PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed Odyssey: A Celebration Of Choice



Sorrosyss
06-15-2018, 09:17 PM
Warning: Spoilers from across the franchise

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/1.jpg

As a franchise, Assassin's Creed has changed remarkably over the past decade. With each game release, different iterations and refinements have added or taken away elements, with every experiment either being praised or rebuked in kind. I am no stranger to either critical response, as I have always given my honest opinion on where I feel things are, and where they should be going as a fan. That being said, some of the changes being introduced to Odyssey are a welcome positive to me, and many of which are desired features that I have long called for, both on the forums and on ATA.

So let us start with the obvious one. Gender select. As a female gamer, this is a huge deal to me and so very welcome for all female fans. Especially when you look at how far we have come to now. If you think back to prior to the release of Assassin's Creed Unity in 2014, there was a tremendous uproar (https://gamerant.com/ubisoft-excuses-for-no-females-in-assassins-creed-unity/) over the co-operative multiplayer mode not offering the option to play as a female character, especially when previous multiplayer modes had offered them. Now admittedly a lot of the upset was down to the fact that people were not really aware that everyone in game was technically playing Arno (a similar system was successfully used with the character Aiden in Watch Dogs), but the social media storm that followed was primarily a result from some very infamous comments about how animating female characters took a lot more work – which in turn was even more silly when you had a fully animated Elise in the game, but I digress.

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/2.png

In my view, female character representation within the franchise had been very limited to that point. Main female characters were often times merely cliché love interests, or simply killed off as part of the narrative. (Or in the case of Elise, both.) It was a dispiriting time for the franchise, and whilst some players had been pushing for better female characters against “SJW” calls, this extra level of perceived sexism for Unity by the gaming media was not helping. Many cited the fact that the only female lead Assassin's Creed game was Liberation, and that this itself was only a handheld game and not a main release. Sadly, to date, we still have not had this main female lead release. (But you know, we like to compare Assassin's Creed to Marvel, and it took ten years for them to come up with a female lead movie. So you never know.)

Still, things started to change within the next year after Unity, and it became clear that Ubisoft had taken the vocal criticisms to heart, as in April 2015 we had the release of Assassin's Creed Chronicles: China, starring the fan-favorite Chinese female Assassin Shao Jun. Things did not stop there. October brought us the new Assassin's Creed comic series by Titan Comics, which also starred a female protagonist – Charlotte De La Cruz. Finally, the October 2015 release of Assassin's Creed: Syndicate really shook things up with the first playable female character in a main release, Evie Frye. She was a hugely popular character within the fanbase, and many https://kotaku.com/assassin-s-creed-syndicate-players-jacob-or-evie-1740331063 showed she was much preferred over her brother Jacob, despite being playable for far less of the content.

In 2016, we had Anastasia Nikolaevna in the Russia Chronicles game, as well as the release of the Assassin's Creed movie, which featured two strong female characters in the form of Maria and Sofia Rikkin. Following this, 2017 brought us the much acclaimed release of Assassin's Creed: Origins, which again featured an occasionally playable female character in the form of Aya, but also introduced a new Modern Day female protagonist – Layla Hassan.

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/3.jpg

Ubisoft was not sitting on its laurels elsewhere though. Nearly every release from 2015 onwards suddenly allowed the ability to play as or create a female character. These included:

Rainbow Six Siege
The Division
Far Cry 5
South Park: The Fractured But Whole
The Crew 2
Steep
Ghost Recon: Wildlands
For Honor

This new found level of inclusivity in Ubisoft releases was very welcome personally, and it therefore comes with genuine appreciation and gratitude to see my beloved Assassin's Creed, the flagship franchise, finally able to step on board to this new world of gamer choice with Odyssey. The ability to play as either Alexios or Kassandra for the entire game allows us to tailor our experience as we choose, and for players that point blank refuse to play their opposite gender – they now have the choice to not do so. It really is the best of both worlds, and the most efficient option to cater to as large an audience as possible. Some fans may feel having two protagonists will in turn lessen the strength of the quality of their characterisation, but by token can we really say that every sole protagonist was equally amazing? Some were certainly far better than others, so the quality is certainly a point of personal debate. All in all, the gender option empowers the player to experience the narrative in a way that will feel more impactful and meaningful, and having your own gender represented is the first step towards that extra level of immersion.

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/4.jpg

The next step is dialogue options. We have actually seen this once before in the franchise, if you consider the Interrogation functionality introduced in Syndicate, primarily used in the Investigation zones. Here you could choose a dialogue topic, by selecting via a different button press. It was rudimentary, but it was certainly a first pass at the concept. Now with Odyssey, things are taking on an even more real and fundamental application.

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/4a.jpg

I have long held the belief that the Witcher series, the Mass Effect trilogy, and Dragon Age games have been some of the greatest experiments in RPGs. Not only do they allow you to dictate conversations as you please, but also to genuinely impact on the story in a significant fashion. In some cases, literally resolving entire plotlines by two distinctly different results. This gives rise to a massive amount of replay value, and in turn is a great thing that we will be able to explore within Odyssey as well. Being able to express our opinion on a topic, to dictate a course of action, to decide who we desire to romance – these are all expressions of player choice, and very much make the experience so much more personal to you.

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/4b.jpg

Now the obvious counter to this new found freedom of choice from some fans has been citing that the Animus is set, and that you cannot have multiple endings as history cannot be changed. Well.... is that really the case? For example, is the order that you eliminated the members of the Order of the Ancients in Origins canonically correct? How do you know?

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/5.jpg

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but what we do know first hand is that Abstergo has been manipulating the software to censor data in the past. Take the story of Assassin's Creed: Liberation. Here we literally have an example of multiple endings already present within the franchise, as it takes some hacking from Erudito to uncover the true reality of what the Animus/Helix simulation had uncovered in the historical past. Even then, you are reliant on the software to “Best Guess” what actually happened. And this is completely true of every piece of lore that happened within the Animus as well. Many characters seen within the simulations may not have ever truly existed, if a software engineer decided to completely fabricate them. It is entirely possible to fake a lot of things in the digital age alas. We honestly do not know the actual truth without actual time travel. And herein is where we bring Layla Hassan into the picture.

Many of us have speculated that her Animus will be able to time travel, and there have been some suggestions along that path from the Isu mechanisms present in Origins. But perhaps we have been looking at it all wrong. Becoming the “Chaos” that the Isu desire her to be, could literally be what they say about “Breaking the Code of Reality”. It is not actual reality. But the simulated reality. The Animus reality. I raised this in a previous article (http://www.accesstheanimus.com/GIN_Empirical_Truth.html), but Layla's Animus could in theory bend the simulation rules.

As Jonathan Dumont, Creative Director, stated in an interview (https://assassinscreed.ubisoft.com/game/en-us/news-updates/328396/ac-odyssey-what-you-need-to-know-about-living-a-mercenarys-life-in-ancient-greece-e3-2018): "The DNA is old and imprecise, so it offers you the choice to pursue two characters”. We know from the Last Descendants novels that the Animus is capable of Extrapolated Memories, where the machine best guesses scenarios from available data. The less data available, the more fluid the accuracy could become. With that thought in mind, the actual gender of the data subject is completely open to interpretation, as well as their dialogue decisions, whom they interacted with, and finally what their true fate became. It may even provide some explanation as to why we have mythological creatures within the game, as the Animus is attempting to recreate them from purely mythical tales.

As such, here we have an in-lore explanation as to how the options of choice within Odyssey can not only happen, but also how Layla can use her version of the Animus to manipulate the data to try different paths, and to help uncover hidden truths behind the Code that may well lead her to further Pieces of Eden or encounters with the Isu.

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/6.jpg

Speaking of choices, this is an area that Ubisoft have a lot of options with as well. I'm not going to sit here and speculate over what those Isu encounters could be too much though. After Origins, I have learned my lesson to temper my expectations when it comes to the level of First Civilization influence on the narrative, but you cannot discount the possible appearance of Eris (Discordia), who famously had an Apple of Eden as mentioned in the glyphs of Assassin's Creed II. Another of course could be Neptune (Poseidon), whom we saw with his Trident on a statue outside of the Monteriggioni mansion. As the beloved deity of Atlantis, it would not be a surprise with all of the water content to the world map to find it as a hidden Isu vault below the sea. His Trident has been covered in the Last Descendants novels though. Origins gave us a glimpse of statues of both Diana and Venus (Aphrodite), the former of which briefly appeared in The Fall comics long ago. If ever there was a game for these lesser known Isu to appear then this would be it. Finally, the Trojan War of mythology heavily involves Juno and Minerva, so a further appearance by both should not be discounted. Perhaps this actually was the Great War of Unification that Consus spoke of, that had originated from a presumed huge divide amongst the Isu. Hephaestus made a great many weapons for this war, so it would not be a surprise to see some new iterations in the Odyssey story either, one of which may well be the Spear wielded by our historical protagonist.

