PDA

View Full Version : Will there ever be "The Tempars Order" Kind of game?



bb255052
02-08-2017, 09:10 PM
  I know alot of people love the franchise just like I do, or even much more than me. But, to be honest, I found myself unable to stand the assassin's ideology. I live in a country where most people can't even follow simple rules like no illegal parking, no smoking in public spaces, etc, etc. And when our government want to do something about it, people would start to cry about their free will.

  Of course, people should be able to decide what to do, but they shouldn't be allowed to do what ever they want. Limited freedom within the boundary of Law and Order, is the only way to keep our society safe and peaceful. Templars understand the value of order and stability, while the assassin's keep messing around and create chaos.

  If there could be a game, for players to truly side with the Templars, I think alot of people would be very pleased.

  For me, if I can choose which side to side with, I'd side with the Templars in a heart beat. Order must always comes first.

Sorrosyss
02-08-2017, 10:41 PM
Well, Rogue is about the nearest we had so far. We've had several comic titles in the last year, plus an entire novel (Heresy) from the Templar perspective, so Ubisoft can certainly pull it off if they desire. If the next game delivers and the franchise gets back on track, I'd say there is definitely an appetite for such a spin off. I'd certainly buy it.

D.I.D.
02-09-2017, 11:13 AM
I'd be interested if it meant a much more difficult game.

To have the Assassins as a game enemy ought to be like going up against the xenomorphs from the Alien films. You should be, at best, like an average person from any shooter game versus something extraordinarily athletic that's very hard to hit (like the best splicers in Bioshock). When they catch you, it ought to feel like getting destroyed by the monster in Alien: Isolation.

For that reason, I think a game like this ought to be first-born view, and quite unlike the AC series until now. If you imagine a Templar's life, most of the people they'd kill would be ordinary people who were at best good with a gun or a blade, so it wouldn't be super-difficult all the time.

SixKeys
02-09-2017, 01:35 PM
I side with the assassins, but I wouldn't mind a GOOD Templar game. Rogue was not such a game. It had a ridiculously simplistic view of the eternal conflict, Shay changed sides in a heartbeat and the assassins looked like bumbling fools.

I've been saying for a long time that for a truly good Templar game, the entire approach should be fundamentally different. Assassins are all about freedom and improvisation, hence why the open-world sandbox works so well. Templars, on the other hand, are all about micromanagement, long-term planning and control. Hence a strategy game would be much more in line with the Templar philosophy. A game where you play a general of sorts, overseeing troop placement, giving orders to spies and planning in advance for every possibility.

The problem is, of course, that not all open-world fans are into strategy games. They expect a spinoff from the Templar viewpoint to be exactly the same as the assassin games, but different, which of course is a contradiction. Ubisoft would risk alienating traditionalist fans by making a spinoff radically different from the main series. That may be why Rogue is their only attempt so far, and not a very good one.

RinoTheBouncer
02-09-2017, 03:44 PM
I think if they make a spin-off series which comes out every other year and plays in a linear manner and released under different title but still part of the AC universe, which focuses on storytelling more than anything, and each game can put the magnifying glass on a certain element. Once focusing on The Templar Order, next First Civ., the next focuses on Modern Day..etc. It's like something similar to AC Chronicles, but not a side-scrolle, and it expands the plot in an episodic manner with each new game, filling the gaps between each main installment. It would be the experimental part of the franchise.

D.I.D.
02-09-2017, 05:14 PM
God bless my phone's comical auto-correct. I meant "first-person view", not "first-born view", funny though that would be! Can't edit until I'm on the PC because the forum will delete the entire post if I attempt to edit on mobile :(

Samurai587
02-09-2017, 09:40 PM
I'm one of those that actually enjoyed Rogue and feel it was under-developed, only six sequences wasn't enough to cover the whole conflict. But should there be a Templar series? Of course!

LoyalACFan
02-09-2017, 11:12 PM
I side with the assassins, but I wouldn't mind a GOOD Templar game. Rogue was not such a game. It had a ridiculously simplistic view of the eternal conflict, Shay changed sides in a heartbeat and the assassins looked like bumbling fools.

I've been saying for a long time that for a truly good Templar game, the entire approach should be fundamentally different. Assassins are all about freedom and improvisation, hence why the open-world sandbox works so well. Templars, on the other hand, are all about micromanagement, long-term planning and control. Hence a strategy game would be much more in line with the Templar philosophy. A game where you play a general of sorts, overseeing troop placement, giving orders to spies and planning in advance for every possibility.

