PDA

View Full Version : Things they've done right



Evenesque
06-19-2017, 05:50 PM
Any videogame forum is where constructive criticism and more importantly commendations go to die a horrible death. I've watched a few interviews with Ashraf so far and he tries his best to subtly acknowledge the forums as the maelstrom of negativity they tend to be.

So, I feel compelled to articulate exactly why I'm really excited for Assassin's Creed Origins and I don't care anymore if you disagree.


Full disclosure, Assassin's Creed Origins will not be the best game ever made. It will not surpass every thing I've ever played because I thought the trailer was super cool.

I am however going to specify exactly what I think they're doing right.


The open world state of Origins is a step in a great direction. I think certain types of games can definitely benefit from Open World type structures and Assassin's Creed seems to be embracing in the sandbox facet of open world design. Open world games are my favorite types of games and always have been. You can think that's biased or you can think it's sad, either way, it doesn't matter. Open world games are like vacations to me that I can go back to and make my own stories that I simply don't feel like I can do in a corridor shooter or a platformer. Assassin's Creed digging it's heels in to MGS V's and Far Cry's vein of "anecdote factory" as Dan calls it, can only be a good thing for how I enjoy games.

Naturally RPG elements speak to open world structure in a great way. AC has always dabbled in loose RPG elements and I think Unity's troubled launch caused Ubisofts development direction team to pull back on what they felt comfortable doing in this area, so I'm happy to see Origins has been given the room to expand on it.

The crouch button is a godsend every time it shows up. Standing up straight on a rooftop casting a massive shadow feels odd, and is the main reason I don't play previous AC games without it.

I'm very glad the development team has refined momentum assassinations activated by sprinting into a stealth kill. This is something introduced in AC3 and speaks to feeling like a well trained killer when you can kill on the move. Most people in the E3 demos don't seem to know, care, or understand how it's done so you don't see it much. But I have witnessed someone, from crouch, sprint at an enemy a few feet in front of them and perform a tackle assassination. I think this is awesome and should always be an option.

Level based assassination can understandably be seen as a big step in a different direction for people who are used to one shotting everything they can sneak up on. Personally I think this is a great response to the criticism that stealth doesn't feel rewarding in AC. The hidden blade now has the potential to rid you of a battle with someone you may not be prepared for, have the patience for, or simply just want to avoid doing in a crowded area. Technically this has always been true, but Ashraf explained that if you want to assassinate someone higher level than you, you have to invest in stealth but also craft the appropriate level hidden blade. Stealth is still rewarding, but more so if you need to calculate the effort in gear to make it work. Imagine playing The Witcher but with full stealth mechanics and being able to assassinate a troll if you have a cool enough dagger. Same reward scheme and I think it's got great potential for stealthers like me.

Combat looks like a great change. It has its issues from my persepective, such as last enemy only finishers, but mechanically it looks sound. What i DO have an issue with is people with the inability to understand that no matter what game it is, if you play like an idiot you're going to make your gameplay look bad. There's a difference between the combat looking jank and people playing it like it's Syndicate. If you manage to find the few videos of people playing combat like it's meant to be played i.e. slower than a crackhead and with forethought, you'll see it plays much like The Witcher 3 with a bit of For Honor thrown in there for style. Bayek's movement can look floaty in parkour or sprint. But the only time i see that is when someone plays the game like they've been told Bayek will die a horrible death if he stops running. You don't need to be constantly doing something anymore. If you take your time, you're rewarded with a system that requires patience and precision. That being said, if there are difficulties, the lower it is the less relevant this is.

Bayek seems to be able to traverse much easier than previous games in both the sense that he seems physically capable but also the parkour has been refined to being less complicated. It wasn't necessarily something that required an enormous amount of thought to begin with, but the new control scheme seems to have allowed the team to let the game make better automatic traversal decisions based on predicted player choice. That, combined with the ability to climb anything, feels like Origins will feel like the most free-form AC so far.