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/7.png

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/7a.jpg

Anyway, ultimately though - yes, one version of events would have been correct canonically, but I'm not sure it is that important in the grand scheme of things if it gets the Present Day to where it needs to be, and ultimately opens up history to a whole new level of immersive storytelling. This time you will get to choose the path of the story, rather than everything being set and linear. And honestly, that's going to feel so fresh and exciting as an Assassin's Creed experience. This embrace of some of the more intricate RPG mechanics of the genre will add a great layer of depth to the series, and I cannot wait to see how this all plays it as you have to live with the narrative decisions that you make. If nothing else, it will make the replay value of the game even more enticing.

Frankly, I am supremely impressed by Ubisoft for attempting to push the franchise in this bold and intricate RPG direction. Player choice and inclusivity should always be celebrated, and according to many surveys (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelthomsen/2015/06/26/survey-finds-majority-of-videogame-players-want-gender-and-ethnic-inclusivity/#6a92ef216721) it is something that players firmly want to see more of in the products that they buy.

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/8.jpg

Elsewhere in the gaming industry, I was actually very encouraged by what I saw recently in the Battlefield V announcement that involved adding female characters to that franchise. EA/Dice stood fast on the small but vocal criticism, and repeatedly stated that player choice is how things are going to be going forwards – as the number of female gamers continues to rise. I feel this is the best approach for Ubisoft too. If these kind of options, such as gender select, become the normality instead of the exception, then acceptance will surely come faster to the majority.

Ultimately, for every single sexist/misogynist/racist that threatens to walk away from a franchise, hopefully there will be multiple newer (and female) fans to replace them. Inclusion is also a good business practice at the end of the day. Case in point, I have never played a Battlefield game in my life. But the recent focus on female characters makes me feel like it as an IP that I can identify my gender within, and be welcomed into it. As such I may well consider buying Battlefront V. Assassin's Creed following this positive industry example can be no bad thing in my mind.

That being said, Ubisoft would be advised to review their marketing for Odyssey. For example, the vast majority of the officially released screenshots were of purely Alexios, with Kassandra somewhat absent by comparison. Plus fans have noticed (https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/8qs4qo/petition_make_assasins_creed_odysseys_box_art/) that the main game cover only depicts Alexios too. This is a somewhat disappointing way to acknowledge the gender choice present in the game, especially when Syndicate had both of its protagonists on its cover.

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/8a.jpg

Ultimately, we will see how this grand Odyssey experiment pans out with the release. Many are cautious that we are again entering a period with no actual Assassins, but we shall see where the story takes us. I believe even Ubisoft knows that Odyssey's sales will struggle going up against a juggernaut like Red Dead Redemption 2 in October, so it would be foolhardy to instantly assume the changes made are what would be to blame for any sales drop versus Origin's retail success. Franchise fatigue is often cited by many fans as well, being that we only ended Origins' post release content a matter of months ago. But certainly the feedback they on the new choice functionalities will be fed into the usual post game surveys. I happen to believe this will prove extremely popular amongst the casual fanbase.

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/9.png

As a final thought, for the next release they could even take the customization of the historical protagonist even further. Mass Effect had a 'default' appearance for the main character Shepard, and this was what was used throughout marketing. But in the end players again had the choice to create a character as a reflection of themselves with a full on customization option. For Assassin's Creed, what your avatar actually appears as within the simulation makes no difference if only you – the player – perceive it. We have several examples of this already too, such as the way you could play as Desmond or Raiden with skins in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, or the multiple Avatar characters usable in the multiplayer modes. If we can ultimately reflect our gender, race, and sexuality onto the game character that represents us, then there can be no stronger level of immersion to the storytelling. Through the power of choice, Odyssey is a strong step towards this reality - and I am most thankful for this new creative direction.

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD/COC/10.jpg

Thanks for reading. For the full article, please check out the Access The Animus website:

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/ACOD_Celebration_of_Choice

http://www.accesstheanimus.com/Banner%20forum%20site.jpg

Frag_Maniac
06-16-2018, 12:37 AM
I can sum it up with WAY less words. Ubi are taking the "Everything is forgiven" approach, assuming the sheer size of the fanbase will weather the baffling contradictions they've indulged in by now making fixed DNA memories as changeable as they were in Remember Me. A game you didn't but probably should have mentioned.

Personally I'm torn between the new changes, and sticking to tired old worn out tropes repeating incessantly. I'd have preferred they not indulge any further than Origins' level of change, which had light but not bastardizing RPG elements, save for the arena battle live or die options. Those options were the ONE hint in Origins that schizophrenic changes were forthcoming.

I can't help but be reminded of the tiny creature in Ray Bradbury's A Sound of Thunder, who's death horribly changed the future. A species that was also used in Chaos Theory for the name of the history altering phenomenon known as the Butterfly Effect. My point is one of the most important elements of sequel story telling is linking those stories together in a cohesive way. You don't do that by completely abandoning your original basis of the story, which in AC has always been the tracing of DNA memories.

I used to think Ubi were good at the story part, and really cared about it. It turns out all they care about is keeping their cash cow franchise going, no matter how much of it's integrity is lost in the process. Some choices are best left alone. You can choose to become a drug addict (Far Cry 5), or commit suicide (Assassin's Creed's demise), but are they really good choices?

ProdiGurl
06-16-2018, 12:11 PM
& I'm starting to wonder if it's ONLY Ubisoft that gets condemned for greed & evil - or is this common practice w/ all gaming companies - if this is all greed, then please just buy the Standard Version game and be done with it.

Anyways to the OP -
As a female, I'm fine w/ female game characters & protagonists... what I don't like or want is this radicalized Feminism taking over the Gaming world !!! If this all goes to hyper PCism with 100 genders crazy BS I'm gonna come out swinging.

I won't get political, but I've seen enough being ruined by this PC extremism... fair representation on a normal level is one thing, domination, supremacy & hyper PCism is another. It's creating too much crazy, chaos & confusion.

As for AC adding some RPG, I'm on board with it & I see no reason why it can't be worked in for some added interest & variety to our individual game experience. ;) AC is a long-standing title that will grow stale and get very boring if only the same early formats & elements are used. I saw it in this forum after the release of ACR - the boredom of the same game w/ a few tweaks added.

I plan on playing this one twice- once as the male & female char, and making different choices to see how it plays out.
I really like her from what I've seen in the E3 shows.... but can she make a sammich? :p :)

briangade
06-16-2018, 07:47 PM
The possibility to play as a female is in my opinion a good thing, the game is going deeper into the RPG genre so it kind of have to do this. Even though I'm a guy I will probably play as Kassandra during my first play through of this game, but I tend to choose to play as a female in most RPGs.
The step to include a dialogue system with choices and consequences is something I fully embrace it will truly give the game a longer life. Given that many of the older RPG franchises are moving away from that I'm happy that Ubisoft are trying to step into the breach.
As far as how Ubisoft will justify the branching choices into lore, I'm sure they'll find a way. And I say this with the deepest respect Sorrosyss: Most of the people that play these games are filthy casuals just like me and are not as well versed in AC lore as you are and don't care that much about it. I have a tremendous amount of respect for your knowledge about AC history and lore and usually enjoy when you explain stuff.

ProdiGurl
06-16-2018, 08:09 PM
It's interesting that you choose to play female characters as a male - I like & prefer male Protagonists so more males in games is never an issue with me and that's probably why I don't understand why women are pushing for female characters in games. As long as they aren't annoying in either extreme of aggression or weakness, it's good. I really liked Evie in Syndicate. She was done perfectly imo.
I plan to play the male role first then female after.

briangade
06-16-2018, 09:21 PM
It's a habit I picked up back in the day playing Fallout, and the superior voice acting with Fem Shep just solidified it somehow.
And I don't have to sea representation of myself on the screen to be immersed, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to play Tomb raider back in the day, and what's the point of playing an RPG if you are just going to play as yourself.
But again RPG's are all about choices so whatever floats your boat. If this game takes off I hope that we get an proper character creator in the next game, and maybe just maybe skills that are not combat focused.

Frag_Maniac
06-16-2018, 09:39 PM
There's nothing wrong with having a playable female character. The problem is they took the shortcut route and didn't make her a separate character from the male like Evie in Syndicate. Evie not only has her own dialogue, she has a completely different fighting style and personality from Jacob. In a way Syndicate actually had more story and character detail than this so called RPG, which just checks boxes without getting the details right.

Some might argue if you choose different dialog for Kassandra, she will be making different decisions and thus feel different from Alexios, but that presents another conundrum. AC has always been designed around tracing DNA memories of the main characters and reliving them, not living them with choices that would in effect change history.

When the father of AC Patrice Desilets was asked recently what he thought defines an AC game, he of course mentioned all the staples. The fight between Assassins and Templars, the hidden blade, the reliving of ancestral memories. He pretty much shook has head when asked what he thought of what Ubi is doing to AC lately and said, "It's their's now, they can do what they want".