The problem is, of course, that not all open-world fans are into strategy games. They expect a spinoff from the Templar viewpoint to be exactly the same as the assassin games, but different, which of course is a contradiction. Ubisoft would risk alienating traditionalist fans by making a spinoff radically different from the main series. That may be why Rogue is their only attempt so far, and not a very good one.

See, I didn't think Rogue's approach was a bad one, even if it didn't stick the landing. Having an Assassin turncoat as a protagonist was a good way of blending traditional AC gameplay with a Templar slant, but given that it was essentially the "B-side" to ACU, it was kind of doomed to fail from the start. Rogue just didn't have the time or resources to be much of a fresh twist on anything (hell, it was basically the exact same game as AC4). But I do think it was right to stick fairly close to Assassin-y gameplay, because as you say, the overlap between AC players and strategy gamers is probably insubstantial. Especially since most AC players are on console, and strategy games aren't really a thing on console. People who play these games like exploration, combat, stealth, etc. They can't shy too far away from that base.

That said, I don't think they need to shy away from the action for a Templar game. Especially if they go back pre-Jacques de Molay to when the Templars were still actual knights. Maybe downplay the parkour somewhat and focus more on combat, exploration, and a more robust system of renovations/upgrades a la Monteriggioni.

And with that said, my ideal scenario for a playable Templar would be a two-character switch system, kind of like Syndicate, except with more significant differences between characters. The Templar knight would be much stronger in combat (e.g. larger parry windows, more damaging strikes, tougher to kill) but unable to scale walls, while the Assassin would be a parkour expert but weaker in a fight. And maybe the Templar's stealth kills would make a bit of noise (like a neck snap or something) while the Assassin's would be totally silent, and faster? IDK, just spitballing here. But IMO the best way to illustrate the difference between a Templar and Assassin approach would be in the same game.

SixKeys
02-10-2017, 12:56 AM
And with that said, my ideal scenario for a playable Templar would be a two-character switch system, kind of like Syndicate, except with more significant differences between characters. The Templar knight would be much stronger in combat (e.g. larger parry windows, more damaging strikes, tougher to kill) but unable to scale walls, while the Assassin would be a parkour expert but weaker in a fight. And maybe the Templar's stealth kills would make a bit of noise (like a neck snap or something) while the Assassin's would be totally silent, and faster? IDK, just spitballing here. But IMO the best way to illustrate the difference between a Templar and Assassin approach would be in the same game.

This already sounds like a much better approach than Rogue. While in Rogue it made sense that Shay had all the same skills as the assassins, given that he started out as one, I simply don't see the point in creating a spinoff series that feels and plays exactly like the main games. I already dislike the idea of Templars being good at parkour, it feels much more suited to the assassins. It symbolizes the difference between them, Templars being more "grounded" and assassins being free as birds. I don't like Templars having Eagle Vision or all the same weapons as the assassins, including the hidden blade. Again, Rogue had a good reason for all these things, but if they were to do a game where the protagonist has always been a Templar, I would hate such a lazy approach.

What I also hated about Rogue was how inept the assassins were. It was laughably easy to pinpoint the stalkers' location and even if they did get the jump on you, they were extremely easy to counter. It didn't make me feel like Shay was an extraordinary badass, it made me feel like assassins were complete tools. Given how overpowered they usually are in the games, it's like having your illusion shattered about how cool they supposedly are.

Rogue was also too afraid to really delve into the moral greyness between the two sides. The assassins acted like dogmatic jerks, which they've never done before (save for AC1 under Al Mualim), and Shay never felt like he cared much for their philosophy anyway, so there was no drama in him switching sides. He was portrayed basically the same way as grown-up Anakin in the Star Wars prequels. Someone who was meant to be sympathetic and tragic, but only ended up being whiny and fickle. Ubi did such a good job in making Haytham a likable Templar, but only as long as we were controlling him. As soon as the viewpoint switched to Connor, Haytham suddenly lost everything that had made him sympathetic. It's like they're too afraid to really place the assassin philosophy under a microscope and ask hard questions, so they resort to oversimplifications.

ze_topazio
02-10-2017, 02:17 AM
The writers of Rogue clearly lacked the time and resources to properly develop the story, that's why they had to rely on shocking events like the earthquake because they lacked the budget to craft several sequences of Shay questioning the creed, consider different perspectives, gradually losing his faith on the Assassins, etc..., before defecting.


A perfect Templar game would be about walking inside buildings, conspiring, suborning people, giving orders, attend meetings with allies, subordinates, pawns, etc..., sign documents, admiring a painting of naked Cesare painted by Da Vinci, etc, etc, etc.

