick with the notion of having sub-objectives, they should look to the way MGS does its mission scores. Rather than having to complete very specific tasks like killing X guards from a hiding spot or getting X headshots with weapon Y to get a perfect S-rank, you get a numerical score that factors in several skills (i.e. how many enemy alerts you triggered, how many tactical takedowns you got, how many times you retried, how many hits you took, etc) and totals them up to give you your score.

Most (all?) of the missions actually do have bonus objectives just like AC, like capturing a specific animal or eavesdropping on a specific conversation, but they never appear onscreen in an annoying popup and you don't HAVE to do them in order to get a perfect score, they just give you bonus points to pad your score a little bit in case you get spotted, take too long, kill guards, etc. There was a trophy for completing all of these bonus objectives, which I think ran counter to their purpose, but discounting that, I think it was a good way to include optional objectives without feeling too restrictive. And by God, despite an obviously incomplete narrative, MGS5 is a damn good stealth game.

crusader_prophet
11-25-2016, 06:09 PM
IMO if they're going to stick with the notion of having sub-objectives, they should look to the way MGS does its mission scores. Rather than having to complete very specific tasks like killing X guards from a hiding spot or getting X headshots with weapon Y to get a perfect S-rank, you get a numerical score that factors in several skills (i.e. how many enemy alerts you triggered, how many tactical takedowns you got, how many times you retried, how many hits you took, etc) and totals them up to give you your score.

Most (all?) of the missions actually do have bonus objectives just like AC, like capturing a specific animal or eavesdropping on a specific conversation, but they never appear onscreen in an annoying popup and you don't HAVE to do them in order to get a perfect score, they just give you bonus points to pad your score a little bit in case you get spotted, take too long, kill guards, etc. There was a trophy for completing all of these bonus objectives, which I think ran counter to their purpose, but discounting that, I think it was a good way to include optional objectives without feeling too restrictive. And by God, despite an obviously incomplete narrative, MGS5 is a damn good stealth game.

Yeah but when all that statistics is just statistics at the end of the mission, it does not appeal to me. If all those actions/inaction have an impact down the line in the narrative, storytelling or how I get to approach missions, that's when I find them compelling. That added purpose makes a huge difference at least to me personally.

RinoTheBouncer
11-27-2016, 10:34 PM
I wanted to contribute, but the ideas just kept coming and coming to my head, so I put it in a separate thread. I hope you check it here: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1524287-Telling-A-Thousand-Stories-amp-Paving-Your-Own-Path-A-Preposition-to-Ubisoft

AnimusLover
11-27-2016, 11:13 PM
Why have the 100% sync as a feature at all if the player is meant to be satisfied with their choices?

For replayability.

SixKeys
11-27-2016, 11:25 PM
For replayability.

Replayability should come from wanting to try different things, not from being told "you did it wrong". In Unity and Syndicate the blackbox missions show you several different ways to complete each assassination. The player can pick one of these options or come up with their own approach. Some players mentioned that being shown all three options, they often end up doing all three even if only one would be sufficient. Maybe successfully completing one of the three options should make the other two disappear. Using the Sivert assassination as an example, maybe the first time you did the mission you pick-pocketed the key to the confessional. In its current form, the game still allows you to go eavesdrop on some Templars on the other side of the church, even when you've already acquired the means to get inside. In order to encourage replayability, it should only be possible to pick one path. Each of these paths should be interesting in its own right, like a little mini-story. If you're just dying to know what the Templars were talking about, you'd have to replay the mission and instead of going for the key, go for the eavesdropping this time.

AnimusLover
11-28-2016, 12:29 AM
IMO if they're going to stick with the notion of having sub-objectives, they should look to the way MGS does its mission scores. Rather than having to complete very specific tasks like killing X guards from a hiding spot or getting X headshots with weapon Y to get a perfect S-rank, you get a numerical score that factors in several skills (i.e. how many enemy alerts you triggered, how many tactical takedowns you got, how many times you retried, how many hits you took, etc) and totals them up to give you your score.

Most (all?) of the missions actually do have bonus objectives just like AC, like capturing a specific animal or eavesdropping on a specific conversation, but they never appear onscreen in an annoying popup and you don't HAVE to do them in order to get a perfect score, they just give you bonus points to pad your score a little bit in case you get spotted, take too long, kill guards, etc. There was a trophy for completing all of these bonus objectives, which I think ran counter to their purpose, but discounting that, I think it was a good way to include optional objectives without feeling too restrictive. And by God, despite an obviously incomplete narrative, MGS5 is a damn good stealth game.

I have a love/ hate relationship with the game, so much potential ruined by a rushed second half. I do like the mission objectives but let's not kid ourselves - nothing says "you've failed!" like an actual grade because anything less than an S rank is a bummer and also when you go to the missions on your idroid after completing them you can see the checklist of objectives you've yet to complete.

AnimusLover
11-28-2016, 02:53 AM
Replayability should come from wanting to try different things, not from being told "you did it wrong".

As I said before, a game like the Witcher 3 has clear consequences for your actions and yet they never feel "wrong" even when they clearly are because the situations presented combined with the realistic characters play to your gut instincts. The second playthrough to get 100% sync is for those who wish to explore other choices and gameplay styles and get 100% completion. You said people don't care about modern day so by that logic they won't feel compelled to go for 100% anyway since that is literally all it affects. The only reward of 100% sync would be the modern day ending; there wouldn't be a trophy.