And that is pretty much what AC is becoming. A series where the devs do whatever they want no matter how little sense it makes or how much it bastardizes the franchise. This is not really AC anymore. Whether they have success with it or not will depend on whether today's RPG fans want just a fashion show, or actually care about how the role they are playing in game syncs with the story. I fear it is the former, as the latter seems to be dying a slow death.

joelsantos24
06-16-2018, 09:42 PM
I can sum it up with WAY less words. Ubi are taking the "Everything is forgiven" approach, assuming the sheer size of the fanbase will weather the baffling contradictions they've indulged in by now making fixed DNA memories as changeable as they were in Remember Me. A game you didn't but probably should have mentioned.

Personally I'm torn between the new changes, and sticking to tired old worn out tropes repeating incessantly. I'd have preferred they not indulge any further than Origins' level of change, which had light but not bastardizing RPG elements, save for the arena battle live or die options. Those options were the ONE hint in Origins that schizophrenic changes were forthcoming.

I can't help but be reminded of the tiny creature in Ray Bradbury's A Sound of Thunder, who's death horribly changed the future. A species that was also used in Chaos Theory for the name of the history altering phenomenon known as the Butterfly Effect. My point is one of the most important elements of sequel story telling is linking those stories together in a cohesive way. You don't do that by completely abandoning your original basis of the story, which in AC has always been the tracing of DNA memories.

I used to think Ubi were good at the story part, and really cared about it. It turns out all they care about is keeping their cash cow franchise going, no matter how much of it's integrity is lost in the process. Some choices are best left alone. You can choose to become a drug addict (Far Cry 5), or commit suicide (Assassin's Creed's demise), but are they really good choices?
I keep reading about DNA being old and degraded, which seems to serve as explanation as to why we're able to choose the gender of the character. If the DNA sample was contaminated, that is, DNA from a second person is also present in the sample, then I'd understand this bifurcation. But no, apparently, the sample is merely old.

Another issue that bothers me, regarding this DNA question, is that the contamination possibility would only make sense if the subjects were different, along with their experiences and memories. But they are actually the same persona, that is, a granddaughter or grandson of Leonidas of Sparta. For the sake of this analogy, let's say that Leonidas had merely one grandson, but somehow, due to the DNA sample being old, the Animus can apparently "read" him as a her. We're effectively in Game of Thrones/Three Eye Raven territory, as of now, since the Animus can not only enable you to relive passed memories, but it can also change them.

The mythology of this series, has just become a mess of unfathomable proportions, thanks to Ubisoft's pathological obsession with RPG's.

Frag_Maniac
06-16-2018, 09:54 PM
I keep reading about DNA being old and degraded, which seems to serve as explanation as to why we're able to choose the gender of the character. If the DNA sample was contaminated, that is, DNA from a second person is also present in the sample, then I'd understand this bifurcation. But no, apparently, the sample is merely old.

Another issue that bothers me, regarding this DNA question, is that the contamination possibility would only make sense if the subjects were different, along with their experiences and memories. But they are actually the same persona, that is, a granddaughter or grandson of Leonidas of Sparta. For the sake of this analogy, let's say that Leonidas had merely one grandson, but somehow, due to the DNA sample being old, the Animus can apparently "read" him as a her. We're effectively in Game of Thrones/Three Eye Raven territory, as of now, since the Animus can not only enable you to relive passed memories, but it can also change them.

The mythology of this series, has just become a mess of unfathomable proportions, thanks to Ubisoft's pathological obsession with RPG's.
I'm not buying age or condition of the DNA as a viable explanation or excuse. Furthermore it still doesn't solve the bigger problem, the addition of choices that would change history, in a game that was always about reliving history through ancestral DNA. They've pretty much thrown Patrice's original script out the window and rewritten it with what seems to be no attempt to explain to the fanbase.You know why, because there IS no way to explain this mess.

I can only hope enough TRUE RPG fans out there will try this game and complain that it's not possible to be immersed with role playing that makes no sense. They'd have to buy it on Steam and request the less than 2 hours played refund before Ubi would actually get the point though, because once they get your money, they see it as success no matter your feedback.

ProdiGurl
06-16-2018, 10:15 PM
Some might argue if you choose different dialog for Kassandra, she will be making different decisions and thus feel different from Alexios, but that presents another conundrum. AC has always been designed around tracing DNA memories of the main characters and reliving them, not living them with choices that would in effect change history.

When the father of AC Patrice Desilets was asked recently what he thought defines an AC game, he of course mentioned all the staples. The fight between Assassins and Templars, the hidden blade, the reliving of ancestral memories. He pretty much shook has head when asked what he thought of what Ubi is doing to AC lately and said, "It's their's now, they can do what they want".

And that is pretty much what AC is becoming. A series where the devs do whatever they want no matter how little sense it makes or how much it bastardizes the franchise. This is not really AC anymore. Whether they have success with it or not will depend on whether today's RPG fans want just a fashion show, or actually care about how the role they are playing in game syncs with the story. I fear it is the former, as the latter seems to be dying a slow death.
I'm pretty sure the outcomes of some RPG choices aren't going to be ones that change known & significant history - it may be more changes of process - how things end up having to be done or deaths of insignificant or fictional characters added to the game, etc.
We can't start judging what they screwed up when we have no idea what they're deciding yet & what the finalized game renders.

I'm not what I call a "purist" w/ AC games. It's one thing to create the concepts that made it AC, it's quite another when it's over 10 years later & you're still putting games out having to keep them fresh, exciting, and mindful of changes in Society/fan base in general. When ACR came out, I saw more boredom & fatigue from AC fans bcuz it was the same game over & over just with some added things & tweaks - too much hand-holding & control rather than the Freedom to play it "our way"... (due to animus, having to do missions just as the character once did).

People were demanding more freedom & as Ubi gave that, more people were enjoying the game - but with that came the "purists" who were getting upset that the game structure was suffering. What Patrice started was great, but he's not the one having to keep it fresh, new & exciting for every type of fan that AC has attracted.
And further, it's very possible that if he just continued this 'purist' approach keeping it rigid to AC dogma, that the franchise may have ended or suffered with lack of new interest from newer gamers who are looking for something else. Heck, they were complaining about Brotherhood already when it wasn't ACII enough.

It's fine to romanticize AC - I know I still do it w/ Ezio. To me he is still the foundation of AC but I've had to move on when he was gone & it wasn't easy. I loved Syndicate, but it wasn't until Origins that I fell in love w/ AC all over again in a deep way w/ Bayek. And "purists" complained about Origins too.

joelsantos24
06-16-2018, 10:16 PM
I'm not buying age or condition of the DNA as a viable explanation or excuse. Furthermore it still doesn't solve the bigger problem, the addition of choices that would change history, in a game that was always about reliving history through ancestral DNA. They've pretty much thrown Patrice's original script out the window and rewritten it with what seems to be no attempt to explain to the fanbase.You know why, because there IS no way to explain this mess.

I can only hope enough TRUE RPG fans out there will try this game and complain that it's not possible to be immersed with role playing that makes no sense. They'd have to buy it on Steam and request the less than 2 hours played refund before Ubi would actually get the point though, because once they get your money, they see it as success no matter your feedback.
That was my point. If you have a DNA sample, in which the memories and experiences of a person, are stored and/or recorded, then there can't be any variability. Extrapolation is nonsensical, because no device can extrapolate history, regardless of how hard you try to rationalise the theory for it. Either the data is there or it isn't. End of story.

I don't really want anything from this game. Commercial success or unsuccess, it doesn't bother me the least. Being a hardcore fan of the series, or having been one until now, I think it's quite meaningful and significant when a new game doesn't appeal or captivate you in any given way. What Odyssey just proved, or what Ubisoft just showed with it, rather, is that anything goes now, and that there isn't a distinct canonical value to the mythology, anymore.

briangade
06-16-2018, 10:31 PM
What Odyssey just proved, or what Ubisoft just showed with it, rather, is that anything goes now, and that there isn't a distinct canonical value to the mythology, anymore.
I'm by no means a hardcore AC fan, the last one I played was Unity.
But haven't Ubisoft been ****ting all over the lore and canon for a while know?
Going through yhe forum and other places where superfan tend to hang out, I get the distinct feeling that a lot of the hardcore fans know and care more about the lore and canon than Ubisoft

joelsantos24
06-16-2018, 10:50 PM
I'm by no means a hardcore AC fan, the last one I played was Unity.
But haven't Ubisoft been ****ting all over the lore and canon for a while know?
Going through yhe forum and other places where superfan tend to hang out, I get the distinct feeling that a lot of the hardcore fans know and care more about the lore and canon than Ubisoft
True. However, until Origins, there was still a canonical background with it's integrity more or less preserved. The series was built on the premise of genetic memory, or more specifically, the possibility of accessing these memories (and history itself) by means of a device (Animus), without the possibility of compromise or even bias. Odyssey changed everything. History, memories and time, are no longer immutable, so to speak, since you can now choose who to be and what to do or say in those memories. But you're right, the fans care more about the mythology than Ubisoft.

