PDA

View Full Version : Where are the revelations? Desmonds story sucked *spoiler*



rupok2
12-03-2011, 07:23 PM
I was satisfied with the story of altair and ezio but Ubisoft said that they would wrap up the story in this game, meaning there wouldn't be clifhangers related to altair, ezio, and desmonds story anymore. They said the next game AC3 would be desmond looking for the temples, and using another Assassin memory for that.


This game felt so lacking in story, we know nothing at all with the main storyline, why was lucy killed, what will happen with the temple business and the ones who came before. You can see the desmond journey trailer and half the stuff wasn't even in the game.



I think Ubisoft rushed this game out and didn't have time to put in alot of things. This game degraded from brotherhood and AC2 in terms of quality, there are no mystery collectables like we had in ac2 and acb, and the gameplay is so similar that its laughable, its brotherhood with bombs thats it. This is what happens when u rush a game in 1 year. I think they didn't finish the game and had to cut major plot points to release revelations.

MaKaVeLiTL
12-03-2011, 07:40 PM
Was dissapointed with Subject 16 too, if I was Desmond I'd be asking him what those cryptic messages he talked about meant, instead he was just there for Desmond to talk to basically. They revealed nothing more about Desmond apart from those crappy 1st person memories and as you said, the reason why Lucy was killed.

SupremeCaptain
12-03-2011, 07:58 PM
There isn't any.

Sarari
12-03-2011, 11:09 PM
I was partially disappointed in the Desmond missions. I didn't enjoy the first 2 of his, but then I got kinda used to it. My favorite one was the last, where in the end he enters the abstergo lab where he was in the first game. I got chills down my spine for like 1 min straight. I was just completely amazed and surprised that they actually added that to the end.

And I do think Desmond should've asked 16 about a lot of things, such as the cryptic messages. Why did he do it? And maybe go more in depth with him and ask him what it was like to with abstergo.

Poodle_of_Doom
12-03-2011, 11:13 PM
At that... why the hell do we only get to talk to S16 four/five times? All that suspense... and for what? And what the hell was all that crap he was talking about in the last game?

masterfenix2009
12-03-2011, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by rupok2:
I was satisfied with the story of altair and ezio but Ubisoft said that they would wrap up the story in this game, meaning there wouldn't be clifhangers related to altair, ezio, and desmonds story anymore. They said the next game AC3 would be desmond looking for the temples, and using another Assassin memory for that.


This game felt so lacking in story, we know nothing at all with the main storyline, why was lucy killed, what will happen with the temple business and the ones who came before. You can see the desmond journey trailer and half the stuff wasn't even in the game.



I think Ubisoft rushed this game out and didn't have time to put in alot of things. This game degraded from brotherhood and AC2 in terms of quality, there are no mystery collectables like we had in ac2 and acb, and the gameplay is so similar that its laughable, its brotherhood with bombs thats it. This is what happens when u rush a game in 1 year. I think they didn't finish the game and had to cut major plot points to release revelations. They didn't cut much of anything. Most of the questions were answered in the beginning.

souNdwAve89
12-04-2011, 03:16 AM
I will admit that I was disappointed with Revelations as well. I love the game in general, but most of the things we already knew.


Originally posted by Sarari:
I was partially disappointed in the Desmond missions. I didn't enjoy the first 2 of his, but then I got kinda used to it. My favorite one was the last, where in the end he enters the abstergo lab where he was in the first game. I got chills down my spine for like 1 min straight. I was just completely amazed and surprised that they actually added that to the end.

And I do think Desmond should've asked 16 about a lot of things, such as the cryptic messages. Why did he do it? And maybe go more in depth with him and ask him what it was like to with abstergo.

Yeah, that memory of him entering Abstergo was awesome.

rupok2
12-04-2011, 07:48 AM
Tbh if they answered why lucy was killed I would have ignored the other missing stuff. It seems like rebecca, shawn and rest of assassins completely ignored the subject when Desmond woke up. In the journey trailer, there was a part where u had symbols on the wall and it said something about why lucy was killed.

DavisP92
12-04-2011, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by MaKaVeLiTL:
Was dissapointed with Subject 16 too, if I was Desmond I'd be asking him what those cryptic messages he talked about meant, instead he was just there for Desmond to talk to basically. They revealed nothing more about Desmond apart from those crappy 1st person memories and as you said, the reason why Lucy was killed.

yea Desmond didn't even ask about the message about not trusting "her". but subject sixteen went out like a boss

ElDoucherino
12-04-2011, 08:53 AM
The reason why Desmonds story was not unravelled is the up coming third installation. Why the hell would they give away all the memories now and make AC3 empty in narrative? And the reason why Sixteen didn't say so much was becasue, if you followed the story, that (spoiler) he was busy distracting the animus so it couldn't delete Desmond.

I bet there will be more subject 16 conversation in AC3, almost certain...he is to important to the universe.

Sarari
12-04-2011, 08:55 AM
I said this in many threads before and I'll say it again. Ubisoft is never gonna make a game as good as AC1 or AC2 if they only decide to work one year on it.

AC1 took 4 years to make, and was fantastic. So good that it was considered a new generation game.

AC2 took 2-3 years, and was amazing.

ACB too about a year. Ubisoft knew that their game was becoming a top seller and rushed through it so they can make some money, but it was a downfall in the series.

ACR took it back up slightly, but still wasn't what we expected.

They NEED to take time with their games! Over wise, we won't ever be getting something as good as the first 2 games.

RzaRecta357
12-04-2011, 10:02 AM
No they don't. This game did fine. The story rocked.

They gave fans what they wanted which was to see the end of Altair and Ezio and to see who he passed his line on with.

Desmond didn't move that much forward because SURPRISE it isn't AC3 yet.

