PDA

View Full Version : Elements of Interest - Why We Play Assassin's Creed Games



RinoTheBouncer
02-07-2017, 08:53 AM
Hey everyone,
Here, we're all Assassin's Creed fans and we all have our similar and our different reasons for loving the franchise. Each fan is attracted to a certain element of interest in the franchise more than another, and we keep coming back hoping to see more of that element or new variations and expansions or derivations from it.

So what are the elements that make you love the Assassin's Creed franchise and keep you coming back for more? Use the poll (Multiple choices supported) to vote for your favorite elements and feel free to expand upon that in replies, or by adding elements not mentioned in the poll, if any.

Let's help tell the devs what truly matters to us in our beloved franchise.

misterB2001
02-07-2017, 12:41 PM
Voted. For me it was always about being a guy in the present looking into the past to try and save the future. Loved it.

JamesFaith007
02-07-2017, 01:08 PM
Historical story and historical tourism.

First Civilization story is mostly just spice for me and modern day story only connecting historical parts in one saga from different eras.

And on the other end of spectrum would definitely be online elements which I'm never using and since Splinter Cell: Blacklist I hate them in my games.

ERICATHERINE
02-07-2017, 09:32 PM
Fourth place historical story.

Third place first civ story.

Second place great character's development and story like Connor and Desmond or even (though I hate about everything in his game, I have to give it at least that) Altair, for quick exemples.

First place goes to md.

^-^

joshoolhorst
02-07-2017, 09:39 PM
Historical Story I love history I find it so interesting how we humans made our choices and effected the future and who, where and when we made those choices.

Modern Day / Over-arching Narrative It feels so original and creative! That I have my parents memories in them and my ancestors to and based on a real life theory makes me love this so much! I love how they handle Adam and Eva and it makes sense to me story wise. With the over-arching narrative this series doesn't feel episodic so we can forget the next game one year later same with the Modern Day it gives context to the world of AC.

First Civilization Story Just freaking interesting
side missions I love my side missions in games:)

Helforsite
02-07-2017, 10:06 PM
For me it was always the conspiracy theories and the sense of mysteries which relate closely to the First Civilization and the Templar/Assassin conflict.

marvelfannumber
02-07-2017, 11:10 PM
Historical Tourism for the most part. Ubisoft simply have a monopoly on that genre currently so I have to keep crawling back everytime, whether I like the game or not.

We need more historical open world games...

Sigma 1313
02-07-2017, 11:44 PM
Modern Day and historical tourism. The historical story adds to the latter for me.

And I agree Marvelfan.

RVSage
02-08-2017, 04:19 AM
I guess all of this makes an AC game whole

1. Historical Story

2. Modern day over reaching story

3. First civ story

4. Historical tourism

SixKeys
02-08-2017, 05:44 AM
Modern day/overarching narrative (I actually count First Civ stuff as intrinsically included in this)
Side missions
Historical tourism

I don't care for First Civ as its own category, as in I'm not terribly interested in all the details and history of that culture. I prefer them to be as mysterious as possible. Modern day/overarching narrative has the balance I like, between giving us little tidbits of information about the Isu whilst not fully dragging them in the spotlight.

Historical stories tends to be very hit and miss in this series - Rogue, Unity and Liberation being the worst examples. If I was solely interested in good stories, I might have abandoned the series long ago. The overarching connection and gameplay keep me coming back. I also enjoy historical tourism, as long as the Gump factor doesn't feel too forced.

D.I.D.
02-08-2017, 05:47 AM
Historical Tourism for the most part. Ubisoft simply have a monopoly on that genre currently so I have to keep crawling back everytime, whether I like the game or not.

We need more historical open world games...

I'm starting to wish someone would pick this up too, and just follow an interesting story from history each time. I liked Syndicate, but it kills me that they could set a game about AC Templars in that time that doesn't even acknowledge the East India Company, didn't try to make targets of its directors who (conveniently for an assassin game) happened to be dying in the real history, didn't touch on the anger in Parliament against these braggarts returning wealthy from the east who thought themselves masters of the universe. The sunset of the EIC should have been the story of Syndicate, and maybe a series of games covering a longer period. The French Revolution was similarly mistold and wasted. I don't feel like they're looking at the history and identifying the real power-brokers and figuring out which movement would be the AC Templars; they're just slotting the Templars into each historical world and pretending they run it instead. It's not enough.

I want a game company to employ historians from the start, rather than as late-stage consultants, and to ask them, "Tell us your favourite stories from history: the most intriguing power struggles, the most deadlocked political wranglings, the weirdest individuals, the greatest achievements", and then work out a plan for a game from the most game-friendly reports. When you read history and play AC, you notice suitable figures everywhere.

Shahkulu101
02-08-2017, 01:14 PM
Absolutely this... ^ Real history is far more interesting that any fiction they could come up with. Unity and Syndicate just felt disconnected from reality, and I think it's possibly because Ubisoft were apprehensive about trying to make a meaningful statement about the history of the time. Or that they just want to keep things simple and not have to delve too far into the facts, as if they almost get in the way of the fantasy Assassin-Templar war they are trying to tell. Before it seemed they tailored that stuff to the historical time, now the era in which the game takes place is tacked on superficially and feels far less grounded and immersive.

Anyhoo, I still selected historical story and historical tourism for me, the latter more than the former of late, haven't enjoyed the stories but my oh my Paris and London are astonishingly beautiful.

Also picked side missions, enjoy them when they are good, the best thing to make you feel like you're getting lost in the world and seeing most of what the game has to offer. In any game with side missions, I always seek out every last one, and almost don't even want to play the main story. Good side missions for me have to be substantial though, not just similar content recycled throughout the world. Ones with interesting stories, engaging, varied gameplay and experiences different that in the main missions. It's good if they are connected to the main goal in a way, that's the reason I love Brotherhood's so much, but if they are stand-alone stories and experiences, anything that doesn't detract too much from the tone of the game too much is fine. I liked that some of The Witcher 3's side quests, for example, were funny and less serious, offsetting the very tense and dramatic main story.

Sorrosyss
02-08-2017, 01:43 PM
Modern Day and First Civ stories for me. The two are intrinsically linked after all, and are basically the basis of everything we do within the Animus. As fun as the historical stories are, they are a tale that cannot be changed, whereas the Modern Day affects both factions in the here and now. Finally, the Isu fascinate me no end, and I'd still like to see us able to search around Eden in a future game. Yes, its entirely fictional, but its a part of the mystique to the series that I feel has been sorely lacking in the recent games.

I clicked Online too, as I still want to see multiplayer return with a character creator. ;)

AsimovVerne
02-08-2017, 03:28 PM
Historical tourism.

BananaBlighter
02-08-2017, 08:29 PM
If I had to choose from that list, then definitely historical tourism, but I'm surprised that no aspects of the gameplay were mentioned in the poll. It's the combination of the 3 pillars and of course the historical aspect that make AC so dear to my heart.