ProdiGurl
06-16-2018, 10:53 PM
I'm by no means a hardcore AC fan, the last one I played was Unity.
But haven't Ubisoft been ****ting all over the lore and canon for a while know?
Going through yhe forum and other places where superfan tend to hang out, I get the distinct feeling that a lot of the hardcore fans know and care more about the lore and canon than Ubisoft
My post goes into that a little bit. & there's quite a few of us older fans starting from ACII that are fine w/ these changes, freedom & variety of today's AC.
AC has an uphill battle in trying to stay a large franchise full of happy, eager fans, while trying to keep an older fanbase that wants to keep it glued to the AC "dogma" & format it had over decade ago. They need to interest both crowds and imo, they're having to walk a tight-rope w/ every release in trying to keep both new and old content/story lines going.
Content that most newer fans don't know or care about outside of general/casual AC gameplay from historic periods playing as different types of assassins.
But from what I've read about this Spear of Leonidas, It's a relic from Iso, so they're obviously incorporating something from the lore.

Ubi is in a very competitive, difficult, fickle and picky@$$ industry. In the end, they're a Business - there isn't alot of room for mistakes when it takes 1-3 yrs to create a releasable game. They HAVE to stay competitive in today's markets so they HAVE to pay attn. to gaining customers. I'm not making excuses, I'm just saying there's a reason for what we're seeing since AC1 was released as an exciting, brilliant, unique game franchise. The older AC gets, the more needs to be done to keep interest for the widest possible audience. Not easy at all.
That's why I don't believe Ubi has a "F U" attitude - I believe they're conflicted with the balance they have to keep. I think all older franchises go thru these growing pains with changes.

Frag_Maniac
06-16-2018, 10:58 PM
I'm pretty sure the outcomes of some RPG choices aren't going to be ones that change known & significant history.
It matters not what you use to define history. History is history and all components of it can be considered significant because each small action can have a domino effect. In Chaos Theory it's called the Butterfly Effect. Furthermore you can't excuse away that reliving an ancestor's memories can have no choices or options, because it's a fixed timeline. What they're proposing is being able to make choices for an ancestor who's already made their own, which makes no sense. And it's not being "purist" as you say to point out such disparities between original canon and how it's been bastardized recently with such contradictions of it.

Look, I'm all for choices and consequences, but unfortunately it makes no sense in a game where you're basically reliving what's already happened via elaborate VR. It used to be RPG fans were the most nit picky about stories and characters, and whether they meshed well and made sense. Now we have these pseudo RPG fans that only want RPG features as window dressing, with no regard whatsoever to whether any of it makes sense. Sorry if that sounds offensive, but I say it for the sake of realism, cohesiveness, and practicality, not purism. Once you abandon those pillars, quality control goes out the window.

briangade
06-16-2018, 11:02 PM
I get what you are saying with regards to the "jumping the shark" so to speak that it looks like Ubi are doing with thw whole DNA thing in Odessey. And for you guys and girls who are really into that part of the games and lore this is really ****ty, I kind of know how you feel I have seen my favorite RPGs being turned into action games or online shooter looter minecraft monstrosities and it hurts.
I didn't really get into the modern scifi part of AC until later, and it's still not my primary focus. I belive I can speak for the casuals when I say most of us thought " DNA science/magic mumbo jumbo let's get to the game part please". But they used it and now they have to live with it or push the reboot button.

Frag_Maniac
06-16-2018, 11:14 PM
I didn't really get into the modern scifi part of AC until later, and it's still not my primary focus. I belive I can speak for the casuals when I say most of us thought " DNA science/magic mumbo jumbo let's get to the game part please". But they used it and now they have to live with it or push the reboot button.
Let's look at it another way. What if the Jurassic Park series suddenly was changed to visiting parts of the world where dinosaurs still survived, rather than them being created in modern time using DNA fossilized in tree sap? It's a pretty significant change that doesn't fit at all or make sense. Devs can't just make up whatever they want and not expect their fanbase to say WTF just happened? Do they think we're idiots?

briangade
06-16-2018, 11:20 PM
Do they think we're idiots?
Yes they do, very much. :cool:
But even though I'm not super into the whole DNA thing behind the Animus I agree they should respect their own lore, it is important for a good number of the fans.

ProdiGurl
06-17-2018, 02:51 AM
It matters not what you use to define history. History is history and all components of it can be considered significant because each small action can have a domino effect. In Chaos Theory it's called the Butterfly Effect. Furthermore you can't excuse away that reliving an ancestor's memories can have no choices or options, because it's a fixed timeline. What they're proposing is being able to make choices for an ancestor who's already made their own, which makes no sense. And it's not being "purist" as you say to point out such disparities between original canon and how it's been bastardized recently with such contradictions of it.

Look, I'm all for choices and consequences, but unfortunately it makes no sense in a game where you're basically reliving what's already happened via elaborate VR. It used to be RPG fans were the most nit picky about stories and characters, and whether they meshed well and made sense. Now we have these pseudo RPG fans that only want RPG features as window dressing, with no regard whatsoever to whether any of it makes sense. Sorry if that sounds offensive, but I say it for the sake of realism, cohesiveness, and practicality, not purism. Once you abandon those pillars, quality control goes out the window.
I'll paste my replies to someone else yesterday:

>>> @ joelsantos24 (https://forums.ubi.com/member.php/363581-joelsantos24?communityUsers=1&f=27) >> I mean, we're reliving memories but they suddenly decide to include dialogue options and variability to what was supposed to be written in stone, so to speak. <<
That's easy, the unique RPG choices you make for your character is the choice that was originally made in your character's personal experience in the game. You essentially create your character's history. Otherwise, imo, they'd need to go back to the RIGID format of forcing Mission completion the way Ubi demands it - desynching missions that so many complained about becuz you failed to do EXACTLY what was historically done by the character. W/out desynching, we're all technically doing missions differently, right?
I don't get this obsession for Rigid format? Limiting the AC fans (new & old) imo, isn't a positive, inviting aspect of gaming.
They're trying to give us more freedom/options so less whine & complain (which clearly will continue no matter what they do or offer). https://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/rolleyes.png<<<

Originally Posted by joelsantos24 Go to original post (https://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php?p=13540339#post13540339)
There isn't a logical way to explain how memories are now, supposedly, mutable. I also don't agree with the inclusion of dialogue options..




I think there is - it's based on the technical fact that outside of Ubi going back to desynching missions & forcing us to rigidly play everything the way they've ascribed to the original character (weapon choice and all), we're already deviating from 100% reliving the memory in any true sense.
Even in past games we were all playing different parts of the game our own way in side missions, looting, exploration...& not true to 'history' all thru-out the game. [if one person plays it differently than another, then it's impossible that it was originally done by the character both ways].

So we've already not been true to 100% memory all thru-out the series, it's already perverted, but you were Ok with that - So now just tack on some decision choices.....

This is no different imo, than what we've already been doing in how we chose to do side missions our own way & even mission fails that didn't desynch & force us to restart the mission. Many times I did a mission my own way & took the 'penalty' for it & continued on. I didn't relive the memory 100%, only before, I was notified that I did it incorrectly.

What difference does formally adding RPG make when we've already been deviating from 100% memory?<<<

(having glitch issues here tonight, hope this comes out right, if not I'll fix it when I can but hope you can piece it together) ? sorry

ARIARAIDEN
06-17-2018, 03:25 AM
There's nothing wrong with having a playable female character. The problem is they took the shortcut route and didn't make her a separate character from the male like Evie in Syndicate. Evie not only has her own dialogue, she has a completely different fighting style and personality from Jacob. In a way Syndicate actually had more story and character detail than this so called RPG, which just checks boxes without getting the details right.
This is exactly the thing i said in my own thread! With this feauture you get a male or female skin as in having two different characters with different personalties, different fighting styles like in Syndicate! This is one of the dumbest new feautures i haver seen in game with the knowing that they had something much better as in Syndicate!!The whole Animus aspect gets thwrown out the window and the story will loose so much dynamic with dumb character select!!

Frag_Maniac
06-17-2018, 03:50 AM
I don't get this obsession for Rigid format? Limiting the AC fans (new & old) imo, isn't a positive, inviting aspect of gaming.
They're trying to give us more freedom/options so less whine & complain (which clearly will continue no matter what they do or offer). https://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/rolleyes.png<<<

I think there is - it's based on the technical fact that outside of Ubi going back to desynching missions & forcing us to rigidly play everything the way they've ascribed to the original character (weapon choice and all), we're already deviating from 100% reliving the memory in any true sense.
Even in past games we were all playing different parts of the game our own way in side missions, looting, exploration...& not true to 'history' all thru-out the game. [if one person plays it differently than another, then it's impossible that it was originally done by the character both ways].