They are obviously saving that. This was just something to keep fans fed and have fun and they did a wonderful job with it.

Did you complain this much when Vice City or San Andreas came out and did nothing to the formula save add a few tweaks?

Probably not because you were still young and didn't think to complain about such things yet.

Treat Revelations and Broterhood like those. Because that's what they said they'd be.

AC3 will be different, obviously.

LightRey
12-04-2011, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Sarari:
I said this in many threads before and I'll say it again. Ubisoft is never gonna make a game as good as AC1 or AC2 if they only decide to work one year on it.

AC1 took 4 years to make, and was fantastic. So good that it was considered a new generation game.

AC2 took 2-3 years, and was amazing.

ACB too about a year. Ubisoft knew that their game was becoming a top seller and rushed through it so they can make some money, but it was a downfall in the series.

ACR took it back up slightly, but still wasn't what we expected.

They NEED to take time with their games! Over wise, we won't ever be getting something as good as the first 2 games.
Your opinion is not the standard Ubi is looking for.

RzaRecta357
12-04-2011, 10:11 AM
Oh and, ACR was more than I expected save for maybe some 16 conversations.

I'm a guy who beat AC1 6 times waiting for 2.

ACR is now my favourite in the series. I only beat ACB twice just to see the ending again.

chizzy12
12-04-2011, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Sarari:
I said this in many threads before and I'll say it again. Ubisoft is never gonna make a game as good as AC1 or AC2 if they only decide to work one year on it.

AC1 took 4 years to make, and was fantastic. So good that it was considered a new generation game.

AC2 took 2-3 years, and was amazing.

ACB too about a year. Ubisoft knew that their game was becoming a top seller and rushed through it so they can make some money, but it was a downfall in the series.

ACR took it back up slightly, but still wasn't what we expected.

They NEED to take time with their games! Over wise, we won't ever be getting something as good as the first 2 games.

Stop being such a hipster...AC 1 wasn't that good. The gameplay was pretty bad. Remember all that repetitive stuff? Sure the story was great, but cmon...

RzaRecta357
12-04-2011, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by chizzy12:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sarari:
I said this in many threads before and I'll say it again. Ubisoft is never gonna make a game as good as AC1 or AC2 if they only decide to work one year on it.

AC1 took 4 years to make, and was fantastic. So good that it was considered a new generation game.

AC2 took 2-3 years, and was amazing.

ACB too about a year. Ubisoft knew that their game was becoming a top seller and rushed through it so they can make some money, but it was a downfall in the series.

ACR took it back up slightly, but still wasn't what we expected.

They NEED to take time with their games! Over wise, we won't ever be getting something as good as the first 2 games.

Stop being such a hipster...AC 1 wasn't that good. The gameplay was pretty bad. Remember all that repetitive stuff? Sure the story was great, but cmon... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gameplay was exactly the same except you didn't have bombs and guns.

Sure, you had to pickpocket the same way and listen from benches to acquire info.

But the assassinations were all different and awesome. The story rocked. The gameplay was practically the same.

People don't have the patience to tail and beat someone up or listen on a bench three times before going to a totally different assassination.

Seems like a bit of braindeadism need explosions go byebyeBOOM.

Eregost
12-04-2011, 10:17 AM
AC1 was my favourite for the story, setting, music and atmosphere. It also had the toughest combat system (though still easy).

Sarari
12-04-2011, 10:30 AM
I agree with Recta. And I'm not a hipster cause I like it so much. It had the best story to me. The gameplay might have not been the best, but I guarantee you that when it first came out, you were in love with it. And screw the repetitiveness. I didn't care that much about it, because I was so into the story and fighting guards and what not.

People only started to realize it was repetitive when they played AC2. If it wasn't for that, people would still think it's awesome.

Also, they fighting in that game was the most difficult, even though it was still easy. I think you guys hate on the first one too much. Loosen up a bit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Eregost
12-04-2011, 10:33 AM
A lot of fans joined the series with the 2nd. I'm proud to say I was there from the very first announcement of AC. AC1 was revolutionary in it's gameplay design, scope and graphics and it is to date the fastest selling new video game IP ever.

It also had the hottest producer :P

Sarari
12-04-2011, 10:37 AM
LOL I remember my friend had AC1 in late 2008, and he came to my house to play it. He was in the kingdom and did some leaps of faiths and I thought it was so stupid lol. But I thought the graphics were incredible. I still hated it though.

My friend let me borrow it cause he didn't want it anymore, and one day I just popped it in and started playing it, and I fell in love lol. I think the reason I like it the most is because it was like the first incredible game I've played.

Silvrslide
12-04-2011, 11:41 AM
The revelations weren't for us.

Poodle_of_Doom
12-04-2011, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Shanki_86:
The reason why Desmonds story was not unravelled is the up coming third installation. Why the hell would they give away all the memories now and make AC3 empty in narrative? And the reason why Sixteen didn't say so much was becasue, if you followed the story, that (spoiler) he was busy distracting the animus so it couldn't delete Desmond.

I bet there will be more subject 16 conversation in AC3, almost certain...he is to important to the universe.

Forgot about that, but your absolutely correct....

Loria_84
05-24-2012, 02:41 PM
Todos los assassins creed revelations vienen con el ac1?porque hay uno q en un cuadradito en la caja dicen q lo traen pero el mio no tiene ese cuadradito, aun no use el codigo online si lo pongo me lo dan?


































All assassins creed revelations come with ac1? Because there is a q in a square in the box q say bring it but mine does not have that square, not even use the code I put it online if I get it?

Assassin_M
05-24-2012, 03:04 PM
Hello and welcome to the Forums;)
In reference to your question, Not every copy of Assassins Creed Revelations had an original Assassins Creed bundle.Only first-hand copies did.
and Please do not resurrect old Threads:D