What initially attracted me to AC was the parkour. I'm also a huge fan of stealth, and much prefer melee combat systems to shooters. The whole idea of having games set in different time periods was really appealing to me too. I play games to experience things that are not possible in the real world. The past is one of those things, and being a badass at parkour is another (though I am pretty adept at parkour in real life).

There are many other games that do each of theses individual elements better. There are countless games which have much better stealth systems than AC, games which focus solely on stealth (I doubt I even have to name them for you). There are also plenty of games which have much better melee combat systems (I'm looking forward to playing For Honor this week). Parkour is debatable, because a lot of people prefer Mirror's Edge take on it, however I must admit that I prefer AC's system because it is 3rd person and so I can really admire animations and the flow. It's also a completely different type of parkour. Mirror's Edge is about maintaining speed and momentum, while AC's system involves a lot more climbing and slower, more methodical traversal through an environment, which I prefer.

However it is the combinations of all these aspects that make AC's gameplay so unique IMO. I find just plain stealth games pretty boring, and generic fighters are definitely not my thing. As I've already explained, Mirror's edge doesn't cut it IMO, and well, TBH a game where you just walk around a historical setting wouldn't be that great. It's the fact that I can explore every inch of these cities, from the rooftops to the sewers; that I'm not just sneaking between rooms but planning out my stealth route as I observe my enemies from the rooftops; and that when I get spotted I can quickly transition into a sword fight or a chase - that makes the gameplay aspects of this series so damn fun.

I believe that at the core of AC, and not just in the ideology of the Assassins, is the concept of freedom, something which I value highly. There's nothing like the feeling of knowing that this beautiful historical city is completely open for me to explore, or that by using the rooftops I can approach a stealth situation from any angle, or that I have so many options in melee combat rather than simply the ability to aim and shoot (tho this is something that has been lost recently IMO). As I said before, I play games to experience things I cannot it real life, and so especially in today's society, this idea of freedom is something really refreshing.

So yeah, the combination of historical gameplay and the 3 core pillars is my main draw to this franchise. However the historical story is also a big thing because it helps put the historical tourism into context. Stories are a big part of games, helping to bring the world to life, and the modern day aspect also really helps to create a cohesive universe. They can be really interesting when they make you challenge your beliefs and consider issues you don't think about everyday. Before I got into AC I would've agreed with the idea that an ideal world would require ultimate control and order to maintain peace. At first I found it hard to accept the Assassin view of things, and though the Templar ideology made a lot more sense, but today I would say almost the opposite.

crusader_prophet
02-09-2017, 12:46 AM
I clicked Online too, as I still want to see multiplayer return with a character creator. ;)

Can you imagine if entirety of Unity was playable in co-op mode with 2-3 friends? And the mission difficulty(AI strengthening, player weakening, map accessibility, assassination options) would adjust based on the number of players. Like what was actually promised in the trailers...be able to infiltrate a complex infrastructure and heavily guarded fort with friends in the midst of night, remain undetected, act together in sync to get past certain checkpoints (like killing four guards in sync at four switches that open a door or act in sync in a crowd to trigger a distraction event) etc.

RinoTheBouncer
02-09-2017, 03:41 PM
I just love how the majority voted for the Modern Day and Overarching Narrative option, closely followed by First Civ. story. For me, this is exactly why I loved the franchise since the very first game. And when I first came here to talk about how I want more of those elements, everyone at the time expressed how I'm in the minority and how most people, including here, don't care for modern day nor the Isu story. But since Unity, I was surprised by how a huge percentage of the fans that I know or see continuing here, or on The Codex or any online community for AC, even in Tweets, are missing the modern day story and the whole progress in terms of over-arching narrative and first civ. members.

I mean the reason why I founded The Codex was to make it easier for people to understand the lore, the write theories about what we have and what's coming and to discuss the overarching narrative with everyone, and show them how this part which, despite forming a smaller percentage of the playtime in the game, or even the cutscenes and progress, it's still the backbone that holds everything together, that gives the whole franchise a meaning, as well as making each individual installment feel purposeful on its own and in the whole arc. I couldn't be happier to see people finally notice the importance of that, and I look forward to seeing the developers of each new entry in the franchise take that into consideration and work accordingly.

D.I.D.
02-09-2017, 05:24 PM
Rino - Bear in mind that this forum just does not reflect the wider audience at all.

This forum filters out the majority of players. For one thing, there's hardly anyone here. Secondly, a certain kind of person comes here, and it's no surprise that the few people we see here tend to care about the MD.

But go to any major games site with a big audience and a large comment community, and the picture is very different. A few people might defend the MD and ask for more, but they're dwarfed by the people who like the games but dislike the MD. Of course, these sites are something of a filter too, and the filter narrows further when it comes down to the kind of person who bothers to create a login and leave comments. Nonetheless, it's a much bigger number of responses and I'd bet their responses tally with Ubi's own research, given the way the games have been since AC4.

That's not to say I don't think the MD won't come back, and in fact I think it will, but it needs to be kept light for the series' own good (to avoid annoying a sizeable chunk of the players, and also in the interests of spacing out the story).

SixKeys
02-10-2017, 01:12 AM
Rino - Bear in mind that this forum just does not reflect the wider audience at all.

This forum filters out the majority of players. For one thing, there's hardly anyone here. Secondly, a certain kind of person comes here, and it's no surprise that the few people we see here tend to care about the MD.

But go to any major games site with a big audience and a large comment community, and the picture is very different. A few people might defend the MD and ask for more, but they're dwarfed by the people who like the games but dislike the MD. Of course, these sites are something of a filter too, and the filter narrows further when it comes down to the kind of person who bothers to create a login and leave comments. Nonetheless, it's a much bigger number of responses and I'd bet their responses tally with Ubi's own research, given the way the games have been since AC4.

That's not to say I don't think the MD won't come back, and in fact I think it will, but it needs to be kept light for the series' own good (to avoid annoying a sizeable chunk of the players, and also in the interests of spacing out the story).

While I agree with you about fandom bias, I must say that in the past year or two I've been noticing increased interest for a proper revival of MD, even on these big sites you mention. People are now looking back fondly to AC3 as the last game where MD felt meaningful and engaging. The Ezio HD trilogy has increased the number of comments from people saying they miss Desmond, not just here but in many places. Maybe it's nostalgia or maybe these things simply ebb and flow like the tides. I think the one thing that connected both critics and proponents of third person-MD was that they didn't necessarily want it gone, they wanted it to be better. Many people said Desmond was the problem because they never really connected with him, others were turned off by the lore getting more and more confusing. MD in the old games had no proper direction, they made up a lot of things on the fly and it shows. With proper planning, a well-rounded protagonist and a streamlined plot MD could be fixed.

D.I.D.
02-10-2017, 02:40 AM
SixKeys - I wrote a longer reply, tried to open the Edit to *investigate* changing one bit, and forgot I was on my phone. So the lovely Ubi forum software deleted the entire thing. Round of applause!

In short:

Same: for me, MD not necessarily the problem. Desmond was a black hole of dullness.