So we've already not been true to 100% memory all thru-out the series, it's already perverted, but you were Ok with that - So now just tack on some decision choices.....

This is no different imo, than what we've already been doing in how we chose to do side missions our own way & even mission fails that didn't desynch & force us to restart the mission. Many times I did a mission my own way & took the 'penalty' for it & continued on. I didn't relive the memory 100%, only before, I was notified that I did it incorrectly.

What difference does formally adding RPG make when we've already been deviating from 100% memory?<<<

(having glitch issues here tonight, hope this comes out right, if not I'll fix it when I can but hope you can piece it together) ? sorry
I have to admit, you make some valid points there. AC always had little differences allowed in how you play the game. Here's the problem though, while those small things are not likely to have a history changing ripple effect, dialog choices and major decisions very much are. They are literally now giving the player the choice to align with certain people and do lethal tasks for/with them, or not, which is a HUGE leap from minor equipment choices you make, or open combat vs stealth, etc. They've clearly now gone WAY beyond the original plot line of reliving fixed memories, and actually broken the core theme of the game in doing so.

I'm not sure how they can ever recover the integrity of the franchise with such decisions going forward. It's no wonder why when Loomer asked Patrice Desilets what he thought of the direction they're now taking the game, he just shook his head in disbelief and said they can do what they want with it, it's theirs. The reason people fell in love with AC in the first place was because it was based on an ingenious story that was very sci fi, but just rational enough to be believable. They've totally lost that essence. Now it's just a what new stuff can we cram into this one in hopes players won't leave us desperation.

joelsantos24
06-17-2018, 08:55 AM
I'll paste my replies to someone else yesterday:

>>> @ joelsantos24 (https://forums.ubi.com/member.php/363581-joelsantos24?communityUsers=1&f=27) >> I mean, we're reliving memories but they suddenly decide to include dialogue options and variability to what was supposed to be written in stone, so to speak. <<
That's easy, the unique RPG choices you make for your character is the choice that was originally made in your character's personal experience in the game. You essentially create your character's history. Otherwise, imo, they'd need to go back to the RIGID format of forcing Mission completion the way Ubi demands it - desynching missions that so many complained about becuz you failed to do EXACTLY what was historically done by the character. W/out desynching, we're all technically doing missions differently, right?
I don't get this obsession for Rigid format? Limiting the AC fans (new & old) imo, isn't a positive, inviting aspect of gaming.
They're trying to give us more freedom/options so less whine & complain (which clearly will continue no matter what they do or offer). https://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/rolleyes.png<<<

Originally Posted by joelsantos24 Go to original post (https://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php?p=13540339#post13540339)
There isn't a logical way to explain how memories are now, supposedly, mutable. I also don't agree with the inclusion of dialogue options..




I think there is - it's based on the technical fact that outside of Ubi going back to desynching missions & forcing us to rigidly play everything the way they've ascribed to the original character (weapon choice and all), we're already deviating from 100% reliving the memory in any true sense.
Even in past games we were all playing different parts of the game our own way in side missions, looting, exploration...& not true to 'history' all thru-out the game. [if one person plays it differently than another, then it's impossible that it was originally done by the character both ways].

So we've already not been true to 100% memory all thru-out the series, it's already perverted, but you were Ok with that - So now just tack on some decision choices.....

This is no different imo, than what we've already been doing in how we chose to do side missions our own way & even mission fails that didn't desynch & force us to restart the mission. Many times I did a mission my own way & took the 'penalty' for it & continued on. I didn't relive the memory 100%, only before, I was notified that I did it incorrectly.

What difference does formally adding RPG make when we've already been deviating from 100% memory?<<<

(having glitch issues here tonight, hope this comes out right, if not I'll fix it when I can but hope you can piece it together) ? sorry


There's a proper way to quote a post. You only need to press the "plus" sign on the lower right corner of the post, and then select "reply with quote". If you want to have multiple quotes, just select "multi quote" on the posts you want to highlight.

First, the choices we make, aren't the one's made by the character. You can tell yourself that, over and over again, it won't make it true. The mere existence of choice, by definition, defeats the premise and concept of the series. One DNA sample, one person. Two DNA samples, two persons. Get it? And yes, the series should go back to the original structure of desynchronisation upon deviation from the original guidelines. It's funny, though, because, before Brotherhood, you didn't even know what were those guidelines. They'd give you a goal or objective, and you'd have to complete it. Full and partial synchronisation was a huge mistake.

Second, the existence of choices is (almost) always a positive aspect. But the existence of choices makes sense when choices are logical or reasonable to exist. A memory, is a memory. A fact, is a fact. A passed event, is a passed event. Paraphrasing the Three-Eyed Raven in Game of Thrones: "the past is already written, the ink is dry." Until you understand this notion, the discussion will be endless. Your argument on full synchronisation being already corrupted, is simply not true. You didn't know what the character did or didn't do. Margin of progression was acceptable and reasonable, but only on side-missions and collecting artefacts. During primary missions, though, until you were given a full description of full synchronisation criteria, you didn't know what full synchronisation even meant. You were only given a goal or objective. Try to understand that.

Perceiving where there's margin of progression and where the structure most be rigid, is fundamental. If you don't understand this dichotomy, then there's no point on continuing with the discussion. It's funny how fans seem to digress. Some, define themselves as hardcore and will accept everything and anything the producers will give them, without blinking, ultimately throwing themselves at the throats of all those who disagree or criticise. Others, myself included, may be even more hardcore and loyal to the series, but are always ready to criticise and even tear apart the game and the developers into little pieces, if they have to, because ultimately, the goal is to make the game the best it can possibly be.

ProdiGurl
06-17-2018, 03:35 PM
First, the choices we make, aren't the one's made by the character. You can tell yourself that, over and over again, it won't make it true. The mere existence of choice, by definition, defeats the premise and concept of the series. .
Yes, I"m simply saying that we as players already have been making different choices in every single game & ignoring that. You pretty much support what I said above. Many "purists" (not you obviously since you do want desynching back) are acting like all us players have been playing our Assassin Character EXACTLY the same way he/she did until this RPG element came along - or choice of male/female Protag.

So ya, AC has already been perverted for years but it's a perversion most were ok with even years ago becuz it gave us freedom to play the game the way we liked. (without desynchd. missions)
When we play the game alone, we believe we're doing what Bayek or Ezio did (CREATING the sense that we're doing it how he did it in our personal experience). It's a false perception. RPG only makes our choices blatantly obvious. Forcing us to concede that we're not actually all playing the Assassin the same way.

So it's an issue of complete freedom or rigid control by Ubi to play AC if you want to go the Literal route to do everything as our Assassin did it. I will argue that the rigid control format would lose many more players than it would be gaining to stay pure to AC's beginnings.
Which is why Ubi has had to keep this balancing act btwn freedom/control.
I was sick & tired of desynched missions when we had so many weapons & methods at our disposal but had to do them a way we didn't want to. Way too restrictive. It was a huge complaint clear back in Ezio's games by early fans.
So I disagree w/ the direction you want AC to take and I believe it wouldn't be a franchise as long as it has been doing it that way.




A memory, is a memory. A fact, is a fact. A passed event, is a passed event. Paraphrasing the Three-Eyed Raven in Game of Thrones: "the past is already written, the ink is dry." Until you understand this notion, the discussion will be endless. Your argument on full synchronisation being already corrupted, is simply not true. You didn't know what the character did or didn't do. Margin of progression was acceptable and reasonable, but only on side-missions and collecting artefacts. During primary missions, though, until you were given a full description of full synchronisation criteria, you didn't know what full synchronisation even meant. You were only given a goal or objective. Try to understand that.
Doesn't really matter imo, there can only be ONE way the Assassin did everything we're doing in each game we play becuz the history is already completed/ink's dry - it's already happened only one way. The minute we as players do it a different way than the other, it's been perverted in any literal sense becuz it's an impossibility that 2 different ways are both accurate at the same time by the Assassin we're reliving.

& I also mentioned how we CREATE that history for our own gameplay even in the RPG choices of main missions. I'm treating the main mission the same way as side missions in past games... we now Create what that history actually was for our Assassin which will be different than someone elses yet feeling like we're following it the same way cuz it's our choice. That's already been going on in all our gameplay that we accepted.
With that said, I'm very sure that in Main Missions specifically, even w/ RPG choices thru the game, that Ubi will still force one outcome of certain history. If a main event, say Xerxes is killed off, is set by Ubi, then Xerxes won't Live if you made a different choice earlier - or we won't be offered to allow Xerxes to live. I think bigger events to the main story will be kept uniform to all players & the changes will be in lesser things surrounding those events. We'll see.