That dovetails nicely with the difference in Assassination gameplay everyone has complained about being absent since the first one. According to popular opinion, the only thing AC1 got right was it's freeform approach to killing a mark. Every game since has generated contentious complaints about feeling too structured or holding your hand. Personally I think Origins will do this far better than any game before it. It might not be absolutely everything I want, but I see a direct improvement based on player feedback. To that point, 100% sync conditions should stay removed forever. I don't and never have appreciated being told how to play an open world game. I decide what's cool.


The bow is a great weapon and it looks like it was incorporated with people who like using it for more than sniping in mind. I don't know even now how viable it would be as your only weapon despite Ash's proclamation that it could be, but the more fleshed out it is the better it is for everyone. The bow was one of my favorite things about playing Connor.

Very, VERY glad outfits have been relegated to being completely without stats and thus only cosmetic. Direct improvement for the feel an RPG should be going for and one of the things the Witcher and Skyrim still don't seem to understand. Could not be happier with this change, even if it is a whole ensemble or nothing deal. Just as well, a hood toggle is a godsend. Thank you for finally listening.

Senu looks really cool. I have an issue with her seemingly being able to freeze herself in midair, but I probably won't hover with her anyway considering she can mark while in motion. Would be a bigger problem for me if you couldn't, so good job.

Dual wielding has been confirmed by multiple sources as being a weapon option, with one being the official Ubiblog stating dual wielding daggers was one of the possibilities. That's all I want from melee combat. I don't need a shield, it's nice that it's there, but I'm definitely going to use dual wield whenever I can so I appreciate the consideration of different melee playstyles. Something else the Witcher missed in my opinion.

Also, the first person sniper bow is a nice touch. I'm not sure how i feel about the guided missile arrow, but nothing says I'm forced to use it.

Soft cover isn't really the majority of gamers preference but if it's refined (looks like it is) correctly then it is far better than no cover at all. This allowes for the contextual corner kills and hopefully the over-cover kills. Anything the game can do to allow stealth more similarities with Splinter Cell Blacklist (my favorite stealth game) is a great thing and I'm glad Ash's team is paying attention.



Overall, I'm not going to sit here and grade the game based on a small demo's various recorded versions. But everything I'm seeing looks like a direct answer to either what I've complained about or what reviewers have raised issue with and personally, I think it's great. AC gets a lot of **** from people for a lot of things, so I feel at least someone needs to be able to convey what they like and are looking forward to with Origins. I've always been a massive AC fan and my complaints come from a place of passion for the series and it's direction. It's only a good thing that they seem to be listening.

Fatal-Feit
06-19-2017, 06:18 PM
It's not really a gripe, but I find it amusing every time someone compares the combat to TW3 when it's clearly a direct copy and paste of the Souls combat. Everything from the weapon variety and their differences to the UI and control layout is Soulsborne to a T. TW3 is not a bad comparison at all, but I thought the Soulsborne title has made enough impact in the industry for people to identify their influences in other games by now.

I suppose the audience for AC have always been drastically different from Soulsborne.

Evenesque
06-19-2017, 06:20 PM
Souls has a stamina mechanic that Witcher and this game do not. It's kind a defining part of how Souls works. You can't dodge indefinitely, and you can't swing forever. Both the Witcher and Origins combat function the same way. Souls is heavier, more limited and calculated than both, so I don't get the justification that it's a copy of Souls.

Claiming it's a direct copy and paste job when it excludes a mechanic that defines the source game makes no sense. The only thing Souls has in common with this game is the fact that you can lock on to enemies and that you can dodge. Everything else about how that actually functions is a direct rip of Witcher, which yes, in turn borrowed from Dark Souls. But Witcher and Souls function completely differently. Origins shares more in common with Witcher.

Fatal-Feit
06-19-2017, 06:53 PM
Souls has a stamina mechanic that Witcher and this game do not. It's kind a defining part of how Souls works. You can't dodge indefinitely, and you can't swing forever. Both the Witcher and Origins combat function the same way. Souls is heavier, more limited and calculated than both, so I don't get the justification that it's a copy of Souls.