RE7 is a great example of reinvention with constructive sentimentality, but no harmful sentimentality. Didn't put in Leon, Jill, Chris etc just because it thought it had to. Instead, made a game that seemed like a callback to the first games but also new. Now has an opportunity to re-establish its core.

AC needs to do the same. They should think not of the characters they have but the ones they need. Create two teams of personalities, one for each side, who would create interesting complications when rubbed up against each other, and then give them names. If a current name is not a match for the personalities required, kill it. After two games depicting Otso Berg directly, I don't care. I don't know who Rebecca is meant to be now. Galina made no impact at all. Everyone except Sean is formless, and not even Sean matters so much that I'd care if he was dropped. He's had every game except AC1, and that's plenty.

LoyalACFan
02-10-2017, 07:17 AM
Voted historical tourism and historical story, especially the former. Even though I've been quite bitterly disappointed with the last several games, simply exploring the beautifully-rendered historical settings they offered made them worth the purchase price. Found myself reinstalling Rogue a few weeks ago just to sail around the Atlantic for a bit and check out the frozen wastes of the north.

I thought about voting for over-arching story, but decided against it. Frankly, I'm totally disinterested with what's going on with the Juno arc and all that. It feels contrived, it's gotten way too messy, and it shows no signs of actually going anywhere, even though it's been five freakin' years since she broke free. To be honest, I'm not sure anything will get me reinvested in the modern day besides a hard reboot. Wrap up the Juno stuff or kill it forever, but let's move on, please. I have a somewhat robust narrative doc on my laptop that I've been working on as a hobby project charting out several things I'd like to see done in a reboot of AC, so it's not like I'm writing it off forever; I still love the franchise, and hope I can get back into it the way I was pre-AC3. I just don't think the story as of Syndicate is heading on the right trajectory.

ERICATHERINE
02-10-2017, 08:50 AM
While I agree with you about fandom bias, I must say that in the past year or two I've been noticing increased interest for a proper revival of MD, even on these big sites you mention. People are now looking back fondly to AC3 as the last game where MD felt meaningful and engaging. The Ezio HD trilogy has increased the number of comments from people saying they miss Desmond, not just here but in many places. Maybe it's nostalgia or maybe these things simply ebb and flow like the tides.

Well, it seems that, like they say, if you get separated from something that you didn't like anymore, sooner or later, you'll want it back. I don't know if you saw the super hero movie "Hancock". Well they used the same saying, in the movie to make him enjoyable to the people in his city. My guess is the same thing is happening here, except that instead of Hancock, it applies to the ac games md itself. ^-^

RinoTheBouncer
02-10-2017, 10:36 AM
While I agree with you about fandom bias, I must say that in the past year or two I've been noticing increased interest for a proper revival of MD, even on these big sites you mention. People are now looking back fondly to AC3 as the last game where MD felt meaningful and engaging. The Ezio HD trilogy has increased the number of comments from people saying they miss Desmond, not just here but in many places. Maybe it's nostalgia or maybe these things simply ebb and flow like the tides. I think the one thing that connected both critics and proponents of third person-MD was that they didn't necessarily want it gone, they wanted it to be better. Many people said Desmond was the problem because they never really connected with him, others were turned off by the lore getting more and more confusing. MD in the old games had no proper direction, they made up a lot of things on the fly and it shows. With proper planning, a well-rounded protagonist and a streamlined plot MD could be fixed.

Exactly!

While the lore was taking different turns throughout the Desmond saga, we still felt and hoped that there would be a game that brings all the pieces together in a neat why, yet instead, everything was toned down and became absolutely meaningless that each game, while great at world building and gameplay, it felt like none of them was even close to giving a fulfilling dose of progress, and I guess this is why everyone is missing the past, because at least back in the day, the element of mystery was there and the anticipation for things to happen was real. Each game gave enough progress, or at least enough to make us expect more.


SixKeys - I wrote a longer reply, tried to open the Edit to *investigate* changing one bit, and forgot I was on my phone. So the lovely Ubi forum software deleted the entire thing. Round of applause!

In short:

Same: for me, MD not necessarily the problem. Desmond was a black hole of dullness.

RE7 is a great example of reinvention with constructive sentimentality, but no harmful sentimentality. Didn't put in Leon, Jill, Chris etc just because it thought it had to. Instead, made a game that seemed like a callback to the first games but also new. Now has an opportunity to re-establish its core.

AC needs to do the same. They should think not of the characters they have but the ones they need. Create two teams of personalities, one for each side, who would create interesting complications when rubbed up against each other, and then give them names. If a current name is not a match for the personalities required, kill it. After two games depicting Otso Berg directly, I don't care. I don't know who Rebecca is meant to be now. Galina made no impact at all. Everyone except Sean is formless, and not even Sean matters so much that I'd care if he was dropped. He's had every game except AC1, and that's plenty.

Resident Evil 7, while I liked it a lot as a horror game. It was scary, it was challenging at points, it was great to have the exploration, puzzles and backtracking, yet it wasn't much of a Resident Evil experience. It was just another attempt to recreate the mansion in the woods with the small old house, nearby from the first game which was remade countless times in RE history, in RE: Code Veronica as a replica, in RE0, REmake and RE5 DLC. So it got me thinking, how many times are we going to try to recreate the first game? it was by no means the best RE experience. The other question I kept asking was: is there no other way to create a good RE experience other than having to remake old successes and make them in first person?

Another point was the storytelling and character development, which were basically non-existent. What they did with the protagonist is exactly what Ubisoft did in ACIV and what followed "the protagonist is you", which is a terrible idea on every level. While the protagonist in RE7 was indeed a person with a backstory, we didn't even see his face, and he hardly spoke much, nor were there any cutscenes with any memorable action or dialogue that you feel like there's some character development going on. Everything was scattered in notes or in brief one-sided conversations. They didn't create a new protagonist, nor did they refrain from bringing back Leon, Claire, Jill and Chris because they had such a wonderful new concept of a brilliant no character, no. They did that out of pure laziness to avoid writing a new character, creating dialogues and cutscenes for them and showing some real inspirational development that lives up to or exceeds what we've seen in the past by RE games standards.

It was an easy escape from creating a memorable protagonist, plain and simple. Had they brought a new hero/heroine, who was properly developed through dialogue, cutscenes and interactions, I would've gladly embraced that approach, but it was all about putting back some elements from classic games and pretending it's a good RE game, while the result was a collection of elements, from themed keys to puzzles to extreme darkness to cover up for the lack of inspiration and lack of variety in enemy designs, but there was no real explanation as to why Eveline was the way she was, or any deep diving into the plot details. So if this game was an RE spin-off that would've been much easier to swallow, knowing it's setting the stage for something bigger or an intersection between two big games, or even a new horror IP, but as a main numbered title, it disappointed me story-wise and character-wise.