But it falls back to AC having more freedom or having to go back to no choice and complete control of missions so my argument stays the same - I think AC would be extinct by now if they chose the level of control some are demanding & frankly it's too frustrating & restrictive to keep the earliest few games' format alive for those players. One that I'll say again, was already being complained about by the end of Ezio's trilogy. That was a long time ago.
I want them to stay very close to the AC concepts but not so close that they start making gameplay a restrictive chore of checklists to do Ubi's way.
But that's just me. =)

ProdiGurl
06-17-2018, 04:50 PM
I have to admit, you make some valid points there. AC always had little differences allowed in how you play the game. Here's the problem though, while those small things are not likely to have a history changing ripple effect, dialog choices and major decisions very much are. They are literally now giving the player the choice to align with certain people and do lethal tasks for/with them, or not, which is a HUGE leap from minor equipment choices you make, or open combat vs stealth, etc. They've clearly now gone WAY beyond the original plot line of reliving fixed memories, and actually broken the core theme of the game in doing so.

I'm not sure how they can ever recover the integrity of the franchise with such decisions going forward. It's no wonder why when Loomer asked Patrice Desilets what he thought of the direction they're now taking the game, he just shook his head in disbelief and said they can do what they want with it, it's theirs. The reason people fell in love with AC in the first place was because it was based on an ingenious story that was very sci fi, but just rational enough to be believable. They've totally lost that essence. Now it's just a what new stuff can we cram into this one in hopes players won't leave us desperation.
Well alot of AC fans don't believe there's anything for Ubi to "recover" from at this point, but I'd assume that if 'recovery' were needed, it would only occur when it's a really good/fun game despite the criticisms of AC's 'purity' ?

I respect the "father" of AC & what AC was created as, I just don't believe at the point of seeing ACRevelations consensus in this forum, that AC would even be a franchise anymore if Ubi stuck to his rigid format for the game this long. I think it's continued to be a franchise becuz Ubi veered away from their Control over mission play to offer freedom. Gamers like that if you look at all the games out today. they want to make choices, they want female protags, etc etc.

This was creating the split in fanbase that we're experiencing and what I call 'purist vs casual'. There are tons of people who are buying these games becuz they're fun - I don't think they'd be buying them if AC just used the same desynching of missions if you didn't play it according to how they told you to. Even I got tired of that as I had all kinds of toys I wanted to play with (bombs, poison) & had to use the hidden blade or a sword...

I agree they're moving further & further away esp. w/ the RPG thing & I'm in the middle on it. I like RPG, but I don't play much of any of them.
If they continue this way, maybe original AC fans will just stop buying the game. Or rent it to play a little.??
I like them staying close to the AC feel & brand, I'm not into the old rigid format of Ubi's early control to get it perfectly to what it was from AC1. I think it would have killed AC if continued each release.
I

joelsantos24
06-17-2018, 04:52 PM
(...)

So I disagree w/ the direction you want AC to take and I believe it wouldn't be a franchise as long as it has been doing it that way.
Great. You disagree with my views, I disagree with yours. You just don't understand that the (original) premise of the series doesn't allow for complete leniency as far as choice and margin of progression are concerned. You accept what is given to you, because you like it, regardless of the absolutely illogical and nonsensical value it brings to the series. The series is already a joke amongst the industry. It has become a shallow and insipid series, doomed by the pathological obsession of the company by making services, instead of meaningful and insightful games. You may get a new game every single year, but it will eventually vanish into obscurity. We all know that. But, as long as they keep releasing it and as long as you keep playing it... :rolleyes:



Doesn't really matter imo, there can only be ONE way the Assassin did everything we're doing in each game we play becuz the history is already completed/ink's dry - it's already happened only one way. The minute we as players do it a different way than the other, it's been perverted in any literal sense becuz it's an impossibility that 2 different ways are both accurate at the same time by the Assassin we're reliving.

& I also mentioned how we CREATE that history for our own gameplay even in the RPG choices of main missions. I'm treating the main mission the same way as side missions in past games... we now Create what that history actually was for our Assassin which will be different than someone elses yet feeling like we're following it the same way cuz it's our choice. That's already been going on in all our gameplay that we accepted.
With that said, I'm very sure that in Main Missions specifically, even w/ RPG choices thru the game, that Ubi will still force one outcome of certain history. If a main event, say Xerxes is killed off, is set by Ubi, then Xerxes won't Live if you made a different choice earlier - or we won't be offered to allow Xerxes to live. I think bigger events to the main story will be kept uniform to all players & the changes will be in lesser things surrounding those events. We'll see.

But it falls back to AC having more freedom or having to go back to no choice and complete control of missions so my argument stays the same - I think AC would be extinct by now if they chose the level of control some are demanding & frankly it's too frustrating & restrictive to keep the earliest few games' format alive for those players. One that I'll say again, was already being complained about by the end of Ezio's trilogy. That was a long time ago.
I want them to stay very close to the AC concepts but not so close that they start making gameplay a restrictive chore of checklists to do Ubi's way.
But that's just me. =)
Except it does matter. You don't know what really happened, not in absolute detail. You're not given a complete script to every single activity of the game. You're given a goal or an objective, and you're induced to fulfil the task on your own terms. Because no guidelines exist, to orient you at every single step you take, this means that there's actually margin for progression. Literality is absolutely unobtainable in these terms and in this game, even considering the premise of the series. You use this fact to pervert the principle, considering what we've been doing in the series up until now, in order to conveniently rationalise the inclusion of choice and dialogue options. In other words, because we've been using our own choices, one way or another, then there should also be made room for dialogue options. Except this isn't true. I already explained this to you, but because you simply won't or can't understand this, you keep going around and around in a vicious cycle.

Odyssey was clearly made for you and others like you. No problem with that. Many hardcore fans, like myself, are going to pass on this game, and quite possibly, the entire series. This has no longer anything to do with AC, which means that there really isn't much to keep us playing. Nothing lasts forever, and AC is no longer what it used to be.

MnemonicSyntax
06-17-2018, 05:00 PM
Please just go then. I'm so sick of the "hardcore" elitism. There are more "hardcore" fans out there that are Star Players and they're excited for this game.

Many of the "hardcore" fans are having a wait and see attitude, instead of getting worked up over information they don't completely have.


The elitism is just... astounding.

joelsantos24
06-17-2018, 07:58 PM
Please just go then. I'm so sick of the "hardcore" elitism. There are more "hardcore" fans out there that are Star Players and they're excited for this game.

Many of the "hardcore" fans are having a wait and see attitude, instead of getting worked up over information they don't completely have.


The elitism is just... astounding.
As you wish. The forum is all yours.

ProdiGurl
06-17-2018, 08:21 PM
But you hardcore fans have been kidding yourselves that it was still authentic AC when it wasn't. What you're complaining about already happened many releases ago. Proof of that is in your own statement:
>>And yes, the series should go back to the original structure of desynchronisation upon deviation from the original guidelines. It's funny, though, because, before Brotherhood, you didn't even know what were those guidelines. They'd give you a goal or objective, and you'd have to complete it. Full and partial synchronisation was a huge mistake. <<
I guess the RPG element finally forced the obvious to be called out. & you're right, I didn't know why, I just went with the game... that would also explain why I don't CARE about the *why* of how this all works. All I knew was, 'I sit in this chair and Poof, I'm playing the game & there's Ezio or Bayek! It's Go time!' :cool:
I care about the game, not 'why' it works or happens. To me, that's like saying ' if you don't know how your car engine works, you shouldn't even be driving a car!!". You see how silly that sounds to most people?
But you need to understand how the car operates to want to own or drive it? Apparently, you're so committed to the 'why', that you're going to throw out a great game just becuz you don't have a plausible answer to the mechanics of it yet.

If you had fun playing & liked previous AC games once Desynching missions was removed, then you aren't the hardcore fan you think you are, and you COULD have just as much with this title like the others. #LetItGo .
If you want to throw away a great title due to stubborn pride, then that's fine. Series have to evolve with reality of the Gaming industry just like every business has to in order to survive - companies who don't won't be around very long.

* MnemonicSyntax (https://forums.ubi.com/member.php/653385-MnemonicSyntax?communityUsers=1&f=27) you asked me why I use other fonts - I have pretty drastic astigmatism & their font is hard for me to read when I'm typing - was trying to find a readable font for me & it's why I have to enlarge everything. Once I switch font/size while typing, I can't set it back to its default w/out going all thru it again & manually changing stuff. I'll try to leave the font
...So just physical reasons of crappy eyesight.

joelsantos24
06-17-2018, 08:52 PM
To me, that's like saying ' if you don't know how your car engine works, you shouldn't even be driving a car!!". You see how silly that sounds to most people?
But you need to understand how the car operates to want to own or drive it? Apparently, you're so committed to the 'why', that you're going to throw out a great game just becuz you don't have a plausible answer to the mechanics of it yet.
That's a pretty ridiculous analogy, but then again, so is this entire discussion.