Claiming it's a direct copy and paste job when it excludes a mechanic that defines the source game makes no sense. The only thing Souls has in common with this game is the fact that you can lock on to enemies and that you can dodge. Everything else about how that actually functions is a direct rip of Witcher, which yes, in turn borrowed from Dark Souls. But Witcher and Souls function completely differently. Origins shares more in common with Witcher.

TW3 and Souls share some common features, but I don't think the devs borrowed from DS, necessarily. A lot of the design choices seemed like appropriate evolution from TW2 to fit with the open world structure.

Anyway, yeah, stamina is a huge part of the Soulsborne title, but it actually isn't a key element for Bloodborne. Comparatively, I will argue that this game has much more similarities to Soulsborne than TW3. The button layout, for one thing, is definitely Soulsborne inspired. RB for light attack, RT for heavy attack (hold to charge), LB to block, RS to switch targets, etc. UI was also snatched, most notably in the lock-on. Weapon variety plays a huge role, with their defining differences being their distances, combos, speed and special abilities. Which also brings me to combat, which is more focused on character positioning and environments than in TW3. Notice how the players are more keen on moving backwards to adjust to the situation, keeping themselves from being surrounded like Soulsborne, whereas the TW3, you're more in the position to be surrounded and strafing around. Speaking of, parry is just like in Soulsborne. Also, you can switch between between two different melee weapons during combat to mix up your combo or address certain situations.

Both mechanically and visually, it's Soulsborne combat with a different spin on a few things. I get that it looks like TW3's combat as well, but I don't think their similarities goes beyond appearance.

Also, I hope this doesn't become a big deal, this isn't something I feel is worth debating over for too long.

Evenesque
06-19-2017, 07:07 PM
TW3 and Souls share some common features, but I don't think the devs borrowed from DS, necessarily. A lot of the design choices seemed like appropriate evolution from TW2 to fit with the open world structure.

Anyway, yeah, stamina is a huge part of the Soulsborne title, but it actually isn't a key element for Bloodborne. Comparatively, I will argue that this game has much more similarities to Soulsborne than TW3. The button layout, for one thing, is definitely Soulsborne inspired. RB for light attack, RT for heavy attack (hold to charge), LB to block, RS to switch targets, etc. UI was also snatched, most notably in the lock-on. Weapon variety plays a huge role, with their defining differences being their distances, combos, speed and special abilities. Which also brings me to combat, which is more focused on character positioning and environments than in TW3. Notice how the players are more keen on moving backwards to adjust to the situation, keeping themselves from being surrounded like Soulsborne, whereas the TW3, you're more in the position to be surrounded and strafing around. Speaking of, parry is just like in Soulsborne. Also, you can switch between between two different melee weapons during combat to mix up your combo or address certain situations.

Both mechanically and visually, it's Soulsborne combat with a different spin on a few things. I get that it looks like TW3's combat as well, but I don't think their similarities goes beyond appearance.

Also, I hope this doesn't become a big deal, this isn't something I feel is worth debating over for too long.

Some good points. We'll just have to agree we have apparently opposite opinions. Either way it's an improvement to me.

cawatrooper9
06-19-2017, 07:22 PM
To be honest, neither are a direct comparison. This is a new type Assassins Creed combat, not The Witcher or Dark Souls.

Comparisons are definitely there, though. I've played very little Bloodborne, but certain parts of the demo (not sure I can say which) felt significantly much more like Bloodborne than others- though,, even then, it obviously had its own feel to it.

HDinHB
06-20-2017, 01:49 AM
Bayek's movement can look floaty in parkour or sprint. But the only time i see that is when someone plays the game like they've been told Bayek will die a horrible death if he stops running. You don't need to be constantly doing something anymore. If you take your time, you're rewarded with a system that requires patience and precision.