D.I.D.
02-10-2017, 11:54 AM
Resident Evil 7, while I liked it a lot as a horror game. It was scary, it was challenging at points, it was great to have the exploration, puzzles and backtracking, yet it wasn't much of a Resident Evil experience. It was just another attempt to recreate the mansion in the woods with the small old house, nearby from the first game which was remade countless times in RE history, in RE: Code Veronica as a replica, in RE0, REmake and RE5 DLC. So it got me thinking, how many times are we going to try to recreate the first game? it was by no means the best RE experience. The other question I kept asking was: is there no other way to create a good RE experience other than having to remake old successes and make them in first person?

Another point was the storytelling and character development, which were basically non-existent. What they did with the protagonist is exactly what Ubisoft did in ACIV and what followed "the protagonist is you", which is a terrible idea on every level. While the protagonist in RE7 was indeed a person with a backstory, we didn't even see his face, and he hardly spoke much, nor were there any cutscenes with any memorable action or dialogue that you feel like there's some character development going on. Everything was scattered in notes or in brief one-sided conversations. They didn't create a new protagonist, nor did they refrain from bringing back Leon, Claire, Jill and Chris because they had such a wonderful new concept of a brilliant no character, no. They did that out of pure laziness to avoid writing a new character, creating dialogues and cutscenes for them and showing some real inspirational development that lives up to or exceeds what we've seen in the past by RE games standards.

There was barely any story to Corvo in Dishonored 1. He had a backstory, but we didn't see his face, he didn't speak at all, and he had no cutscenes. The majority of lore was in notes you could find. I don't think it follows that this means Dishonored is the same as ACIV, a situation of "the protagonist is you". Dishonored was the same situation as RE7: a first-person game in which your character has a story, but the major story unfolding on screen is all about the characters you can see. Corvo and Ethan are not the stars of their stories, but the same can be said for many games: the Bioshock series, Undertale, Sunless Sea, Spec Ops: The Line. All are fine games in different styles, and all have good stories, and in all cases the character you control is not the focus.

Just because ACIV dodged the idea of a player-character doesn't mean that the principle of the player-character as co-star is a bad one.


It was an easy escape from creating a memorable protagonist, plain and simple. Had they brought a new hero/heroine, who was properly developed through dialogue, cutscenes and interactions, I would've gladly embraced that approach, but it was all about putting back some elements from classic games and pretending it's a good RE game, while the result was a collection of elements, from themed keys to puzzles to extreme darkness to cover up for the lack of inspiration and lack of variety in enemy designs, but there was no real explanation as to why Eveline was the way she was, or any deep diving into the plot details. So if this game was an RE spin-off that would've been much easier to swallow, knowing it's setting the stage for something bigger or an intersection between two big games, or even a new horror IP, but as a main numbered title, it disappointed me story-wise and character-wise.

There were things that disappointed me too. I think the value of RE7 is yet to be seen. It's got potential as a palate-cleanser, as a springboard to other things, if they choose to take advantage of the opportunity.

Horror games ought to scare you, and everything the series did to try and make its narrative more sophisticated (shady pharmaceutical companies, dangerously powerful non-governmental organisations, bio-terrorism, secret agents) is the opposite of horror and pushed the series towards quipping heroes and action scenes. Admittedly, I am biased against this stuff. Show me ancient weirdness and I'm interested, but tell me that a research team studied some old leeches and created a virus they couldn't control and my eyes roll back in my head. The "alien as bioweapon" ruined the Alien films, and it spoils RE for me too. I haven't played every RE game and I've abandoned many that I've started, mainly because I feel like I'm being pulled in the wrong direction. I'm not interested in the secret agents - I'm interested in the leeches and the forces behind them. It's like they took a Lovecraft story and put Steven Seagal in the middle of it.

Everyone knows that stuff about Umbrella now, and they can push it to the back. It was a disappointment to me that the game insisted on bringing everything back to medical research and the military. It's not scary that a T-Virus caused mutations, but if we were to discover that something much darker that inspired the T-Virus research in the first place... that might be. The horror needs to get mysterious and cosmic, and maybe it needs to find things that are inexplicable and for once not try to explain them. This, to me, is the curse of video game stories and many modern movies: the incessant need to answer every question.

When an entertainment company creates a set-up like this, they're tacitly telling me, "We have no intention of concluding this story element. There will always be Umbrella. There will always be the virus. There will never be a real cure, and Umbrella will never me defeated, even if it looks like they have been". AC has this problem, and every development of the Abstergo end of things is always going to be an empty tease. So they have to give me stories inside this which are not connected with the eternal stuff, and most of Ethan's story is at least that. Ideally, I wish they'd go further. I like the way the Cloverfield films are developing, where the big story is simply the setting and a totally different story is happening each time within that. Cloverfield is (so far) doing a great job of not explaining things, even though by now the audience and the participants in the ARGs are getting a fairly clear picture of what's happening - but only just enough to keep things interesting. Probably the best thing about these films is that, despite the presence of military and scientists in white coats, nobody in the first film walked on the set to tell you exactly what the creatures were, what was going on, and how they could be defeated. If they had, it might have been technically "story" but I wouldn't happily call that "story development" when it would have hurt the films.

SpiritOfNevaeh
02-11-2017, 12:50 AM
Definitely historical story. I wasn't really interested in history in school, but when Assassin's Creed came out, I was hooked. I guess they should have introduced the series in school then I would have paid more attention to it. :p

And the side missions were great, especially the ones that build character development.

And the historical tourism was great to where I get to see historical landmarks :)

ElisedelaSerre_
02-11-2017, 10:44 PM
History is what got me started on the series, so that is definitely the main reason for me.

Rugterwyper32
02-12-2017, 08:18 PM
Historical story and historical tourism, with tourism taking the top spot easily.
Modern day story genuienly doesn't keep my interest. I've mentioned it before, but there's only 3 times it's caught me: AC1 because of the sense of mystery and because it was fresh and new since I didn't know it was part of the game, AC3 because of riding the hype train with everyone, AC4 because it had an element of mystery to it again. But that's about it. For the most part I don't really care about the characters or what's going on and I find myself thinking "can we go back to the interesting stuff, please"?
Historical story, while not always great, is still a cool part of things for me. Yeah, sure, the Gump factor is there but I've this strange appreciation for it. And overall, even if the stories are not great, they're cohesive enough to carry the game and every once in a while you'll have a game with side missions that flesh out the storyline more. So I can appreciate that. And hey, when it gets really good or intense you sometimes end up with some really memorable moments.
Historical tourism, though, is the reason I got into the series in the first place, and it's almost consistently the strongest suit of the series. There's just that certain magic walking around the streets of Damascus, running across the rooftops of Florence, stand on a rooftop in Boston looking at the Old State House, approaching Havana during a storm, witnessing the crowds of Revolutionary Paris, standing on top of a train going around London. That magic is why I stick with the series even at its lowest points and makes it all worth it to me tbh.