Frag_Maniac
06-17-2018, 11:05 PM
MnemonicSyntax, it seems to me ever since you were selected by Ubi to go to their community support place as a liaison, you've been acting like a snarky wannabe moderator. Who made you king of the forum? They only picked you because you live reasonably close to that place and are constantly sucking up to them. A lot of times when there's pro/con arguments you act like a self appointed referee that always sides with Ubi's way of doing things. Some of us are bold enough to care about quality over quantity, knowing it's not enough to tack on superficial features, you need to keep quality control as well.

I'm also a bit surprised to hear ProdiGurl say she doesn't really care for RPGs, because she's been systematically defending that element in Odyssey all along, even though it clearly doesn't fit the theme of the game.

The truth is, they lost a lot of creativity when Patrice left. You don't have to completely switch to RPG style to keep this series fresh. There are many examples of how they've done that in prior installments. Perhaps the most idiotic thing they've done though is to omit the famous Spartan shield. It's like none of their team even do any research anymore.

A LOT of people used to play this series for the attention to architectural and historical accuracy. Sure a few things were incorrect, but mostly they got it right. Now they couldn't care less if any of it is accurate historically, or sensible scientifically. Going RPG and abandoning accuracy and science may be a bigger gamble than Bethesda's making Fallout an mp game.

MnemonicSyntax
06-17-2018, 11:51 PM
MnemonicSyntax, it seems to me ever since you were selected by Ubi to go to their community support place as a liaison, you've been acting like a snarky wannabe moderator. Who made you king of the forum? They only picked you because you live reasonably close to that place and are constantly sucking up to them. A lot of times when there's pro/con arguments you act like a self appointed referee that always sides with Ubi's way of doing things. Some of us are bold enough to care about quality over quantity, knowing it's not enough to tack on superficial features, you need to keep quality control as well.

Each time you post this, you sound like a jealous, spoiled child. You have no idea what went on in our meetings, nor how critical I've been on their services. You're just guessing, and incorrectly I might add.

Sorry? Where have I tried to enforce the rules? Where have I handed out infractions? Banned people? Sorry that I have (and have always had) a wait and see attitude.

As for the elitism comment, I am sick of it. It has no place here. You're idea of "being bold" is really just a pretentious way of somehow putting yourself on a pedestal. Oooooh, you're "hardcore" fans. So hardcore that you already have preconceived notions about this game with limited information.

Yes, the game is going in a new direction. But it's not an inconceivable drastic change and for lore's purposes, we don't know the specifics.

But sure, I mean, you guys are spouting what is and isn't a memory, yet the Mandela effect is a legitimate phenomenon. People misremember things all the time. We've already been told we won't be changing history, so it would seem our choices are purely from a character only stand point.


The truth is, they lost a lot of creativity when Patrice left. You don't have to completely switch to RPG style to keep this series fresh.

Patrice has been gone for a long time now. The switching to RPG style isn't related to Patrice. Leaning on Patrice isn't an excuse and if so, then you should have left long ago because it's been changing for a long time.


There are many examples of how they've done that in prior installments. Perhaps the most idiotic thing they've done though is to omit the famous Spartan shield. It's like none of their team even do any research anymore.

Why would a former Spartan have a Spartan shield? They're not Spartans any more. It's like you haven't even done any research anymore.


A LOT of people used to play this series for the attention to architectural and historical accuracy. Sure a few things were incorrect, but mostly they got it right. Now they couldn't care less if any of it is accurate historically, or sensible scientifically. Going RPG and abandoning accuracy and science may be a bigger gamble than Bethesda's making Fallout an mp game.

Origins had this right. Why wouldn't Odyssey have it right?

And abandoning science? Do you hear yourself? There is no science behind reliving the memory of our ancestors through their DNA. There is no science behind Apples of Eden, or other Pieces of Eden.

I'm sorry this isn't heading in the direction you want, and I'm skeptical myself. But again, I'm having a wait and see attitude. I'm pretty upset the entire Juno arc was moved to the comics. Why wouldn't they continue that in-game? Why just leave a massive story arc that carried us through more than half of their games suddenly just move to another medium?

The difference is, I'm not having a temper tantrum on the forums about it, and I'm collecting information and my thoughts before I make a post. You're supposedly 60 years old. I had you pegged for 16-17 the way you act here.

Seriously. I'm just done with you.

ModernWaffle
06-18-2018, 12:06 AM
Okay, so I think to be fair there's quite a lot of truth on both sides here. Yes AC has deviated loads from what it used to be and now its take on the previous lore is at a particularly controversial standpoint - and yes fans should have room to express their dissatisfaction for changes that might not seem to the benefit of the franchise.

Though on the other hand, even from the 'I dislike Odyssey' camp, I'm seeing a lot of threads popping up over the last week that basically express the same sentiment of disappointment and criticism to Odyssey. I think it's at a point where everyone has realised that there is some existing discontent in the community and there's not much that can be solved by beating a dead horse so to speak.

Pointless to throw out personal remarks when it's just a matter of healthy differing opinions.

ProdiGurl
06-18-2018, 12:41 AM
I'm also a bit surprised to hear ProdiGurl say she doesn't really care for RPGs, because she's been systematically defending that element in Odyssey all along, even though it clearly doesn't fit the theme of the game..
K, but I never said that I don't care for RPGs - this was my actual comment >>I agree they're moving further & further away esp. w/ the RPG thing & I'm in the middle on it. I like RPG, but I don't play much of any of them. <<
I said I like RPG but that I don't play any titles that are dedicated RPG games. I did play the 2nd Mass Effect and LOVED it to death!
I said I was in the middle on AC using RPG when they haven't done it before - don't know if it'll make the game better, same or worse?
I'm supporting AC trying it & hope it's great.



The truth is, they lost a lot of creativity when Patrice left. You don't have to completely switch to RPG style to keep this series fresh. There are many examples of how they've done that in prior installments. Perhaps the most idiotic thing they've done though is to omit the famous Spartan shield. It's like none of their team even do any research anymore.

.
I know about Zero History.. all I know of anything Spartan is my beloved 300 movie. One thing I learned in 300 is that the Shield is a Key element of their warfare - that they use the shields together to protect one another from arrows raining down on them. That's why Leonidas wouldn't enlist that gimped out dude to fight w/ them becuz he couldn't hold his shield up high enough to help form a shield barrier to protect his fellow soldiers. (basically). Now even I know they're vital to the Spartan army (if the movie was accurate, that is) lol
I give you that one for sure.
HOWEVER, remember the forum complaints with Origins? Angry, whining fans complaining about having to have a shield? Then attacking how the shields looked... size, shape, how stupid they looked on his back, etc. I'm very sure they just ditched it bcuz of the complaints.
So I'd say this, yes you're right, but they also have a fan base they listen to & I found more complaints than support for using shields.
I wouldn't assume it due to lack of knowledge.



A LOT of people used to play this series for the attention to architectural and historical accuracy. Sure a few things were incorrect, but mostly they got it right. Now they couldn't care less if any of it is accurate historically, or sensible scientifically. Going RPG and abandoning accuracy and science may be a bigger gamble than Bethesda's making Fallout an mp game.
One of the reasons I love AC is that I do learn things about history - in fact right after I finished my first Origins game, there was a marathon of documentaries on ancient Egypt/tombs/king tut/cleopatra... all the stuff I just played was brought up in those docs.
I DVR'd them all Alot of the things they mentioned about Cleopatra/politics in her time were accurate to her story.
It was so kool. So I do love history thru AC games - the Animus & bleeding affect & Lore are what AREN'T actual history. It's a game. It's made up.
Anyone can play AC & love the accuracy of the Countries/maps, graphics, learning History in a fun way,... there's so much allure to AC than having to have the Lore accurate to me (which I never fully grasped from the start).

ProdiGurl
06-18-2018, 01:10 AM
Okay, so I think to be fair there's quite a lot of truth on both sides here. Yes AC has deviated loads from what it used to be and now its take on the previous lore is at a particularly controversial standpoint - and yes fans should have room to express their dissatisfaction for changes that might not seem to the benefit of the franchise.

Though on the other hand, even from the 'I dislike Odyssey' camp, I'm seeing a lot of threads popping up over the last week that basically express the same sentiment of disappointment and criticism to Odyssey. I think it's at a point where everyone has realised that there is some existing discontent in the community and there's not much that can be solved by beating a dead horse so to speak.

Pointless to throw out personal remarks when it's just a matter of healthy differing opinions.
AC Devs are going to have to explain & fill in blanks that we can't - but my problem is the condemnation & judgment before even knowing how it's going to be addressed in-game or by Ubi in separate explanation. There's alot about ACOD that looks amazing & exciting & I came back here to join in the Buzz about it - - - only to constantly get killed by Debbie Downers again but it's par for the course in AC forums, this happens every single game over something or another.
I think people who are still showing up here just get worn out from it all when it's a game they're happy is on its way. Valid issues or not, it just zaps the joy & I game becuz I absolutely love escaping into these worlds that are created by these companies. & esp. w/ toxic Political crap going on in USA, I need that escape. I'd like to have some fun.