Would anyone that got to play the demo care to elaborate on this aspect?



http://i.imgur.com/4bNL8c2.png

strigoi1958
06-20-2017, 03:33 AM
Origin has lots of great things ... I've seen many threads here with details, I think the star gazer puzzles have caught my eye more than some things.

Well written post Evenesque :)

ohoni
06-20-2017, 04:59 AM
People keep saying that it's the demo players' fault that the combat looks stupid, with players circle strafing and stabbing the enemies in the rear. Well ok, but if that's the case then surely someone can provide an example of someone, anyone, even a game dev, capable of doing it better, capable of making combat as fluid and cinematic as any previous AC game, chaining counter-strikes into the end of the surrounding characters. I've seen several combat videos, and not one that didn't look ridiculous, so show me something better.

SixKeys
06-20-2017, 05:22 AM
People keep saying that it's the demo players' fault that the combat looks stupid, with players circle strafing and stabbing the enemies in the rear. Well ok, but if that's the case then surely someone can provide an example of someone, anyone, even a game dev, capable of doing it better, capable of making combat as fluid and cinematic as any previous AC game, chaining counter-strikes into the end of the surrounding characters. I've seen several combat videos, and not one that didn't look ridiculous, so show me something better.

That's not possible purely because the combat system in previous games was a whole different system. I'm not well-versed in the technicalities, but the best way I can explain it is that combat in previous games was always based on paired animations. You would swing your sword in the direction of an enemy and that would trigger a certain animation sequence. Like hundreds or thousands of mini-cut-scenes based on your actions, essentially. Hence why the animations always looked so realistic and fluid: they were pre-recorded sequences that would always play out a certain way. It's also why your character would often slide several feet across the map at an enemy, as if drawn by a magnet. The system needed them to work that way, because if the player performs a successful execution move, the game has to respond to that by rewarding them with the appropriate animation. Otherwise it would feel like the game wasn't responding to your command. So even if it makes no sense that your sword should connect with an enemy who's several feet away, you get pulled towards them into a paired animation sequence anyway.

In this new system, it actually matters how far you are from the enemy. If you swing your sword and they're too far for the hit to connect, you will slash at empty air. Obviously this doesn't look as cinematic as before, but it does make gameplay more challenging, as you can no longer rely on the system to do everything for you. You will be responsible for positioning your character accordingly, you have to pay attention and you have to consider if your current weapon has sufficient range.

In short, if you're looking for combat footage from this game that looks like the combat from previous ones, you're not going to find it because they're based on two entirely different systems. That doesn't mean you can't still have good-looking combat once you've mastered the new controls, but obviously all the reviewers who have been posting their own gameplay recordings are still used to the old system. They still expect the game to do everything for them as they have done for the last 10 years. Thus most of the footage you end up with will look like amateurish flailing and a lot of running around trying to heal.

ohoni
06-20-2017, 07:51 AM
That's not possible purely because the combat system in previous games was a whole different system. I'm not well-versed in the technicalities, but the best way I can explain it is that combat in previous games was always based on paired animations. You would swing your sword in the direction of an enemy and that would trigger a certain animation sequence. Like hundreds or thousands of mini-cut-scenes based on your actions, essentially. Hence why the animations always looked so realistic and fluid: they were pre-recorded sequences that would always play out a certain way. It's also why your character would often slide several feet across the map at an enemy, as if drawn by a magnet. The system needed them to work that way, because if the player performs a successful execution move, the game has to respond to that by rewarding them with the appropriate animation. Otherwise it would feel like the game wasn't responding to your command. So even if it makes no sense that your sword should connect with an enemy who's several feet away, you get pulled towards them into a paired animation sequence anyway.

Yes, and it was a good system. Any flaws it may have had were much better than what the Origin system offers, without any doubt.