RinoTheBouncer
02-13-2017, 10:11 PM
There was barely any story to Corvo in Dishonored 1. He had a backstory, but we didn't see his face, he didn't speak at all, and he had no cutscenes. The majority of lore was in notes you could find. I don't think it follows that this means Dishonored is the same as ACIV, a situation of "the protagonist is you". Dishonored was the same situation as RE7: a first-person game in which your character has a story, but the major story unfolding on screen is all about the characters you can see. Corvo and Ethan are not the stars of their stories, but the same can be said for many games: the Bioshock series, Undertale, Sunless Sea, Spec Ops: The Line. All are fine games in different styles, and all have good stories, and in all cases the character you control is not the focus.

Just because ACIV dodged the idea of a player-character doesn't mean that the principle of the player-character as co-star is a bad one.

It is a bad one if you dislike the idea of it. Like there's no system for character creation that is perfect for everyone. Some people will like it, others won't. So the whole "good" and "bad" are subjective. I may have not played Dishonored and Bioshock, but that's mainly because I watched trailers and heard enough about it that it didn't interest me, and I'm sure I didn't like how characters like Chris and Claire were replaced by a nobody.

But my main issue is that when a game gets you used to a certain concept of gameplay and story-telling, changing that doesn't always work. Assassin's Creed, for example, started as a game with modern day and history, with a 3rd person protagonist in modern day that gave the impression that something great is coming with each new game and it kept expanding. Whether we achieved that big conclusion or not is not the point here, but the idea that all this shifted to CGI cutscenes told on a screen of a gaming console based on the Animus, certainly did not work, at least not for me. Maybe a majority did not care for modern day, but many fans did love the franchise because of it's sci-fi elements, like myself.

As for RE7, the games have always focused on the protagonists, how they survive, how they're vulnerable and scared at times and how they get bad-*** and skilled and sometimes quirky and cheeky in other moments, so this mixture is what made many fans love the franchise. Bioshock and the others you mention have probably started out the same way you're describing them, without changing that formula so drastically that it alienates people. Imagine Tomb Raider suddenly eliminating Lara Croft from the experience and only focusing on the world and side characters..etc. I don't think it would work at all.

I generally felt that the attempt to make RE7 to what it turned out to be wasn't genuinely inspired by fan feedback, but rather the need to follow the trend of today's indie horror games, being first person, slow paced motion and lots of notes here and there to tell the story through. Just like how they jumped on the action/shooter and multiplayer bandwagon when it was the cool thing to do back in during the PS3 era, they're doing this now. Which is why I felt that lots of elements felt forced and the whole thing felt like a desperate attempts to tell the fans "hey look! we brought you a mansion in the woods, hey take a look at those keys! they have symbols on them!" rather than a genuinely cohesive and original experience that happens to mix the fear factor, with good character development and an interesting story.

There were things that disappointed me too. I think the value of RE7 is yet to be seen. It's got potential as a palate-cleanser, as a springboard to other things, if they choose to take advantage of the opportunity.


Horror games ought to scare you, and everything the series did to try and make its narrative more sophisticated (shady pharmaceutical companies, dangerously powerful non-governmental organisations, bio-terrorism, secret agents) is the opposite of horror and pushed the series towards quipping heroes and action scenes. Admittedly, I am biased against this stuff. Show me ancient weirdness and I'm interested, but tell me that a research team studied some old leeches and created a virus they couldn't control and my eyes roll back in my head. The "alien as bioweapon" ruined the Alien films, and it spoils RE for me too. I haven't played every RE game and I've abandoned many that I've started, mainly because I feel like I'm being pulled in the wrong direction. I'm not interested in the secret agents - I'm interested in the leeches and the forces behind them. It's like they took a Lovecraft story and put Steven Seagal in the middle of it.

Everyone knows that stuff about Umbrella now, and they can push it to the back. It was a disappointment to me that the game insisted on bringing everything back to medical research and the military. It's not scary that a T-Virus caused mutations, but if we were to discover that something much darker that inspired the T-Virus research in the first place... that might be. The horror needs to get mysterious and cosmic, and maybe it needs to find things that are inexplicable and for once not try to explain them. This, to me, is the curse of video game stories and many modern movies: the incessant need to answer every question.

When an entertainment company creates a set-up like this, they're tacitly telling me, "We have no intention of concluding this story element. There will always be Umbrella. There will always be the virus. There will never be a real cure, and Umbrella will never me defeated, even if it looks like they have been". AC has this problem, and every development of the Abstergo end of things is always going to be an empty tease. So they have to give me stories inside this which are not connected with the eternal stuff, and most of Ethan's story is at least that. Ideally, I wish they'd go further. I like the way the Cloverfield films are developing, where the big story is simply the setting and a totally different story is happening each time within that. Cloverfield is (so far) doing a great job of not explaining things, even though by now the audience and the participants in the ARGs are getting a fairly clear picture of what's happening - but only just enough to keep things interesting. Probably the best thing about these films is that, despite the presence of military and scientists in white coats, nobody in the first film walked on the set to tell you exactly what the creatures were, what was going on, and how they could be defeated. If they had, it might have been technically "story" but I wouldn't happily call that "story development" when it would have hurt the films.

Actually, what stopped RE from being scary to me wasn't the fact that the mystery was justified by pharmaceutical companies. That was never an issue for me. On the contrary, I liked that I felt that the story is going somewhere. RE was all about a conspiracy by pharmaceutical companies and bio-weaponry from the very beginning. It was bound to come to a point where more would be revealed. The Last of Us, for example, didn't explain very much, why? because the story was all about surviving in a post-apocalyptic world with stories about loss, love, family and hope. So I don't think The Last of Us even needed to tell anything about how the virus spread or dive deep into it, because it's simply not that type of story, just like The Walking Dead, or perhaps the whole thing is actually quite obvious like Cloverfield as you mentioned that you don't even need to say "oh they're aliens!" or "they're mutations"..etc.

It's good to have mysteries, that's for sure. Most of the time, when the mystery is lost, things kinda get less interesting but that depends on the story itself. If the story didn't come up with an interesting reveal or twist or just kept leading from one twist to another to no end, now that would be absolutely boring. But I'm not with the idea that everything is kept ambiguous because at the end, you'd want to know why you're even going through this experience.

So it all depends on what kind of answer you're being given. Is it a good one that solves everything in one story? does it lead to another story and more twists and mysteries? is it a boring answer that you were better off not knowing it? how far does the story depend on that answer? that's what makes it interesting or not interesting for me.

D.I.D.
02-14-2017, 07:30 AM
^^ Yeah, very good points!

The conversation got a bit tangled between RE7 and AC! I'm not saying that I want AC to become a first-person game, or a game that eliminates the player as a central character. I only brought up the comparison with regard to Capcom's willingness to completely rebuild the concept while retaining some of the original flavour.

When I said that "AC needs to do the same", that was a continuation of the previous statement: "to re-establish its core", without feeling like every character we know so far has to be in the game forever. I see what you're saying about the RE series, but I do think it keeps the series locked down in an old-fashioned style. I can see why series fans might like that even if they know it's a bit hokey, and maybe the cheese is even part of the fun. As for the bioweapon plot: just like the Alien series, I think it becomes too absurd with each installment. Once Weyland-Yutani had seen the devastation the creature caused, it made less and less sense that they'd do it again, but they did. "Oops, another outpost completely destroyed by that monster. But I still want one." Umbrella is just as ridiculous, where you're left wondering how many outbreaks they need to see before they realise that perhaps their problems could be solved in a less expensive way.