If well done could be interesting, if poorly done would be boring as you can get.

LoyalACFan
02-10-2017, 07:01 AM
This already sounds like a much better approach than Rogue. While in Rogue it made sense that Shay had all the same skills as the assassins, given that he started out as one, I simply don't see the point in creating a spinoff series that feels and plays exactly like the main games. I already dislike the idea of Templars being good at parkour, it feels much more suited to the assassins. It symbolizes the difference between them, Templars being more "grounded" and assassins being free as birds. I don't like Templars having Eagle Vision or all the same weapons as the assassins, including the hidden blade. Again, Rogue had a good reason for all these things, but if they were to do a game where the protagonist has always been a Templar, I would hate such a lazy approach.

What I also hated about Rogue was how inept the assassins were. It was laughably easy to pinpoint the stalkers' location and even if they did get the jump on you, they were extremely easy to counter. It didn't make me feel like Shay was an extraordinary badass, it made me feel like assassins were complete tools. Given how overpowered they usually are in the games, it's like having your illusion shattered about how cool they supposedly are.

Rogue was also too afraid to really delve into the moral greyness between the two sides. The assassins acted like dogmatic jerks, which they've never done before (save for AC1 under Al Mualim), and Shay never felt like he cared much for their philosophy anyway, so there was no drama in him switching sides. He was portrayed basically the same way as grown-up Anakin in the Star Wars prequels. Someone who was meant to be sympathetic and tragic, but only ended up being whiny and fickle. Ubi did such a good job in making Haytham a likable Templar, but only as long as we were controlling him. As soon as the viewpoint switched to Connor, Haytham suddenly lost everything that had made him sympathetic. It's like they're too afraid to really place the assassin philosophy under a microscope and ask hard questions, so they resort to oversimplifications.

Fully agreed with everything you said. I really disliked Rogue, TBH, I'm just sticking up for the devs a bit since they had to churn out a Templar game with the skeleton of a pirate/Assassin game. No easy feat, considering that a pirate Assassin is pretty much the antithesis of everything Templars are about :p I just meant that I thought Rogue's approach of having an Assassin traitor protagonist was smart given that it had to operate within the confines of AC4 mechanics, but I wouldn't want a similar strategy for any future Templar games.

cawatrooper9
02-14-2017, 04:11 PM
When I think of "strategy" in Templar games, I definitely wouldn't want a complicated RTS type of thing, but I also wouldn't want something like the lazy tower defense thing in Rev.

I guess what might be cool would be a sort of hybrid between the city building of the Ezio era with the Assassination missions of ACB-ACIII/ naval missions of ACIV and ACR. What I mean is, give the player a ton of resources, but make them plan a little beforehand.

Maybe in various Templar bases there can be a sort of strategy table where resources all around the city can be redistributed.

If the Templar wants to call in city guards to help him during a mission, let him do so, but also let him plan accordingly by diverting larger amounts of guard patrols toward the locus of the mission. If the player wants to arrange a ship to take them to another city, they can either try to take a ship by force, or they can arrange for a ship to come pick them up at a specific point, providing bombardment support if necessary.

Overall, though, I think this sort of sandbox approach to strategy would be good for the game, because I'd want a lot of the gameplay to be based on the Nemesis system of Shadow of Mordor. That is, if you get into a fight with an Assassin and he manages to escape/isn't entirely killed, he can come back stronger and smarter. And there could be a random generator of Assassins all around the city. What would be cool, though, is how your strategy table could manipulate them. If your hunts lead you to believe the Assassins are entrenched in a hideout in a district of the city, you can have your minions burn or flood them out of their holes, while you stand outside and try to pick them off. If you want to distract the Assassins to keep them away from a story mission in the north end of the city you're trying to do, you can send guards to the south to harass beggars and children.

On top of all that, though- whily these strategic advantages are strong, the Templar needs them- because toe to toe, he'll have a tough time taking down a single Assassin, let alone many- and if they're hidden, the Templar will basically be a lost cause. Infiltrating an Assassin hideout with no support should feel like a horror game, not an adventure.

Thomas1995i
02-15-2017, 01:49 PM
Such a game would be a great idea. I think it might bring a completely different gameplay and strategies. It may be a great amount of fun.

WendysBrioche
02-17-2017, 03:31 AM
I rather enjoyed that sequence at the beginning of Unity where you played as that Medieval French Knight alongside Jack De'Moley. That was super fun. Ugh wish I could replay the darn memory! XD