If they did want to improve on the current "assassin's Creed" style combat system, it would be in adding more fluid and adaptable animations, so that instead of forcing both characters into an animation that seems out of place for where each is at, the game instead behaves more intelligently, and selects an animation better suited to their relative positions. The key point is that if you're meant to hit, then you hit, and if you're meant to counter, then you counter, and there are several paths to reaching each conclusion. I do think that the game should move away from the animations of Syndicate, where many kills were these long drawn out affairs where it was like "what are those other guys doing just watching this?" But the solution is to switch to faster, simpler, more brutal attacks, in which you can dispatch a valid target in half a second rather than 2-3 seconds of dancing around, and then be free to address the next opponent.


In this new system, it actually matters how far you are from the enemy. If you swing your sword and they're too far for the hit to connect, you will slash at empty air. Obviously this doesn't look as cinematic as before, but it does make gameplay more challenging, as you can no longer rely on the system to do everything for you. You will be responsible for positioning your character accordingly, you have to pay attention and you have to consider if your current weapon has sufficient range.

Yeah, that doesn't sound any fun at all, and if I did think that was fun, i would play a different game that played like that. I want to play Assassin's Creed. I want there to be challenge to it, but not in minute positioning. I want my character to handle that, while I direct his actions to achieve my desired result.


In short, if you're looking for combat footage from this game that looks like the combat from previous ones, you're not going to find it

Which was my point. They made the combat system worse, and people need to own up to that, not try to excuse it or blame it on the players. If you can't play the new system like you could the old, then that is a problem, and it's up to the devs to fix it before launch, or it'll be Unity all over again.


They still expect the game to do everything for them as they have done for the last 10 years. Thus most of the footage you end up with will look like amateurish flailing and a lot of running around trying to heal.

Again, IF you believe this is true, then present a video in which the player is NOT doing this. I can't imagine that NO reviewer was able to adapt to the new system, especially since many of them "play everything" and thus would be familiar with other games like Souls and Horizon. And if it's true that "no player could get it right" then why are the devs so bad at the game that none of them can "get it right" either? I mean even the official gameplay demo that was shown off at a press conference had goony looking melee combat when he tried to assassinate that guy. If this game is capable of getting combat right, then show examples of it!

rawr012
07-24-2017, 09:23 PM
The music when you synchronise a viewpoint was most certainly done right. It's beautiful and goes with the Egyptian theme.

AnimusLover
07-24-2017, 10:03 PM
I find it interesting that pretty much all of the good things said about Origins in the OP was actually introduced or innovated in previous titles with the exception of the levelling stealth limits.... Look, I'm looking forward to the game but Ubisoft has not earned the benefit of the doubt lately, and when you compare how cagey Ash is behaving in interviews in comparison to the Fary Cry 5 director who is so candid and open about the game's new features it all points to a dev that has no confidence in what he's doing and is trying to deceive fans by giving greater importance to things that won't actually amount to anything (MD)

SixKeys
07-25-2017, 06:04 AM
I find it interesting that pretty much all of the good things said about Origins in the OP was actually introduced or innovated in previous titles with the exception of the levelling stealth limits.... Look, I'm looking forward to the game but Ubisoft has not earned the benefit of the doubt lately, and when you compare how cagey Ash is behaving in interviews in comparison to the Fary Cry 5 director who is so candid and open about the game's new features it all points to a dev that has no confidence in what he's doing and is trying to deceive fans by giving greater importance to things that won't actually amount to anything (MD)

The higher-ups are incredibly protective of the messaging and everything the devs are allowed to say has to go through several different people multiple times. In a way it's understandable, considering how quickly fans will glom on to any misspoken word or read their own interpretations into what was actually said. If the devs say "it's gonna be great", fans say they're being dishonest. If they say "we don't comment on rumors", fans will take it as confirmation that the rumors are true. If they say "we're going to change how we tell stories a bit", fans assume it means they're getting rid of storytelling entirely. If they say "fine, here is everything you need to know about the entire game", fans will complain that there won't be any surprises left.