If you were planning a story from scratch, you would begin with broad strokes in creating your cast of characters, just like the original team did. They knew they'd need a naive victim of the conspiracy, a sympathetic confidant on the enemy side so that he's not totally alone, a heartless scientific director, and a shadowy board of executives. In the past: a skilled but brash assassin who oversteps the rules, his taciturn teacher, an envious friend, an aggrieved colleague, a powerful enemy, and an even more powerful and yet surprisingly honourable enemy above him. A mysterious woman in the enemy army. All of these relationships blend and conflict to produce interesting story moments. A writer shouldn't care too much about exactly who these people are, so much as what they are. You could change all kinds of things about them before the story is locked down -- age, gender, names, etc -- but the mechanics would still be strong.

AC2 and ACB continued this. Every character has a particular job to do in service of the story, and there are characteristics of each one which combine with the others to create bigger effects. Even seemingly disposable characters such as Rosa and Bartolomeo play a small part in teaching Ezio something about himself. (That's not to say every character must be instrumental, and if you were writing a story with some kind of mystery to it then you might want a lot of extraneous characters in order to throw the audience off the scent of the real villain, but recent plots have been nowhere near as tight with regard to the historic story.)

Compare that to where we are now, and it's a mess. Shaun, although he appears to be paired to Rebecca and Lucy to create friction with them, was really there as an opposite to Desmond himself. Desmond knew nothing, Shaun was a know-it-all. One is the standard USA white young man, the other is the quintessence of the white English man. Desmond was there to represent the majority of players, and Shaun was there to represent the game itself. Rather than having an on-screen help manual, Shaun did that job in a more entertaining way. But Shaun is just floating now. They seem to be ageing him towards becoming something like Giles in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but he has no relationship to any character. In theory he is a pair with Rebecca, but she has been remodelled to a point where she doesn't exist as a personality. We had a pretty clear picture of Rebecca through very little actual character work in AC2 and ACB. We might not have really known who she was, but at least she was recognisable: her hair and clothing style, her abrupt speech pattern, her way of describing tech problems like a mechanic telling you the problem with your car.

Maybe some people understand who Galina and Otso Berg are from reading the books and comics, but all I have to go on is the games and to me they're absolute nobodies. Berg had some other people with him in Syndicate, and I don't know or care who they are. William Miles is presumably still around somewhere, someone called Laeticia gets the odd mention. Again, they are all floating. I have no idea how these non-entities are supposed to interact in interesting ways. That's why I think they should re-imagine the character types that they need on both sides, and start again.

For instance, supposing you do keep Shaun in the story: Shaun's main thing is that he's a contrarian personality who began as a brilliant researcher but over time has been forced into taking a frontline role in dangerous missions. That suggests to me that he's moving towards being something like a spy. His style of dress and accent suggest a childhood in the private education system. Given his ego, it would make sense for Shaun's new life to give him James Bond fantasies. It's not hard to think of character types who would clash with Shaun, and also character types who would like him. Importantly, for that sense of a team, Shaun needs at least one other character who rises to greater heights because of his presence, and he in turn is boosted by them.

That character might not even be a friend. Who is Shaun's equivalent on the Templar side? So far, we really don't know. They must have someone who does Shaun's job, but the game only presents us with the occasional Templar character who looks more like an administrator than a confirmed espionage expert. If we had two characters like that, they would be likely to become aware of each other. The Assassins would block the Templars' strategies, and vice versa, which would provide a lot of story content in itself .Then, once they knew each other's identities, they'd study each other, and this would bring them into each other's orbit. Supposing they meet: would it be simple deadly violence, like Shaun meeting Berg? Probably not. They'd probably talk, and the more interesting possibility is that they'd have some kind of agreement.

This is a minefield for clichés, so the nature of that agreement is important. It would be too simplistic for them to both realise they don't trust their own side, and in any case Shaun certainly trusts his side with all of his heart. It's quite possible that his Templar opposite number would not be as sure that their own side was blameless but again, it would be too simplistic for that character to join the assassins. If a person in Shaun's shoes had any intelligence, they'd realise that this renegade Templar would be in danger from the Assassins and the Templars alike. In order to protect that person and still protect the Assassins' interests, Shaun's best move would be to go into exile with the ex-Templar. Shaun could still do almost everything that he did before for the Assassins (research for them, supply them with vital information, prevent attacks) and he could sometimes meet and talk with other assassins, but he'd be outside the organisation now and working undercover. The ex-Templar might also be in communication with his/her side, trying to persuade them to listen to reason.

That's how Shaun plus one more character could provide a few games of cat-and-mouse plots followed by a way to conclude the whole series. Following that train of thought, you could think up a ton of other potential interlocking character pairs and character groups, but you have to be thinking about stories within stories. A lot of people are tired of chasing a PoE to a vault and then having a fight with the Templars, but even that doesn't have to be so simple. People write heist dramas where the thing being stolen is just some money, or some gold, or some art, but they write a great story about that idea that doesn't simply end in a punch-up or a shoot-out. Aside from acquiring the PoEs and defeating the Templars, I want to know what else each of these characters wants from life. Those personal tales can happen against the AC backdrop as well.

In similar thriller stories, characters play powerful people of against each other in order to protect their lives. In the current BBC drama "Taboo", the main character keeps himself alive and protects the lives of other people who are useful to him by tying up his enemies in webs of blame. Nobody can move against him without harming themselves. You never see an assassin protect him/herself like this, but you'd think at least one of them would have had this idea - just one who was essentially loyal to their cause but also willing to blow the whole conflict wide open with a data dump via a Dead Man's Switch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_man's_switch). You could do great things in a MD story with a character who had made themselves seemingly untouchable like that, and solving that problem suggests at least two storylines immediately.

The lore talks about the possibility that a few Isu survived the wars and cataclysm for a while, that humanity forgot who they had been, and that eventually Isu were accidentally worshipped as gods in the ancient world. I want to see a story about that, where our ancestor witnesses such an Isu deception. Maybe, for the greater good, the ancestor wouldn't even put an end to that, who knows? We are constantly involved in archaeology, but we've never come into conflict with some normal archaeologists who might also have detected the artefacts we're looking for. Thinking of this, what if archaeologists had already found a PoE and unlocked some of its power, before either the Assassins or Templars could do anything about it? That might change the whole fictional world. An end-game mission to retrieve a PoE in the modern day from a secure archaeological facility would make a refreshing change to the usual "ancestor finds the final tomb", especially if we had to race Templar agents to the prize.

RinoTheBouncer
02-16-2017, 07:27 PM
^^ Yeah, very good points!