I'm not in any other gaming forums to know if this same thing goes on, but I cut my time way back becuz of it even tho everyone has the right to their opinions & reasons they're fans & I try to respect that.
I have my own, I just choose to find positive things & give positive criticism when asked & where something was hurting the game imo.

Wombles-_-
06-18-2018, 11:15 AM
Please just go then. I'm so sick of the "hardcore" elitism. There are more "hardcore" fans out there that are Star Players and they're excited for this game.

Many of the "hardcore" fans are having a wait and see attitude, instead of getting worked up over information they don't completely have.


The elitism is just... astounding.

If your so sick of it why do you bother coming too the forum? I would not frequent the forum or any where else fore that matter if it made me feel like that.

ModernWaffle
06-18-2018, 11:58 AM
In my view, female character representation within the franchise had been very limited to that point. Main female characters were often times merely cliché love interests, or simply killed off as part of the narrative. (Or in the case of Elise, both.) It was a dispiriting time for the franchise, and whilst some players had been pushing for better female characters against “SJW” calls, this extra level of perceived sexism for Unity by the gaming media was not helping. Many cited the fact that the only female lead Assassin's Creed game was Liberation, and that this itself was only a handheld game and not a main release. Sadly, to date, we still have not had this main female lead release. (But you know, we like to compare Assassin's Creed to Marvel, and it took ten years for them to come up with a female lead movie. So you never know.)

This point is worth mentioning – look at Gears 5 Kait seems to be taking the position of protagonist for one title and I’ve seen a fair share of nonsensical complaints about it. They’re not even marketing it from any angle of feminism etc. and this allows the story to flow naturally from Gears 4 with the ending reveal.

I find it ironic that if all gamers were tolerant of inclusion right from the get-go we wouldn’t be seeing this wave of female protagonists taking the spotlight right now. In Odyssey it’s particularly strange that they say they are proud of Kassandra and yet they could have easily put a generic Spartan figure on the cover instead of Alexios. To be clear, I couldn’t care less who they do or don’t put on the cover but you have to wonder why people enable complaints from those who will nit-pick at the smallest infraction when it can be easily avoided. I think it’s worth noting too that Elise and Aya are almost written as characters to be disliked so there’s another bias I can’t quite explain.

But still, Kassandra has had much more attention than Evie in terms of their reveal alone so that’s good to see and maybe we will get a sole-female lead sometime in the future.


As a final thought, for the next release they could even take the customization of the historical protagonist even further… Through the power of choice, Odyssey is a strong step towards this reality - and I am most thankful for this new creative direction.

Hmm… I understand that choice is very favourable to some people, but I’d prefer having a default protagonist that you can customize in great detail in-game. Maybe you won’t be able to go as in-depth as a character creation screen but I think the benefits of having:

1. A surviving consistent narrative with your set protagonist
2. The potential to use rewards in terms of customisation items as a way to make side quests more worthwhile
3. A chance to alter your character appearance if you change your mind mid-playthrough

…offers a much better trade off.

ProdiGurl
06-18-2018, 12:45 PM
This point is worth mentioning – look at Gears 5 Kait seems to be taking the position of protagonist for one title and I’ve seen a fair share of nonsensical complaints about it. They’re not even marketing it from any angle of feminism etc. and this allows the story to flow naturally from Gears 4 with the ending reveal.

I find it ironic that if all gamers were tolerant of inclusion right from the get-go we wouldn’t be seeing this wave of female protagonists taking the spotlight right now. In Odyssey it’s particularly strange that they say they are proud of Kassandra and yet they could have easily put a generic Spartan figure on the cover instead of Alexios. To be clear, I couldn’t care less who they do or don’t put on the cover but you have to wonder why people enable complaints from those who will nit-pick at the smallest infraction when it can be easily avoided. I think it’s worth noting too that Elise and Aya are almost written as characters to be disliked so there’s another bias I can’t quite explain.

But still, Kassandra has had much more attention than Evie in terms of their reveal alone so that’s good to see and maybe we will get a sole-female lead sometime in the future.
.
Imo it doesn't matter how it's marketed - I would assume that the way females are perceived is relative to the political/social landscape where people are...
here in America it's being heavily driven by what I consider a radical feminist movement that's very politically rooted, so as a non-feminist, that's the reason I do view female protags (namely in AC) in a more negative tone. It seems like women are imo, way too heavily pushed. As if you HAVE to choose a female over a male.
When that's done, it can very easily cause negative feelings of push-back as well. I don't want women everywhere just for the sake of female quota just like I don't want any other kind of quota. I want whoever is most qualified and best suited.
It has nothing to do w/ inclusion for me & probly most people. But for GOW,.. I can see how a male driven action game like that wouldn't be too keen on a female Leader & honestly, I see no problem with that. Does every action game have to make females the lead now?

That aside, I always prefer male protags in AC & will play the male first. I can probably handle a single lead female, just that if we did have one, I'd want Evie's model used which imo was a perfect balance of strength & likability without over compensating on being a bad@$$... Charlize Theron comes to mind - nearly every lead action role she takes is overdone as if she's a Robot that has no personality. So cliche' and overdone.
Another lead female that was done perfectly was Rosario Dawson in Sin City. Lethal, strong yet had a vulnerability & likability. Loved it.

Anyway, I really don't have any need to see a female AC protag just bcuz more women need to be or are being pushed into the gaming world. It's great that we're in more, but like everything, the pendulum usually swings way too far the opposite direction & you get saturation for the sake of societal pressure. Balance is important.

ModernWaffle
06-18-2018, 02:01 PM
Not to derail the conversation too much into a pure discussion on gender representation in the gaming industry but I have found it's been pushed a bit hard recently with TLOU2, Tomb Raider, Battlefield V, Gears 5, Control, Battlefront 2, Syndicate (regarding female avatars for the gang members)... and I agree, it does reflect on the social / political atmosphere of our time.

But equally, so what? A majority of games nowadays are still accommodating male characters (as is the case with Alexios/Kassandra) so arguing either way seems like a mute point. And about Gears 5, Kait's not even the leader, JD is still clearly in command. They chose to make her the protagonist because from a narrative perspective, it would have more impact to play through the view of the outcast.

A very absurd issue to have in the 21st century when there a far more substantial problems to address.

ProdiGurl
06-18-2018, 03:33 PM
Not to derail the conversation too much into a pure discussion on gender representation in the gaming industry but I have found it's been pushed a bit hard recently with TLOU2, Tomb Raider, Battlefield V, Gears 5, Control, Battlefront 2, Syndicate (regarding female avatars for the gang members)... and I agree, it does reflect on the social / political atmosphere of our time.

But equally, so what? A majority of games nowadays are still accommodating male characters (as is the case with Alexios/Kassandra) so arguing either way seems like a mute point. And about Gears 5, Kait's not even the leader, JD is still clearly in command. They chose to make her the protagonist because from a narrative perspective, it would have more impact to play through the view of the outcast.

A very absurd issue to have in the 21st century when there a far more substantial problems to address.
Well, never underestimate the levels of absurdity that any Society will go to - from smallest to largest. And I wasn't arguing anything, I was just responding to the points you made in your post.

distrust74
06-18-2018, 03:51 PM
If your so sick of it why do you bother coming too the forum? I would not frequent the forum or any where else fore that matter if it made me feel like that.

This wasn`t directed at me, but unfortunately I agree for myself.
I`ve only been following this forum for a few days, and I already know I`ll be out soon enough exactly because of the elitism Mnemonic was criticising.
-

As for the original topics ...
I agree with the OP, it`s great they added a character/gender selection, and I think I`ll enjoy the dialog options as well.
Btw., male player here, who tends to prefer playing female characters. Imo giving us the choice has little to do with feminism or pc, I rather see it as a business decision to widen the audience.

About dialog options not being in line with the story because of the Animus stuff ... ehm, it`s just a gameplay mechanic. It`s not the ingame character having a choice, it`s the player.
You now can witness the decision-making, and the second you make your choice that`s what happened. I mean, if I am not mistaken it`s about re-living memories, not just watching a movie. :/
At least I don`t see a reason why one can`t look at it that way.

ModernWaffle
06-18-2018, 05:15 PM
And I wasn't arguing anything, I was just responding to the points you made in your post.

As for clarification the second paragraph wasn't directed at you, it was my general response to the gender discussion as a whole though maybe I should've made that clearer.

ProdiGurl
06-18-2018, 05:29 PM
Oh sorry, my bad. No worries

Black_Widow9
06-18-2018, 09:54 PM
Hey everyone,

Let's keep with the theme of this thread, "Celebration of Choice".

What is not a choice for you is insulting each other and attacking anyone who does not share your views. The Forums are a place for civil, respectful and constructive discussion. If you can't respect each other's opinions, I'd suggest you take a break from the Forums on your own before you are forced to.

Thanks