AnimusLover
07-25-2017, 10:26 AM
The higher-ups are incredibly protective of the messaging and everything the devs are allowed to say has to go through several different people multiple times. In a way it's understandable, considering how quickly fans will glom on to any misspoken word or read their own interpretations into what was actually said. If the devs say "it's gonna be great", fans say they're being dishonest. If they say "we don't comment on rumors", fans will take it as confirmation that the rumors are true. If they say "we're going to change how we tell stories a bit", fans assume it means they're getting rid of storytelling entirely. If they say "fine, here is everything you need to know about the entire game", fans will complain that there won't be any surprises left.

I appreciate that but they are so secretive about everything, even things they need to let us know about to sell the game, that it's hard to be excited about something you know so little about and then that coupled wth the fact that the game play they showed us wasn't very good due to poor animations doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

WendysBrioche
07-26-2017, 12:27 PM
To be fair, you could always crouch in Assassin's Creed games.

From AC I up until AC 4 Black Flag it was done by holding the high profile button and jump button without letting go.

I had used it several times since the first game and it did conceal the Assassin from an enemy's line of sight from rooftops and behind barrels and such.

Unity and Syndicate it was tied to the sneak mode, which was specially dedicated to this.

I don't understand where this is coming from that you could never crouch, and I'm hearing it a lot, not sure where this is coming from.

SixKeys
07-27-2017, 09:59 AM
To be fair, you could always crouch in Assassin's Creed games.

From AC I up until AC 4 Black Flag it was done by holding the high profile button and jump button without letting go.

I had used it several times since the first game and it did conceal the Assassin from an enemy's line of sight from rooftops and behind barrels and such.

Unity and Syndicate it was tied to the sneak mode, which was specially dedicated to this.

I don't understand where this is coming from that you could never crouch, and I'm hearing it a lot, not sure where this is coming from.

It was inconsistent because it wasn't specifically designed to be used to hide you. It was just a side effect of the animation, but not inherently tied to the detection mechanics. You could say it was accidental that players could use it to "cheat" the system. Starting with Unity they specifically redesigned stealth to accommodate for the new, consistent rule that as long as you're crouched behind an object of a specific height, enemies will not detect you.

Kiroku
07-27-2017, 11:59 PM
The music when you synchronise a viewpoint was most certainly done right. It's beautiful and goes with the Egyptian theme.

I liked the music too. It really fits to the atmosphere and is also a little mystic which makes me really appreciate it. I just started playing AC1 again after ages and again I noticed that the music and also the sound of weapons, the menu, the interface and the entire world is actually really important. At least for me. Because even sounds and music needs to fit correctly to different historical places or countries. The best example when I noticed that was AC1, AC2, ACBF and also ACS. Hope the whole music and sounds in Origins will go on like what we already heard about.


I appreciate that but they are so secretive about everything, even things they need to let us know about to sell the game, that it's hard to be excited about something you know so little about and then that coupled wth the fact that the game play they showed us wasn't very good due to poor animations doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

I understand your point here. Some people need informations about specific aspects of the game to consider wether they want to buy the game or not. For example people who love the modern day part of the game more than everything. With almost no informations about the MD in origins it is really hard for them to decide.

I dont know the exact marketing of syndicate before it was released. Did they also say something like "we have a playable modern day" or "there will be modern day in the game" ?

But I guess there is more to come before release. Gamescom is just in a couple of weeks.

Overall from what I saw about the game until now Im actually confident.

WendysBrioche
07-28-2017, 12:54 PM
It was inconsistent because it wasn't specifically designed to be used to hide you. It was just a side effect of the animation, but not inherently tied to the detection mechanics. You could say it was accidental that players could use it to "cheat" the system. Starting with Unity they specifically redesigned stealth to accommodate for the new, consistent rule that as long as you're crouched behind an object of a specific height, enemies will not detect you.
Essentially what I meant.

You see what I said was true, from a certain point of view. ;)

It's just not a new feature in Origins, and the most complete implementation of the feature yet was in Unity. I think some people were acting like it was new to Origins.

One streamer said "first time you can teabag in an AC game."

Umm naaaaaah. Not really bro.