The conversation got a bit tangled between RE7 and AC! I'm not saying that I want AC to become a first-person game, or a game that eliminates the player as a central character. I only brought up the comparison with regard to Capcom's willingness to completely rebuild the concept while retaining some of the original flavour.

When I said that "AC needs to do the same", that was a continuation of the previous statement: "to re-establish its core", without feeling like every character we know so far has to be in the game forever. I see what you're saying about the RE series, but I do think it keeps the series locked down in an old-fashioned style. I can see why series fans might like that even if they know it's a bit hokey, and maybe the cheese is even part of the fun. As for the bioweapon plot: just like the Alien series, I think it becomes too absurd with each installment. Once Weyland-Yutani had seen the devastation the creature caused, it made less and less sense that they'd do it again, but they did. "Oops, another outpost completely destroyed by that monster. But I still want one." Umbrella is just as ridiculous, where you're left wondering how many outbreaks they need to see before they realise that perhaps their problems could be solved in a less expensive way.

If you were planning a story from scratch, you would begin with broad strokes in creating your cast of characters, just like the original team did. They knew they'd need a naive victim of the conspiracy, a sympathetic confidant on the enemy side so that he's not totally alone, a heartless scientific director, and a shadowy board of executives. In the past: a skilled but brash assassin who oversteps the rules, his taciturn teacher, an envious friend, an aggrieved colleague, a powerful enemy, and an even more powerful and yet surprisingly honourable enemy above him. A mysterious woman in the enemy army. All of these relationships blend and conflict to produce interesting story moments. A writer shouldn't care too much about exactly who these people are, so much as what they are. You could change all kinds of things about them before the story is locked down -- age, gender, names, etc -- but the mechanics would still be strong.

AC2 and ACB continued this. Every character has a particular job to do in service of the story, and there are characteristics of each one which combine with the others to create bigger effects. Even seemingly disposable characters such as Rosa and Bartolomeo play a small part in teaching Ezio something about himself. (That's not to say every character must be instrumental, and if you were writing a story with some kind of mystery to it then you might want a lot of extraneous characters in order to throw the audience off the scent of the real villain, but recent plots have been nowhere near as tight with regard to the historic story.)

Compare that to where we are now, and it's a mess. Shaun, although he appears to be paired to Rebecca and Lucy to create friction with them, was really there as an opposite to Desmond himself. Desmond knew nothing, Shaun was a know-it-all. One is the standard USA white young man, the other is the quintessence of the white English man. Desmond was there to represent the majority of players, and Shaun was there to represent the game itself. Rather than having an on-screen help manual, Shaun did that job in a more entertaining way. But Shaun is just floating now. They seem to be ageing him towards becoming something like Giles in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but he has no relationship to any character. In theory he is a pair with Rebecca, but she has been remodelled to a point where she doesn't exist as a personality. We had a pretty clear picture of Rebecca through very little actual character work in AC2 and ACB. We might not have really known who she was, but at least she was recognisable: her hair and clothing style, her abrupt speech pattern, her way of describing tech problems like a mechanic telling you the problem with your car.

Maybe some people understand who Galina and Otso Berg are from reading the books and comics, but all I have to go on is the games and to me they're absolute nobodies. Berg had some other people with him in Syndicate, and I don't know or care who they are. William Miles is presumably still around somewhere, someone called Laeticia gets the odd mention. Again, they are all floating. I have no idea how these non-entities are supposed to interact in interesting ways. That's why I think they should re-imagine the character types that they need on both sides, and start again.

For instance, supposing you do keep Shaun in the story: Shaun's main thing is that he's a contrarian personality who began as a brilliant researcher but over time has been forced into taking a frontline role in dangerous missions. That suggests to me that he's moving towards being something like a spy. His style of dress and accent suggest a childhood in the private education system. Given his ego, it would make sense for Shaun's new life to give him James Bond fantasies. It's not hard to think of character types who would clash with Shaun, and also character types who would like him. Importantly, for that sense of a team, Shaun needs at least one other character who rises to greater heights because of his presence, and he in turn is boosted by them.

That character might not even be a friend. Who is Shaun's equivalent on the Templar side? So far, we really don't know. They must have someone who does Shaun's job, but the game only presents us with the occasional Templar character who looks more like an administrator than a confirmed espionage expert. If we had two characters like that, they would be likely to become aware of each other. The Assassins would block the Templars' strategies, and vice versa, which would provide a lot of story content in itself .Then, once they knew each other's identities, they'd study each other, and this would bring them into each other's orbit. Supposing they meet: would it be simple deadly violence, like Shaun meeting Berg? Probably not. They'd probably talk, and the more interesting possibility is that they'd have some kind of agreement.

This is a minefield for clichés, so the nature of that agreement is important. It would be too simplistic for them to both realise they don't trust their own side, and in any case Shaun certainly trusts his side with all of his heart. It's quite possible that his Templar opposite number would not be as sure that their own side was blameless but again, it would be too simplistic for that character to join the assassins. If a person in Shaun's shoes had any intelligence, they'd realise that this renegade Templar would be in danger from the Assassins and the Templars alike. In order to protect that person and still protect the Assassins' interests, Shaun's best move would be to go into exile with the ex-Templar. Shaun could still do almost everything that he did before for the Assassins (research for them, supply them with vital information, prevent attacks) and he could sometimes meet and talk with other assassins, but he'd be outside the organisation now and working undercover. The ex-Templar might also be in communication with his/her side, trying to persuade them to listen to reason.

That's how Shaun plus one more character could provide a few games of cat-and-mouse plots followed by a way to conclude the whole series. Following that train of thought, you could think up a ton of other potential interlocking character pairs and character groups, but you have to be thinking about stories within stories. A lot of people are tired of chasing a PoE to a vault and then having a fight with the Templars, but even that doesn't have to be so simple. People write heist dramas where the thing being stolen is just some money, or some gold, or some art, but they write a great story about that idea that doesn't simply end in a punch-up or a shoot-out. Aside from acquiring the PoEs and defeating the Templars, I want to know what else each of these characters wants from life. Those personal tales can happen against the AC backdrop as well.

In similar thriller stories, characters play powerful people of against each other in order to protect their lives. In the current BBC drama "Taboo", the main character keeps himself alive and protects the lives of other people who are useful to him by tying up his enemies in webs of blame. Nobody can move against him without harming themselves. You never see an assassin protect him/herself like this, but you'd think at least one of them would have had this idea - just one who was essentially loyal to their cause but also willing to blow the whole conflict wide open with a data dump via a Dead Man's Switch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_man's_switch). You could do great things in a MD story with a character who had made themselves seemingly untouchable like that, and solving that problem suggests at least two storylines immediately.

The lore talks about the possibility that a few Isu survived the wars and cataclysm for a while, that humanity forgot who they had been, and that eventually Isu were accidentally worshipped as gods in the ancient world. I want to see a story about that, where our ancestor witnesses such an Isu deception. Maybe, for the greater good, the ancestor wouldn't even put an end to that, who knows? We are constantly involved in archaeology, but we've never come into conflict with some normal archaeologists who might also have detected the artefacts we're looking for. Thinking of this, what if archaeologists had already found a PoE and unlocked some of its power, before either the Assassins or Templars could do anything about it? That might change the whole fictional world. An end-game mission to retrieve a PoE in the modern day from a secure archaeological facility would make a refreshing change to the usual "ancestor finds the final tomb", especially if we had to race Templar agents to the prize.

Great points you got there, and I wholeheartedly agree that the modern day story needs to be reinvented, one way or another. I don't mind introducing new characters or seeing significant evolution in the ones we already have, like you mentioned.

The modern day segment could basically become anything, both in terms of gameplay and story-telling. There are no limits, really. I once wrote a preposition, if you're interested in reading, ALTAIR II (http://www.thecodex.network/?portfolio-posts=altair-ii), which describes how the modern day can become if it was based aboard the Altair II ship, with small sneaking missions every once in a while where the ship drops you somewhere and you have to recover something, assassinate someone, learn information or meet with someone and then go back to your ship. This is one way, it could feature the same cast but with more prominent roles that literally makes people care about them, or perhaps introduce new characters who are written from the ground up to be engaging and become the main cast, with Shaun and Rebecca, for example, giving them information through communication systems or perhaps they're the ones sailing the ship or administrating the building/hide out where the Animus is and the protagonist too.

It would be really great, but they just have to take it seriously as an important segment in the game. The idea of putting uninspiring characters or boring gameplay and little to no cutscenes or delivering good ones in really small doses doesn't really make people care about what's going on. But if they make it something important, even if it's just 10- 20% of the whole game, it will indeed give the player the desire to finish more missions to know what's gonna happen next outside the Animus. So I think it's all about writing, directing and overall development of it that can either make people care or not care.

I give you an example, the Assassin's Creed movie had more modern day than history, and the characters, at least Sofia Rikkin, Alan Rikkin, Cal, The Chairwoman were all interesting characters that I wanna know what will happen to them after this movie. My brothers, who never played an AC game, loved the movie so much and they were happy that there was more modern day and were so eager to know if there will be a next film. Maybe the movie didn't get the beset reviews, maybe it wasn't the biggest commercial success, but then again, it did manage, for the first time, to deliver the best modern day experience, alongside AC: Brotherhood and ACIII, at least for me.

So if they do indeed focus some good resources, writing skills, voice actors, and directors to make it more engaging, more cinematic, more emotional and overall effective and touches the player, then people will gradually start to care, maybe even those who aren't die-hard fans like us here. And even if someone doesn't like modern day, at all, it still won't be very huge that it ruins the historical experience for the player. At the end of the day, it's an open world majorly historical game, so the player will decide how much they wanna spend in the historical segment, even after the credits roll.


I love the idea about revolting against corrupt system. With the power of free running and hell combat skills and weapons just makes it epic. I guess it foreshadows the reality of the systems today

Same here. One of the reasons why I love the franchise is how it echoes the current world affairs, and some major conspiracy theories, be it historical or modern and how it links facts with fiction and makes a beautiful lore.

WendysBrioche
02-17-2017, 01:11 AM
EDIT: I must emphasize, Side Missions and Side Activities are very important! They fill the game up with stuff to do in the environment outside of Story Missions other than sitting around and being lame! Side activities like those in Syndicate are essential to any modern open-world game! I can't stress this point enough! Shame on those who didn't vote for it. Shame!

Now, my original post:

Well everything pretty much.

Assassin's creed games always offered so much and still do in presenting a historically themed game with just a touch of a unique Sci fi fantasy spin on things.

Getting to see ancient to early modern historical cities and regions presented in a modern game with typically the most cutting edge graphics the video games market can offer with the latest tech is always a huge treat and spoils us, or at least nerds like me all too much. XD

Nothing really is cooler than to play as an assassin serving an ancient order under cover in the streets of historical cities trying to serve a greater good whilst on the threshold that questions whether what you and your order is doing is right or wrong, and facing an adversarial order that faces the same issues and problems dealing with the ethics of their conduct.

Sometimes just walking down the streets of the cities and admiring the scenery of these cities and just immersing oneself in the culture shock of walking through something so familiar yet foreign to what we know in the present day is the hugest treat of these games alone.

And seeing these ancient sites with just a touch of ambient fantasy-esque brilliant lighting that amplifies, but does not diminish the level of realism and historical authenticity of the environments is something that is so easily overlooked but also so well done to the utmost precision in these games to no error or flaw to speak of. The sights have always been absolutely breathtaking.

You capture those elements, you have an assassin's creed game.

Other amazing features are the freerunning and parkour, getting to use every ever so slight nook and cranny on every fantastic structure of historical architecture as a foot or finger hold to grip and climb while on a mission to take out some corrupt statesman responsible for instigating corruption war and destruction as part of some vital desperate effort to create and restore peace to an empire/country is always a favorite.

Missions and variety of activities are a plus for any game out there, the mechanics and mission types in Syndicate were amazing. I think Syndicate is one of the games that handles mission types the best. Hijacking cargo, intercepting important shipments, espionage, kidnapping targets with an animation for it, and then interrogating them in a secluded area, or dragging them to a cart/carriage/chariot to keep prisoner (this feature is huge!!!!!! Not to be overlooked and is a must for future games!), freeing prisoners, slaves, or the children workers in Syndicate, to the classic assassination. Interrogations where at the end the player character must decide whether it is safe or important enough to assassinate an interrogation target after acquiring the necessary information from them could bring a little back from AC 1. Perhaps if an information target is left alive they might notify their higher ups leading to increased or more aware guard security at the next mission?

Maybe a solution to this could be a modified intimidation feature where if done well enough through a conversation, mini game, or just a skill level or any combination of features thereof would determine the chance of them snitching to the higher ups. Maybe this could be combined with a chance to recruit said information targets to the Assassin's if they feel threatened by the Templars. I'm just spouting any random ideas I can think of that might be worth considering or that would be cool modifications of existing features for future games.

Every new feature in these games is one, or a mechanic that can be improved and enhanced/added to in future games similar to how free running and parkour has improved in generations since the first game.

Robe customization is really cool too. Fans of ancient themed games love to mix and match armor and clothing like Skyrim elder scrolls, it's a great feature to have in Assassin's Creed games. I mean the robes are always God jaw droppingly awesome to look at, getting to find the perfect combinations of hood, chest piece, robes armor legwear assassin's gauntlets/bracers to the ever so cherished assassin belt/sash adds a huge level of personability and this feeling of gearing your assassin up before a vital mission; it's hella fun.

I got more stuff to say but my phones dying now. Oh horse riding and era specific means of transportation are important as well. Another one of Syndicate's amazing features that won't be undervalued was hiding in moving vehicles to make an escape, that one's really cool too.

D.I.D.
02-17-2017, 12:14 PM
@Rino - Yeah, I love the idea of a ship as an HQ! Aside from the way it would consolidate an atmospheric setting with one that makes sense with being in hiding, it would present a reason why the MD character can't walk outside of the HQ area.